When our team from the Australian National Centre for Reconciliation, Truth and Justice (NCRTJ) travelled to Canada, we were struck by how visible and structured their national approach to truth-telling has become.

Professors Gavin and Gunstone met with truth, justice, and reconciliation leaders, research centres, Elders and Survivors. Those conversations were deeply clarifying, and confronting. Canada hasn't just talked about truth-telling; it has built it into its national architecture.

At the heart of Canada's model are three reinforcing pillars.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) 94 Calls to Action, which set out clear expectations for governments, institutions, and professions.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), a federally supported institution that preserves records, testimonies, and histories, and provides a permanent home for truth.

Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (NDTR), a national commemoration held annually on 30 September that honours the Survivors and victims of the residential school system.

Together, these pillars create a rhythm of accountability. The Calls to Action set the direction for reform; the NCTR safeguards the evidence and learning; and the national day ensures the work of listening and remembrance remains alive in the public consciousness. Symbolic days alone don't bring change, but they do sustain the social will for it. They keep the stories of children, families, and communities at the centre of the national story.

The biggest difference between Canada and Australia lies in legislation. Canada's Parliament passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP Act) in 2021, which requires federal laws to align with Indigenous rights through an action plan and regular reporting. It gives Canada a legal framework for accountability.

Australia endorsed UNDRIP in 2009 but never legislated it. There's no national framework guiding policy or law reform, meaning progress is inconsistent and dependent on political goodwill. Without legislative protection, our truth and treaty efforts rise and fall with changing governments.

Across Australia, truth-telling and treaty are advancing, but unevenly.

Victoria is leading through the First Peoples' Assembly and the Yoorrook Justice Commission, the country's first formal truth-telling body.

A state-wide treaty bill was tabled this year, marking historic progress. South Australia has established a state Voice and is exploring treaty work.

Yet Queensland's Path to Treaty was abruptly repealed after a change of government, a stark reminder of how fragile progress is when not backed by legislation.

Nationally, the 2023 Voice Referendum defeat exposed both the urgency and fragility of Australia's reconciliation agenda.

The parallels between Australia and Canada are undeniable. Both are settler-colonial nations built on the dispossession of First Nations peoples. Both imposed child removals, cultural genocide, and policies of assimilation. Both still sustain deep inequities across health, education, justice, and housing.

Yet Canada's political and legislative responses have been far stronger. Its UNDRIP Act, TRC, NCTR, and NDTR have made truth-telling part of civic life, not just an aspiration. Australia's progress, though commendable in places, remain vulnerable to shifting political winds.

So, what can we take from Canada's example?

First, make truth-telling permanent and properly funded. Canada's NCTR ensures Survivor testimonies, records, and curricula are preserved and accessible. Australia needs a national truth-telling infrastructure that is Indigenous-governed, connected to state-level work like Yoorrook, and designed to educate generations of Australians.

Second, tie truth to rights through legislation.

A national UNDRIP implementation law, with a clear action plan and annual reporting, would set a baseline for governments and sectors. It would ground treaty-making, reform, and policy development in agreed rights.

Third, build national remembrance. Australia has many important days, but none dedicated to truth-telling. A co-designed National Truth-Telling Day could strengthen public understanding, bringing Survivors and communities to the centre of national reflection, not just symbolic apology.

Finally, protect progress from political backsliding. Victoria's treaty framework and Yoorrook's record are milestones; South Australia's Voice is promising. But Queensland's reversal shows how easily this work can unravel. Embedding UNDRIP, clarifying federal and state responsibilities, and building independent oversight are essential to safeguard hard-won ground.

This is not to idealise Canada. Many of its TRC Calls to Action remain unfinished, and Survivors continue to fight for justice and accountability. But Canada demonstrates that when truth-telling is legislated, resourced, and made part of the national fabric, it becomes harder to ignore, and most importantly, harder to undo.

The lesson for Australia is clear: if we truly mean to reconcile, we need to build systems that last longer than political terms. Truth-telling must be more than a project; it must become a permanent national commitment.

Professor Emma-Jaye Gavin is Deputy Director, Indigenous Global Engagement, and Professor of Indigenous Truth-Telling Research at the National Centre for Reconciliation, Truth and Justice.

Professor Andrew Gunstone is Associate Deputy Vice Chancellor, Reconciliation, and Executive Director of the National Centre for Reconciliation, Truth and Justice.