Dr. Bryan Brulotte is Chairman of Sterling-Trust, a Canadian private equity firm. He brings more than four decades of leadership experience spanning the military, private, and public sectors.Canada marks the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation with solemn ceremonies and renewed commitments to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) 94 Calls to Action. Residential schools caused documented harm. But the historical record is more complex: compulsory schooling was part of Canada’s broader movement toward universal education, and many former students described their residential school experiences positively and credited their education with improving their lives. Recognizing those experiences requires us to examine the full historical record and apply consistent standards of evidence.Indeed, the word “truth” imposes an obligation. Claims must be tested against records, archaeology, forensic evidence, and other verifiable facts, particularly when they influence public policy and substantial public expenditures. Testimony from former students and claimants deserves to be heard, but testimony and allegations are not automatically the same as independently established fact.The controversy surrounding possible unmarked graves demonstrates the problem. In 2021, ground-penetrating radar at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School identified anomalies interpreted as possible burials, prompting extraordinary national and international reaction. Yet Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc reported in February 2026 that its investigation remains ongoing, employing ground-penetrating radar, LiDAR, human-remains detection dogs, archival research, and other methods to investigate potential burials.That does not establish that graves are absent, but neither does it establish everything Canadians were initially led to believe. An anomaly is not a body, a possible burial is not an identified child, and neither establishes how a person died. If the objective is truth, Canadians should insist upon these distinctions and expect investigations eventually to confirm, modify, or reject the original hypotheses..There is also a legitimate question of public accountability. Ottawa reported in 2024 that more than $216 million had been committed through 146 agreements supporting community-led initiatives to document, locate, and commemorate missing children and burial sites, while Budget 2024 added another $91 million over two years. Federal announcements have explicitly said communities should undertake this work “in their own way and at their own pace.”Respect for communities does not eliminate government's responsibility to taxpayers. Where public money finances investigations, there should be transparent objectives, timelines, expenditures, methodologies, and findings, while respecting legitimate cultural and legal considerations. Years after the initial claims, asking what has actually been established and what remains unproven should be responsible scrutiny, not hostility.That makes the government's increasing use of the term “residential schools denialism” particularly concerning. On September 24, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty described denialism as including statements that deny or “cast doubt” on residential school history and announced that a $5 million national public education effort would confront misinformation and denialist claims. Canadians should reject genuine historical falsification, but governments must be extremely cautious about defining legitimate questions, evidentiary challenges, or disagreement over historical interpretation as “denialism.”The distinction is fundamental in a free society. Government should provide evidence, open archives, finance rigorous investigation, and allow competing claims to be tested publicly; it should not become the arbiter of which historical interpretations citizens may question. Any future attempt to criminalize legitimate disagreement or evidentiary inquiry would cross an even more serious line..The same scrutiny should apply to the TRC's recommendations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Parliament's 2021 UNDRIP legislation requires the federal government, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, to take measures necessary to ensure federal laws are consistent with UNDRIP. That has consequences for resource development, governance, and the relationship among consultation, consent, Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the authority of elected governments.Ten years after the TRC, there should be nothing objectionable about reviewing its recommendations against subsequent evidence and experience. Nor should asking whether Canada adopted the correct approach to UNDRIP be treated as opposition to indigenous Canadians. Public policy must remain capable of revision when facts, circumstances, or consequences warrant it.Reconciliation cannot be built by declaring difficult questions closed. Canada should acknowledge documented wrongs, compensate substantiated claims fairly, and pursue a constructive relationship with indigenous peoples, while applying the same standards of evidence, transparency, and accountability expected everywhere else. Before reconciliation comes truth, and truth does not require protection from evidence.Dr. Bryan Brulotte is Chairman of Sterling-Trust, a Canadian private equity firm. He brings more than four decades of leadership experience spanning the military, private, and public sectors.
