What Should Happen With the Kamloops 215 Story?

The debate surrounding the Kamloops 215 has become one of the most difficult conversations in Canada.

For some, questioning the original claims surrounding suspected unmarked graves risks minimizing the documented history of Indian Residential Schools. For others, refusing to distinguish between what has been confirmed and what remains unverified undermines public trust and makes reconciliation more difficult.

I wanted to understand how Ellis Ross approaches that tension. Ross is a former Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation, a former B.C. MLA and now a Member of Parliament. Both of his parents attended residential schools, and throughout our conversation he repeatedly returned to the importance of truth, evidence and reconciliation.

Ross’s argument is not that the history of residential schools should be dismissed. In fact, he makes the opposite point: determining what is true about the specific claims in Kamloops does not erase everything else we know about Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples.

His position is that the uncertainty should ultimately be resolved through evidence.

What does truth require?

Earlier in our conversation, I asked Ross about the broader controversy surrounding people who challenge claims related to residential schools.

His starting point was straightforward.

“For the truth, you’ve got to talk the truth. You speak the truth. You got to know the truth. And for that, you need facts.”

That sounds simple. In practice, it has become extraordinarily complicated.

In the interview, I raised the Kamloops story specifically and the debate over whether the suspected burial sites should eventually be excavated and verified. Ross described the issue as a “flashpoint” that changed the national conversation around reconciliation.

What interested him initially was the possibility that the discovery could become a moment where Canadians confronted the past together.

“This is a great chance for Canada [to] face its past on facts and evidence.”

His preferred approach was direct: determine whether human remains are present, identify them where possible, compare findings with historical records and return any identified remains to their communities for proper burial.

Ross imagined that process as something much larger than an investigation.

He saw the possibility of governments, Indigenous communities and Canadians participating in a national act of recognition and repatriation.

“You dig up the remains, you cross-reference it with records and then bring those remains back to the Native communities for a proper burial. That would have been a huge moment in Canadian history.”

The key phrase, however, is if remains are found.

For Ross, that uncertainty should not be treated as incidental. It is the question that has to be resolved.

Does questioning the claim make someone a denier?

This is where the conversation becomes much more contentious.

Ross argues that asking whether the suspected sites contain human remains is different from denying the history of residential schools.

“Can we clarify whether or not these are human remains or not? And I think that’s the fundamental question that’s getting muddied now because as soon as you question it, you’re turned into a residential school denier.”

That distinction matters.

There is an enormous difference between arguing that residential schools did not cause tremendous harm and asking what evidence supports a particular claim about a particular site.

In our conversation, I told Ross that this distinction has bothered me as well. Establishing that one claim requires additional evidence does not necessarily undermine the broader historical record.

Ross made essentially the same point.

He said that even if excavation eventually failed to confirm what many Canadians initially believed, the history would remain.

“Let’s say you don’t find anything and it’s not confirmed. That doesn’t make the issue of residential schools go away. That doesn’t make the treatment of Aboriginal people in Canada over the last 150 years go away.”

That may be the most important distinction in his argument.

Two propositions can exist simultaneously: Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples, including through residential schools, can represent a profoundly dark period in our history, while individual claims connected to that history can still be subjected to questions and evidentiary standards.

Ross believes collapsing those two things together has made the conversation unnecessarily divisive.

Should residential school denialism be criminalized?

The controversy becomes even more difficult when the discussion shifts from public disagreement to criminal law.

I asked Ross directly whether he opposed criminalizing what is often described as Indian Residential School denialism.

He did.

“I’m against anything that actually restricts the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression.”

Ross’s perspective is partly shaped by Indigenous history itself.

He pointed out that previous generations of First Nations people lived under laws that restricted fundamental freedoms. Indigenous people were denied rights that Canadians now take for granted, while ceremonies such as the potlatch were prohibited and Indigenous communities faced restrictions on their ability to organize politically and pursue legal claims.

That experience makes Ross deeply skeptical about giving governments greater power over speech.

“One of the reasons why I believe so much in freedoms is because First Nations never had it.”

His argument is not that offensive speech should be celebrated.

He repeatedly emphasized tolerance — the ability to hear opinions that may be unpleasant, wrong or offensive without immediately demanding that the state prohibit them.

For Ross, the threshold for criminalizing speech should therefore be extraordinarily high.

That leaves a difficult question.

There are Canadians who believe false claims about residential schools can cause genuine harm, particularly to survivors and Indigenous families. Others worry that vaguely defined denialism laws could capture legitimate disagreement about evidence, including disputes about Kamloops itself.

Ross comes down firmly on the side of protecting the debate.

What should happen now?

Ross’s preferred solution is remarkably concrete.

Excavate.

Verify.

Identify any remains that are found.

Repatriate them where possible.

And then allow the evidence to shape the next stage of the conversation.

“Take the politics out of it and let’s go after truth with facts, and then we can start talking really about reconciliation.”

Whether excavation ultimately happens is not Ross’s decision. There are questions of community authority, cultural practice, legal jurisdiction and the wishes of families that cannot simply be brushed aside.

But his argument raises a legitimate dilemma.

The Kamloops story became a major national event. If the underlying question remains unresolved indefinitely, Canadians will continue filling that uncertainty with competing political narratives.

Those convinced the sites contain unmarked graves may treat further questions as denialism.

Those convinced the original reporting went too far may treat the absence of excavation as evidence that something is being hidden.

Neither response actually settles the factual question.

Ross believes evidence can.

Returning to the question posed in the title, what should happen with the Kamloops 215?

Ross’s answer is that Canada should seek verification without pretending that the outcome determines the entire history of residential schools.

If human remains are confirmed, he believes they should be identified where possible, returned to their communities and honoured properly.

If they are not confirmed, that finding should also be confronted openly.

Either outcome would change the context of the conversation. Neither would erase Canada’s past.

The more difficult question is whether Canadians can create enough space between historical truth and disputed claims to investigate one without appearing to deny the other.

Watch or listen to my full conversation with Ellis Ross and let me know what you think: should excavation and verification be the next step in resolving the controversy surrounding the Kamloops 215?