Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission Secretariat - Report
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Chair's Message
I am pleased to present the 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (the Commission).
The Commission was created by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement which settled all class actions then in place against the Canadian government and those Churches involved in running Residential Schools identified in the Agreement. The Commission is independent of the parties to the Agreement with independent spending authority but as a result of an opinion from Canada's representative in the negotiations, the Commission was designated as a Department under the Financial Administration Act.
In 2011-12, the Commission will release its Interim Report. This DPR is not intended to be a replacement for or a duplication of the Interim Report. This DPR is intended to report to Parliament in the manner required of federal institutions subject to the federal Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board directives.
The mandate of the Commission is without precedent in Canadian history. It starts from recognizing that the negative impact of the residential school system continues into the present, harming not only those who attended the schools, but also their families, communities and the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
The Commission's mandate, briefly stated, is to tell Canadians about the history of the residential schools, to give former students, staff and all those affected by the schools to participate in the telling of that history through national and community events and statement gathering, to collect all records relevant to that history and impact, to conduct original research that builds upon previous research efforts, to help commemorate this history, to establish a National Research Centre, and to write reports about this history. In this way, the Commission is intended to play an important role in truth-telling, as well as healing and reconciliation within Aboriginal families and between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal communities, churches, governments and Canadians generally.
During 2010-11, the Commission continued the work that they begun in the previous year. Particular highlights of the year were the appointment of the co-directors of the Commission's Inuit Sub-commission; hiring Regional Liaisons across the country; engaging a consortium of key contractors to manage the Commission's work in collecting relevant documents; holding the Winnipeg National Event in June 2010, holding a special event in Vancouver in March 2011 called "Sharing Truth: Creating a National Research Centre on Residential Schools" that brought together residential school survivors, the TRC's Survivor Committee and the TRC's All Party Committee, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archivists and curators in Canada with international experts on creating research centres following the establishment of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in their countries. The Commission was also busy planning for the Northern National Event that was held in Inuvik in June 2011 and launching the Commission's tour of northern communities beginning in March 2011. The Commission issued an invitation and guide for making submissions for commemoration projects, as contemplated by Schedule J of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. During this entire period, the Commissioners travelled the country, meeting and listening to survivors, attending annual general meetings of major Aboriginal organizations, speaking at numerous venues.
As stated in the previous Departmental Performance Report, the Commission faces challenges in dealing with some of the administrative requirements associated with being a federal government department and the Commission is carefully considering budgetary needs through to the end of the Commission's mandate. It is to be expected that the original amount set aside in the Settlement Agreement may need to be revisited in the future given that this is a unique mandate in Canadian history; given the scope of time, places and people affected by residential schools, including many of the most remote communities in Canada; given the number of records to be collected from approximately 100 or more separate archives; and given the costs of holding community and national events. As the Commission's work proceeds, the Commission is better able to estimate the financial requirements required if this Commission is going to meet the needs and expectations of all Canadians when this Commission was created.
The Parties to the Settlement Agreement, including and perhaps especially the Government of Canada, have much to decide about the funding of the Commission and the Commission's ability to achieve the objectives that the Parties set out for the Commission in the Commission's mandate.
As just one example, the mandate of the Commission instructs the Parties to provide all relevant documents to the Commission, but also allows the Parties to request that the Commission pay for the costs of copying, scanning, digitizing, or otherwise reproducing the documents, and imposes that cost burden on the Commission if the Parties so request. No Party has formally communicated such a request in writing. However, different individuals working for the Parties have indicated to the Commission that the Parties do not intend to pay for the costs of copying, scanning, digitizing, or otherwise reproducing the documents. Of course, the Government of Canada has the most records. The Commission's budget is simply not sufficient to cover the costs associated with reproducing the documents, including the costs associated with recording the details and locations of each original record. Thus, there is a risk that goals that the Parties stated in the mandate of the Commission could be frustrated: "Identify sources and create as complete an historical record as possible of the IRS system and legacy. The record shall be preserved and made accessible to the public for future study and use" and "that there shall be an emphasis on both information collection/storage and information analysis".
Further, "A research centre shall be established, in a manner and to the extent that the Commission's budget makes possible. It shall be accessible to former students, their families and communities, the general public, researchers and educators who wish to include this historic material in curricula." It now seems likely that the Commission's budget will not allow the Commission to fund the creation of a National Research Centre.
The Commissioners continue to travel across Canada extensively, meeting and listening to survivors, youth, faith communities, academics and many others who seek to inform the Commissioners and the Canadian public, or who seek to learn about the history and impact of the residential schools, and who are striving to find their own paths to healing and reconciliation.
The Commissioners continue to invite all Canadians to find ways to join this unique journey.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Murray Sinclair
Chair, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
Section I: Organizational Overview
Raison d'être
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been given the overall task of:
- Telling Canadians about the history of the residential schools to which the Canadian government sent Aboriginal children and the impact that those schools had on Aboriginal peoples; and
- Guiding a process of reconciliation within Aboriginal families, and between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal communities, churches, governments and Canadians generally.
The Commission does this by facilitating and enabling the participation of former residential school students, their families, their communities and others associated with the Indian residential schools system (particularly the Government of Canada and the churches that administered the schools), and the broader Canadian public in pursuit of truth, healing and reconciliation, as well as by documenting and preserving the historical record for future generations.
Responsibilities
The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is a negotiated agreement with the following signatories: the Government of Canada; the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada; the Presbyterian Church of Canada; the United Church of Canada; Roman Catholic entities; former students who attended Indian residential schools, as represented by the National Consortium, the Merchant Law Group or independent counsel; the Assembly of First Nations; and Inuit representatives.
The Settlement Agreement calls for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In this regard, on June 1, 2008, an Order in Council created the new department called the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission Secretariat. A July 1, 2009, Order in Council led to a reorganization that merged the Secretariat and the Commission, placing them under the direction of the Commission Chair as Deputy Head.
The Commission has and is continuing to develop processes and to organize and/or support events that encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals and groups associated with the legacy of the Indian residential schools system in pursuit of truth, healing and reconciliation. The Commission views reconciliation as an ongoing individual and collective process that will require participation from all those affected by the Indian residential schools system, be they former students or their family members, former staff and administrators or their family members, the broader Aboriginal community, and the Canadian public, whose political institutions established, funded and had oversight for the schools. As a result, the Commission hopes to guide and inspire Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians toward reconciliation and renewed relationships based on mutual understanding and respect.
Strategic Outcome(s) and Program Activity Architecture (PAA)
The Commission has one Strategic Outcome and one Program Activity.
Strategic Outcome
Disclosure and recognition of the truth regarding Indian Residential Schools furthers healing and reconciliation for the individuals and communities affected.
Program Activity Name and Description
Truth and Reconciliation – Supports the research, truth, healing and commemoration activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Organizational Priorities
| Priority |
|---|
| Developing administrative and financial systems and processes. Staffing of vacant positions |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Conduct statement taking and truth sharing activities and sessions |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Conduct national events and support community events |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Plan and conduct research |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Collect all relevant records |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Establish a National Research Centre |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Promote awareness and conduct public education |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
| Priority |
|---|
| Produce report to the Parties to the Settlement Agreement |
| Status: Ongoing |
|
Risk Analysis
The Commission faces a number of operational risks that could impact achievement of planned results. In the previous Departmental Performance Report 2009-10, the Commission reported on the following risks:
Recruiting and retaining qualified staff for the TRC.
As noted in last year's report, requirements that the Commission comply with PWGSC and PSC requirements led to significant delays in the hiring process. As a result, most of the senior staff were not in place until early 2010. Although staffing services were provided initially by Public Works and Government Services and then by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Commission found that these services were unduly slow and not respectful of the independence of the Commission. Ultimately, the Commission was able to recruit recently retired staffing officers from the Public Service Commission, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada who worked closely with other Commission staff. The staffing delays have now been resolved, but later and with more difficulty than should have been the case.
Developing systems and processes that support the Commissioners in fulfilling their mandate.
The Commission has organized itself to work in a manner that respects the financial and administrative policies of the federal government while operating in a manner that allows it to function at arms length from government in order to foster the trust and respect of those most impacted by the Indian Residential Schools system. The requirement to create an entire federal department, subject to and accountable for the complete range of federal government statutes, regulations, policies, directives and guidelines, with a very limited staffing complement and with significant budget limitations, has posed considerable challenges. For the most part, the administrative challenges have been overcome. However, there is a continuing friction inherent in the notion that the Government of Canada is a defendant and party to the Settlement Agreement and the Commission is a Government of Canada institution.
Establishing safe and secure opportunities in which former students and others associated with the residential schools system can come forward to tell their stories and be acknowledged.
As noted in the previous report, the Commission is liaising with Health Canada and community based support networks to ensure that health-related supports are available to those participating in statement taking and truth sharing sessions, during and afterwards. To date, this has been working reasonably well.
Collecting, classifying and preserving records and archival materials of the residential schools system.
This is now perhaps the most serious risk faced by the Commission. The Parties gave the Commission the mandate to "Identify sources and create as complete an historical record as possible of the IRS system and legacy. The record shall be preserved and made accessible to the public for future study and use" and "that there shall be an emphasis on both information collection/storage and information analysis". Canada and the churches willingly gave themselves the obligation to compile all relevant documents in an organized manner for review by the Commission and to provide access to their archives for the Commission to carry out its mandate and to provide all relevant documents in their possession or control to the Commission. However, the mandate allows them to request that the Commission pay for the costs of copying, scanning, digitizing, or otherwise reproducing the documents, and imposes that cost burden on the Commission if they so request. While no Party has formally communicated this request in writing, individuals working for the Parties have indicated to the Commission that the Parties do not intend to pay for the costs of copying, scanning, digitizing, or otherwise reproducing the documents. Of course, the Government of Canada has the most records. The Commission's budget is simply not sufficient to cover the costs associated with reproducing the documents, including the costs associated with recording the details and locations of each original record (meta-data tagging; which could be interpreted as falling within the Parties' obligation to compile the documents in an organized manner).
The Commission has encountered other issues in document collection.
There is the problem of the Commission being drawn into the internal workings of the Parties. Canada and the churches take the position that the Commission should be required to deal with numerous internal units and archives of Canada and the churches. For example, although Canada found that it had the authority to sign the Settlement Agreement once on behalf of all of its departments, Canada now asserts that it does not have the authority to provide a single point of contact with authority to speak on behalf of and to implement the Government of Canada's obligation to produce all relevant records in its possession to the Commission. Instead, Canada advises the Commission to enter into separate memoranda of understanding with each department that may have relevant records. In addition, Library and Archives Canada asserts that it does not have the authority to produce records to the Commission without specific approval from each individual government department that deposited those records with Library and Archives Canada. These are administrative barriers and delays to the production of records which is a legal obligation under the Settlement Agreement.
There is also a problem with "waivers of implied undertakings". Canada takes the position that it cannot disclose records that are in Canada's possession if those records originated from the churches in response to specific residential schools court cases, even if the records were created by Canada but contain information that was first obtained from church records. Canada asserts that it obtained the church records and information through the litigation process which made Canada subject to an implied undertaking to use or disclose those records only in relation to the specific court decisions to which the records relate. Canada asserts that the fact that Canada and the churches settled such court cases through the Settlement Agreement, including an express obligation that Canada and the churches would disclose all relevant records in their possession, does not constitute a waiver of those implied undertakings, and in the case of a conflict between the implied undertakings and the express obligation to produce all records in its possession to the Commission, Canada must give preference to the implied undertakings.
In some cases, individual archives and archivists of the churches demand that the Commission agree to certain conditions before those archivists will produce records to the Commission. The Commission has been presented with various conditions from various archives and archivists. For examples, some purport to instruct the Commission how the Commission should caption photographs in the Commission's reports; some purport to limit the Commission's use of photographs to a "one-time only" use; some purport to prevent the Commission from depositing photographs and other records in the National Research Centre; some purport to draw distinctions between their "internal" and "external"; "restricted" and "unrestricted" records and to impose different conditions on how the Commission can use records in different categories. Some of the archivists insist that the Commission acknowledge that the churches own copyright in the records located in their archives. With respect to copyright claims, the churches make no copyright distinctions based on who created the records or when and do not explain what copyright interests they are seeking to protect. It must be emphasized that these are individual issues; the Commission has met with helpful cooperation from most of the churches and archivists it has dealt with.
Ensuring the protection and security of personal information collected by or on behalf of the TRC.
As stated in last year's report, all statements given to the Commission will be collected with the informed consent of the participant. Statements and documents containing personal information will be stored in a secure environment in accordance with federal Access to Information Act, Privacy Act and Policy on Government Security. The Commission has contracted with a recently retired senior official of Treasury Board Secretariat's Information and Policy Division to undertake a Security and Privacy Impact Assessment and to develop appropriate policies and procedures for the Commission. The results should be complete by the end of 2011.
Carrying out the program activities within the established budget.
The overall TRC budget was developed without a full costing of the program activities and without input from the new Commissioners or their new senior staff. The Minister of Indian Affairs requested in 2007 that the Commission carry out research into the children who never returned from residential schools and whose living relatives were never informed of their fate (Missing Children and Unmarked Graves) without any additional increase in funding. The Parties are not required to request that the Commission pay for the costs of copying, scanning, digitizing, or otherwise reproducing the documents, but that is what they are doing. The Commission's mandate calls upon it to establish a National Research Centre "in a manner and to the extent that the Commission's budget makes possible". The Commission is in the process of identifying the anticipated costs and impacts on the Commission's budget that these requests are creating.
Expenditure profile
Spending Trends
TRC received funding of $58.4 million in 2008-09 from the Order in Council effective June 1, 2008. $50.9 million of that was reprofiled to future years.
The important discrepency between the "Total Authorities" and the "Actual Spending" is mostly due to the fact that TRC carried-over $16.9 million from 2009-10 from a special authority to carry forward the full amount of their lapse. This carry forward is and will mainly be used for on-going operation activities until the wind-down of TRC. Also, anticipated staffing took longer than expected. Some activities, like the gathering of statements were slower due to the delay in hiring the employees.
Summary of Performance
The mandate of the Commission is set out in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and particularly Schedule N. The mandate can be found on the Commission's web site.
The Settlement Agreement was approved by court judgments of provincial and territorial courts as of March 2007. The establishment of the Commission was therefore the product of a court order. The Government of Canada is one of the Parties to the Settlement Agreement and complying with the terms of the Settlement Agreement is a binding legal obligation on the Crown. The Commission is separate from the Parties and is required to comply with and discharge its mandate as found in the court-administered Settlement Agreement, and is accountable to and must treat all Parties to the Settlement Agreement in an equitable manner. In this way, the creation of the Commission and the decision-making of the Commissioners is not a discretionary governmental activity subject to Government direction.
The Commission became a legal entity when it was established as a federal government department by the Government of Canada Orders-in-Council on June 1, 2008, originally creating a Secretariat separate from the Commissioners. By Orders-in-Council on July 1, 2009, the Secretariat was removed as a separate entity. The current Commissioners were appointed, with the Chair also serving as the Deputy Head of the Commission, by Orders-in-Council on July 1, 2009. Although the Commission is independent of the Government of Canada, as a federal department, the Commission is subject to federal statutes and Treasury Board policies.
In the Settlement Agreement, the Government of Canada agreed to a legal obligation to provide $60 million to the TRC, of which $2 million was to begin start-up procedures by the Government of Canada in advance of the establishment of the Commission. This amount was provided to and fully spent by the former department of Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada. The $60 million amount is an amount that is part of the legal payment to settle the residential schools class action lawsuit. To state it differently, the amount of $60 million may be considered to be the amount that the former students set aside for the TRC from the funds owing to them under the Settlement Agreement.
Separately from the Settlement Agreement, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs agreed to provide "up to" $1 million "in-kind" support to the TRC for each of the five years of the Commission's mandate, beginning fiscal year 2008-09. Further and separately from the Settlement Agreement, the Government of Canada agreed to provide an additional amount in recognition of costs associated with compliance with various Government of Canada reporting requirements. Thus, Parliament was asked for and approved $66 million. Unlike ordinary departments, none of this funding lapses at the end of any of the fiscal years within this period, but carries forward to the next fiscal year.
At the present time, the funding approved for the Commission ends on March 31, 2014, while the appointments of the new Commissioners ends on July 1, 2014. This is a gap that Parliament and the Government will have to address as the end date draws closer.
| Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
|---|---|---|
| 15,315 | 32,216 | 10,633 |
Please note: Financial Resources should equal the sum of the Total line for Program Activities and Internal Services
| Planned | Actual | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| 58 | 43 | 15 |
| Program Activity | 2009-10 Actual Spending ($ millions) |
2010-11 ($ millions) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
||
| Support the research, truth, healing and commemoration activities of the TRC | 3 030 | 13 955 | 13 955 | 29 184 | 7 814 |
| Internal Services | 3 417 | 1 360 | 1 360 | 3 032 | 2 819 |
| Total | 6 447 | 15 315 | 15 315 | 32 216 | 10 633 |
Estimates by Vote
For information on our organizational Votes and/or statutory expenditures, please see the 2010-11 Public Accounts of Canada (Volume II) publication. An electronic version of the Public Accounts is available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website.1
| Vote # or Statutory Item (S) |
Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording |
2008-09 Actual Spending |
2009-10 Actual Spending |
2010-11 Main Estimates |
2010-11 Actual Spending |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | Program Expenditures | 2,718 | 6,236 | 14,805 | 10,176 |
| (S) | Contributions to employee benefit plans | – | 211 | 510 | 457 |
| Total | 2,718 | 6,447 | 15,315 | 10,633 | |