2016年，蔡英文總統代表政府正式向原住民族道歉，並在總統府內設置了「原住民族歷史正義與轉型正義委員會」來處理相關事宜。自此之後，各國道歉與和解的經驗，隨之引發各界關注。由於加拿大是民主先進國家中，少數曾對原住民族道歉，並成立「真相暨和解委員會」（Truth and Reconciliation Committee）來處理後續工作的國家，故其經驗廣受重視。有鑑於其重要性，本研究嘗試在移地田野實證資料的基礎上，通過理論、制度、以及實務的交互檢證，來對加拿大原住民族寄宿學校道歉與真相和解之制度經驗進行研究。分析後發現，加國制度有其特定的歷史背景與社會因素。這些獨特的脈絡，促使行動者、制度、和背景因素在互動中逐步形成特定敘事，並推導出相應的制度性結果。除了針對加國經驗予以制度性的解釋之外，本文也進一步以制度爲基點，來對轉型正義的學理進行理論性的反省。質言之，加國制度經驗凸顯了原住民族對「非轉型」（non-transition）國家所形成的挑戰，也開啟了轉型正義的「理論轉型」。總結來看，透過細部的制度分析與理論檢視，本文促使該國制度經驗的可能性與限制得以被看見；在此同時，透過這個重要的他山之石，吾人亦可對本土借鏡進行思索。

In 2016, President Tsai Ing-wen officially apologized to the Taiwanese indigenous peoples on behalf of the government. In this unprecedented National Apology, she announced the establishment of the Presidential Office Indigenous Historical and Transitional Justice Committee. In order to make this committee more functional, many indigenous activists have urged the government to learn from the experiences of other countries. Among them, Canada is often considered to be an especially successful case. Some even argue that the Canadian experience in dealing with the legacy of the Indian Residential Schools is a “best practice” for policy learning. Echoing this argument, this article examines the Canadian case through theoretical analysis and empirical data. In so doing, this article attempts to look beyond the policies themselves and analyze the contexts behind them. In Canada, both the National Apology and the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) originated from a class-action lawsuit in the mid-2000s. Therefore, the scope of the apology and the role of the TRC was narrowly-framed. The design for these had soon become both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, focusing on a single topic makes it easier for the government to materialize the TRC's recommendations; on the other hand, it is much harder to expect further structural reforms through the TRC. Ten years after the apology, the relationship between the settler state and the indigenous peoples seems to remain unchanged. Therefore, “best practice” or not, the Canadian experience has its possibilities and limitations. With this in mind, this article further argues that activists in Taiwan have to look beyond the so-called “best practices” and refocus their energy on the details behind the policies.