University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Indigenous Sovereignty and the Treaties of Albany and Niagara

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

The wampum belt is a symbol of sovereignty. Oneida Nation.
Retrieved from <www.oneidaindiannation.com/the-guswenta-two-row-wampum-belt-is-a-symbol-of-sovereignty>

Indigenous Governance requires recognizing sovereignty. As demonstrated in yesterday’s post, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was an early recognition by the British Crown of the sovereignty of Indigenous nations. Early Crown-Indigenous treaties also recognized the sovereignty and right of governance for Indigenous peoples.

Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century treaties were “peace and friendship” agreements that sought allyship, defined territory, and established commercial and economic relationships.[1] Most treaties from the era did not involve cessation of land, but all treaties created relationships with rights and obligations on both sides and were the form of “diplomatic” relations between the European and Indigenous nations.[2]

When early treaties were negotiated, the colonizing powers of Great Britain and France believed that Indigenous nations “had sufficient independence and played a large enough role in North America for it to be good policy to maintain relations with them very close to those maintained between sovereign nations.”[3] The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that the European powers’ use of treaties was a recognition of Indigenous nations as “independent.”[4] Two example of early treaties which recognized Indigenous sovereignty were the Treaties of Albany and Niagara.

The Treaty of Albany, negotiated in 1664, was “the first formal alliance between Aboriginal peoples in North America and the British Crown.”[5] The British, still a relatively weak power in North America, sought a powerful ally in the Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee) for economic and military aid against the French.[6] The agreement at Albany was an affirmation of Iroquois sovereignty and allowed the British and the Haudenosaunee to govern their own peoples, including the retention of exclusive jurisdiction for criminal law.[7] The agreement combined cultural elements from both nations – the British documented the treaty in written text and the Haudenosaunee recorded the agreement on a wampum belt “which was highly valuable and required great skill to fashion” and “demonstrated the sanctity with which they viewed their alliance with the British.”[8]

At the Treaty of Niagara negotiations in 1764, a “nation-to-nation relationship between settler and First Nations people was renewed and extended” and was again documented in both written text and on a wampum belt.[9] The written agreement was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 – the document became a treaty when the Haudenosaunee consented to it at Niagara.[10] The agreement also produced a culturally powerful two-row wampum belt that “recognizes interaction and separation of settler and First Nation societies.”[11] The wampum belt produced at Niagara illustrates a relationship of friendship between the Haudenosaunee and the British, but the parallel rows represent that each nation will remain distinct and “will not interfere with the internal affairs of the other.”[12] The Haudenosaunee cultural understanding of the wampum, read in conjunction with the Royal Proclamation, show that the parties agreed that each nation was to self-govern their own peoples.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has noted that treaties between “Indigenous nations and the Crown established the legal and constitutional foundations of this country”[13] – this foundation rests on mutual agreement between the British Crown and diverse Indigenous nations. Early Crown-Indigenous treaties, such as the Treaties of Albany and Niagara, highlight this recognition of sovereignty. The parties viewed themselves as distinct nations – like the separate but parallel rows on wampum – and these agreements show that the British Crown recognized Indigenous sovereignty and governance prior to Canadian Confederation.

 

Until Next Time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here 

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG: 

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1]John J Borrows & Leonid I Rotman, Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials & Commentary, 5^th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc, 2018) at 285 [Borrows & Rotman].

[2] Ibid at 281.

[3] R v Sioui, [1990] 1 SCR 1025 at 1053.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Borrows & Rotman supra note 1 at 11.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid at 13.

[8] Ibid.

[9] John Borrows, “Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History, and Self-Government” in Michael Asch, ed, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equity, and Respect for Difference (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997) 155 at 161.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid at 164.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada, 2015) at 249.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Image retrieved from Library and Archives Canada

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III on October 7, 1763, following the Crown’s acquisition of French territory in North America under the Paris Treaty of 1763, following the Seven Years War. The Proclamation set out to establish separate colonial governments in the provinces of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada.

However, beyond establishing the limits of these four Crown colonies, the Proclamation is particularly significant for Indigenous governance in the fact that it reserved a large area of North America – specifically, the area West of the Appalachians, but excluding Quebec and Rupert’s Land (owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company) – for the exclusive use and possession of Indigenous peoples. It is for this reason that the Proclamation is also referred to as the “Indian Magna Carta”:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.[1]

In delineating the bounds of the colonial governments, the Proclamation explicitly states that the land not ceded to by Indigenous peoples was reserved to them, so that they might not be “molested or disturbed”: 

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.[2]

Following this, the Proclamation “strictly forbid” all subjects from purchasing or settling on the reserved lands. It further set out that, in order to prevent any “frauds and abuses” occurring in the future, no private person could purchase reserved land, except with leave of the Crown, who could only purchase land from the Indigenous peoples:

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians, In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement; but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie; and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose.[3]

While at once affirming the rights of Indigenous peoples over their lands, the Proclamation is filled with statements that claim “Dominion” and “Sovereignty” over those territories, and speaks of the Crown’s “Protection” over the Indigenous peoples: “In placing these divergent notions within the Proclamation the British were trying to convince Native people that they had nothing to fear from the colonists, while at the same time trying to increase their own political and economic power.”[4]

The Royal Proclamation is argued by some to still be valid in Canada, given the fact that no other statute has overturned it.[5] It is, in fact, explicitly enshrined in Section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982, relating to the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including:

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and 

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

The relevant excerpt of the Proclamation can be read here.[6]

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

[1] “Royal Proclamation, 1763”, Indigenous Foundations, online: <https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/royal_proclamation_1763/>

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] John J. Borrows and Leonard I. Rotman, “Governance” in Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials & Commentary, 5^th edition, eds. John J. Borrows and Leonard I. Rotman (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2018) at 17.

[5] “Royal Proclamation, 1763”, supra note 1.

[6] Ibid.

Advertising Happiness: The Perpetuation and Normalization of the Sixties Scoop

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Old newspaper clippings advertise for the adoption of Indigenous children. Photo retrieved from: <www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ottawa-not-responsible-for-scoop-1.3874889>.

The pursuit of happiness is often dubbed the ultimate goal. To be happy has been understood to mean you have achieved a certain status or threshold in life.  However, “while everyone should have the ability to be equally happy, happiness privileges groups who tend to prosper economically. Happiness is, therefore, a condition that is attributed to objects.”[1] In particular, the article discussed in today’s blog investigates how “the settler family figures as a happy object and the internationality of happiness.”[2]

From 1964 to 1982, a dedicated column called Today’s Child ran in the Toronto Telegram and the Toronto Star. This column advertised children available for adoption.[3] During its run, a total of 4300 children were featured in 3299 columns.[4] Approximately 26% of the children featured in the column were Indigenous – a startling statistic, given that fact that over the life of the column, the Indigenous population made up “1.2 to 1.5% of the total population.”[5] This column contributed immensely to the Sixties Scoop, a period where, between 1960 and 1980, “one in three Indigenous children were being removed from their homes and placed in foster care or adoptive homes.”[6] In particular, the daily advertisements perpetuated and normalized the forceful removal of children from their Indigenous communities by constructing a narrative of happiness which fed into colonial conceptions of family.[7]

In “Advertising ‘Happy’ Children: The Settler Family, Happiness and the Indigenous Child Removal System”, Daniella Bendo et al. provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of happiness, as constructed by these columns. The following excerpt explains the correlation the most effectively:

The Today’s Child thematically figures the family as space of happiness. The colonising family becomes a happy object; the Indigenous family is erased from the child’s ongoing narrative. The narratives about the children suggest that they do not have parents before adoption, as the presence of their biological families is intentionally erased. The space of happiness is within a family for the children and the adults to whom the column appeals. For the children, the column claimed to grant them happiness by giving them a family, suggesting that without being in a family, the child would never be happy.[8]

Ultimately, settler families saw adopting a less privileged child as a way to fulfill and provide happiness to both their families and the Indigenous child.[9] Ignorantly referred to as “Indianness” in the columns, having an Indigenous culture was associated with a bad childhood or unhappiness.[10] The columns made it seem that the only way these children could be “saved” was to be adopted by parents who accepted their “Indian culture.”[11]

This column single-handedly normalized and perpetuated the Sixties Scoop. It made settler families believe that the only way for these “parentless” children to be happy was to be adopted. The message being advertised is effectively that the forceful removal of Indigenous children from their families brings happiness. It is clear that such advertisement was detrimental to not only the children in the column, but also to their families and their Indigenous communities.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here 

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG: 

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1] Daniella Bendo et al., “Advertising ‘Happy’ Children: The Settler Family, Happiness and the Indigenous Child Removal System” (2019) 33 Children & Society at 399-413 DOI: <10.111/chso.12335> [Bendo].

[2] Ibid at 402.

[3] Ibid at 399.

[4] Ibid at 403.

[5] Ibid at 405.

[6] Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies Steering Committee, “Working With First Nations, Inuit and Metis Families Who Have Experienced Family Violence: A Practical Guide for Child Welfare Professionals” (2015) (Government of Ontario: Ontario, CA).

[7] Bendo, supra note 1 at 399.

[8] Ibid at 405.

[9] Ibid at 406.

[10] Ibid at 407.

[11] Ibid.

A Brief History of Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

"The Residential School System", United Church Archives, Toronto, from Mission to Partnership Collection. Photo retrieved from: <www.indigenousfoundations.artc.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/>.

 

In today’s blog post we provide an overview of the history of the Indigenous child welfare system in Canada. In particular, we will be discussing the Indian Residential School (IRS) System, the Sixties Scoop, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), and the Millennium Scoop.

Residential Schools
Canada’s Indian Residential School System began in the 19^th century as the Canadian government felt it was responsible for the care of Indigenous people in Canada.[1] The government believed that it was imperative that Indigenous children learn English and adopt Christianity.[2] If this was to occur, it was believed that “they would pass their adopted lifestyle on to their children, and native traditions would diminish, or be completely abolished in a few generations.”[3]

1931 was the peak of the residential school System.[4] At that point, “there were a total of about 130 schools in every territory and province except Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.”[5] The last residential school in Canada closed in 1996.[6] In total, 150,000 Indigenous Peoples were forced to attend residential schools.[7]

Within these schools, children were subjected to “substandard conditions and physical and emotional abuse.”[8] There were also many cases of sexual abuse.[9] Siblings were often separated and communication with their parents mostly occurred in English, a language that many Indigenous Peoples could not read.[10] This segregation and isolation has had lifelong impacts for Survivors.[11]

In 2007, “the federal government formalized a $1.9-billion compensation package for those who were forced to attend residential schools.”[12] The compensation was known as the Common Experience Payments and was available to “all residential school students who were alive as of May 30, 2005.”[13]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC)
As a response to the atrocities suffered in the Residential Schools, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) was established on June 1, 2008.[14] A few of the Commission’s goals included: 

1. Acknowledge Residential School experiences, impacts and consequences;
2. Provide a holistic, culturally appropriate and safe setting for former students, their families and communities as they come forward to the Commission;
3. Witness, support, promote and facilitate truth and reconciliation events at both the national and community levels;
4. Promote awareness and public education of Canadians about the IRS system and its impacts[…][15]

During the TRC’s operation, it “[gained] access to more of the 3.5 million documents held by the federal government related to residential schools.”[16] The hope was that with information, there would be a “stronger case for genocide in Canada.”[17]

Although the Commission’s office is now closed, the TRC’s findings and other information can be found here.[18] Having history on record and ensuring that this information is available to the public is essential in educating non-Indigenous Canadians on the atrocities suffered and ensuring that actions are taken towards Reconciliation.

Sixties Scoop
As defined in an article within The Canadian Encyclopedia:

The “Sixties Scoop” refers to the large-scale removal or “scooping” of Indigenous children from their homes, communities and families of birth through the 1960s, and their subsequent adoption into predominantly non-Indigenous, middle-class families across the United States and Canada. This experience left many adoptees with a lost sense of cultural identity.[19]

The term “Sixties Scoop” was first used in Patrick Johnson’s 1983 report entitled Native Children and the Child Welfare System where he discussed the apprehension of Indigenous children.[20] Beginning in 1951,[21] the Sixties Scoop was made possible by the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous child welfare to the provinces per Section 88 of the Indian Act.[22]

Instead of providing the Indigenous communities with further resources and support, the federal government decided to remove children from their homes.[23] Furthermore, ”by the late 1960s, [Indigenous children] made up just over one-third [of children in protective services].”[24] According to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, there were approximately 11,132 Indigenous children adopted between 1960 and 1990.[25] It has been suggested that this number is likely closer to 20,000.[26]

Millennium Scoop
In 2011, John Beaucage, Ontario’s Aboriginal adviser to the Minister of Child and Youth,[27] released a report entitled Children First where he coined the term “Millennium Scoop.”[28] Much like the Sixties Scoop, the Millennium Scoop sees Indigenous children being taken from their parents and being placed into the foster care system.

Statistics show that “Aboriginal people make up two per cent of Ontario’s population, but 10 to 20 per cent of the children [are] in [foster] care.”[29] In fact, there are “more First Nations children in care right now than at the height of the residential school system.”[30]

It is clear that action must be taken to stop the perpetuation of the past. As John Beaucage emphasized within the Children First report, we must “learn from the past and not continue down the path that will lead to another lost generation.”[31] Team ReconciliAction YEG’s goal is to inform you, our reader, in the hopes that we can come together and elicit change.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1] CBC News, “A History of Residential Schools in Canada” (16 May 2008), CBC News, online: <www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280> [perma.cc/X77C-7WN9] [CBC News].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, “Our Mandate”, online: <www.trc.ca/about-us/our-mandate.html> [perma.cc/ZFF4-Q2YF] [TRC].

[16] CBC News, supra note 1.

[17] Ibid.

[18] TRC, supra note 15.

[19] Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair & Sharon Dainard, “Sixties Scoop” in The Canadian Encyclopedia, online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sixties-scoop/> [perma.cc/KWS4-56ND] [“Sixties Scoop”].

[20] Patrick Johnston, Native Children and the Welfare System (Toronto: Council on Social Development in Association with James Lorimer &  Co.).

[21] CBC News, supra note 1.

[22] Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, <canlii.ca/t/5333k> retrieved on 2019-10-25.

[23]  “Sixties Scoop”, supra note 19.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Colleen Simard, “An Inside Look at the ‘Millennium Scoop”, Winnipeg Free Press (6 August 2011), online:<www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/an-inside-look-at-the-millennium-scoop-127059148.html www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/> [perma.cc/8L6H-NX59] [Simard].

[28] John Beaucage, “Children First: The Aboriginal Advisor’s Report on the status of Aboriginal child welfare in Ontario” (2011), online: <www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/indigenous/child_welfare-2011.aspx> [ perma.cc/MAU6-DKA5] [Beaucage].

[29] Simard, supra note 27.

[30] Canadian Press, “The Millennium Scoop: Native Children in Care Surpass Residential School Era”, McGill Newsroom (31 August 2011), online: <www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/canadian-press-millenium-scoop-native-children-care-surpass-residential-school-era-176814> [perma.cc/QS94-ARLJ].

[31] Beaucage, supra note 28.

Intro to Child Welfare: The Origins of Systemic Factors Affecting Indigenous Children and Youth

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

MMIWG Commissioner Michèle Audette and jingle dancer Fatima at the Family and Child Welfare Hearings in Winnipeg, Manitoba in October 2018. Photo retrieved from <www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/photo-gallery/winnipeg-mb-family-supports/>

ReconciliAction YEG recognizes that our discussions on MMIWG2S+ and the child welfare system in Canada may be upsetting and/or triggering for some readers. If you require immediate emotional assistance, there is a 24/7 toll-free line at 1-855-242-3310 which provides immediate, culturally competent support and crisis intervention. The service is available in English, French, Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktut. More health support services can be found online at The Lifeline Canada Foundation.[1]

Over the next several weeks ReconciliAction YEG will explore the relationship between child welfare in Canada and Indigenous Peoples. This week, we provide an introduction and background information on the topic, while the next two weeks will focus on the impact and influence of the child welfare system on Indigenous families, communities, mothers, and on the children and youth themselves. Today’s post will discuss the connection between our previous topic of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ peoples to the topic of child welfare.

A prominent theme in Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (the “Final Report”) is the interconnectedness of numerous contributing factors which lead to, among other things, violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ peoples.[2] Contributing factors include multigenerational and intergenerational trauma; social marginalization; poverty; inadequate housing; homelessness; barriers to education, employment, health care, and cultural support; and the displacement of Indigenous Peoples from traditional roles in communities and governance.[3] Many of these factors originated in the system of family care systems created by the government, first in the form of residential schools, and later in the form of child welfare.[4]

History of Child Welfare
Historically, Indigenous children were placed in care in the form of residential schools as a part of the Government of Canada’s assimilation mandate in the early days of Confederation. The violence inflicted upon many Indigenous children in those years included malnourishment; emotional, physical and mental abuse; unsafe living conditions; and separation from and loss of language and culture. These experiences directly contribute to the present intersecting issues of “poverty, unstable and unsafe housing, systemic discrimination, substance abuse, and other individual, family, and community health concerns” experienced by Indigenous people today.[5] Indigenous children and youth continue to be placed in care due to the perpetuation of these issues, as well as for a number of other reasons (to be explored in our posts in the weeks ahead), such as stigmatization of Indigenous parents’ ability to care for their children.

Contemporary Child Welfare
The actions of the child welfare system continue to result in the substantive violence experienced by MMIWG2S+. Firstly, child welfare necessarily results in the severing of the relationship between mothers and children. As the traditional keepers of their languages and cultures, Indigenous women are prevented from passing on Indigenous language and culture when their children are apprehended into care.[6] Loss of the ability to connect to one’s language and culture is directly linked to detrimental effects on Indigenous Peoples’ health and wellness, which is in turn linked to Indigenous Peoples’ safety.[7] Even when Indigenous children and youth are placed in loving environments, they experience the loss of family, language and culture. The reality of these losses, combined with racialized power dynamics results in an intense struggle for Indigenous Persons aging out of care to reconcile their personal and cultural identities and to situate themselves within the world.[8]

Child welfare systems have also subjected children to significant abuse, often leading Indigenous youth to run away and “grow up” on the streets.[9] Inadequate funding and infrastructure for support services for children and youth both while they are in care and when they transition out of care leads to an increased risk those children will end up homeless, struggle with poverty, engage in substance abuse and exploitation or resort to criminal behaviour.[10] For those apprehended and placed in care as children, the systems of treatment create a pattern of distrust for government services as a whole and contribute to Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ peoples to avoid seeking out help in the future.[11] The risks associated with child welfare on Indigenous children and youth puts them at risk and leads to their increased vulnerability and likelihood of coming into contact with later forms of violence.[12]

Canada’s child welfare system is in crisis and ReconciliAction YEG is aiming in this segment to provide a thoughtful and critical probe into the past and current child welfare system as it involves Indigenous children and youth. As always, our aim is reconciliation and reconciliation includes moving forward. So, laced throughout our discourse you will find an emphasis on the ways progress is being made toward that goal. More importantly, you will note the hope that results from the persistent and powerful presence and strength of Indigenous Peoples in the midst of the past and present challenges of Canada’s history.

We look forward to exploring this important topic with you.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here 

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG: 

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1] ‘Aboriginals’ in “Resources Gallery” (last visited 22 October 2019), online: The Lifeline Canada Foundation <thelifelinecanada.ca/resources/first-nation-metis-and-inuit/> [perma.cc/E2GQ-TQZG].

[2] National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, “Final Report” (last visited 19 October 2019), online: National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls <www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/> [perma.cc/5JVQ-BDXY].

[3] Ibid.

[4][4] Canada, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, vol 1a (Vancouver: Privy Council Office, 2019) at 280-283, Cat. No.: CP32-163/2-1-2019E-PDF, online (pdf): <www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf> [perma.cc/S6T7-GLBL].

[5] Holly A. McKenzie et al, “Disrupting the Continuities Among Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and Child Welfare: An Analysis of Colonial and Neocolonial Discourses” (2016) 7:2 Art 4 Intl Indigenous Policy J at 8 (DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.4).

[6] Canada, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, vol 1b (Vancouver: Privy Council Office, 2019) at 100, 111, Cat. No.: CP32-163/2-2-2019E-PDF, online (pdf): <www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1b.pdf> [perma.cc/4EMC-VSE2].

[7] Supra note 3 at 119-120; See also National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, Culture and Language as Social Determinants of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Health, (Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2016), online (pdf): <www.nccih.ca/docs/determinants/FS-CultureLanguage-SDOH-FNMI-EN.pdf> [perma.cc/DBZ8-KRJW].

[8] McKenzie, supra note 5 at 7.

[9] Supra note 3 at 281.

[10] Supra note 4 at 114; McKenzie, supra note 5 at 8-9.

[11] Supra note 3 at 233.

[12] Ibid at 110-122.

Edmonton’s Own Hospital of Horrors

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

 

“Charles Camsell Indian Hospital” Edmonton, Alberta. Photo retrieved from: https://edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/books/book-explores-edmonton-indian-hospital-horrors-and-healing-since.

 

As we continue our week discussing trauma and oppression throughout Canada, today’s post will look at traumatic experiences of Indigenous persons in a setting a lot closer to home for many of our readers: the Charles Camsell (Indian) Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta.

The Charles Camsell was founded in 1913. Originally a Jesuit College for boys, the hospital was later sold to the Government of Canada and began operation as a hospital for the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps. With the rise of tuberculosis (TB) diagnoses of First Nations, particularly the Inuit, the government later approved the hospital for conversion to a TB hospital. [1] 

In combating the TB crisis, Indigenous persons from Alberta, the Yukon and parts of the Northwest Territories were often forcibly removed from their families and communities to live in the Charles Camsell.[2] Sadly, many of the patients never saw their families again.

While at the hospital, Indigenous patients received medical care that often went far beyond the usual practices to combat TB. Accounts of the traumatic and oppressive practices have been the subject of many news stories, books and documentaries over the past two decades. Such experiences include children being routinely tied up at night (face down), so they would not cause disruptions to other patients and medical staff.[3] Further experiences of abuse within the hospital include experimental surgeries, drug testing, forced sterilization and shock treatment. In addition, allegations of sexual assault, beatings, isolation in rooms for long periods of time, food and drink deprivation, forced feeding and forcible eating of patients’ own vomit have been made by victims of the Camsell’s staff. [4]  

Of the above horrific experiences, stories of forced sterilization have been revealed increasingly over time by ex-patients of the Camsell. The practice of forced, or coerced, sterilization was seen as legitimate due to Alberta’s legislation at the time, the Sexual Sterilization Act. The Government of Alberta created the Act as a means to “protect the gene pool” thus allowing the sterilization of individuals living in government-run institutions who were deemed to have “undesirable traits”. Although enacted in 1928, it took over 40 years to come to an end, having finally been repealed in 1972. [5]

One such story of the forced sterilization of Indigenous women while in the care of the Charles Camsell came from Priest Rene Fumoleau. Fumoleau indicated that some women from Denendeh, located in the Northwest Territories, came to him with concerns of why they were no longer able to have children. Upon further medical assessment, the women discovered that following the birth of their children in the Camsell Hospital, they had been sterilized without their permission or knowledge of the procedure. As a result of the practices flowing from the Sexual Sterilization Act, and claims against these horrifying practices, the Government of Alberta has paid out more than $50 million to those wrongfully sterilized under the Act.[6]

Many Indigenous patients lost their lives while in the care of the Camsell Hospital. One Elder remembers being drafted from a nearby Residential School to make numerous graves in the frozen ground, describing the deceased as “some in boxes, some wrapped in blankets, some in pieces.”[7]

The ReconciliAction YEG Team acknowledges the horrific practices that many Indigenous patients fell victim to over two decades of operations at the Charles Camsell Indian Hospital. We remember those that were lost, and honour those still suffering. Awîyak mistahi kiteyemiht (to honour someone).

Until next time,

 

Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Collete Leung, “Charles Camsell Indian Hospital”, Eugenics Archive Canada (12 October 2014), online: https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/institutions/map/543a2cb5d2e5248e4000001a.

[2] Fish Griwkowsky, “Book explores Edmonton ‘Indian hospital’ horrors - and healing since”, Edmonton Journal (1 March 2017), online: https://edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/books/book-explores-edmonton-indian-hospital-horrors-and-healing-sinc [Hospital horrors].

[3] Ibid.

[4] Michele LeTourneau, “Filmmaker seeks Inuit treated at Camsell”, Nunavut News (19 May 2018), online: https://nunavutnews.com/nunavut-news/filmmaker-seeks-inuit-treated-at-camsell/.

[5] Luke Kersten, “Alberta passes Sexual Sterilization Act”, Eugenics Archive Canada (24 October 2018), online: https://eugenicsarchive.ca/database/documents/5172e81ceed5c6000000001d.

[6] Sabrina Whyatt, “Sterilization victims urged to come forward”, Windspeaker (1998), online: https://ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/sterilization-victims-urged-come-forward-0.

[7] Hospital horrors, supra note 2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

ILSA Speaker Series: Maria Campbell

Image retrieved from https://www.congress2017.ca/calendar/1004.

“Our stories had seasons and cycles, some stories were about family, others were about heroes and the people we grew up with.” - Maria Campbell, from the ILSA’s Annual Aboriginal Law Speaker Series, March 9, 2018.

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

    Today we conclude our week’s coverage on the Aboriginal Law Speaker Series, with an overview of Friday’s speaker: Maria Campbell. Campbell is a a Métis author, playwright, theatre producer, filmmaker, broadcaster, educator, and Elder. Her first book, a memoir titled Half-Breed, continues to be taught in schools across Canada. Famous for her story-telling, it was only fitting that Campbell presented the audience with a series of stories, all drawing back to the title of her talk, “Wahkohtowin and Indigenous Justice.”

    Before Campbell began to share her stories, she warned us of what we may lose when we recount a story. She made a comparison to a cup, explaining, “we pull a word out and we look at it, and we try to deconstruct it. As Indigenous people, many of us are doing that, and what we’re doing is leaving a lot of stuff in the cup.” Campbell explained that this is the reason that it’s difficult to teach the Cree concept of wahkohtowin (meaning the laws that govern all relations). She explained how the “story belongs to these words,” and that “once you take them out of the stories they don’t work anymore.” Despite these challenges, Campbell recounted the stories told to her, along with her own stories, in an effort to help the audience understand the meaning of wahkohtowin.

    One story in particular was a family story, describing when Campbell returned home for the Summer holidays to spend time with her father. She asked her father if he had any moose meat, but not having any at the time, he set out on a three day hunting trip for their feast. On the third morning of his trip, he took a canoe out onto the lake. He stayed on the edge of the lake searching, eventually finding a moose eating water lilies. He picked up his gun and raised it to shoot the moose, but suddenly the moose looked up, locking eyes with her father. He could sense the moose questioning him, “why are you doing this grandson? I always gave myself to you, why do you want to shoot me now? This is not what you should do to the relatives.” Her father put his gun down. The moose had always taken care of their family when they were hungry and needed food. Campbell recalled that her father never hunted again after this experience, concluding that you shouldn’t hunt because you have a right to hunt, but rather for sustenance, to survive.

    Another story Campbell shared was of the beaver, being the closest relative to humans, with marriages occurring between the two long ago. She spoke of a time when her father had set traps to catch a beaver, waking up to find all the traps were sprung. Asking a nearby Elder why this happened, the Elder responded, “that’s because there is an old man beaver here, you have to move someplace else because he doesn’t want you trapping here.” The following day he set up a better trap, and returned to find the beaver’s hind leg caught in the trap (he had chewed it off to escape). At this point, her father understood what it meant to break something – he was so ashamed. Many years later, he was diagnosed with gangrene in his leg. The night before his surgery to amputate his leg he said to Campbell, “I always knew that old beaver was going to come and get my leg.” Finally understanding the Elder’s explanation: once you do something to an animal, it will get back to you.

    Although the above stories only brush the surface of what Campbell shared with the audience, they do provide us with a better understanding of how stories are intertwined with the concept of wahkohtowin. How everything is interconnected – our roles and obligations to each other, animals, and all of the things that live within wahkohtowin. Campbell concluded by encouraging the audience to seek out the knowledge keepers, so that these stories aren’t lost (something key to ensuring Indigenous laws continue to exist). Echoing the words of Thomas King, she stated “the truth about stories is, that’s all we are.”

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

 

ILSA Speaker Series: Darcy Lindberg

Image retrieved from https://twitter.com/Darcy13Lindberg 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Every year at the University of Alberta, the Aboriginal Law Speaker Series is organized by the Indigenous Law Students’ Association and hosted by the Faculty of Law. This year’s theme was Indigenous Law: Theory & Practice and it featured some of the biggest names from contemporary Indigenous legal scholarship in Canada. For the rest of this week, we will provide you with a brief overview of each speaker, beginning with Darcy Lindberg’s presentation “Practicing Our Relations Beautifully: The Role of Aesthetics in the Vitality of Nehiyaw Law.”

        Lindberg is of Nehiyaw heritage and has relations in Samson Cree Nation in Alberta. He is currently a lawyer and PhD student studying the legal theories of the Plains Cree peoples, especially as found in their relationships to lands, waters, and animals. His research interests also include Indigenous stories, songs, ceremonies, and protocols, and the laws contained within them.

        As Lindberg pointed out last Monday, there is an important difference between Indigenous laws and Aboriginal law – the former refers to Indigenous legal orders that come from and exists within Indigenous communities; the latter refers to Canadian law, and how it has reacted to and dealt with Indigenous peoples. Throughout his talk, Lindberg revisited the themes of persuasion and disruption, and ultimately chose to focus on Indigenous laws.

        He drew the audience in with four stories. In the first story, “Buffalo Lake,” Lindberg told the audience about how the lake came to be. He spoke about the ways that passing this story down through generations also meant passing down the legal knowledge it holds as the people in the story have specific obligations to each other and to the land and animals on it. He then told “Buffalo Stone,” a story that includes specific protocol for how to hunt in an ethical and sustainable way. Lindberg noted that the law in this story ensured the balance between taking from the land and giving back to it would be maintained. He said that these stories also shed light on the idea of disruption and the ways that these relationships have been interrupted today.

        Lindberg’s third story was a shared one – “How Canada Came to Be.” By looking at policies of separation (such as taking land from Indigenous peoples to provide to settlers, the reservation system, and the residential school system), the story tells us not only about the violence that has been done to Indigenous peoples and cultures, but also the violence that has been done to Indigenous legal orders. Lindberg was quick to remind listeners that resistance has always accompanied the violence. For example, in response to sweats being banned, people took to doing sweat lodge ceremonies in their kitchens just to keep it alive. He also encouraged the audience to consider how this history has led to the injustices that we see today, in particular, the killing of Colten Boushie.

        The fourth and final story was “Wasakechak and the Dog Council” and Lindberg said this is one of those stories where we learn not only from the main character’s wisdom, but also from his mistakes. The story exemplified what happens when there are power imbalances and (unwelcome) intervention. A member of the audience asked Lindberg whether he interpreted the story as providing a commentary on the current trend of reconciliation. His answer drew attention to the tension between what stories mean versus what they mean to different individuals, and he explained that interpretation is often unique to the listener. Leaving the interpretation up to the listeners, he said, most of the time “the stories I’ve been told do not come with an interpretation from the storyteller.”

        Drawing Indigenous laws from stories is less about pinpointing a single takeaway and more about identifying different principles, processes, and relations, and figuring out how they might be applied today. In the end, Lindberg persuaded the audience of the relevance that Indigenous laws hold in contemporary contexts, and disrupted our understanding of what law in Canada looks like now with his ideas about what it can be. His captivating introduction set the stage for a week of exciting and important conversations about Indigenous laws. Come back tomorrow to hear about Tuesday’s speaker, James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson!

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

If Louis Riel Was Tried Today...

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Today is Louis Riel Day in Manitoba.[1] Celebrated since 2008, this day commemorates the Métis leader, visionary, and advocate for social justice. At a national level, Riel is also remembered on November 16 – the day of his execution and the result of one of this country’s most infamous trials. As we pay homage to Riel’s life and reflect on its early end, this post considers how his trial might go differently if heard today…

        Riel was born in 1844 in the Red River Settlement (now Manitoba). Riel’s early days were spent in training for priesthood and later, a career as a lawyer. By the time he was 25, more pressing matters were at stake, and Riel changed course to take on a role in politics. It was the era of confederation, and by March 1869, the Hudson’s Bay Company had “agreed to sell Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory to the Dominion of Canada.”[2]  Riel and his community were concerned about what this would mean and in response the Métis National Committee was organized “in order to protect the social, cultural and political status of the Métis in Red River and the Northwest more generally.”[3]

        Shortly thereafter, Riel was elected president and the Committee was consolidated into the provisional government of the Red River Settlement. After overcoming an armed attempt to overthrow their legitimate leadership, the provisional government tried and executed a member of the anti-French and anti-Catholic opposition, Thomas Scott. This decision would have dire consequences for Riel in the coming years and eventually led to his exile from Canada in 1875. First, however, the provisional government negotiated the Manitoba Act, joining the province to Canada, reserving 1.4 million acres (566,560 hectares) for the children of the Métis residents of Manitoba, and providing some protection for French language rights.[4]

        Jumping ahead to 1884, Riel was living and working in Montana. Led by Gabriel Dumont, a group of Métis people asked Riel to aid them in protecting their rights in the North-West Territories (modern day Saskatchewan).[5] Riel accepted the invitation and worked with the Batoche Métis to inform the federal government of the ways that it was failing to make good on promises made. After ongoing lack of action or response from Ottawa, a provisional government was formed with Riel as the president. The fight that followed, known as the North-West Resistance, began in March of 1885 and ended approximately two months later.[6] The Métis were unsuccessful and a formal charge of treason was laid against Riel on July 6, 1885. Between his surrender and the date of trial, Riel was incarcerated in the police barracks in Regina where he was not allowed visitors and was forced to wear “a ball and chain whenever he entered the barrack yard.”[7]

Image depicts Louis Riel addressing the jury during his trial. Image retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/media/8127/.

        Riel’s trial lasted just four days.[8] Most will agree that “the particulars of Riel’s trial show a process highly suspect in being able to provide a free and fair judicial process.”[9] The lawyers appointed to represent Riel “were highly incompetent,”[10] and submitted a plea of insanity against their client’s wishes (Riel wished to plead self-defence and argue that both his and the Métis’s actions were justified[11]). It was only in closing arguments that Riel was able to have his voice heard, but the court wasn’t interested in what he had to say: “Riel, working hard to find the right English words for his story, spoke for over an hour until Judge Richardson interrupted to ask, ‘Are you done?’”[12] Even though “Canadian law did not allow a capital case to be decided by a mere six jurors,”[13] Riel’s trial included a jury of six white Protestant men who had arguably decided he was guilty long before they ever walked into the courtroom in Regina. They “deliberated Riel's fate for an hour,”[14] found him guilty, but recommended a sentence less than death in an example of racist reasoning that alluded to the federal government having had a hand in causing the rebellions to occur in the first place.[15] Regardless, Riel was sentenced to death. Ironically, “the question of whether or not Riel had broken either British of Canadian law”[16] was never determined.

        If Riel was tried today, the Charter[17] would have a major effect on the outcome of this case. Although treason is still an offence under the Criminal Code,[18] there is no guarantee that the Crown could make out the necessary elements of the offence. Even if successful, the maximum sentence would be life imprisonment (capital punishment was formally abolished in Canada in 1976). Further, Riel would have a strong argument that he was denied his Charter rights – he does not appear to have been presumed innocent until proven guilty;[19] his hearing was in front of a clearly biased, partial tribunal;[20] and the conditions of his pre-trial incarceration arguably amount to cruel and unusual treatment.[21] His lawyers did not represent his interests, and the various elements of his identity clearly led to unequal and discriminatory treatment by Canada’s judicial system.[22] Finally, if Riel was not criminally responsible for his alleged offences by reason of mental disorder, proper evidence could be advanced to demonstrate that. No matter how it all played out, one thing is certain – Riel would not be hanged at the age of 41.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] See Louis Riel Day: Remembering Manitoba’s Founding Father, “Home” online: http://louisrielday.com.

[2] Canadian Encyclopedia, “Louis Riel” online: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/louis-riel/.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Professor Douglas O. Linder, “The Trial of Louis Riel: An Account” in Famous Trials (University of Missouri – Kansas City, 1995-2008), online: http://www.famous-trials.com/louisriel/855-home.

[8] “Canada, A People’s History: The Fate of Louis Riel” CBC Learning (2001), online: http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP10CH4PA4LE.html.

[9] Kurt Boyer, “1885 – Aftermath” Our Legacy (A cooperative online resource developed by University of Saskatchewan Archives, University of Saskatchewan Library, and Pahkisimon Nuye?ah Library System), online: http://digital.scaa.sk.ca/ourlegacy/exhibit_aftermath.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Canadian Encyclopedia, supra note 2.

[12] Linder, supra note 7.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Canadian Encyclopedia, supra note 2.

[17] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

[18] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 46-47.

[19] Charter, supra note 2, at s 11(d).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Charter, supra note 2, at s 12.

[22] Ibid, at s 15.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

An Interview with Matthew Wildcat

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Today, we are proud to present a two-part special to open our week. In part one, we interview Matthew Wildcat, a local scholar with some brilliant ideas about reconciliation, politics, and Indigenous governance. In part two, we feature Matt’s guest-authored article, “Reflections on a Shared Future Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Peoples.” Enjoy!

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

PART ONE

Can you tell our readers a little bit about yourself?

I'm from Maskwacis, AB which is a Nehiyaw (Plains Cree) community composed of four First Nations. I'm a member of Ermineskin Cree Nation and grew up on Ermineskin reserve. I cherish my upbringing and ongoing connection to Maskwacis and Ermineskin and these connections have shaped my identity and self-understandings in profound ways.

From an academic standpoint I was lucky enough to go through undergraduate and graduate training right when Indigenous professors were gaining a small but sizable foothold in the academy. I have an undergrad in Native Studies from University of Alberta, a Masters of Arts in Indigenous Governance from University of Victoria and will soon complete a PhD in Political Science from University of British Columbia. In those three degrees I was taught or supervised by nine different Indigenous professors and I feel extraordinarily lucky that I was able to benefit from the decades of hard work that Indigenous peoples put into the academy to set up the training I was able to undertake. 

In your piece posted as part two of today’s blog, you call for an end to trauma-based narratives of reconciliation – can you summarize why you believe this to be such an integral part of decolonization?

It is not so much that we should do away entirely with narratives that discuss Indigenous trauma. This has been a central part of Indigenous histories. But when people attempt to learn about reconciliation solely through a focus on Indigenous trauma, we immediately skew the terms of what reconciliation should look like. If the problem of colonization is simply Indigenous pain and suffering, then we can go about addressing that without questioning bigger questions of how Canadian society sets up its political systems and economy - questions that Glen Coulthard explores in his recent book Red Skins White Masks. These questions would force us to question say how we use land or treat water, and question an orientation that prioritizes extractive development over Indigenous perspectives of land use. It will be hard to achieve decolonization without Canadian society transforming itself to make space for increased Indigenous power and influence. 

The other part of focusing solely on trauma is that it hides the many contributions Indigenous peoples can make towards a healthier society. For instance, I was recently invited to do a talk for a class at a local organization. I think Nehiyaw traditions can greatly contribute to lessons on leadership, but most of the day focused on the history of Indigenous trauma. To be sure, when programs are planning curriculum, they need to ensure their students have a proper understanding of colonialism and this is difficult because in Canada today we can't assume people have an understanding of this past, so programs need to make sure that type of training happens as well. But when programs attempt to include Indigeneity in their training it cannot start and end with a focus on trauma.

As a last aside for people who want to understand these issues in much more depth and complexity, they should follow the newest work of Audra Simpson who looks at how reconciliation as a paradigm governs through affect (or in a more colloquial sense, how reconciliation is built around Native people shedding tears for white people). 

In your talk at the Reconciliation: Wahkohtowin conference in September 2017, you spoke of “wahkohtowin as a political language” and advocated for “political decision-making that moves away from Indian Act governance towards relationship-based philosophies.” Can you expand on this?

It is relatively uncontroversial to say that we should get rid of the Indian Act. In the past, the Indian Act did give us protection against 'white paper liberalism' - the strategy where all forms of legal and political recognition for Indigenous peoples would end and Indigenous peoples would be assimilated into Canadian society. The Indian Act is a better alternative than our full elimination as peoples - as was articulated by Harold Cardinal - but as countless scholars have documented how Canadian governments and society has many strategies they follow in regard to their relationship with Indigenous peoples. This is not a peace pipe by Dale Turner is one such exploration. So I just want to start by acknowledging that some people may take a position that we should keep the Indian Act and that position makes sense if one believes the only strategy Canada is employing is white paper liberalism.

For myself, I think it’s clear that the generations of activism that Indigenous peoples have undertaken has forced Canadian governments to drop white paper liberalism as their main strategy. To be sure, I think the strategies Canadian governments employ always seek to maintain their dominance over Indigenous peoples. But achieving Canadian dominance can take many forms and we do ourselves a disservice when we assume Canadian governments blindly follow white paper liberalism. Rather, I believe the activism of Indigenous peoples, the sovereignties we enact through the ongoing collective life of our communities and nations, and the moral high ground we hold as the original inhabitants of this land forces Canadian society to change its strategies.

For the majority of Indigenous peoples who believe we should get rid of the Indian Act, there is another flaw that I think we can make. Simply replacing the Indian Act with other forms of legislation will not dramatically alter how Indigenous political orders operate. Sure, communities and nations will gain some greater powers and monies, but the way in which different Indigenous communities and nations relate to each other will not change. For Indigenous governance to dramatically improve we cannot think about how change will occur within a community, we've been working hard to enact these changes for a long time and it hasn't created a lot of change. Rather, we will have to change the relationships between communities. So it is very likely that simply getting rid of the Indian Act will do nothing to change how different communities and nations relate to each other. 

Wahkohtowin simply translates as kinship, but it has bigger implications about how Nehiyaw beliefs around living in a world where everything is related and the work we have to do ensure all of these connections maintain good relationships. For myself, wahkohtowin is a political language Nehiyaw and Metis peoples already use to think about governance. Specifically, for me, it means we have to acknowledge the ways that our communities are always connected through kinship and have areas of shared concern. In Maskwacis we are just finalizing the process of merging four separate school systems into a single system, but one of the main reasons we were able to do this successfully is because Wahkohtowin was a normal everyday part of our conversation about whether merging the four separate systems into one was a good idea. On the other side, many people were concerned with maintaining a form of exclusive authority that would mean each Nation in Maskwacis should operate their own school system. The reason often given was that we needed to do this to protect the treaty right to education (with an assumption the Government was trying to enact white paper liberalism).

It could have been very easy for the community to revert to a logic where each nation valued their exclusive authority over sharing authority in order to create a stronger school system. But wahkohtowin ensured we had a way of discussing why shared authority and being in relationship with each other was enacting traditional philosophies. 

When it comes to your knowledge of and experiences with current structures of Indigenous governance, what do you consider to be the most important factor for effective political praxis?

For me, we need to highlight and praise stories of successful Indigenous governance. If all we focus on is where we have fallen short, it becomes very easy to assume that will continue to happen in the future. If we believe that any time we attempt change that we will not be successful, then change is a huge risk. If we combine that with a philosophy that the government is always attempting to eliminate us as legal and political entities, the logical conclusion is that anytime we attempt major changes we are opening the door up for Canadian governments to further erode our rights and communities. 

But if we acknowledge that as Indigenous peoples, we have many histories of successful governance, then we empower ourselves to believe we can enact changes that will continue these histories of success. And when we believe that, it becomes easier to believe that we can undertake various forms of shared authority and change the way communities and nations relate to each other for the purpose of creating a brighter future. 

PART TWO

Historian Benjamin Madley (2015) has suggested ‘the emphasis on disease as the prime agent of American Indian demographic decline tends to overshadow the equally undeniable role of violence in the population catastrophe’ of Indigenous peoples’ (100).

Madley studies genocide against Indigenous peoples in North America through in-depth analysis of regions that undergo severe Indigenous demographic decline. He developed a typology that examines '1) Annihilationist statements 2) massacres, 3) state-sponsored body-part bounties, and 4) mass death in government custody … [in order to locate, and ultimately define], prima facie cases of genocide' (109).

An example of annihilationist statement by government leader would be that in ‘1886, [future president] Theodore Roosevelt announced, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth’ (110).

In 1890, 200-300 Lakota people were massacred at wounded knee in present day south Dakota, one of 49 incidents where at least 30 Indigenous people were massacred in the western United States in the 1800s (112). The last case of a known government body part bounty program in the United States occurred in 1885 (117). Cases of mass death in government custody include in 1884 - 400 of 2,600 Piegan people died while under government custody in Montana (119).

In Madley’s two specific investigations he provides in his article of Pequot and Yuki people, he found the presences of all four of these markers. For the Pequot of present day New England during the Pequot war in the mid 1600s somewhere between one quarter to 2/3s of all Pequot people were killed and all of the remainder were either enslaved or intentionally scattered (125). The Yuki of present day California experienced a population decline of 90% between 1854 and 1864 (132).

It is impossible to speak of reconciliation without mentioning how many Indigenous people are suspicious of the term. To be Indigenous in this country, is in part, a condition of living with disproportionate levels of violence. Indigenous peoples continue to be saddled with much higher rates of violence and premature death than the rest of the Canadian population, that impact and harm our communities and our personal lives in multiple ways.

And this trauma occurs within a non-Indigenous society that I feel is still largely hostile to Indigenous peoples' claims that a significant amount of change needs to occur to ensure we can live with dignity and that the political authority we hold as Nations is taken seriously.

So when Indigenous peoples hear the term reconciliation, it has led some to suggest reconciliation is a project of reconciling Indigenous peoples with Canadian colonialism (Alfred 2005, 154). Or that reconciliation is a project that assumes we are reconciling past harms, without seriously considering the harms against Indigenous peoples encounter in the present.

When I think about true reconciliation I think about decolonization. While in other contexts decolonization was achieved by colonizers returning to their home country and ceding political power to local people, in situations like Canada we don’t have that option. I refer to the context that we find ourselves in as settler colonialism, because colonialism in this context was built not on foreign rule, but the settlement of a population who did not seek to join a preexisting legal order, but rather sought to supplant the existing Indigenous legal order with the legal order of a settler population who came to stay (Veracini, 2011).

When this process was occurring in this area during the 1870s, Indigenous peoples viewed the arrival of new people as an opportunity for a partnership. For First Nations peoples in this area, the initial terms of this partnership were detailed during the negotiation of Treaty Six in 1876 (Venne 1997).

So in Canada, decolonization does not mean colonizers packing up and leaving (Mack 2010), rather it means the initial practices of settler colonization that are required to continually supplant Indigenous political authority, and have caused a great deal of harm in Indigenous communities, need to be replaced with new practices, structures and attitudes where we become treaty partners.

To do this, I think it requires four things:

1. Repairing harm within Indigenous communities and proactively healing Indigenous communities. We cannot have a healthy treaty partnership if Indigenous peoples continue to suffer. This requires finding a way to talk about the harms Indigenous peoples experience without requiring colonial intervention in our communities (see Irlbacher-Fox (2009) on state dysfunction theodicy).
2. We need to develop Intersocietal law and knowledge. From a legal standpoint it is easy to fall into a conceptual trap where we fully separate Canadian law and Indigenous laws. In the earliest stages of the relationship between Indigenous and European peoples, when power between the two groups was more equal, Indigenous and European peoples developed multiple forms of Intersocietal law (McNeil 2013). The struggle we have before us today is that power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples is no longer equal. To my mind, our challenge is to weave values into the fabric of Canadian society that respects Indigenous sovereignty.

3. There will need to be a redistribution of wealth and reconceptualization of property. This is captured by the analogy that contemporary reconciliation is analogous to someone stealing your bicycle, and then asking for forgiveness but refuses to give the bicycle back. This is going to require a return of land to Indigenous control in some instances and the establishment of robust forms of Intersocietal law in other instances. This is not impossible to do because 89% of Canada is crown land.

4. Finally, we need to abolish within Canadian law the doctrine of discovery, the idea that Canada law gained its legality simply by English people showing up on Canadian shores before other European people did (Asch 2004, McNeil 2013). If we want the legitimacy of Canada to rest on a treaty partnership, instead of on settler colonization, that is what needs to occur.

As parting words, I want to put forward a challenge for everyone. If non-Indigenous people want to authentically engage in reconciliation, a shared understanding of what Canada is will not be the vehicle through which we achieve decolonization. To be sure, if we hope to transform our relations, heal, and work toward decolonization with each other, we will have to talk about and create shared understandings, shared values and generate a shared feeling that we’re capable of living together in a good way. I’m not ruling out the creation of commonalities. What I am saying is that we will not work out a concept of ‘we-ness’ through a shared understanding of what it means to be Canadian or what Canada is.

I believe the impulse within Canadian institutions grappling with Truth and Reconciliation Commission is still a focus on reimaging what Canada is. But this impulse will always privilege Canadian interests that have a great capacity to (consciously or not) set the terms of the debate (Coulthard 2007). In particular, my fear is that a focus on reimagining Canada will simply mean a doubling down on the values and ideals that Canada likes to tell about itself and will not be sufficient to address colonial domination in Canada. What is required is not a reimagining of Canada, but a mindset that is okay with and allows Indigenous peoples to speak of themselves as separate, independent and as exercising a much greater degree of control over the decisions that impact us most.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Taiaiake Alfred, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Toronto: Broadview Press, 2005).

Micheal Asch, ‘Post-Calder, Canada’s Judiciary Struggles to Reconfigure Native Rights’, Cultural Survival Quarterly (28.1 2004, p. 6-9).

Glen Coulthard, ‘Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the “Politics of Recognition” in Canada’, Contemporary Political Theory (6.4 2007, p. 437-460).

Johnny Mack, ‘Hoquotist: Reorienting through Storied Practice’ in Storied Communities: Narratives of Contact and Arrival in the Constitution of Political Community, eds. Lessard, Johnson, Webber (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010).

Benjamin Madley, ‘Reexamining the American Genocide Debate: Meaning, Historiography, and New Methods’, American Historical Review (February 2015, p. 98-139).

Kent McNeil ‘Indigenous Nations and the Legality of European Claims to Sovereignty over Canada’, in Philosophy and Aboriginal Rights: Critical Dialogues, eds. Tomson and Mayer (Oxford and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2013).

Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, Finding Dahshaa: Self-government, Social Suffering And, Aboriginal Policy In Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009).

Sharon Venne, ‘Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous Perspective’, in Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality and Respect for Difference, ed. Michael Asch (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997).

Lorenzo Veracini, ‘Introducing settler colonial studies’, Settler Colonial Studies (1.1 2011, p. 1-12).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

As Long as The Sun Shines, The Grass Grows and The River Flows

Treaty 6 Flag. Image retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/sktreaties/photos.

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

         Our Country has had the tendency throughout its history to look at Treaties through the lens of the Crown, emphasizing that the true intent and meaning of a Treaty stems from the written text. However, the Treaties cannot be understood in isolation.¹ The Indigenous perspective is equally as important in Treaty interpretation, especially as we move forward in reconciliation.

        For Indigenous signatories, the Treaty process was significant to their spiritual traditions, beliefs, and ceremonies.² Elders explain that the starting point of the Treaties is their relationship to the Creator, who

“[gave them] animals for food and shelter, water to drink and to make things grow, trees for shelter, fuel and ceremonies, plants for medicine, rocks to help make fire and for arrowheads...The Creator gave them all that they needed to survive both spiritually and materially.” ³

        As such, the Treaty process was seen as involving three parties: the Crown, the Indigenous, and the Creator. With their laws flowing from the Creator, the Indigenous signatories acknowledged the strength of their promises to one another stemming from the Treaty.  Harold Johnson explains,

“A bond far stronger than any contractual obligations holds us together. Your law of contract and treaty allows for breach and remedy. The Creator’s law does not allow for any breach whatsoever. Failure to comply has consequences, and no matter how severe the failure, the promise never becomes null and void.” ⁴

         The Treaty promises were solemnized with the use of the sacred pipe, as the Indigenous signatories took the Crown’s “ancestors as relatives” in accordance with the law of adoption.⁵ To further strengthen the nature of the Treaty, Alexander Morris, Commissioner of Treaty 6, used the promise “as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the river flows.” This promise indicated the everlasting nature of the Treaty between the Indigenous and the Crown, as it depicted the “spiritual aspects of the sun, the grass, and the river.” When promises are made that invoke such spirits, it is believed that “the maker of the promise and all his descendants are bound by that promise. A promise made to these spirits cannot be broken.” ⁶                                  

        The Indigenous understanding of the meaning and intent of the Treaties shows the importance of the promises made during negotiations, whether written or not, and opens up dialogue on why many promises within the Treaties are not being met today. There cannot be an “enduring and lasting relationship”⁷ between the Indigenous and the Crown when one side is consistently leaving their Treaty promises unfulfilled. This ignores the sacred nature of the Treaties as described by the Elders, which ultimately sets all Canadians back as we strive to move forward in reconciliation.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Harold Cardinal & Walter Hildebrandt, Treaty Elders of Saskatchewan: Our dream is that our peoples will one day be clearly recognized as nations (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2000) at 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid at 10.

[4] Harold Johnson, Two Families: Treaties and Government (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing Ltd., 2007) at 29.

[5] Ibid at 27.

[6] Ibid at 29.

[7] Cardinal, supra note 1 at 15.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Are We Really All Treaty People?

This image depicts the treaties in place prior to 1975. Image retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1380223988016/1380224163492.

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Treaties are “constitutionally protected, government-to-government agreements that identify, define and implement a range of rights and obligations, creating long-term, mutually binding commitments.”[1] In Canada, treaties between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples have generally involved Indigenous groups surrendering vast areas of land and interests in them to the federal Crown in exchange for varying benefits such as hunting and fishing rights, farming equipment and livestock, education, reserve lands, and annual payments.

        Treaty-making in Canada goes back hundreds of years. Usually, when people think of treaties, it is the pre-1975 treaties that come to mind. Included in this group are the Treaties of Peace and Neutrality of 1701-1760, the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1725-1779, the Upper Canada Land Surrenders of 1781-1862, the Williams Treaties of 1923, the Robinson Treaties and Douglas Treaties of 1850-1854, and the Numbered Treaties of 1871-1921.[2] Importantly, though, treaty-making did not end in 1975. There is also a modern treaty process in use today (which Friday’s post will explore in more detail). It is also crucial to note that much of the land in Canada remains unceded to this day. Together, modern and historical treaties combine to create a broad area of ceded land, but no one treaty is exactly the same.

        One element that does remain constant across treaties is the question of fairness. As Wednesday’s post will examine, a common criticism of historic treaties is in regard to the language barriers between signing parties – were Indigenous signatories fully cognizant of what they were surrendering? While many would not answer this question in the affirmative, others argue that those signing fully understood the legal ramifications of the treaties and intended for them to become law. Accordingly, they argue that these treaties created a relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous signees and bound future generations to the promises made. The conceptualization of “treaty as relationship”[3] can thus offer a way for the contemporary presence of settlers to be legitimized within Indigenous systems of law.[4]

        Whether or not you agree with the idea that ‘we are all treaty people,’ (where does this leave those living in unceded territory?), a relational understanding of treaties leads to another criticism; that is, the fact that the Crown has simply not lived up to its promises. Is a contract legally enforceable when one side fails to perform? Maybe “we are not all Treaty peoples”[5] after all. Further, while the value of land has risen exponentially, inflation rates have yet to be factored in to the other side of the deal. In Alberta, annual ‘treaty payments’ are still the same five dollars they were in 1876 when Treaty 6 was signed! It is difficult to defend these agreements when one side continually benefits from the deal, and the other is perpetually oppressed by it.

        Stay tuned as we talk treaty for the rest of the week – tomorrow we consider the perspectives of certain Elders on the meaning and intent of Treaty 6; Wednesday we analyze the signatures on Treaty 6, 7, and 8; Thursday we narrow our scope and provide a close reading of Treaty 6; and Friday we take a look at the modern treaty process in BC.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] BC Treaty Commission, “Treaties and Negotiations” online, http://www.bctreaty.ca/faq.

[2] Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, “Summaries of Pre-1975 Treaties” online, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1370362690208/1370362747827.

[3] Aaron Mills, “Nokomis and the Law in the Gift: Living Treaty Each Day” in Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal (Winnipeg: ARP Books (Arbeiter Ring Publishing), 2017, at 22.

[4] Ibid, at 21.

[5] Kiera L. Ladner, “150 Years and Waiting: Will Canada Become an Honourable Nation?” in Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal (Winnipeg: ARP Books (Arbeiter Ring Publishing), 2017, at 400.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Moving Forward and Looking Back: Indigenous Children

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

The Sixties Scoop and Indigenous Child Welfare: A Recap

        Indigenous children have often been the target of Canada’s colonialist policies. The forcible removal of children from their communities and families began with the residential school system, but transitioned to the child welfare system, in a process best known as the “Sixties Scoop.” We began our discussions of the Sixties Scoop by looking at how the concept of ‘the best interests of the child’ was framed to push colonialist regimes. Next, we covered the history of the scoop, and how approximately 20,000 Indigenous children came to be removed from their families and homes. We then looked to the personal effects of the Sixties Scoop on the victims, where stories of abuse and learned hatred for their own cultures were commonplace. For many, these stories of abuse and neglect were shared as an act of resilience, with our following post looking to ways in which survivors used art as a means of resistance and reclamation. We ended with our Friday ‘In the Media’ post discussing the recent Sixties Scoop Settlement negotiated between Canada and the Sixties Scoop survivors.

        The blog then transitioned to the child welfare system, and its impact on Indigenous children. We began by looking at the concept of ‘intergenerational injustice,’ and a number of factors that should be considered when approaching issues involving Indigenous children in care. Our next post covered Indigenous supports that are currently set up by and for Indigenous people to help address the challenges that result in the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care. Jordan’s Principle was then analyzed, an “answer” to who should fund services of Indigenous children, and whether or not it is truly being followed. We ended the week discussing Cindy Blackstock’s fight for Indigenous children in care before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Relevant TRC Calls to Action

        The Truth and Reconciliation Commission addresses these injustices towards Indigenous children within their 94 Calls to Action. Specifically, Calls to Action #1-5:

1. We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care by:

        i. Monitoring and assessing neglect investigations.

        ii. Providing adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities and child-welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments, regardless of where they reside.

        iii. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and impacts of residential schools.

        iv. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing.

        v. Requiring that all child-welfare decision makers consider the impact of the residential school experience on children and their caregivers

2. We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to prepare and publish annual reports on the number of Aboriginal children (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) who are in care, compared with non-Aboriginal children, as well as the reasons for apprehension, the total spending on preventive and care services by child-welfare agencies, and the effectiveness of various interventions.

3. We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan’s Principle.

4. We call upon the federal government to enact Aboriginal child-welfare legislation that establishes national standards for Aboriginal child apprehension and custody cases and includes principles that:

        i. Affirm the right of Aboriginal governments to establish and maintain their own child-welfare agencies.

        ii. Require all child-welfare agencies and courts to take the residential school legacy into account in their decision making.

        iii. Establish, as an important priority, a requirement that placements of Aboriginal children into temporary and permanent care be culturally appropriate.

5. We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate parenting programs for Aboriginal families. ¹

Our Reconcili-Action

        As an Indigenous blogger, I believe it is crucial to address these issues that remain prevalent for Indigenous children. To grow up in a world where you are not aware of your culture, your traditions, or your teachings is wrong. We need to help our children find their way back home. I know this is an immense feat to take on, and solutions to these problems may vary from person to person or community to community. However, I personally believe, as a nêhiyaw iskwêw (Cree woman), that Indigenous-led organizations are our best option in addressing this overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care. We need to recognize the legitimacy of these organizations. We need to listen to, and support Indigenous perspectives of what is best for the children. I know allies may often believe they have the answers, but sometimes what is needed from allies in reconciliation is to simply stop and listen to those that are often ignored in rhetoric surrounding Indigenous issues - Indigenous people themselves. It is easy to dismiss the ideas of Indigenous people, (I know - I’ve experienced this many times, even in conversations meant to address reconciliation) but this is contrary to reconciliation. We have a voice. We have answers. Take the time to listen to us - to truly listen, and be willing to learn. This reconcili-action is what I ask you to consider both today, and moving forward.

 

Kinanâskomitin (thank you) to our followers and happy holidays.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Calls to Action (Winnipeg, 2015), online: http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Moving Forward & Looking Back

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        In preparing for our blog’s brief holiday season hiatus, the Team decided to revisit our first few months of coverage, review the TRC’s Calls to Action, and reflect on some of our own ideas for reconcili-action in these areas.

Residential Schools and the IRSSA: A Recap

        Beginning with the early days of residential schools in Canada, we first introduced the deplorable motivations behind the system’s creation. Next, we considered Alberta’s specific experience through the lens of a child’s letter to his parents, written and sent from a residential school in Edmonton in 1962. Moving into a conversation about intergenerational trauma, we examined how this phenomenon pervades many Indigenous communities to this day. Finally, we considered the legacy of the schools, especially the losses of language and culture, and the effects these losses continue to have for students and their families.

        Our next section explored the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and problematized the application of tort principles to the residential school experience. We traced the path to the IRSSA from class actions through to the failed Alternative Dispute Resolution Process. Then, we dove into the specifics of the Common Experience Payment and the Independent Assessment Process, noting that while this response was imperfect, at least it was a step in the right direction. Our last post of the section considered the statistics and we ended with the question of whether financial compensation can ever be enough to address the damage done by the residential school system.

Relevant TRC Calls to Action

        Emphasizing themes of education, cultural revitalization, and health, Calls to Action #62, #10, #14, and #18 are especially relevant to discussions of residential schools. We invite you to consider the following:

62.    We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in consultation and collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal peoples, and educators, to:

i.    Make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal peoples’ historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for Kindergarten to Grade Twelve students.

ii.    Provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms.

iii.    Provide the necessary funding to Aboriginal schools to utilize Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods in classrooms.

10.    We call on the federal government to draft new Aboriginal education legislation with the full participation and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. The new legislation would include a commitment to sufficient funding and would incorporate the following principles:

i.    Providing sufficient funding to close identified educational achievement gaps within one generation.

ii.    Improving education attainment levels and success rates.

iii.    Developing culturally appropriate curricula.

iv.    Protecting the right to Aboriginal languages, including the teaching of Aboriginal languages as credit courses.

14.    We call upon the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act that incorporates the following principles:

i.    Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them.

ii.    Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties.

iii.    The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation.

iv.    The preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures are best managed by Aboriginal people and communities.

v.    Funding for Aboriginal language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Aboriginal languages.

18.    We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to acknowledge that the current state of Aboriginal health in Canada is a direct result of previous Canadian government policies, including residential schools, and to recognize and implement the health-care rights of Aboriginal people as identified in international law, constitutional law, and under the Treaties.[1]

Our Reconcili-action

        One question resonates in every post from this section: that is, how do we move forward from residential schools in the right way? Knowing what is right is easier said than done. Ethics, compassion, justice, healing… all of these terms are easy to say, but hard to do. What does it mean to educate ethically? How do we commission empathy without crossing the line - can anyone ever really understand what these children went through? Will understanding even make a difference? Even if the language of healing is so fraught, is justice possible without it?

        In line with the TRC Calls to Action listed above, we can imagine how things might be different if Indigenous peoples had a say in the curriculum and delivery of public education. Or, if elementary schools no longer used picture books that made Indigenous peoples out to be disappearing, or disappeared. What if high school social studies textbooks taught the reality of Indigenous peoples’ resistance to colonization, instead of the myth of Indigenous acquiescence?[2] What if every university student participated in a Blanket Exercise at the beginning of the academic year? What would the future look like if we focused less on intergenerational trauma and more on intergenerational injustice, or if government efforts were directed at preventing future harm instead of always just applying a band-aid? And what if reconciliatory work stopped asking more from Indigenous peoples than it does from settlers?[3] 

        The truth is, we don’t yet have the answers. What we do know is that moving forward in the right way entails more than resource-dependent, large-scale, social, cultural, political, and economic changes. It also includes the hundreds of micro decisions that each of us make every single day. It starts with the relationships we have with our teammates, classmates, colleagues, and friends. One thing the Team has learned is that while reconcili-action won’t always be easy, it is certainly possible. When the going gets tough (and trust, us, it will), don't give up or walk away. We challenge you to keep going - even the smallest step can make a difference!

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Calls to Action (Winnipeg, 2015), online: http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf.

[2] See Kiera L. Ladner & Myra J. Tait, eds., “Introduction” in Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal (Winnipeg: ARP Books (Arbeiter Ring Publishing), 2017.

[3] Matthew Wildcat asks this question in an exclusive article that we will be posting next term - stay tuned!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Say Their Names

Abigail Andrews

Ada Brown

Adele Rose Mary Matinet

Adrienne Amikons

Aielah Saric-Auger

Alannah Cardinal

Alberta Williams

Alice Netemegesic

Alisha Germaine

Alissa Martin-Travers

Amanda Bartlett

Amanda Cook

Amanda Simpson

Amber Guiboche

Amber Tuccaro

Andria Meise

Angel Carlick

Angela Meyer

Angela Poorman

Angela Williams

Angeline Pete

Anne Maria Lucas

Anne Peters

Annette Holywhiteman

Annie Pootoogook

Annie Yassie

Ashley Machiskinic

Ashley Smith

Audrey Desjarlais

Azraya Ackabee-Kokopenace

Azraya Kokopence

Barbara Keam

Barbara Kentner

Barbara Loon

Barbara Shapwaykeesic

Beatrice Adam

Belinda Cameron

Belinda Williams

Bella Laboucan-McLean

Bernadette Ahenakew

Bernadette Leclair

Bernadine Quewezance

Bernice Bottle

Bernice Joan Rich

Betsy Owens

Bonnie Jack

Bonnie Joseph

Brandy Vittrekwa

Brandy Wesaquate

Brenda Campbell

Brittany Bearspaw

Brooklyn Moose

Caitlin Potts

Caralyn King

Carol Davis

Carol Prudhomme

Caroline Burns

Carolyn Connolly

Cassandra Antone

Cecilia Nikal

Cecilia Payash

Chantelle Bushie

Charity Keesic

Charlene Catholique

Charnelle Masakeyash

Cherisse Houle

Cheryl Black

Cheryl Duck

Cheryl Johnson

Cheyenne Fox

Chloe Matthews

Christina Littlejohn

Christine Cardinal

Cindy Gladue

Clarene Rose Panamick

Claudette Osborne

Constance Cameron

Corrine Moosomin

Crystal Saunders

Cynthia Audy

Cynthia Lynette Jamieson

Danielle LaRue

Danita Bigeagle

Daphne Mesher Brown

Darlinda Ritchey

Dawn Crey

Dawn Keewatin

Deanna Bellerose

Debbie Pelletier

Debbie Sloss-Clarke

Deborah Toulouse

Deidre Michelin

Delaine Copenace

Delena Lefthand Dixon

Della Ootoova

Delores Brower

Delores Brown

Delores Whiteman

Delphine Nikal

Denise Katherine Bourdeau

Desiree Oldwoman

Destiny Tom

Diana Rattlesnake

Diane Dobson

Diane Marshall

Diane Stewart

Donna Kabatay

Donna Kasyon

Donna Taylor

Donna Tebbenham

Doreen Hardy

Doreen Jack

Dorothy Spence

Edith McGinnis Quagon

Edna Bernard

Edna Smith

Elaine Alook

Elaine Flowers

Elaine Vawn LaForme

Elena Assam-Thunderbird

Elizabeth Dorion

Elsie Sebastian

Emily Ballantyne

Emily Osmond

Emma Dixon

Ernestine Kasyon

Eva Mitchell

Evaline Cameron

Evelyn Kebalo

Felicia Solomon

Flora Muskego

Fonassa Bruyere

Frances Ellah

Freda Goodrunning

Geraldine Beardy

Geraldine Settee

Gladys Simon

Gladys Tolley

Glenda Morriseau

Glennis Edwards

Gloria Black Plume

Gloria Gladue

Gloria Jean Martha Abotossaway

Gloria Moody

Heather Ballantyne

Heather Pelletier

Heaven Traverse

Helen Gillings

Helen Louise Jacobs

Helene Ratfat

Helyna Rivera

Henrietta Millek

Hilda Agawa

Hillary Wilson

Ila Oman

Immaculate Basil

Irma Murdock

Jacqueline Crazybull

Jamie McGuire

Jane Bernard

Jane Jack

Jane Louise Sutherland

Janet Henry

Janet Sylvestre

Janice Desjarlais

Janine Wesaquate

Jarita Naistus

Jean Moccasin

Jean Sampare

Jeanenne Fontaine

Jeanette Basil

Jeanette Cardinal

Jeanine St Jean

Jeannette Chief

Jennifer Catcheway

Jennifer Stewart

Jessica Cardinal

Joanna Andersen

Joanne Ghostkeeper

Jocelyn McDonald

Joey English

Jordina Skunk

Josephine Chakasim

Josephine Thompson

Joyce Hewitt

Joyce Tillotson

Juanita Cardinal

Judie Thibault

Judy Ann Benoit Ogden

Judy Ann Quill

Judy Chescue

Judy Quill

Justine Cochrane

Kari Gordon

Karina Wolfe

Karla Desrosiers

Katelynne Sampson

Kathleen Leary

Katie Ballantyne

Kellie Little

Kelly Goforth

Kelly Morrisseau

Kimberly Jararuse

Krystal Andrews

Krystle Knott

Lana Derrick

Laura Pilon

Lavina Tocher

Leah Anderson

Leanne Benwell

Leanne Lawson

Leona Brule

Leslie Talley

Liana Mathewson

Linda Condo

Linda Guimond

Linda Scott

Lisa Lynn Anstey

Lisa Young

Liz Bonnie Sakakeesic

Lora Banman

Lora Frank

Loretta Capot-Blanc

Loretta Lavalley

Loretta Saunders

Lori Berens

Lori Kasprick

Lorilee Francis

Lorraine Rivers

Louise Lorraine Laderoute

Lynn Childforever

Mabel Leo

Mae Morton

Maggie Burke

Maggie Mink

Maggie Natomagan

Maisy Odjick

Marcia Koostachin

Margaret Blackbird

Margaret Guylee

Margaret Perrault (Bluebird)

Margaret Vedan

Marguerite Dyson

Mariah Wesley

Marie Banks

Marie Desjarlais

Marie Laliberte

Marie Lasas

Marie Mike

Mariella Lennie

Marilyn Daniels

Marilyn Munroe

Marjorie Henderson

Marlene Abigosis

Martha Boyce

Mary Ann Birmingham

Mary Ann Davis

Mary Goodfellow

Mary Hill

Mary Keadjuk

Mary Kreiser

Mary Lidguerre

Mary Mark

Mary Peters King

Mary Smith

Mary Susan Evans-Harlick

Mavis Mason

Maxine Susanne Peters

Maxine Wapass

Melanie Geddes

Melissa Chaboyer

Mercedes Stevens

Michelle Gurney

Michelle Hadwen

Mildred Flett

Minnie Sutherland

Misty Potts

Mitzi MacDougall

Moira Erb

Monica Cardinal

Monica Jack

Myrna Montgrand

Nadine Machiskinic

Nancy Dumas

Naomi Desjarlais

Nellie Angutiguluk

Nicole Daniels

Nicolle Hands

Olivia Williams

Pamela Holopainen

Pamela Napoleon

Patricia Carpenter

Patricia Favel

Patricia Quinn

Patricia Wadhams

Paula Joy Martin

Pauline Brazeau

Petrina Lynn Whitecrow

Philomene Lemay

Rachel Quinney

Ramona Shular

Ramona Wilson

Rebecca Guno

Rebecca Jean King

Rena Fox

Rene Gunning

Renee Neganiwina

Rhonda Gardiner

Rhonda Running Bird

Richele Bear

Roberta Elders

Roberta Ferguson

Roberta Lincoln

Rocelyn Gabriel

Rose Decoteau

Rose-Ann Blackned

Rowena Sharpe

Roxanne Charlie

Roxanne Fleming

Roxanne Isadore

Roxanne Thiara

Ruby Hardy

Ruth Cocks

Sabrina Polchies

Samantha Johnings

Samantha Paul

Sandra Kaye Johnson

Sarah Jane Wawia Bernard

Sarah Mason

Sarah Obed

Sarah Skunk

Savannah Hall

Selina Wallace

Serena Colson

Serenity

Shannon Alexander

Sharon Abraham

Sharon Merasty

Sharon Murphy

Shelley Anderson

Shelley Lynne Joseph

Shelley May Anderson

Shelly Dene

Shirley Beardy

Shirley Cletheroe

Shirley Lonethunder

Shirley Waquan

Simone Sanderson

Sindy Ruperthouse

Sonya Nadine Mae Cywink

Spring Phillips

Stella St. Arnault

Stephanie Cormier Chaisson

Sunshine Wood

Susan Assin

Sylvia Guiboche

Tabitha Kalluk

Tamara Chipman

Tamra Keepness

Tania Marsden

Tanya Brooks

Tanya Hill

Tanya Nepinak

Tashina Cheyenne Vaughn General

Teresa Robinson

Terra Gardener

Terrie Dauphinais

Thelma Pete

Therena Silva

Theresa Anne Yakimchuck

Therese Labbe

Theressa Wilson (Jamieson)

Tiffany Morrison

Tiffany Skye

Tina Fontaine

Tricia Paquette

Trudy Gopher

Vanessa Tagoona

Velma Duncan

Verna May Simard-Shabaquay

Verna Patricia Sturgeon

Verna Simard

Victoria Crow Shoe

Victoria Hornbrook

Viola Isabella Panacheese

Viola Melvin

Viola Panacheese

Violet Heathen

Vivian Cada

Wendy Poole

Yvonne Elizabeth King [1]

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        These names belong to Indigenous women who have been murdered or are missing from communities across the country. Too often they are reduced to numbers on a page or lines on a graph.

        They were grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunties, cousins, and friends. They were humans. And they deserved better. Say their names.

#SayHerName [2]

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] This list is not complete; hundreds more have lost their lives to gendered and racialized violence. Our list is a compilation of work done by Maryanne Pearce (https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/spreadsheets/d/1pvMIkZ2JmoXCUEnUWmYbcFWxfz5xcD7ljz_a8UIVOH0/pub?output=html), No More Silence (http://itstartswithus-mmiw.com/community-lists/#1485456540464-287e628c-dde8), and the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/missingandmurdered/).

[2] Kimberle Crenshaw and the African American Policy Forum launched the #SayHerName campaign in 2015 in an effort to call attention to violence against Black women in the United States. Say Her Name documents stories of Black women who have been killed by police and shines a spotlight on forms of police brutality experienced disproportionately by women of colour.  The initiative focuses on the intersections of race and gender, and the violence that exists there. These and other intersections must also be considered in the context of violence done to Indigenous women in Canada.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Assimilative Euphemisms: An Introduction to the Sixties Scoop

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Frighteningly, in the context of the Sixties Scoop, 'the best interests of the Indigenous child' appears to have been a euphemized version of the phrase and policy 'kill the Indian in child.'

        The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities did not end with residential schools. As the efficacy of the schools began to be questioned in the 1950s and 1960s, the policy’s aims were given new life in a process now known as the “Sixties Scoop.”[1] This practice was widespread across the country from the 1960s to the 1980s and was accomplished through the efforts of child welfare workers who ‘scooped up’ Indigenous children and placed them with non-Indigenous foster and adoptive parents.”[2]

        Rationalized using many of the same colonial narratives as were used in support of residential schools, removal was framed as necessary in order to “save Indigenous children from unhealthy communities.”[3] Actors in the child welfare system defended their actions by referring to the ‘best interests of the child,’ but in reality, those scooped were often subjected to abuse and neglect, or put to work in the households and farms of non-Indigenous families.

        Much ink has been spilled to show the various ways that, both during and after the Sixties Scoop, the best interests of the child test has been used to make the “operation of child welfare law ‘appear natural, necessary, and legitimate, rather than coercive and destructive,’ and has served to constrain judicial decision-making so as to minimize, and even negate the relevance and importance of maintaining a child’s First Nations identity and culture.”[4]

        Even towards the end of the Sixties Scoop era, Canadian case law demonstrates disturbing connotations associated with the phrase. Racine v Woods dealt with an Indigenous mother (herself a victim of the Sixties Scoop) with a young daughter temporarily placed in foster care.[5] The mother’s attempts to reclaim her daughter were ultimately unsuccessful and the foster family’s adoption application was granted. The case more or less states that when it comes to Indigenous children, “the importance of culture diminishes over time and that bonding to adoptive or foster parents becomes more important.”[6]

        What remains unsaid, however, is more worrisome: that is, “the underlying notion that with time, First Nations and Aboriginal peoples can somehow become less Indigenous; that, with time, Indigeneity somehow becomes less constitutive and important; that, with time, if First Nations and Aboriginal children are separated from their families and communities, they can be ‘successfully assimilated.’”[7] The assimilative undertones that go hand in hand with Indigenous child welfare can thus be traced through residential schools, into the Sixties Scoop, and still further on into current challenges that exist in this area of the law.

Join us this week as we explore the Sixties Scoop from its beginnings through to the upcoming 2017 settlement agreement.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] See Patrick Johnston, Native Children and the Child Welfare System (Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1983).

[2] Holly A. McKenzie, Colleen Varcoe, Annette J. Brown & Linda Day, “Disrupting the Continuities Among Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and Child Welfare: An Analysis of Colonial and Neocolonial Discourses” (2016) International Indigenous Policy Journal 4:2 at 2.

[3] Ibid, at 3.

[4] Marlee Kline, cited in Ardith Walkem, Wrapping Our Ways Around Them: Aboriginal Communities and the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) Guidebook (Lytton: ShchEma-mee.tkt Project, 2015) at 30.

[5] See Racine v Woods, [1983] SCJ No. 70, 2 SCR 173.

[6] Walkem, supra note 4 at 31.

[7] Ibid, at 30.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

In the Media: Last Week in Edmonton

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        On October 4, the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Arts hosted What Comes Next: Political Afterlives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The roundtable discussion featured big names (Glen Coulthard, Audra Simpson, and Robert Nichols), and even bigger ideas. Of particular note was the panel’s focus on the dark side of reconciliation – a dark side that, like last week’s terrorist attack, is generally not an issue most Canadians expect.

        Nichols drew a parallel between the ‘Jewish Question,’ and the Holocaust it enabled, to the ways in which Canada has been working to solve its ‘Indian Problem.’ He encouraged attendees to consider that what we are really dealing with in this country is a white supremacy problem. He also discussed the inherent contradictions in Canada’s political and juridical systems that make the framework of reconciliation at best, weak, and at worst, useless. After all, how can a country, whose capitalistic economy is based on continuous acquisition and growth, honestly accommodate Aboriginal title? As Nichols suggested, “it might not be possible.”[1]

        “Reconciliation,” Simpson explained, “is simultaneously impossible and irresistible.”[2] She noted that rather than being a meaningful tool for moving forward, Canada’s reconciliation project is instead a strategic and re-subjectifying political tool being wielded against Indigenous peoples and keeping them “in their place, as wounded.”[3] It is cunningly constructed to ensure that anyone who speaks out against reconciliation is placed in an antagonistic position to former students of residential schools and accordingly critics become the villains in a twisted trick of fate. Simpson’s conclusion was that reconciliation is simply the government’s latest attempt to make Indigenous peoples disappear.

        Like Simpson, Coulthard focused on alternative ways of looking at reconciliation. In his opinion, however, the apparatus of reconciliation was crafted to pacify Indigenous peoples following the Oka Crisis and the Red Power movements that gained international attention in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Institutional reconciliation was “deployed”[4] as a means of subduing Indigenous militancy and calming the economic uncertainty that accompanied it. The language of reconciliation, Coulthard further argued, pathologizes Indigenous peoples and replaces the need for political reorganization with a need for healing. He advocated the development of a “combative consciousness”[5] as opposed to giving in to patriarchal, capitalist, state control. Ultimately, Coulthard admitted, he is more interested in the “political pre-lives of reconciliation”[6] than he is with the afterlife.

        The panelists were, in plainest terms, bad-ass. Their observations served as an important wake-up call for those of us who work within the context of the TRC, reminding attendees that in some ways, reconciliation can itself be a “mechanism of violence.”[7] Many thanks to the inspiring speakers and to the political science students and faculty members that made it happen.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Robert Nichols, (What Comes Next: Political Afterlives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Event, delivered at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, 4 October 2017) [unpublished].

[2] Audra Simpson, (What Comes Next: Political Afterlives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Event, delivered at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, 4 October 2017) [unpublished].

[3] Ibid.

[4] Glen Coulthard, (What Comes Next: Political Afterlives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Event, delivered at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, 4 October 2017) [unpublished].

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Getting to the IRSSA

Image retrieved from: http://www.bwdsb.on.ca/bwdsb_Archives/I06069FB1?plugin=RWD&templates=RWD&

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

    The road to the implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) was a long, and often complex journey to ensure the dark legacy of the residential schools became a public issue. Several factors will be explored as we map out the pathway to the IRSSA, and what contributed to this major turning point in Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships.

    First, the growth of national Aboriginal political organizations played a key role in advocating for justice. These organizations go back as far as 1919, and the F.O. Loft’s League of Indians of Canada. The National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) also played a major role as advocates, forcing the federal government to abandon the 1969 White Paper, as well as promoting their policy of “Indian Control of Indian education,” which was later adopted by the Canadian government. NIB is known today as the Assembly of First Nations. [1] Successes were also seen in land claims and court cases, such as the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the signing of Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the 1973 Calder Case on the validity of Aboriginal title. [2]

    Second, churches began to re-examine their relationships with Aboriginal peoples. A movement began in favour of inter-church cooperation and involvement in social issues dealing with Aboriginal peoples. An initiative called “Project North,” was created to persuade the government to respond to the impacts of the residential school system. A series of apologies were also made throughout the 80s and 90s. [3]   

    Third, survivors began to speak out on their experiences. Throughout the 1970s, survivors began publishing memoirs of their time in residential school, highlighting the harsh discipline and cultural alienation within the school walls, while also sharing their journey of healing. Aboriginal political organizations worked alongside survivors to document oral accounts of their traumatic experiences and the long term effects of isolation and addiction. Survivors were also coming together for support and creating associations for spiritual healing, to raise awareness and work towards a just resolution. [4]

    Fourth, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, established in 1991, released their final report in 1996. The Commission was created in response to two major events: 1) Elijah Harper’s (an Aboriginal member of the Manitoba legislature) opposition to the Meech Lake Accord, which recognized Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. Harper argued Aboriginal people constituted a distinct society as well, and then Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, proposed the Royal Commission in an effort to persuade Harper to consent to the accord (Harper never consented). And 2) the 1990 Oka Crisis, where the Kanesatake First Nation protested the decision to turn a Mohawk burial ground into a golf course. [5]   

    Fifth, civil cases were brought forward by former students in the late 1980s in an effort to seek compensation for the abuses suffered while in residential school. By 2001, more than 8,500 lawsuits were filed against the government, churches, related organizations and in some cases, the abuser themselves. However, many issues arose, such as the Statutes of Limitations, courts refusing to hear claims based on loss of family, culture and language, survivors forced to relive their traumatic experiences during cross-examinations, and legal disputes over who was financially responsible. [6]   

     Sixth, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process (ADR). In November 2003, the federal Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution began the ADR, a voluntary process to resolve claims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and forcible confinement. This was a way to get away from the civil litigation process. However, the following year the AFN published an extremely critical assessment of the ADR process. The AFN report proposed a two-part approach to compensation instead: a lump sum for anyone who attended residential school, and an individual compensation program for those who had been physically or sexually abused. [7]

    Next, the availability of class-action lawsuits for survivors to pursue their claims following changes to Canadian law in the 1990s. [8] The Cloud case is an example of a class-action suit, which was overturned and certified by the Ontario Court of Appeal. [9]

    Lastly, following the rejection of the ADR process and the certification of the Cloud class-action suit, negotiations began for the IRSSA. An accord was signed on May 30, 2005, between the federal government and the AFN, headed by Phil Fontaine. In 2006, parties agreed to merge existing class-action suits into a single class-action, referred to as “Fontaine v Canada (Attorney General),” with Phil Fontaine acting as representative plaintiff for the survivors and the AFN. On November 20, 2005, Canada, the plaintiffs from the class-action suits, the AFN, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Makivik Corporation, and the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and representatives from various churches, signed an Agreement in Principle (AIP), which after further negotiations became the IRSSA, signed May 23, 2006. [10] 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, “History: Part 2” in The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 552.

[2] Ibid at 553.

[3] Ibid at 554-55.

[4] Ibid at 556-57.

[5] Ibid at 558.

[6] Ibid at 560-61.

[7] Ibid at 564-65. 

[8] Ibid at 566. 

[9] Ibid at 570. 

[10] Ibid at 570-72.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg. 

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com. 

The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement: An Introduction

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) was negotiated in 2006 and formally implemented in 2007. It contains five core elements:

1. Common Experience Payment (CEP) – This element was available to eligible former students, but the onus was on the claimants to provide proof and verification that they had attended a residential school included in the agreement (not all schools were). The CEP was meant to cover claims for loss of language and culture, and for minor sufferings. Successful claimants were entitled to a base payment of $10,000 plus $3,000 for each year of attendance.[1]
2. Independent Assessment Process (IAP) – This element was available to former students who had been subjected to sexual abuse and/or serious physical abuse. Claims could be brought for sexual and physical assault committed by adult employees of residential schools; for sexual or physical assaults committed at a residential by one student against another where staff knew or should have known about the abuse; and for any other wrongful act committed by an adult at a residential school that resulted in serious psychological consequences.[2] If a former student wanted to pursue a specific abuse claim outside of the IAP, they were forced to opt out of IRSSA entirely and thus forfeit their CEP.
3. Healing Initiatives – Funds were donated to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Health Support Program.
4. Commemorative Activities – This element included installations or events that honoured former students and paid tribute in tangible ways. One example is the federal government’s so-called ‘Apology’ in 2008.[3]
5. Truth & Reconciliation Commission – This element resulted in the TRC Final Report, Executive Summary, and Calls to Action.

        Although some scholars argue that the settlement process provided a favourable alternative to adversarial litigation,[4] others are not so sure. Kent Roach, for example, identifies the ways in which the IRSSA, and the civil litigation and ADR processes that preceded it, “failed to appreciate the full scope of the harms of residential schools.” He postulates that these processes ultimately “re-victimized residential school survivors and downplayed the responsibility of Canadian governments, churches, and society for the harmful legacy of the schools”[5] through the incorporation of tort law principles.

        The tort law principle of causation requires a causal link be established between a wrongful act and a compensable harm. In IRS claims, causation has taken the form of arguments stipulating that harms suffered by former students were caused not by the abuses suffered in residential schools but rather by factors including the life choices of the claimant and members of their family.[6]

        In tort law, a wrongdoer is liable for a victim’s injuries even where those injuries are made worse by a preexisting condition. With this line of reasoning, the wrongdoer need only return the victim to their original position – the wrongdoer does not have to compensate the victim for effects they would have experienced whether or not the wrong was done.

        In the context of IRS claims, this principle (known as the ‘crumbling skull argument’) has been utilized by abusers in an attempt to frame claimants as having been damaged before they ever set foot in a residential school. These arguments “focused on family violence, alcoholism, and poverty”[7] and aimed to create an original position where Indigenous peoples were already injured, and already predisposed to the results of abuse.[8] In addition to creating a culture of victim-blaming, this type of argument effectively put claimants on trial in that they were burdened with disproving this presumed pathology.    

        Even at a macro level, the idea of providing cash for suffering is, in many ways, offensive. Some survivors have indicated that they feel the IRSSA and other mechanisms of compensation are means by which the government is paying for silence. It is important that we take a critical approach the IRSSA (whose interests did it really serve?), but at the end of the day, financial compensation is arguably better than nothing…

        The rest of this week’s posts will be dedicated to exploring how we arrived at the IRSSA, what the IAP entails, and the statistics surrounding the settlement process.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, “History: Part 2” in The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 572.

[2] Government of Canada: Indigenous & Northern Affairs, “Indian Residential Schools” (2016), online: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100015576/1100100015577#sect1. Accessed October 5, 2017.

[3] The image above shows Phil Fontaine and Stephen Harper participating in one of the IRSSA’s commemorative activities. Image taken from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/30/auditor_generals_report_2013_lack_of_cooperation_threatens_indian_residential_schools_agreement.html.

[4] See Kathleen Mahoney, “The Settlement Process: A Personal Reflection” (2014) U of T LJ 64:4.

[5] Kent Roach, “Blaming the Victim: Canadian Law, Causation, and Residential School” (2014) U of T LJ 64:4 at 566.

[6] Ibid, at 571.

[7] Ibid, at 575.

[8] Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey, “Righting Past Wrongs through Contextualization: Assessing Claims of Aboriginal Survivors of Historical and Institutional Abuses” (2007) Windsor YB Access to Justice 95:134 at 126.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Alberta Residential School Experience

Image retrieved from http://thechildrenremembered.ca/photos/?id=1113&school=edmonton

“Dear Mom and Dad,

[...] the main reason for my writing is that I want to go home. I’m not homesick or anything, just…this morning at 2 a.m. [he] woke us up and started to preach to us on how stupid the Indian was…Then this morning as 5 a.m. [he] got us up to go and scrub the basement. It was there I decided I’d like to go home because [he] slapped me around for not getting a haircut that morning…so don’t be surprised if you see me home pretty soon. I was planning to try to stick it out the whole term, but [he] threw a monkey-wrench into my plans.

P.S. the Christmas I spent here was the worst one in my whole life”

-Letter from Edmonton Indian Residential School student to his parents, Jan. 8, 1962. [1]

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

    As yesterday’s blog post introduced you to Canada’s painful legacy of the residential school system, today we look to its impact closer to home. The Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement identified a non-exhaustive list of 139 schools. Of that list, there were 25 residential schools within Alberta, more than any other province or territory in Canada. [2] Today we focus on the Edmonton Indian Residential School (IRS), and the children’s experiences within it’s dark walls.

     The Edmonton IRS opened its doors in 1924, in coordination with the United Church of Canada. [3] The school replaced the Red Deer IRS, because of it’s closer proximity to the Treaty 6 communities in Northern Alberta. Similarly to the Red Deer IRS, the school operated on a half-day system, with classes in the morning and vocational training (primarily farming) in the afternoon. Farming contributed to the institute's finances; however, friction arose as the farm work replaced time for academic study. By 1953, farming operations at the school ended, along with the half-day system. [4]

     With World War II decreasing  government spending on the school, maintenance and cleaning were a major issue for Edmonton IRS, leading to poor water quality and skin disease among the children. Staff shortages were also a problem. Principal Findlay Barnes wrote at the time, “Cheap, inefficient help has been [the school’s] downfall.” [5] Full enrollment of students (150 by 1931) was also a setback for the school, as officials began relocating children from communities in British Columbia, creating an ever greater distance between the children and their families. [6]

     Rumours spread of abuse and mortality, one student writing home, “please send for us if you do not want us to come home in caskets.” [7] Allegations of sexual abuse of the children by the school’s minister were also brought to the attention of church officials. On September 28, 1960, the minister was convicted on charges of gross indecency and received a one-year suspended sentence with psychiatric treatment. By the late 1950’s, the Department of Indian Affairs Officials called for the closure of the school, with a growing preference to place the students in foster homes where they could attend day schools.[8] The Edmonton IRS finally closed in 1966, but the effects of the school on the survivors, their families and communities are still felt today.

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Residential School Archive Project: The Children Remembered, Edmonton Indian Residential School (The United Church of Canada Archives), online: <http://thechildrenremembered.ca/school-locations/edmonton/>.

[2] Truth and Reconciliation Commission, official website: <http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=12>.

[3] Children Remembered, supra note 1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.