Reconciliation is not "wokeness", it’s justly applying the rule of law

Canadians must ask what kind of country we want to be

I had the honour of moderating a discussion with former Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Roshan Danesh in Nanaimo. It was a conversation around their latest book Reconciling History: A Story of Canada. It is an important book that walks through the history of Crown-Indigenous Relations in Canada.

Wilson-Raybould and Danesh get out of the way of the story and let the people and facts speak for themselves. The book’s critical importance was reinforced this weekend when I happened upon Conrad Black’s latest editorial in the National Post, “Let’s make a bonfire of Canada’s ghastly wokeness.”

The article is not just inflammatory, it’s historically illiterate. His derision of reconciliation and Indigenous rights reflects the fear of a Canada finally confronting its full truth. Black frames reconciliation as part of a so-called “woke” agenda. If his narrative goes unchallenged, we risk reinforcing public misunderstandings and undermining the vital work of truth and reconciliation. There are many problematic aspects of his editorial, I will address four here.

First, Black frames Canada’s acknowledgment of Aboriginal rights and title “a false confession.” This is historically wrong and legally dishonest. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a foundational document in Canadian constitutional law. It affirms that Indigenous nations held land title and that it could only be ceded by consent, such as through formal treaty. Canada’s historic and contemporary treaty obligations have been repeatedly challenged and upheld in court. You cannot claim respect for the rule of law and simultaneously ignore the legal commitments that form the foundation of the country. That’s not patriotism—it’s selective amnesia.

Second, Black dismisses reconciliation as “grovelling to the native victimhood industry.” This is not only disrespectful—it is a deeply offensive slur that misrepresents the facts. What he calls “grovelling” is a response to centuries of systemic harm including residential schools, forced displacement, and destruction of governance and legal orders. Reconciliation is not an indulgence; it’s a response to legal and moral obligations that Canada has avoided for generations. When Black ridicules the effort to reconcile these accounts, he further obscures the long-standing pattern of the Crown breaking its own laws and covering it with denial.

Third, Black urges us to view Canada’s history with more “imagination.” But imagination, untethered from truth is mythology. What Black is calling for isn’t reflection—it’s erasure. Pride built on a fictional version of history ignoring forced removals, cultural bans, and the dispossession of Aboriginal people from their territories. That isn’t pride at all, it’s denial. Real pride comes from the courage to face our full story. Imagine a Canada where we fearlessly teach the truth in schools, where the contributions and laws of Indigenous peoples are respected, and where reconciliation is seen not as a burden, but as a shared responsibility. That would be a country worthy of pride.

Fourth, Black tries to frame reconciliation, Aboriginal rights and title, as symptoms of a “woke agenda.” But this isn’t ideology, it’s the law. Canada has constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, and courts have confirmed those rights time and again. Applying the law equally to all peoples by honouring commitments, upholding rights, and repairing past harms, is not radical. Canada slowly, and often reluctantly, living up to its own legal standards is not wokeness, it’s what is necessary and just in any self-respecting democracy.

I am active in this work of Indigenous-Crown relations every day. There is a striking contrast between the deliberately inflammatory style of Black, and the serious, evidence-based, thoughtful leadership shown by Wilson-Raybould and Danesh.

Unfortunately, many Canadians who read Black’s editorial lack the historical context. Reconciling History is an excellent resource for the context, outlining the well-documented Canadian history and the legal obligations of the Crown. It directly confronts denialism designed to divide and instead offers a truthful accounting of our history through the words and actions of the people who did and said it, grounded in both justice and honouring the rule of law.

What Black calls “wokeness” is the law applied without exception. It’s not ideology, its integrity. If we want a country worth being proud of, we must stop fearing the truth and start fulfilling the promises that built this nation. I invite all Canadians to proudly join in the work.