Summing Up: Evaluating Reconciliation and Compensation Efforts for Indigenous Injustices

This blog series has examined whether the reconciliation and compensation programs created by the Canadian government adequately addressed the grievances arising from the Sixties Scoop and residential schools. This was done by examining four major categories: monetary compensation, non-monetary compensation, child welfare, and truth and reconciliation.

Monetary Compensation

In terms of monetary compensation, both the Sixties Scoop Settlement Agreement (SSSA) and the Residential School Settlement Agreement (RSSA) focused on providing financial compensation through programs like the Common Experience Payment, the Independent Assessment Process, and provincial compensation funds. The intent of these programs was to address both the short- and long-term harms that victims have endured. While some victims have found relief and felt a sense of justice through these programs, others felt financially exploited during the process of receiving their money. They also felt their cases were treated as a “chore” by the government due to constant backlogs and underfunding. These mixed views highlight the complexity of compensating individuals with different experiences and highly varied grievances through such compensation schemes.

Non-Monetary Support Programs

Non-monetary support programs also play a crucial role in reconciliation by providing support and essential services for Indigenous communities. Programs such as FirstVoices and Non-Insured Health Benefits aim to address cultural loss, education, and mental health through various initiatives. While these programs have had a measure of success, they also face significant barriers, particularly in reaching individuals in remote areas. The challenge of providing equitable service to everyone, regardless of location, shows the need for these programs to expand until all victims receive equal support, no matter where they live.

Child Welfare Reforms

With regard to child welfare, the Child Welfare Reforms under Bill C-92 aimed to protect and restore Indigenous communities’ authority over child services. This legislation was designed to empower Indigenous programs to take control of their child welfare systems, providing culturally appropriate care. Although it was perhaps the least controversial of the compensation programs, the Canadian government underfunded the reform, leading to uneven success among Indigenous communities. The inconsistent enforcement worsened inequalities between different communities, which further limited the legislation’s impact.

Truth and Reconciliation Efforts

Another key aspect of the reconciliation efforts was aimed at increasing public awareness of the injustices faced by Indigenous people through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC created a comprehensive set of recommendations, referred to as the 94 “Calls to Action,” bringing these issues into public awareness. However, implementation of the Calls to Action has been very slow. Many of the TRC’s Calls to Action remain unfulfilled, highlighting the significant gap between acknowledgment and action that has hindered progress.

While the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) does valuable work in commemoration and education by preserving the historical testimonies of residential school survivors, it has often faced structural barriers that have significantly affected its progress. To ensure its long-term success and impact, the NCTR must consistently secure support and resources to continue this essential work.

Conclusion: Moving Forward

Evaluating the success of an initiative in addressing grievances and achieving some form of reconciliation is very subjective. Each person’s experience with compensation, whether monetary or not, varies depending on their circumstances. Financial compensation efforts provided for in the IRSSA and the SSSA have received mixed reviews. Many non-monetary programs struggle to make their services, such as mental health support, accessible to Indigenous people in remote and northern territories. Underfunding and inconsistent application continue to hold these programs back from reaching their full potential.

Limited access to first-hand testimonies from survivors in rural and remote communities restricts this analysis because of the lack of diversity of recorded cases. Additionally, assessing the effectiveness of many non-monetary programs is difficult because many of the initiatives are ongoing, and some benefits may not be realised for many years or even decades to come.

Recommendations for the Future

Investigating the effectiveness of mental health initiatives on intergenerational trauma and long-term cultural reclamation would provide better insights into the impacts of these programs. Future research should focus on including more isolated communities, enabling a detailed comparison of the differences in efforts between rural and urban areas. This would introduce more accountability and the possibility of adjusting long-term plans based on effectiveness.