What is reconciliation if there is no promise of deep change?

Often things that trigger my thinking come in pairs.  This week's pair is the recent announcement of the International Centre for Transitional Justice of the June 29 establishment of the Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).  I have not yet seen any formal mandate documents, but according to the announcement, the TRC is tasked with "examin(ing) the child welfare practices that acted to forcibly assimilate Indian children and seek to address the lasting impact of the practice on Maine’s communities."

The other thing was an announcement by the the Canadian Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of a Memorandum of Understanding on reconciliation with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation.

This MOU explicitly states:

1. The objective of the discussion table will be to identify a mutually-acceptable path to reconciliation.
2. If the Parties identify a mutually-acceptable path to reconciliation, Canada will then take measures aimed at obtaining a formal negotiation mandate.

My question:  Does reconciliation mean anything if it is entirely procedural, and the parties do not immediately commit to systemic change?

Part of me knows that the process of effective change must in itself model the change it is aimed at achieving.  This MOU is clearly aimed at laying important groundwork for addressing issues of concern.  As such, it is an important step forward to recognize nation to nation reconciliation as a framework.  And I suppose that that is what this MOU is.

My worry, after having been immersed in the language of reconciliation for almost a decade myself, is that reconciliation can become a broadly used (yet ill-defined!) concept that is politically expedient and a good communications sound byte, while simultaneously masking a lack of systemic change.  Time will tell, but in the meantime, an assumption of goodwill is probably a good starting point, as well as respect for the step forward taken by the First Nation and the Government. 

With respect to the new TRC in the United States, this is a body that will investigate for the purpose of addressing the impact of what is already known to be a damaging policy and practice.  In this, there is a commitment and an expectation of progress with respect to systemic harms within the communities affected.  It is a stronger mandate of reconciliation.

Two different uses of the word "reconciliation", for two different types of processes.

What are your expectations when the word 'reconciliation" is used?

Framework for possible negotiations?

Assumption that something will be done to address challenging social issues?