Our Children Our Future Our Vision - People for Education

Our Children, Our Future, Our Vision
(c) “Indian” Education Policy
“As the federal government apologizes for residential schools and
assimilation they should now step up and give it back to us. They
took our languages and culture – they should help us get it back.
That’s the logical thing to do.” (Councillor)
Despite the solemn commitments made by both parties in the treaties which were meant to benefit
our heirs and heirs forever, we know that subsequent Crown-First Nation relations were based
more on unilateral control and assimilation than on respect for the treaty promises made in good
faith by the Indigenous Nations. What came to be known as “Indian policy” had a destructive effect
not only on the lives of Indigenous peoples, but also on any relationship with the Crown that
may have existed post-treaty negotiations. 51 The ongoing legacy of poverty, ill health, pre-mature
deaths, and distrust can all be linked to federal Indian policy – both historic and contemporary. 52
First Nation-Crown Relations have changed significantly since treaty days. What started out as
Nation to Nation relations quickly changed to one where First Nations were treated as wards of the
state. It is during this stage when First Nations were relocated from traditional territories, restricted
to reserves, and federal laws were developed to control every aspect of their lives. 53 In fact, policy
shifts which have had detrimental impacts on First Nations, have often been largely out of the control
of First Nations. 54
Early Indian policy is often said to have been based on the need to “protect” Indians, however, the
idea was more about managing and separating Indians until they were ready for civilization and
could be assimilated. Early colonial policy objectives were to secure lands and resources for settlement
and to control trade networks. They based their policies on two problematic assumptions: (1)
that Indians and their cultures were inferior and (2) that Indians were slowly dying off. 55 This meant
that the policy responses were short term; provided minimal funding; and concentrated on controlling
and dividing Nations, as well as separating them from the settler population until they were
ready for assimilation. This was to take place through both voluntary and mandatory enfranchisement
provisions for adults and by residential schools for children. 56
Residential school policy was part of this assimilatory Indian policy. The residential school policy
51 L. Upton, “The Origins of Canadian Indian Policy” (1973) 8:4 J. of Can. Stud. 51-60. See also: B. Titley, A Narrow Vision:
Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1986) [Narrow
Vision]. RCAP, supra note 6.
52 P. Palmater, “Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations” (2012) Can. Rev. Soc. Policy (in
print) [Death by Poverty].
53 RCAP, supra note 6. Founding Peoples, supra note 35.
54 R. Gibbins, “Canadian Indian Policy: The Constitutional Trap” 1 (1984) C.J.N.S. 1-9 [Canadian Indian Policy] at 5. W.
Moss, E. Gardner-O-Toole, Parliamentary Library, “Aboriginal People: History of Discriminatory Laws” (Ottawa: Government
of Canada, 1991) [Discriminatory Laws]. D. McNab, “Herman Merrivale and Colonial Office Indian Policy in
the Mid-Nineteenth Century”, online: .
55 Death by Poverty, supra note 52.
56 RCAP, supra note 6.
Chiefs of Ontario
12