It’s The West Wasn’t Won’s own journal, like a news clipping service across the last two or three hundred years.
Did you know? This month marks a hundred years since the Allied Tribes of British Columbia petitioned to shut down the Indian Reserve Commission report.
If you didn’t, a subscription to Archive Quarterly will really help!
What was hidden from history is what’s needed now.
AQ shakes out the archives for primary sources on Indigenous land and British Columbia, sharing:
~ key extracts from archival artifacts
~ quotes and interviews on the issues as they were
~ relatable commentary and a few side-notes
~ images and timelines that connect past and present
The first April issue will be here in three weeks!
Archive Quarterly is about it, the west wasn’t won!
BC history is lit from one side – showing settler progress to advantage, while rendering the Indigenous reality of that “progress” indiscernible.
This magazine aims to balance the view. As well as the written records, interviews with Elders reveal circumstances leading up to political movements, court actions and roadblocks, and conditions in their communities at the time.
Excerpts in the journal will be presented in full documents online, where they are accessible to download.
You can also donate to AQ to become a founding sponsor – thanks!
Group and bulk print subs available, just drop us a line.
If you just can’t afford the subscription, get in touch and we’ll get you in.
By subscribing to AQ today, you’ll be helping to get work done.
Special Issues
Did you know? The ongoing denial of Aboriginal land title – and the tiny size of First Nations reserves – contributes directly to child apprehensions from young Aboriginal families. The situation can’t change without land to build on and live in.
Special Issues are on the way for AQ, focusing on Aboriginal Title, the Non-Status Indian era, Roadblocks, and more. The Special series dives deep and provides historical overviews and insight, and the development takes time and research and communications.
AQ’s online digital archive
It keeps growing, as old docs are scanned and processed and uploaded. The physical archive costs money for storage, and the digital archive costs money for web space.
The magazine comes out of a collection kept up by Electromagnetic Print – EMP, a book label founded to print voices seldom heard in the media, especially the voices of native sovereigntists.
Thank you very much for reading and have a great day!
WARNING – this article refers to abuse of children
Two Indigenous people, a married couple, were sentenced on Friday June 23, the foster parents of young Indigenous siblings. They were charged with assault and manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison.
Our deepest condolences go to the children’s family, the perpetrators’ families, and the Sto:lo people in whose community these events – which are not unique – have unfolded.
That Sto:lo community is not alone, not in any part of this tragedy. The incomprehensible hurt and loss of innocent Indigenous children is part of a much larger, much older, ongoing and world-famous Canadian assault on Indigenous Peoples.
Another Indigenous mother presented her petition against British Columbia and Canada to an international arbiter, in 2007, for the senseless, routine, and indefensible apprehension of her children and their subsequent abuse in Ministry “care.”
Her case was admitted to the Inter-American Court in 2014: not only do Indigenous Peoples suffer for a lack of jurisdiction over their own children and families, but they suffer from the total denial of their title and rights over everything else – their land and jurisdiction – that would allow them to maintain their children and families according to their own traditions.
That is, losing children to the state is the direct result of the state’s denial of Indigenous Peoples’ land titles and the accompanying rights, wealth, national identity, authentic governance, and social and cultural structures.
The Lake Errock case in the news
The First Nations Leadership Council has called for the resignation of the Minister of Child and Family Development, Mitzie Dean, and the Premier of BC snapped back that the Ministry has his full support and confidence. The BC Greens Caucus has now backed them up on the demand for a resignation.
Are criminal charges pending against the Director of Child and Family Services of British Columbia? Children “in care” also died in 2020 and 2017 in BC. And 2015. And… the total lack of accountability or culpability in Indigenous child deaths “in care” is a signal from the colonial administration: they are only doing what they set out to do. This colony set out to supplant Indigenous Peoples, and the deaths of their children in mandated forcible removals is “just” a part of that mandate. It is no different from the “kill the Indian in the child” mandate established by the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald, when he stated in 1910, “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools [Indian Residential Schools], and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”
Sixteen months after this eleven year old boy was killed in Lake Errock, by the foster mother, the Ministry’s culpability in the abuse and death is clearly a contributing factor. Seven months had passed since any agent of the Ministry, any social worker, checked the foster home or the children’s well being when the fatal events happened at the end of February 2021. There was not even a virtual check in by phone or online communication.
The trial has revealed that brutality was ongoing in that home, including coercing other children resident there to participate in abusing the 8 and 10 year old sister and brother.
While mainstream media is tip-toeing around the legendary mortality rate in Canada’s Indigenous child apprehension programs, there are some basic facts that we should be reminded of.
Aboriginal delegated agencies for children and families
There is, in British Columbia, a perpetual cycle of tragedy, inquiry, recommendation, ad hoc Indigenous involvement, delegated control capped by BC MCFD mandates, funding cuts, mismanagement, denial… tragedy, inquiry, recommendations…
The fact that this cycle has continued unchecked since the 1980s is proof positive of a mandate among BC social workers to disrupt and endanger young Indigenous families. Apprehension of children from young Aboriginal families, according to a career social worker who would rather not be named, is the unwritten but understood objective.
Indigenous communities have fought valiantly for the power to help their own families without interference. Indigenous Chiefs have rallied to several major commitments to step into roles of youth care and family support over the last four decades.
What they get is delegated powers from a colonial Ministry, which is perpetually determined to undervalue the cost of these responsibilities, and to control mandates and delivery.
The Indigenous foster parents of the two Indigenous foster children in this case were living in an area, Lake Errock, which is served by Xyolhemelh, a delegated Aboriginal child and family services society.
Xyolhemeylh is the agency that was responsible for Alex Gervais. In 2015, Gervais, age 17, died by falling out of an Abbotsford hotel room window where he had been “temporarily” housed by the society for 49 days.
The event was the subject of a February 2017 report on the dysfunction of B.C.’s Aboriginal child welfare system.
A press statement from the BC General Employees Union in 2017 explained:
“The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is responsible for providing funding for a significant portion of the services that delegated Aboriginal agencies like Xyolhemeylh provide. A recent agreement between MCFD and the agency has brought caseload funding on par with levels within the MCFD, providing some relief from a dire recruitment and retention crisis at Xyolhemeylh.
“However, because MCFD has itself been drastically under-resourced for decades, the increase still isn’t enough to provide care that is appropriate to Aboriginal children and youth. “Unfortunately, staffing resources equal to MCFD is no answer for Xyolhemeylh workers who are desperately trying to provide services in culturally appropriate ways to children whose families are scarred with multigenerational trauma, and the dire poverty that so often accompanies it,” said BCGEU President Stephanie Smith.”
The cycle
The report, “Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging,” was submitted by B.C. Representative for Children and Youth Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, explored the life of a youth named Skye, who died of an overdose on her 17th birthday in August 2017.
The report found that B.C.’s child welfare system left Skye without a sense of belonging, particularly as an Indigenous person, which contributed to her death. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.
“Collaboration among ministry, Indigenous communities needed to assess living situations of kids in care: jury.” This headline refers to the death of a 17-year-old Cree teen in a group home in Abbotsford. The report recommended more family-based services for children in care and faster action when those children go missing.
Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais was found dead in a bedroom closet in September 2020, four days after he was first reported missing by a group home staffer.
The Timeline
2023, June 29 – The B.C. Green Caucus stands with the FNLC, calling for the resignation of Minister of Children and Family Development, Mitzi Dean, in light of the shocking and horrific systemic failures of the Ministry that have continued under their watch.
2023, June – First Nations Leadership Council calls for the resignation of the Minister of Child and Family Development, Mitzie Dean, over the 2021 death of a child in foster care in Lake Errock, after the trial and sentencing of the perpetrators. The children’s case was handled by a delegated aboriginal agency, which had not checked in for seven months when the child died.
2021, June – report by BC’s Children and Youth Advocate, “Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging,” explored the life of a youth named Skye, who died of an overdose on her 17th birthday in August 2017. The report found that B.C.’s child welfare system left Skye without a sense of belonging, particularly as an Indigenous person, which contributed to her death. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.
2021, May – the unmarked graves of 215 children on the Kamloops Indian Residential School grounds are confirmed. This leads to examination of other Indian Residential School sites, and further confirmation of similar mass unmarked graves at every school inspected so far.
2020, September – Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais was found dead in a bedroom closet, four days after he was first reported missing by a group home staffer.
2020 – present: most First Nations have accepted the demise of the Aboriginal Peoples Family Accord, the Tsawwassen Accord, and the Indigenous Child at the Center Action Plan. Instead, they have implemented the recommendations of the 2015 Report of MCFD Special Advisor Grand Chief Ed John. The report called for a Social Worker on every Indian Reserve, and the January 2020 enabling legislation provided delegated agency, to fulfill the Ministry mandate, to each First Nation.
2020, January – Bill C-92, “The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families” applies to Indigenous groups, communities or peoples, regardless of status or residence within Canada, who bear existing and inherent Aboriginal rights as per section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
It is designed to affirm the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples in relation to child and family services, and to set out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children. The Act creates a set of National Standards that must apply when working with Indigenous children, youth and families, and provides for changes to jurisdiction when making decisions about Indigenous lives.
The Act contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and provides an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to choose their own solutions for their children and families. Our children, our way.
2017, August – an Indigenous youth named Skye died of an overdose on her 17th birthday. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.
2017 – A recent funding agreement between MCFD and the delegated aboriginal agencies brought caseload funding on par with levels within the MCFD.
2016 – APFA runs out of funding, dissolves.
2016 – 2014? – termination of regional delegated agencies – consultation and development program – follows from lack of support from individual communities for the regional, not community-based, process. Instead, most Bands sign on to deliver MCFD mandate themselves, following Ed John’s report recommending a social worker / agent on every reserve.
2016, November – Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification–From Root Causes To Root Solutions; A Report on Indigenous Child Welfare in British Columbia Final Report of Special Advisor Grand Chief Ed John. The report calls for a Social Worker on every Indian Reserve.
2016, March – The B.C. Teachers’ Federation calls for Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of Children and Family Development, to resign after Patricia “Indigo” Evoy was found dead in a Burnaby, B.C., apartment March 10. She is the third aboriginal youth, in as many years, to die while receiving help from the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development.
2016, March – Patricia “Indigo” Evoy died while in Ministry “care.”
2015, December – Plecas Report part 1 released
2015, December
2015, December 22 – Sto:lo Tribal Council call for Bob Plecas and Ed John’s resignations, and reports to be shelved. They cite the misleading appearance of Indigenous representation with Ed John’s participation, which was not endorsed by Indigenous groups
2015, September – Grand Chief Edward John appointed Special Advisor on Indigenous Children in Care, “to engage First Nations and Aboriginal leaders in discussions to help the Province reduce the number of Aboriginal children in care; and, to engage with the federal government in meaningful work to enhance prevention and intervention work as well as address ‘root causes,’ as discussed in the report.” 6 month term
2015, September – NDP John Horgan calls for Minister of Children and Families Stephanie Cadieux to resign, following the death “in care” of Alex Gervais.
2015, September – Alex Gervais, age 17, died by falling out of an Abbotsford hotel room window where he had been “temporarily” housed by the Aboriginal delegated authority the Xylohmelh Society for 49 days.
2015, July – “Aboriginal Children in Care” report to Canadian Premiers identified “core housing need” among 40% of single parent families living on-reserve, among other major iniquities: in 2012, 40% of Indigenous children live in poverty; 43% of women in federal prisons are Aboriginal.
2014, December – The Lil’wat petition is admitted to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, which waived the requirement to prove exhaustion of the domestic remedy
2014, August – Canada’s Premiers directed provinces and territories to work together on solutions to reduce the number of Aboriginal children in child welfare systems. A report was provided to Premiers at the Council of the Federation (COF)
2013, November – report: When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in B.C.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde, Representative for Children and Youth, BC
The report offered critical observations on how both Aboriginal organizations and BC’s Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) have failed to meet the needs of children through what she has stated is a system of “fractured accountability”.
2011 – Child and Family Wellness Accord
Between leadership of the nine south island First Nations and urban Aboriginal community, known as the South Island Wellness Society, and the Province of B.C.
– to design and develop an Indigenous child services system for the care and protection of Aboriginal children, youth and families in the region.
-to restore, revitalize and strengthen the services in an effort to address the gaps and socio-economic barriers impacting the well-being of Aboriginal children and families
2011 – The Lil’wat petition to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights is accepted, the Edmonds petition, concerning the lack of Canadian jurisdiction to interfere in Lil’wat families living in Lil’wat territory
2010 – termination of APFA, end of funding for Child at the Center and Interim Child and Wellness Council
2008, July – Interim Child and Wellness Council established to gather further input for the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan to ensure it reflects the knowledge of front line workers, youth, the community and leadership. The Council will then develop a workplan to advance and implement the Child at the Centre Action Plan.
2008, July – First Nations Leadership Council announces the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan
2008, June – Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologizes for Indian Residential Schools
2008, April – VACFSS receives mandate from MCFD for “child protection,” meaning license to remove children from their homes and place them “in care”
2008, February – Overview of the Child Critical Injury and Death Investigation and Review Process in British Columbia
Prepared by The Children’s Forum: – BC Coroners Service – Ministry of Children and Family Development – Ombudsman – Public Guardian and Trustee – Provincial Health Officer – Representative for Children and Youth
2008, January 25 – the ‘Walking Together to Keep Indigenous Children at the Centre’ Declaration of Commitment among Indigenous Peoples “in” British Columbia
2008 Aboriginal Peoples Family Accord
A process of constituting regional delegated aboriginal agencies
2007, November 29 – the ‘All Our Relations’ Declaration of the Sovereign Indigenous Nations of British Columbia
2007 – GOOD PRACTICE ACTION PLAN
Ministry of Child and Family Development, BC
“Aboriginal peoples exercising their rights to jurisdiction over their children’s well-being, through self-determination, have strong and healthy children, youth and families.”
2006 – the Assembly of First Nations settles a number of individual and class-action suits against the Canadian government for harms caused by Indian Residential Schools.
the system for reviewing child deaths, including how these reviews are addressed within the Ministry,
advocacy for children and youth;
and the monitoring of government’s performance in protecting and providing services for children and youth
2005 – Opposition BC party NDP call for review into the two Aboriginal child deaths; advocates for other youth call for supports to youth in care
2002, September – toddler Sherry Charlie died in a foster home she was placed in by MCFD / delegated USMA (Nuu-chah-nulth) child services
2002, September – 23-month-old Chassidy Whitford was killed by her father on the Lakahahmen reserve near Mission in 2002, in Xyolhemelh / Fraser Valley Aboriginal Child and Family Services care.
2002, June – Formation of the First Nations Leadership Council, under the Tsawwassen Accord between the province of BC, BC region Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
2000-2001 – Ed John, an Indigenous Chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, is made the Minister for Children and Family Services, BC
2001, December 14 – VACFSS and the province sign the Delegation Enabling Agreement (DEA). VACFSS can provide a full range of delegated Resource and Guardianship services. It also provides non-delegated services through Indigenous Family Preservation and Reunification Services.
2000 – First Nations child and family services, national policy review – report by DIA and AFN
2000 – the Nisga’a Final Agreement includes agency over Children and Families, and the Nisga’a Child and Family Services is an extension of the provincial Child and Family Services law.
1999 – VACFSS began negotiations with the Ministry to deliver delegated services under the BC Act. The VACFSS Guardianship Pilot Project began.
1998 –A Review of the Implementation of the Report of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection
1996 – creation of the Children’s Commission to review child deaths and oversee the activities of the new ministry
1996 – a series of community consultations leads to VACFSS receiving Indigenous support to get “designation status” – providing advocacy to families and notifying First Nations when their children were removed from their member families in the Lower Mainland
1994 – Gove Commission announced following murder of Matthew Vaudreille
1994, May – creation of Child, Family and Community Service Act, and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act
1992 – “Liberating our Children, Liberating our Nation” – legislation review report calls for Indigenous jurisdiction over Indigenous children
(Community Panel Child Protection Legislation Review, British Columbia Report of the Aboriginal Committee: Eva Jacobs, Kwakiutle Nation and Lavina White, Haida; Fred Storey, Project Manager; Loretta Adams, Researcher; Faye Poirier, Administrative Support)
1989 -The Nuu-chah-nulth Department of Family and Child Services (Usma) becomes the first Aboriginal agency in Canada to exercise full delegated authority for child welfare.
1988 – the off-reserve advocacy union, United Native Nations, work in family reunification, and volunteerism spreading to child care and protection, is formalized as the Mamele Benevolent Society to facilitate in-home support programs, advocacy for families with children seized by the BC Ministry. This organization becomes the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society in 1992.
1986 – Child Welfare Committee
1980 – Child, Family and Community Service Act BC
1980 – Spallumsheen bylaw; child protection is carried out by the Band
1980 – Indian Child Caravan took place over Thanksgiving weekend, October 9-13, 1980. The Caravan began in Prince George and picked up more people along its route. The group advanced to Williams Lake and Mount Currie, and merged with people from the Interior and Vancouver Island communities before culminating with a rally in Vancouver. And sit-in outside the Minister’s house
1972-73 On March 9, 1973, the National Indian Brotherhood appeared at the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Affairs. Joe Clark, then a Member of Parliament from Alberta, moved that the Committee recommend to the House of Commons that the NIB’s
1972 Aboriginal Rights Position Paper be adopted as a description of aboriginal rights. It includes control of children and families.
1969 – Moccasin walk of a hundred miles, Indian Homemakers Association of BC,
raise funds for the British Columbia – wide Indigenous leadership gathering, which becomes the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, with a mandate to pursue the Indian Land Question.
1960s – “60’s scoop” indiscriminate and mass seizure of Indigenous children to state “care” and adoptions outside Canada. Follows delegation of social services from federal to provincial, and decriminalization of keeping children out of Indian Residential Schools
1920 – Indian Act amended to require Indigenous child attendance at Indian Residential Schools, on pain of imprisonment of the parents for non-compliance
BC’s first Superintendent of Neglected Children, 1919
1910 – Prime Minister John MacDonald: “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools [Indian Residential Schools], and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”
end list *
Please find archival material at: ihraamorg.wordpress.com and check the archive in “Children” on this site.
Grand Chief Ed John recommends MCFD rep in every reserve community
In September of 2015, Grand Chief Ed John was hired by the province of British Columbia “to provide advice on how to address the inordinate number of Indigenous children in care of government.” For clarification, the BC government asked for advice from the Chair of the First Nations Summit on how to stop itself from forcibly removing the children of Indigenous nations.
On November 21, 2016, John’s report was released: “Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification – From Root Causes to Root Solutions.” Unfortunately, it does not feature the most obvious solution to the problem – the solution proposed over and over by Indigenous leaders; the solution which families and communities have fought for, tooth and nail: the removal of state child-apprehension programs from interference among peoples with whom Canada has no treaty, and over whom Canada has no jurisdiction.
Instead, the report calls firstly for increased funding to the provincial Ministry of Child and Family Services, in order to support the presence of more government-accredited social workers in a Ministry office on every reserve. And lastly, for Canada-wide legislation dictating the terms by which Indigenous Peoples may participate in child welfare.
There is a vast disconnect between the stories reported and the recommendations ensuing. The stories: anger, heartbreak, loss and irreparable harm caused by all-powerful MCFD agents demanding nuclear-family scenarios from extended-family cultures.
The recommendations: nothing less than re-institution of the Indian Agent. The highest recommended level of community engagement is a “nation-to-nation” protocol between the Indigenous party and the MCFD regional office (which is not a nation). After that, in the long term, an Indigenous community can take steps to replace the on-reserve agent with a bureaucrat of their own making, following federal prescriptions for the fulfillment of Ministry requirements.
There are several further, eerie shades to this report. One appears in the opening paragraphs, where the late Tl’azt’en warrior Chief, Harry Pierre, is quoted: “In our time, the helpers would come to help the mother and father…they would remind the parents of their responsibility.” Ed John does not refer in his report to any character resembling a “helper,” such as is described by Pierre, except the newly mandated on-reserve social worker.
John avoids directly identifying the “root causes” of BC’s excessive child-removal program, except to hint that they were planted in Indigenous communities by the government. And now –however unexpectedly – he lays out an agenda whereby those causes are to be corrected by planting alongside them the government itself. Thus providing “root solutions.”
No part of these recommendations pursues Indigenous autonomy in their continuing, unsurrendered jurisdiction over these matters. Although UN declarations are referenced, the report’s recommendations ignore international recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, control of their lands and resources and their own natural wealth, and control of their own social, economic and cultural business. The report also ignores a bloody, sweaty, tearful and epic campaign by Indigenous nations to bring their children home.
Jurisdiction over Indigenous children
A handful of news articles have appeared on the release of this report, all relying entirely on phrases provided by the government and Ed John’s public remarks. The journalists do not include the hard facts of his main recommendations, but parrot the buzzword jargon which John provided in his summary: “the essence of his 85 recommendations is a call for a jurisdictional transfer of aboriginal child welfare from governments, federal and provincial, to indigenous communities themselves,” reported Vaughn Palmer in The Vancouver Sun.
There arises a problem with the definition of “jurisdiction,” which the Grand Chief does not condescend to clarify. Indigenous Peoples expect that “jurisdiction” means their inherent and internationally recognized right of self-determination – their full International Bill of Rights and the wealth of their natural resources that comes with. In this Special Advisor’s report, the word “jurisdiction” is apparently used to refer to “powers delegated to a First Nation by the federal government after agreements releasing and indemnifying the governments and anyone else for past harms, and after ratification of self-government agreements modifying the Aboriginal right to be the rights included in this Agreement, as funded by periodic arrangements with the provincial and federal governments.”
Grand Chief Ed John has had 25 years of experience in promoting these extinguishment agreements, in his role as Chair of the First Nations Summit. The Summit is the regulatory approval and promotion mechanism for First Nations to negotiate Final Agreements under the terms of the BC Treaty Commission. Recently the government has exchanged the word “extinguished” for the word “modified” to describe the transformation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights into “the rights specified in the Agreement.”
He reports on his meeting with the Nisga’a, the first to ratify a Final Agreement in BC, where there have been “no removals of Nisga’a children in the last six years,” and all “because of the existing relationship between Nisga’a and MCFD.” Presumably this is because of their Final Agreement, under the terms of which “workers in Nisga’a communities are hired as auxiliary employees with MCFD.”
This is an example of the highest expression of “jurisdiction” possible under Ed John’s recommendations.
This is a very unimpressive example because it is not entirely true. According to a young Nisga’a woman living in Vancouver, she and her new family have been harassed by MCFD since she was six months pregnant. The Ministry has exacted dreadful invasions of her life, all on pain of losing her infant child if she does not comply. When questioned about assistance available to her as a Nisga’a citizen, who one would expect to have benefit of this “all possible because of the existing relationship between Nisga’a and MCFD,” she explained that this was not considered a good or even viable option by other young Nisga’a families she had asked. This particular young woman is mature, extremely intelligent, capable, and focused on her son – but she made the mistake of reporting to an Aboriginal liaison worker that she had had a fight with her boyfriend.
“Jurisdiction” here means perhaps even less.
Government Approved
The BC government press release announcing the report also included the news that “Of the recommendations directed at MCFD, work on 40 of them is either being wrapped into the ministry’s multi-year operations plan or is currently underway.” It seems that the report has outlined some extremely achievable goals for the provincial government.
Or is that a bad translation? The report was also described by the province as a key to “improve outcomes for Indigenous children and youth by changing focus from intervention and separation to strengthening families.” However, there are no recommendations pertaining to this at all – except possibly #17, a reminder list of procedural obligations for BC judges, including that they should “make every possible effort to keep siblings together in their orders.” And possibly #37? Another $4 million to INAC and MCFD in “family preservation funding”?
The 220 page report is largely made up of highlighted quotes from BC’s Child Family and Community Services Act, and is perhaps most useful as a guide to the Act itself. Most of the recommendations concern implementing the Act at deeper and deeper levels within Indigenous communities. Focusing heavily on government handouts about its finer instruments of inducting Indigenous youth into state “care”, the report runs the gamut of ‘Delegated Aboriginal Agencies’ and ‘Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators’ and ‘Wrapping our Ways Around Them’ – a guidebook “based on the understanding that Aboriginal peoples need to understand how to work within the current systems.”
And here, after summarizing all these, the first Recommendation appears:
#1: MCFD and INAC invest in the development and delivery of child and family services directly within First Nations communities in BC, through the following specific actions:
MCFD and INAC commit to invest an additional $8 million annually to increase the number of social workers, support workers, and others serving First Nations communities in BC by at least 92 FTEs over the next two years;
MCFD take immediate action to ensure that the additional front-line staff identified above are placed directly within First Nations communities in BC;
MCFD and INAC work together to ensure that a child and family liaison and advocate is funded for each First Nation community as a support service to parents, families, leaders, and members who require support within the community or to navigate the child welfare system; and
MCFD, with the objective of maximizing its child safety recruitment, review the entry-level qualifications for front-line workers to consider educational and experiential requirements for child safety positions.
Of all the grandmothers’ statements and community advocates’ outlines of internal remedy, those are not the characters elevated in the Grand Chief’s recommendations.
It is not until Recommendations 5 and 6 that First Nations – or any of them – are mentioned in the proposed new regime: their leaders should meet regularly with regional MCFD officers, and receive lists of the names of their children who are in state care.
A question arises concerning the discrepancy between the funding/hiring/state infrastructure recommendations, and contrary statements in the body of the report like this:
As this report will illustrate, I do not believe it is sufficient to simply refine the existing child welfare structure and authority base with an internally accountable quality assurance framework premised on greater centralization and improved lines of communication. Nor do I believe it will suffice to simply deploy more university-educated social workers, who – though often well intentioned – are without the knowledge and understanding of the Indigenous peoples with whom they work. A bigger and brighter version of the existing children welfare system will not address the concerns or meet the expectations of those Indigenous peoples with whom I met over the course of my engagements as Special Advisor.
And the question is this: did the same person who wrote that statement also write the recommendations? Because the recommendations are all about, are only about, expanding the existing structure; deploying more social workers; and delegating a “refined” version of the existing framework to Indigenous administration.
The Role of Special Advisor
John’s unique commission as “Special Advisor” started two months before his colleague, Bob Plecas, released his commissioned report on the same subject of child welfare. That report is unique in that it attached a dollar figure to the MCFD’s annual operating budget in BC: $2 billion. However, because of a self-disclosed business approach to the matter, when the Plecas Report came out in December, 2015, Indigenous leaders described is as “callous” and “ignorant”, as well as publicly urging John to remove himself from the situation and distance himself from the report. He did neither.
At least one Indigenous organization objected to this Special Advisor role early in the process. The Chilliwack Progress reported: “A resolution approved by Sto:lo Tribal Council is calling for Grand Chief Edward John to step down from his MCFD advisor role… The issues they raise about Chief John have to do with the irreconcilable contradiction between his role as MCFD advisor, as well as a B.C. Leadership Council and First Nations Summit Task Group member: “The Minister and Deputy Minister have stated in writing and in public that they are not required to consult First Nations leaders and organizations such as the First Nations Health Council because they hired Grand Chief Edward John.””
Others have commented in social media outlets since the release of the report. “Indigenous child welfare requires traditional ways, not white government interference!” exclaimed Hereditary Chief Kakila of Tenas Lake, St’at’imc. “The First Nations Summit is about money, not about solutions for community needs. In order to protect the child you must first protect the parents! You must build a healthy community that is the family structure! A child needs love, kindness and nurture – not millions of dollars for social workers!”
The First Nations Summit, the center of John’s career, is the state-constituted body which represents First Nations in BC treaty negotiations. This is not widely regarded as authentic representation of Indigenous peoples, although the BC government has always allowed the lines to blur: “Ed John has no mandate to represent anything. Another Christy Clark scam.” – Morris Amos, Haisla.
As to the legal reality of Indigenous Peoples’ jurisdiction, some traditional leaders are grim: “Unceded lands but tightly in the grip of these Uncle Tomahawks and Christy Clark. And they ignore us hereditary chiefs. There’s no way to get at them. It would take an organizing effort of epic proportions to combat this government-funded machine with so many entrenched “Grand Chiefs” and all those lofty titles they give themselves.” – Ron George, Hereditary leader from the Deskayway House of Wet’suwet’en:
A Note on the Cipher
Entrenched dominance jargon throws shade on the few bright Indigenous-led initiatives that are barely referenced in the Grand Chief’s report. In one of the only references to authentic Indigenous aspirations, John couches the internationally recognized Indigenous Peoples’ right of self-determination within Canadian-defined “self-government.” He literally presents the notion of “a First Nation to move toward fully exercising its right of self-determination as an aspect of self-government.”
In order to crack this code language, one must appreciate that whatever the government of Canada recognizes as an Aboriginal right, in this case “self-government” (now defined by the “First Nations Governance Act”), is therefore something that can only be safely exercised in a manner in which Canada approves and recognizes and legislates it. It is simply an act of deception to include the words “self-determination” in a context which precludes the meaning of that right.
In order to understand Grand Chief John’s report, one must have several elite keys to decipher the code. For example, a deconstruction of this paragraph:
“The report, however, also recognizes and speaks to the period of transition currently underway as Indigenous peoples and communities transition away from governance under the Indian Act, and work to rebuild our governance capacity, core governance institutions, and assert our jurisdiction based on the needs and priorities determined by our own communities. In recognition of this important period of transition, and motivated by the desire that no child, parent, family, or community be left behind, the report also recommends specific shorter-term actions that should be taken to improve legislative and administrative measures relating to the welfare of Indigenous children, families, and communities.”
Key:
“period of transition” = implementation of former Prime Minister Harper’s Bill C-45 omnibus legislation which sparked the Idle No More movement in reaction to its sweeping codification of limited and delegated Aboriginal rights, such as in the cutting of Constitutional Non-Derogation clauses; the First Nations Financial Transparency Act; First Nations Governance Act; First Nations Land Management Act; First Nations Education Act; etc. * also implementation of the federal government’s “Secret” (otherwise unnamed) document on adapting federal policy to “reconciliation” following the Supreme Court rulings on Haida and Taku in 2004.
“away from governance under the Indian Act” = towards Final Agreements in the BC treaty process and under the federal Comprehensive Claims Policy (extinguishment agreements), and effectively into corporate entities with municipal status under provincial legislations
“rebuild our governance capacity” = turn Indian Act Bands into corporate models under the First Nations Governance Act, exercising “Aboriginal rights” as allowed and delegated by Canada
“specific shorter-term actions” = also known as “Interim Measures” in the BC treaty process, referring to unilateral administrative actions, deals and programs by the state
“legislative and administrative measures” = actions taken by the state
“welfare of Indigenous children, families, and communities” = no clear meaning. When this phrase follows a recipe for assimilation into Canadian minority status such as in the paragraph above, “welfare” probably literally means measurable statistics and indicators such as educational achievement, life expectancy and economic status comparable to other Canadians, measured according to Canadian values rather than Indigenous values (which would also include identity, language, autonomy, independence, ecological sustainability, cultural cohesion)
The report is a collection of headlines unsupported by corroborating details. This way, a reporter can reference these headlines as if they are representative of the content of his report. Except the black and white recommendations, which do not support the headlines.
This is a writing genre that Ed John has perfected over many years of his career in the Indian Industry. John has dispersed empty rhetoric, while never taking any action whatsoever, as the Chair of the First Nations Summit; as BC Minister for Children and Families; as a member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues – in which capacity he often and profoundly misrepresented events in the state of Canada, most notably in his characterization of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a product of Indigenous decision.
The trouble with having such a career is that this tradesman actually depends on continuing, even enriching the Indian Industry. Or, as a comparable character, a junior minister in the BC cabinet, once put it: “It’s not about making it work – it’s about keeping it working.”
For relevant and meaningful reports on Indigenous mobilization to re-take control of their children and families, please see a developing archive on the subject of Canada’s forcibly removing Indigenous children from their homes and families:State of Indigenous Child Removal ihraamorg.wordpress.com
A timeline to put the Grand Chief’s recommendations in historical context:
In 1920 the Canadian legacy began, with enforcing attendance of all Indian children in Indian Residential Schools. This was, as we know, “to kill the Indian in the child” and make sure there would be “no more Indian problem.”
Into the 1960s, enforced attendance was relaxed and some children did not go to IRS.
In the 1960s and 70s, tens of thousands of Indigenous children were kidnapped from public places, from maternity wards, and from homes by state officials mandated to find neglect and remove children to non-native homes, severed from all knowledge of their true identity.
From the 1970s to present, the state has imposed impossible criteria on Indigenous families to keep their children, with no accountability, apparently, to anyone, and no real recourse for families. The only “deliverable” appears to be the children themselves: out of their communities and into foreign homes.
In 2016, Ed John recommends that the Ministry responsible for half a century of forcible removal of children be located by satellite offices directly inside Indigenous communities, thus rooting government control of family life in the heart of the community. With the option for Indigenous Peoples to eventually run that particular machine themselves, by agreement, and be accountable to Canadian taxpayers.
The West Wasn't Won 