For years, a number of provinces have been housing foster children (a disproportionate number of which in all provinces are Indigenous children) in motels and hotels when no other accommodations are available.23 These placements, which are meant to be temporary, have come under scrutiny after the murder of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine. She ran away from one such placement after a vicious sexual assault of another 15-year-old Indigenous girl outside the hotel where both target and attacker were housed.24
So, what is happening? Why are so many Indigenous children being removed from their homes?
I am going to focus for a moment on First Nations statistics both on- and off-reserve because I am pulling numbers from the incredible Kiskisik Awasisak report, which looks specifically at overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child-welfare system. If you want information specific to Métis and Inuit children, I’ve listed a good resource in the endnotes.25 The numbers I’m going to discuss cannot be generalized across the board for all Indigenous children, but they at least gives us some idea as to what is going on in this country.
The main reason First Nations children enter the child-protection system is due to “neglect,” representing 46 percent of substantiated investigations compared to 29 percent among non-Indigenous households. There are significantly lower rates of physical abuse among First Nations: 9 percent compared to 23 percent in the non-Indigenous population. Exposure to intimate partner violence is roughly equal: 33 percent among First Nations homes investigated versus 36 percent in the general population.26
Since the category of neglect is overwhelmingly the cause of removal of First Nations children from their homes, it is vital to understand what this entails. Neglect in cases involving First Nations children is “driven primarily by 3 structural risk factors: poverty, inadequate housing and substance misuse.”27
PRIMARY CATEGORIES OF MALTREATMENT IN SUBSTANTIATED MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATIONS, INVOLVING FIRST NATIONS AND NON-ABORIGINAL CHILDREN, CONDUCTED IN SAMPLED AGENCIES IN 2008
(rate per 1000 First Nations or non-Aboriginal children in areas served by sampled agencies and percent)
Source: Vandna Sinha, Nico Trocmé, Barbara Fallon, Bruce MacLaurin, Elizabeth Fast, Shelley Thomas Prokop, et al. (2011). Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the Children. Understanding the Overrepresentation of First Nations Children in the Child Welfare System. Ontario: Assembly of First Nations.
Poverty affects First Nations children removal because:
Parents with fewer financial resources face greater difficulties in providing the safe environments, adequate clothing and nutrition, appropriate child care and other assets which foster healthy child development.28
Poverty is compounded by intergenerational trauma and poor structural conditions. As the Kiskisik Awasisak report notes, First Nations children and families have complex needs, which are very expensive to provide for, particularly in the more remote communities.
Inadequate housing is a serious, systemic problem in many First Nations communities.29 Overcrowding, lack of indoor plumbing or potable water, mould-infested homes, and crumbling infrastructure all play a part in what constitutes “inadequate housing.” The fact that deplorably common conditions found on-reserve work against families, resulting in children being removed and making family reunification out of reach for many, is very troubling. As discussed in chapter 16 on First Nations housing, it is also a factor that is rarely something the families in question can directly control.
Low-income parents often have fewer coping mechanisms, which can lead to higher levels of substance misuse. In fact, these three risk factors are so interrelated that it is very difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. Indigenous children and their families are being punished for being faced with unacceptable living conditions that no one in Canada should have to contend with.
The legacy of over a hundred years of concerted cultural abuse, particularly directed at taking children away from their families, has taken its toll on our communities. There is no denying it. In my opinion, the question now needs to be: will Canada acknowledge this and do what it takes to redress these wrongs?
It is not enough to merely turn the system over to Aboriginal agencies, as Indigenous control alone will not solve the structural inequality that leads to the main risk factors of neglect. Adequate funding and programming are vital to support families and communities in raising healthy children. If the child-welfare system continues to merely remove Indigenous children en masse from their homes, then, regardless of good intentions, more generations will be lost.
NOTES
1.Australian Human Rights Commission, “Bringing Them Home: The Stolen Children Report (1997),” accessed November 12, 2015, https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/bringing-them-home-stolen. Here, you will find more information about the “Bringing Them Home: The ‘Stolen Generation’ Report (1997),” which addressed the forced removal of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.
2.Virtual Law Office, “Royal Proclamation of 1763,” bloorstreet.com, last modified January 16, 1996, http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#1. Canadian authority is also exerted via the Royal Proclamation of 1763; a fantastic exploration of which can be found above.
3.Marlyn Bennett, “First Nations Fact Sheet: A General Profile on First Nations Child Welfare in Canada.” First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (Ottawa, 2004), http://www.fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/FirstNationsFS1.pdf.
4.Paul L. Chartrand, and Wendy Whitecloud, “The Sixties Scoop,” The Justice System and Aboriginal People: The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (Winnipeg, 2001), http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#6.
5.Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Volume 3: Gathering Strength,” Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1997), 24–25, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071115053257/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html.
6.Suzanne Fournier, and Ernie Crey, Stolen From Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1997).
7.See note 5, page 26.
8.Bruce DeMara, “Dispatch: Hidden Colonial Legacy: The 60’s Scoop,” Toronto Star (2012), http://www.cbc.ca/8thfire/2012/01/hidden-colonial-legacy-the-60s-scoop.html. This is a fantastic short film, available on CBC, that explores the struggle of reconnection for those taken during the Sixties Scoop.
9.Paul L. Chartrand, and Wendy Whitecloud, “The Indian Child Welfare Sub-Committee,” The Justice System and Aboriginal People: The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (Winnipeg, 2001), http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#7. Here, you can read more on the history of this sub-committee.
10.See note 5, page 29.
11.Paul L. Chartrand, and Wendy Whitecloud, “The Kimelman Inquiry,” The Justice System and Aboriginal People: The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (Winnipeg, 2001), accessed November 15, 2015, http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#9.
12.Edwin C. Kimelman, et al., No Quiet Place, Review Committee on Indian and Metis Adoptions and Placements (Winnipeg: Manitoba Department of Community Services, 1985), 275–276.
13.Vandna Sinha, Nico Trocmé, Barbara Fallon, Bruce MacLaurin, Elizabeth Fast, Shelley Thomas Prokop, et al., Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the Children: Understanding the Overrepresentation of First Nations Children in the Child Welfare System (Ontario: Assembly of First Nations, 2011), http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/FNCIS-2008_March2012_RevisedFinal.pdf.
14.Valerie J. Galley, “Summary Review of Aboriginal Over-Representation in the Child Welfare System,” Report Prepared for the Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, accessed November 15, 2015, http://sas
kchildwelfarereview.ca/Aboriginal-Over-representation-VGalley.pdf.
15.Ibid., 3.
16.Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012, FC 445 – 2012-04-18, last modified November 23, 2015, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/60712/index.do.
17.Cindy Blackstock, “The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on First Nations Child Welfare: Why If Canada Wins, Equality and Justice Lose,” Children and Youth Services Review 33, no. 1 (2011): 187–194, http://chrr.info/files/CHRT-FNCW-Blackstock_2010.pdf.
18.Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “Chapter 4: First Nations Child and Family Services Program, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,” Report of the Auditor General of Canada (May 2008), last modified May 6, 2008, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200805_04_e_30700.html.
19.Tim Harper, “Conservative Government Found Spying on Aboriginal Advocate: Tim Harper,” The Star, May 29, 2013, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/29/conservative_government_found_spying_on_aboriginal_advocate_tim_harper.html.
20.Jorge Barrera, “Aboriginal Affairs ‘Retaliated’ Against First Nations Child Advocate Over Human Rights Complaint: Tribunal,” APTN.ca, last modified June 6, 2015, http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/06/aboriginal-affairs-retaliated-first-nations-child-advocate-human-rights-complaint-tribunal/.
21.Pamela Gough, Nico Trocme, Ivan Brown, Della Knoke, and Cindy Blackstock, “Pathways to the Overrepresentation of Aboriginal Children in Care,” Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare (2005), http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/AboriginalChildren23E.pdf.
22.China Puxley, “CFS Seizes a Manitoba Newborn a Day, First Nations Advocate Says,” CBC News, last modified September 1, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/cfs-seizes-a-manitoba-newborn-a-day-first-nations-advocate-says-1.3211451. In fact, the only reason the boy was allowed to stay with his mother for three days was he happened to be born on a Friday – he was apprehended the following Monday.
23.Douglas Quan, “Manitoba Vows to Stop Housing Foster Children in Hotels but Other Provinces Engage on Same Practice,” National Post, last modified April 2, 2015, http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/manitoba-vows-to-stop-housing-foster-children-in-hotels-but-other-provinces-engage-in-same-practice.
24.Kathryn Blaze Carlson, “Manitoba Nears Deadline to Remove Foster Kids From Hotels in Wake of Sex Assault,” The Globe and Mail, last modified May 28, 2015, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/manitoba-closing-in-on-deadline-to-move-foster-children-out-of-hotels/article24654834/.
25.Lawrence J. Barkwell, Lyle N. Longclaws, and David N. Chartrand, “Status of Métis Children Within the Child Welfare System,” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 9, no. 1 (1989): 33–53, http://www3.brandonu.ca/library/CJNS/9.1/metis.pdf; Inuit Tuttarvingat, “Inuit Child Welfare and Family Support” (2011), accessed November 15, 2015, http://www.naho.ca/documents/it/2011_Inuit_Child_Welfare_Family_Support.pdf. A lot of this discussion focuses on First Nations children, or on Aboriginal children in general. The first source above looks at Métis children in Manitoba, while the second addresses Inuit children.
26.See note 13, page xix. The report says on page xviii, “It is important to note that exposure to intimate partner violence differs from the other forms of maltreatment because substantiation of this maltreatment category means that a caregiver failed to protect a child from exposure to his/her own victimization.”
27.Ibid., 3.
28.Ibid., 11.
29.Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “2003 April Report of the Auditor General of Canada: Chapter 6, Federal Government Support to First Nations-Housing on Reserves,” oag-bvg.gc.ca, last modified Apr 8, 2003, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200304_06_e_12912.html.
22
Human Flagpoles
Inuit Relocation
On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, we would like to offer a full and sincere apology to Inuit for the relocation of families from Inukjuak and Pond Inlet to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay during the 1950s. We would like to express our deepest sorrow for the extreme hardship and suffering caused by the relocation. The families were separated from their home communities and extended families by more than a thousand kilometres. They were not provided with adequate shelter and supplies. They were not properly informed of how far away and how different from Inukjuak their new homes would be, and they were not aware that they would be separated into two communities once they arrived in the High Arctic. Moreover, the Government failed to act on its promise to return anyone that did not wish to stay in the High Arctic to their old homes.1
Relocations of Indigenous peoples, and even of whole communities within Canada, have been a shockingly frequent event since contact. In fact, much of the history since contact has involved moving Indigenous communities from one place to another for the benefit of settlers. As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report points out, the justification for these frequent relocations was often “this is for their own good.”2 Yet, RCAP goes on to explain that there are predictable results when relocation is carried out, including:
severing Aboriginal people’s relationship to the land and environment and weakening cultural bonds
a loss of economic self-sufficiency, including, in some cases, increased dependence on government transfer payments
a decline in standards of health
changes in social and political relations in the relocated population3
Further, RCAP has this to say:
The results of more than 25 studies around the world indicate without exception that the relocation, without informed consent, of low-income rural populations with strong ties to their land and homes is a traumatic experience. For the majority of those who have been moved, the profound shock of compulsory relocation is much like the bereavement caused by the death of a parent, spouse or child.4
Federal policy toward Inuit, both before and after Confederation, was initially markedly different than it was toward First Nations. Whereas micromanagement and assimilation were the focus for First Nations, the federal government was unwilling to take active responsibility for the Inuit, preferring instead to ensure they remained self-sufficient. While this might seem like an admirable goal, particularly when viewed in contrast with the destruction of self-sufficiency among First Nations, the desired outcome here was to avoid financial commitments. This reluctance continued even after a 1939 Supreme Court ruling clarified the federal government was constitutionally responsible for Inuit.5 When that attitude changed, it changed in a big way.
Inuit relocations 1930s–1950s
The analogy of human pawns being moved on an Arctic chessboard is perhaps never more strikingly illustrated than in the instance of Devon Island. Here, there was relocation of a small group of Inuit to four new sites in succession, as it suited the experimental economic interests of the [Hudson’s Bay] Company and set against the background geopolitical interests of the State.6
Between 1934 and 1947, Baffin Island Inuit were relocated to Devon Island, a “virgin land,” according to Indian Affairs and Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) officials. Baffin Island (Qikiqtaaluk in Inuktitut) has been inhabited by Inuit for thousands of years and is home to many animals, among them caribou, polar bears, Arctic hares, foxes, and wolves, and many nesting birds. Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, is located on the south coast of Baffin Island.
Devon Island (Tatlurutit in Inuktitut) is much smaller, and much more northern than Baffin Island. It supports only a tiny population of muskox, and a few small birds and animals. This relocation of Inuit saw 53 people, along with their possessions and sled dogs, sent to Devon Island for two years to trap, providing furs for the HBC, as well as providing “effective occupation” in an area Canada was worried might become subject to claims from other countries.7
Conditions on Devon Island were extremely harsh, and the 53 Inuit originally sent there chose to leave after their “voluntary” two-year stint. Some of the famil
ies, rather than being allowed to return home, were relocated yet again to Arctic Bay (Ikpiarjuk), then on to Fort Ross (uninhabited now), and then finally to Taloyoak (formerly, Spence Bay). These families suffered years of privation and repeatedly made it clear they wished to return to their original homes, but were denied again and again.
Rather than being seen as a failure, this relocation seemed to set the stage for a succession of subsequent federal interventions. Policy shifted from one of “preservation,” wherein Inuit were encouraged to remain self-sufficient within a traditional hunting economy, to one of “transformation,” which saw the Inuit as being in a constant state of crisis and in need of skills to join the wage economy.
Other relocations were based on the idea that Inuit needed to be saved from the corrupt influence of settlers. In 1949, federal officials, acting without an interpreter, convinced Inuit whose territory was close to a military radio station at Ennadai Lake, to relocate to Nueltin Lake, 100 kilometres away. When the relocated Inuit decided to return to their homes, they were again moved, this time to Henik Lake. When this did not work out, Tavani became the next relocation point. After eight Inuit died (two were murdered,8 six died of malnutrition or exposure) at Tavani, the survivors were evacuated to Arviat (formerly, Eskimo Point). Evacuations of Inuit from communities where starvation was becoming a reality began to occur more frequently.
Indigenous Writes Page 24