What Is Reconciliation? Aboriginal Lawyer Thomas Isaac’s Definition
Interview with a Lawyer Practicing Aboriginal Law
Reconciliation is one of the most used words in Canadian politics. It appears in government speeches, land acknowledgments, legislation, corporate statements, and public policy documents. But the more often the word is used, the less clear it can become.
In my conversation with Aboriginal lawyer Thomas Isaac, he offered a more grounded definition. For Isaac, reconciliation is not just about symbolism, public apologies, or repeating the right language. It is about governments and citizens doing the hard work of living together fairly, honestly, and practically.
His definition has three parts.
1. Reconciliation Means Confronting the Past
Isaac begins with history. Canada has a real past to reconcile with: residential schools, the Indian Act, reserve systems, the loss of legal status for many First Nations people, and unresolved land issues across the country.
He does not minimize that history. He describes residential schools as broadly harmful to the health of communities and recognizes the long record of denial and unequal treatment faced by First Nations people.
But Isaac also argues that reconciliation cannot mean staying permanently trapped in the past. Remembering history matters. Understanding it matters. But at some point, he argues, the country also has to move forward.
That does not mean forgetting. It means building something better from the truth of what happened.
2. Reconciliation Means Resolving Legal Rights
The second part of Isaac’s definition is legal.
As an Aboriginal lawyer, Isaac sees reconciliation through the lens of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which protects Aboriginal and treaty rights. In his view, Canada made a major legal shift when it constitutionally recognized these rights.
That means land claims, Aboriginal title, treaty rights, and consultation are not political favours. They are legal issues rooted in Canada’s own Constitution.
For Isaac, reconciliation requires governments to deal with those issues seriously. That includes addressing outstanding land questions, negotiating agreements, respecting Indigenous rights, and making decisions through the rule of law.
But he also argues that governments must do this with clarity. Vague promises do not help. If governments make commitments they cannot implement, reconciliation becomes confusing, frustrating, and unfair to everyone involved.
3. Reconciliation Means Living Together
The third part of Isaac’s definition is the most human.
He argues that reconciliation is also about Indigenous and non-Indigenous people learning to live together respectfully in the same country. That means fairness, dignity, honesty, and a shared commitment to improving life for everyone.
In the interview, Isaac says reconciliation should include practical outcomes: safe drinking water, decent health care, education, roads, economic opportunity, and healthier communities. In other words, reconciliation cannot just be measured by statements from politicians. It has to be measured by whether people’s lives are actually getting better.
That is why Isaac is skeptical of symbolic reconciliation when it is not attached to action. Land acknowledgments, speeches, and public commitments may have a role, but they cannot replace housing, infrastructure, clean water, or economic independence.
Reconciliation Requires Truth
One of Isaac’s strongest points is that truth is essential to reconciliation. But he does not mean only one side’s truth. He argues that reconciliation requires open dialogue where different people can speak honestly about what is working, what is failing, and what still needs to be done.
That matters in British Columbia, where questions about DRIPA, UNDRIP, Aboriginal title, resource development, private property, and economic certainty have become increasingly tense.
For Isaac, shutting down debate does not advance reconciliation. It weakens it. If governments are not transparent, and if citizens feel they cannot ask basic questions, trust breaks down.
Reconciliation needs truth, not slogans.
Reconciliation Must Be Practical
The clearest theme in Isaac’s definition is practicality.
He is not opposed to reconciliation. He is not opposed to Indigenous rights. He is not opposed to Section 35. His concern is that governments too often use reconciliation as a word while avoiding the harder work of implementation.
Practical reconciliation means asking direct questions.
Are communities getting homes?
Are roads being fixed?
Are children getting better educational opportunities?
Are First Nations building economic sovereignty?
Are governments creating legal certainty?
Are Indigenous and non-Indigenous people being invited into an honest conversation about the future?
If the answer is no, then reconciliation is not working the way it should.
A Mature Definition of Reconciliation
Thomas Isaac’s definition of reconciliation is ultimately about maturity.
It means confronting the past without being trapped by it. It means respecting Indigenous rights while maintaining the rule of law. It means governments being honest about what they can and cannot do. It means replacing vague promises with practical results.
Most importantly, it means building a country where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people can live together with dignity, fairness, prosperity, and trust.
That may be less flashy than the political language we often hear.
But it is also much harder to fake.