Agora: Red Deer Polytechnic Undergraduate Journal
Volume 16:2 (2025) Student Writer Awards

From the Ground Up: What Canadian
Repatriation Policy Can Learn From
NAGPRA
Bailey Horton
Facilitating repatriation in Canadian museums is a
complex issue informed by a collection of institutional policies.
In their article “Updated U.S. Law Still Leaves Indigenous
Communities In Canada Out of Repatriations From Museums,”
Susan M. Hill and Mary Jane McCallum consider where
museum repatriation efforts support Indigenous communities,
and where they fall short. Repatriation in this context refers to
the return of Indigenous objects and remains to their
communities. A Canadian First Nation historian and citizen of
the Haudenosaunee nation, Hill is an experienced writer in her
field. Many of her publications center around Haudenosaunee
history treaty rights, Indigenous women’s history, and American
Indian History (Hill UToronto). Her collaborator, McCallum,
researches modern Indigenous histories centered in Manitoba
and Ontario. She is a founding member of Native American and
Indigenous Studies Association (McCallum).
Their article raises important considerations regarding
changes to the Native American Graves Protection and

130

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and Canada’s lack of equivalent
policy. In this paper, I further explore Hill and McCallum’s
concern surrounding Canadian responsibilities to repatriation
with a focus on Canadian policy making. As an expansion to
their work, I consider the strengths Canadian museum
institutions have found in direct relationships with Indigenous
communities despite a lack of federal policy, refute
misinformation surrounding repatriation as a loss of knowledge,
and consider the importance of implementing federal policies to
relieve excess labour in both museum and Indigenous
communities. I pose that enacting a federal policy on a scale
similar to NAGPRA would benefit Canadian efforts to repatriate
Indigenous cultural property. This will hold our government and
museums accountable in answering the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission’s calls to action. By offering a measure of
standardization,

museum

institutions

and

Indigenous

communities both stand to gain greater support for their efforts
without the loss of current relations.
In 2024, amendments were made to NAGPRA to
penalize institutions who have not engaged with Indigenous
communities (Hill). Hill and McCallum outline the changes of
policy, which includes requirements for museums in America to
get prior and informed consent when engaging with cultural
objects, the incorporation of Native American traditional

131

knowledge in care for items, and a timeline of five years to
consult and update inventory of human remains and funerary
objects (Hill). At a federal level, Canada has no single policy that
matches NAGPRA. Instead, repatriation is influenced through a
“patchwork” of policy structures (Meloche 38). Through the
widest lens, Canadian current institutional policy is informed by
reports by the Canadian Museums Association, the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But unlike NAGPRA, none
of these institutional recommendations have been enforced
federally.
Much of the resistance to repatriation comes from a place
of fear. Some scholars object to repatriation efforts as a loss of
ability to study Indigenous cultural property. However, the
success NAGPRA has found in cataloguing and collaboratively
researching its collection as a result of the policy directly
disproves this fear. The counter to fear of repatriation has two
arguments. The first argument is that NAGPRA has resulted in
museums cataloguing Indigenous cultural property that had been
previously neglected (McDougall 63). It requires institutions
with federal funding to create comprehensive inventories of their
Indigenous collections, and notify any related communities
(Hill). Ironically, resistance to the repatriation of cultural
material that had not been engaged with implies it is purely

132

grounded in colonial ideas of ownership. The enforcement of a
federal policy like NAGPRA holds museums accountable and
will encourage museums to share and return knowledge. This
shift will move museums away from the colonial structures of
ownership they currently engage with. Another direct benefit of
implementing federal policy is that funding is being directed to
ensure museums can meet these expectations (McDougall 63).
It has served to direct museums' focus towards developing
further innovations to identify affiliations in order to return
remains and cultural material to their original communities
(McDougall 63). By enforcing NAGPRA, museums have gained
knowledge about their cultural objects, while beginning to
address the colonial systems they are grounded in.
Despite lacking a federally encompassing policy like
NAGPRA,

many

Canadian

museums

have

prioritized

repatriation efforts. Canadian repatriation at the institutional
level engages Indigenous communities and local museums in
direct working relationships beneficial to their locality. Hill and
McCallum argue that without a policy like NAGPRA, Canadian
museums are not compelled to work in good faith towards
repatriation. Yet, museum institutions across the country have
still chosen to work with their local Indigenous communities to
develop repatriation policies. Museum institutions like
Glenbow, the Manitoba Museum, The British Columbia

133

Museums Association, and the Canadian Museums Association
are a few examples of organizations working towards
repatriation (Meloche 35, 41; Glenbow Repatriation). Locally
focused relationships have been Canada’s greatest strength
regarding repatriation. Simultaneous to the development of
NAGPRA in the USA, Canada faced its own “watershed
moment

in

Canadian

Museology” in

the

controversy

surrounding “The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada’s
First People” (Meloche 35). The exhibition was put on by the
Glenbow Museum in Calgary to display over 650 Indigenous
cultural objects from worldwide but was boycotted by the
Lubicon Lake Cree Nation due to Shell Oil’s sponsorship of the
event (Meloche 35). The controversy resulted in the creation of
The Task Force, a collaboration between the Assembly of First
Nations and the Canadian Museums Association (Meloche 35).
Their Task Force Report served as the groundwork for many
resulting museums repatriation policies (Meloche 36). Through
a direct working relationship, initiative continues to be taken to
facilitate repatriation in many museums alongside local
Indigenous communities. I pose that the emphasis on
establishing

individual

relationships

with

Indigenous

communities allows for flexibility for specific needs and
practices unique to each group in tangent with their cultural
practices. This has proven effective at the Glenbow Museum

134

after the “The Spirit Sings” controversy through their work with
several Blackfoot First Nations groups. Since 1990, Glenbow
has repatriated over 300 bundles to the Blackfoot and Cree
communities,

as

well

as

signed

a

Memorandum

of

Understanding with the Mookaakin Cultural and Heritage
Society to include them in collecting, researching, and
exhibiting their culture (Glenbow Repatriation). Their 2001
exhibit, (kneed-su-tap-e-see-ni) Niitsitapiisini, was developed
by 18 Blackfoot Elders over a 4 year period in collaboration with
the Glenbow. The positive reception to this 20 year long
exhibition shows how essential returning agency to the
Blackfoot people is to the understanding and sharing of their
history (Glenbow).
The Glenbow is a great example of how acknowledging
Indigenous knowledge is central to understanding their own
cultural property. The fear of repatriation reflects the double
standards

of

colonial

institutions

through

disregarding

Indigenous knowledge. Indigenous organizations are fully
capable of engaging with the nuanced concerns involved in
repatriation efforts, despite the colonialist narratives scholars
like J.H. Merryman perpetuates when considering who can study
cultural artefacts. In his argument against repatriation as an act
denying the world the right to study these artefacts (McDougall
57), he inadvertently implies that the communities regaining

135

their objects are not fit to study them. The North American
Indian Museums Association challenged this outdated notion.
An organization completely composed of Indigenous scholars, it
was responsible for the creation of the “Suggested Guidelines
for Museums in Dealing with Requests for Return of Native
American Materials” in 1981 (McDougall 62). These guidelines
became a touchstone for many of the considerations for
repatriation in the USA that followed. Beyond the museum
context, policy supporting repatriation also puts the knowledge
back into Indigenous hands by dismantling the double standards
colonial institutions limit Indigenous communities to. Hill and
McCallum stress the importance of Indigenous access to cultural
property for community based research. By returning agency to
Indigenous people in the conservation of their cultural property,
they are able to engage in community based research that
benefits their historical canon. In addition, the accuracy of
information is improved through contextual understanding.
It is clear that Canadian museums are interested in
repatriation. But while Canada’s institutional focused policy has
its relational strengths, it fails to support the repatriation work it
wants to serve. Indigenous peoples and heritage practitioners
criticize the lack of oversight to policy implementation and
unclear guidelines, leading to repatriation work going
unsupported (Meloche 42). The implementation of a policy like

136

NAGPRA federally in Canada would reduce the labour required
to engage with repatriation, allowing museums and Indigenous
communities to focus on individual relationships. As we have
seen with NAGPRA, federal policy directly supports the
implementation of federal funding (McDougall 63). By making
repatriation a federal policy like NAGPRA, museums and
Indigenous communities alike can hold the Canadian
government accountable in answering the TRC calls to action.
Canada already has a number of policies and reports that
can inform what a Canadian equivalent to NAGPRA could look
like. Hill and McCallum reference the 2022 report, “Moved to
Action: Activating UNDRIP in Canadian Museums,” by the
Canadian Museums Association. This report offers a valuable
collection of recommendations and standards for museums to
implement in response to the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. While the report addresses inequalities
surrounding Indigenous labour, it has yet been seen in practice
(Hill). However, I believe it provides a solid groundwork for
policy to address museums responsibilities to take on and
fiscally support labour if it is implemented at federal level. To
engage in an equal relationship, museums must be held
accountable and pursue repatriation, rather than expecting tribes
to request repatriation (Hill). The report emphasises the
importance of museums taking responsibility to “identify,

137

contact, and initiate repatriations to take the onus off of
Indigenous rights holders” (Danyluk 42). This expands the Task
Force Report’s recommendation that museums proactively
notify affiliated communities when regarding ancestral remains
(Meloche). Implementing policies that standardize museum’s
responsibilities towards repatriation, along with funding that
reflects Indigenous time and labour will allow Indigenous
communities to focus their labour on the cultural property itself.
Repatriation as a whole has a positive impact on both
museums and Indigenous communities. I believe Canada has a
strong foundation of relational focused policy of museum
institutions and Indigenous communities that begin to address
many of Hill and McCallum’s concerns. While they are correct
that Canada currently lacks a federal policy like NAGPRA, it
does not lack initiative to engage with repatriation. To establish
a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship of
Canadian policy to Indigenous repatriation, I recommend that
further research is done regarding Indigenous intellectual
sovereignty, museum responsibility to fairly compensate
Indigenous labour, and the colonial framework of ownership
museums exist within. Through this paper, I have attempted to
address the strengths Canadian museums have regarding
repatriation, disprove common fears associated with the process,
and consider the support a standardized policy like NAGPRA

138

may offer to reduce excess labour surrounding repatriation. I
strongly believe utilizing existing reports institutions like the
Canadian Museums Association; the Task Force; and existing
treaties, agreements, and institutional policies will serve to
establish the federal legislature Canada needs. By standardizing
policy at a federal level Canadian museum institutions and
Indigenous communities can continue to focus on developing
strong relationships while reducing barriers to repatriation.

139

Works Cited
Danyluk, Stephanie, and Rebecca MacKenzie. “Moved To
Action: Activating UNDRIP In Canadian Museums.”
Canada Museums Association, 2022,
museums.ca/uploaded/web/TRC_2022/Report-CMAMovedToAction.pdf.
Hill, Susan. “Susan Hill.” University of Toronto Department of
History, 19 Sept. 2023,
www.history.utoronto.ca/people/directories/allfaculty/susan-hill.
McCallum, Mary Jane, and Susan M. Hill. “Updated U.S. Law
Still Leaves Indigenous Communities in Canada out of
Repatriations from Museums.” The Conversation, 27
Mar. 2024, theconversation.com/updated-u-s-law-stillleaves-indigenous-communities-in-canada-out-ofrepatriations-from-museums-223617.
McCallum, Mary Jane. “Mary Jane McCallum.” The University
of Winnipeg, www.uwinnipeg.ca/history/facultystaff/mary-jane-mccallum.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.
McDougall, Andrew. “The Challenges of Repatriating
Aboriginal Cultural Property in Canada.” Canadian
Journal of Native Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, Dec. 2012, pp.
51–75. EBSCOhost,

140

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fph&
AN=88018475&site=ehost-live.
Meloche, Chelsea. “What Happens next? Exploring
Connections Between Repatriation, Restorative Justice,
and Reconciliation in Canada.” Simon Fraser
University Summit Research Repository, Simon Fraser
University, 18 Feb. 2022,
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/34836. Accessed 9 Dec.
2024.
“Niitsitapiisini.” Glenbow, Glenbow Museum,
www.glenbow.org/exhibitions/niitsitapiisini-our-wayof-life/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.
“Repatriation at Glenbow.” Glenbow,
www.glenbow.org/repatriation-at-glenbow/. Accessed 5
Dec. 2024.
“UN Declaration On The Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, 13 Sept. 2007,
www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/un-declarationrights-indigenous-peoples.

141