Cash crunch frustrates the work of the TRC

The parties to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement will have to decide in the New Year whether to downgrade the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s duties or ante up more money.

A formal request for more funding has not come yet from the TRC, but chair Murray Sinclair said that it is clear that the $60 million set aside for the commission to use over five years will not be enough to cover all the duties set out in the residential school agreement.

The money crunch does not come as a surprise to Sinclair.

“I knew from the moment I was asked to do this that there were going to be challenges around making the mandate and the resources and the timeline fit together,” he said. “I’m not surprised and I don’t think any of the parties should be.”

Sinclair and commissioners Wilton Littlechild and Marie Wilson were appointed to the TRC in 2009, following the resignations of the initial commission members. The five-year timeframe set out for the TRC was to expire in 2013. Sinclair’s commission lobbied effectively to have an additional year added to their term. The initial commission spent $2 million. But even if that money is returned to the TRC’s budget, it will not be enough to cover what the TRC is expected to do.

Sinclair said collecting government and church documentation that pertains to residential schools alone could run to more than $100 million. The work is “time consuming and physically resource heavy” and has only just begun. Sinclair said once this figure is determined, then the TRC will have a better idea of the additional funding required.

“The commission is technically funded by the survivors because the money is being paid out of a fund that would otherwise have gone to survivors for their compensation. We’re very conscious of that,” said Sinclair.

One move the commission has already made to address the pending financial crunch is directing organizations who express interest in operating a National Research Centre to “find its own sources of long-term, stable funding for the operations of the [centre].”

“That has deterred a few, but the interest level is still very high,” said Sinclair.

In his 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report, Sinclair noted, “It now seems likely that the commission’s budget will not allow the commission to fund the creation of a National Research Centre.”

The TRC will support the research centre’s efforts through “documents, statements and other items that the TRC collects during its mandate, plus any additional expertise,” according to the 11-page Call for Submissions. Deadline for expressions of interest for the research centre is Feb. 16, 2012.

The centre is part of the TRC’s mandate. Schedule N of the residential school settlement agreement states that the research centre “shall be established, in a manner and to the extent that the commission’s budget makes possible.” The centre is to be the lasting legacy of the process, housing all documentation collected by the TRC and open to survivors, their families and the Canadian public.

Also pushing the TRC’s budget is the obligation to record the statements of the estimated 80,000 survivors of schools recognized under the settlement agreement. Sinclair believes there are more than 100,000 more survivors who attended residential schools not recognized by the settlement agreement or who are day students. Taking these statements is a costly process, he said.

“I think there’s a legitimate need out there as well to get the stories of children who went to public schools,” said Sinclair. Those students had similar experiences as their residential school counterparts.

“It is to be expected that the original amount set aside in the settlement agreement may need to be revisited in the future… 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,” wrote Sinclair in the most recent Departmental Performance Report.

“I’m trying to keep the onus where I think it remains and that is on the parties. They have to decide, because it is their agreement, how do they want this issue to be resolved,” said Sinclair.

Commission members will be meeting in the New Year to discuss priorities and how they need to be approached. Until that discussion takes place, Sinclair said he would not speculate on what may have to change in the commission’s mandate if additional dollars cannot be acquired, nor would he speculate on how much the $60 million would need to be topped up to meet the TRC’s existing obligations.

The TRC is to present its interim report next year.

The settlement agreement was approved in 2006 by the federal government, legal counsel for former students, Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Representatives, the Anglican, Presbyterian and United churches, and Roman Catholic Entities.

If the agreement is to be altered to provide more funding for the TRC, the court would have to approve the changes.