Polices of Indigneous Assimilation in Canada

From the time the Dominion of Canada was federated in 1867 until the Constitution Act (1982) came into force, Indigenous rights were not considered and Treaty rights were disregarded. Canadian policy and its legislation were designed and enacted to,

“... do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion.”²

This Canadian policy of Aboriginal assimilation was given to Canada by Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. It was put into action with legislation that designed forced non-Indigenous educational systems, social policies and economic developments on Indigenous Peoples to extinguish Indigenous rights, culture, and infrastructure. The purpose of forced Aboriginal assimilation was the extensive annexation of Indigenous lands and resources – the colonization of Canada.

The nation of Canada’s base was built in a way that did not recognize a place in Canada’s future for Indigenous Peoples. In keeping with that vision, polices that forced Aboriginal assimilation to non-Indigenous societal constructs and relocated Indigenous Peoples were put into place. These policies and their enforcing legislation and services structures created two paths in Canada:

“... one for non-Aboriginal Canadians with full participation in the affairs of their communities, province and nation; and one for the people of the First Nations, separated from provincial and national life, and henceforth to exist in communities where their traditional governments were ignored, undermined and suppressed, and whose colonization was as profound as it would prove to be immutable over the ensuing decades.”³

Historical Assimilation Tools:

The essence of the policy of Aboriginal assimilation is that Indigenous Peoples in Canada have no rights unless they assimilate and become Canadian (enfranchisement). Canada apologized for and renounced this policy of Aboriginal assimilation on June 11, 2008. However, there was no significant change. This is because the policy of assimilation is deeply embedded into the fabric of Canada.

In practical terms, the policy of assimilation gave rise to other policies. These secondary policies, whether individually conceived or functional derivatives, dictated legislation, regulations, and services from which programs, or a lack thereof, were created. These secondary policies are ‘assimilate-by’ policies or ‘assimilation tools’

There were a large number of these assimilation tools. We will introduce a few. Indigenous people are assimilated by:

1. Breach of Promise: Unfulfilled treaties that deny Indigenous rights.

2. Exclusion: Creating legislation that excludes Indigenous rights.

3. Legislation: Creating legislation against Indigenous rights and culture, the Indian Act.

4. Cultural Destruction: Cultural genocide as a result of residential schools and provincial child welfare agencies, the Indian Act, forced relocation and provincial education systems.

5. Attrition: Selective funding and infrastructure development to support non-Indigenous definitions of development and civilization.

6. Acquisition: Crown ownership versus inherent and international Indigenous rights to land and resource ownership.

7. Abuse of Power: The Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada’s role in maintaining barriers, blocking Meaningful Consultation and preventing reconciliation.

Legislation, regulation, services, and programs, or a lack thereof, created from these secondary assimilate-by policies were Embedded Forced Assimilation Barriers (EFABs) that prevented the advancement of inherent, international and constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous rights in Canada. Many of these EFABs were found in INAC, but many others were dispersed throughout the legislative framework of Canada. Canada’s policy of assimilation will remain active until all assimilate-by policies are identified and EFABs removed. Some of them have been removed.

1. Unfulfilled Treaties:

Canada’s early treaties with Indigenous Peoples remain unfulfilled. These treaties cover vast areas of the Canadian landscape but were never incorporated into Canadian legislation and implemented. Rights and promises recognized in these treaties can only be upheld by an act of legislation. They remained unsanctioned executive actions of the Crown. As a result, Treaty rights and guarantees have been eroded and undermined by Canadian laws.⁴

For almost all intents and purposes, these early treaties have been broken.⁵ They, are however, still Memorandums of Understanding between two nations.⁶ These treaties denote the intent of two sovereign nations to share the land and its resources in mutual respect.⁷ It is the view of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that:

“... the Crown is under a fiduciary obligation to implement such measures as are required to reverse this colonial imbalance and help restore its relationship with treaty nations to a true partnership. This will require the Crown to take positive steps toward this end as well as to refrain from taking actions that will frustrate it.”⁸

In 1982, section 35 of the Constitution Act recognized and affirmed present and future Treaty rights in Canada. However, these rights are limited to the pencilled-in rights of the treaty. The larger issue of Indigenous sovereignty to land and resources not extinguished because early treaties were unfulfilled is still an unresolved issues.

2. Non-Recognition of Rights:

Prior to the Dominion of Canada federation in 1867, there existed a tripartite relationship in Canada between the British Empire, colonies and Indigenous Nations. This relationship was unilaterally changed by legislation in two steps: In 1860, the Indian Lands Act transferred authority over Indigenous people and Indigenous lands from the British to the colonists. Second, the 1867 Constitution Act shuffled authority over Indigenous people and lands from colonists into the new federal government of the Dominion of Canada. At that time, colonies became provinces under the new Dominion. The new tripartite relationship created in 1867 was between British, federal, and provincial governments. No mention of Indigenous nations, rights or treaties was included within the constitution of Canada. Indigenous Peoples were not recognized.⁹

The Constitution Act of 1867 began what could be called a policy of “non-recognition.” Indigenous rights were not recognized and therefore were not, and did not need to be, included into legislation. Later, the Constitution Act in 1982 recognized and affirmed existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights in section 35. In doing so, Aboriginal and Treaty rights needed to be incorporated into Canadian legislation, both federal and provincial. This has not yet occurred.

The current problem with the inclusion of Aboriginal rights into legislation is that Aboriginal rights are granted and defined by the Crown for Indigenous Peoples, not by Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous rights are actually something referred to as Immemorial rights. The recognition of Aboriginal rights in section 35 is actually part of a the modern assimilation tool chest that excludes sovereign Indigenous Immemorial rights. The Indigenous rights that should be included into legislation are Immemorial rights.

3. The Indian Act:

The sole purpose of the Indian Act was to displace and assimilate Canada’s Indigenous Peoples. It was consolidated from other legislation meant to force assimilation and displacement. To understand the intent of the Indian Act, one needs only look at the intent of legislation from which it was consolidated.

The Gradual Civilization Act (1857) was drafted from the premise that by gradually removing distinctions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people through enfranchisement, it would be possible to fully absorb Indigenous Peoples into colonial society.¹⁰ This act provided a mechanism for assimilation.
The Indian Lands Act (1860) formalized procedures for surrendering Indigenous lands and gave authority over Indigenous people and Indigenous lands to the colonial legislature; authority was removed from the British Parliament⁹. This act provided a mechanism to annex Indigenous lands. Indigenous People were no longer in a mutual relationship with colonists.
Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867 and 1982) transferred legislative authority over Indians and lands reserved for Indians to the new federal Parliament. Indigenous Nations no longer existed under the Crown and were not recognized in Canadian legislation. Indigenous rights and treaties were also not recognized.¹¹ This act removed all Indigenous rights.
The Gradual Enfranchisement Act (1869) was the first legislation adopted by Parliament to force Aboriginal assimilation. It continued “gradual civilization” through enfranchisement but gave the superintendent general of Indian Affairs power to force Indigenous Peoples to adopt a municipal-style government. This act undermined Indigenous culture and forced the assimilation of Indigenous government.¹²

The first Indian Act was passed in 1876. It created a legislated regulatory framework from laws that empowered displacement and assimilation. The Indian Act is still active legislation in Canada that affects a large number of Indigenous communities. Control over Indigenous political structures, lands, resources and economic development through today’s Indian Act (1985) continues the unfinished policy of forced displacement and assimilation.

The Indian Act has remained essentially unchanged to the day of writing,¹³ although communities can opt out of certain sections if they have other federal government-approved regulatory systems in place. In the words of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996),

“A royal commission cannot make laws. It can inform and recommend, however. In that role, we can call attention to the factors, attitudes and continuing assumptions that brought about the Indian Act and that continue to prevent progress in moving away from the restrictive Indian Act vision. Those factors are to be found in past assumptions and the shadows they have cast on present attitudes. They must be recognized for what they are and cast away as the useless legacy of destructive doctrines that are as inappropriate now as they were when first conceived. If this review of the foundations of the Indian Act has shown these assumptions for what they are, it will have succeeded as the first step in entering a new era of partnership between governments and Indians. Paradoxically, this new partnership is also a very old partnership, indeed, older than the Indian Act and what it represents .”¹⁴ [Emphasis Added]

4. Cultural Genocide:

a. Indian Act:

The Indian Act (1876) included an enfranchisement process by which Indigenous people could become full citizens, when they qualified. It did not provide a process through which a former Indigenous person could once again become Indigenous. Assimilation was the policy objective behind the Indian Act.¹⁵

The policy of forced Aboriginal assimilation in Canada came into full force through the Indian Act (1876, 1880 and 1886) and the Indian Advancement Act (1884). Methods of forced assimilation within the Indian Act included:¹⁶

1. The abolition of Indigenous status as independent, self-governed peoples;

2. Legislated rules for band membership;

3. Abolition of traditional political systems;

4. Imposition of federally-controlled election systems;

5. Banning spiritual Indigenous activities;

6. Formal creation of residential and industrial schools administrated by religious clergy; and,

7. Mandatory school attendance for Indigenous children with the later imposition of fines and jail sentences for parents who failed to comply.

b. Residential Schools:

The Indian Residential School system was designed to assimilate Indigenous children. The death toll of Indigenous children in residential schools at the beginning of the twentieth century averaged approximately twenty-five percent¹⁷ but was as high as fifty percent.¹⁸

The removing of children from their parents with the goal to change a people, or their culture, formally became the crime of genocide with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.¹⁹ Article 2 of the United Nations declaration states:

Article 2: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Prior to 1948, the term genocide did not exist. The recognition of the crime of genocide and the development of international law against it was the direct result of world reaction to the Jewish holocaust and other Nazi extermination policies. Genocide may not have existed prior to 1948:

“... however, the actions of Britain and the settler governments in Australia and Canada clearly demonstrated that the practice of genocide did.”²⁰

c. Child Welfare Agencies:

Provincial child welfare agencies succeeded residential schools as the preferred care system for Indigenous children.²¹ Started in the 1950's, they gained support from recommendations made in the federal government’s 1966 Hawthorn Report.²² Indigenous children were removed from their homes and placed into non-Indigenous foster care or adopted into non-Indigenous homes without voluntary parental consent. Children taken from Indigenous communities were not necessarily placed in homes within Canada. Provincial child welfare agencies were introduced to accomplish some of the residential school purposes and were subject to some of the same types of internal child abuse problems as residential schools. As many as one in four Indigenous children were removed from native communities and spent at least some part of their childhood away from their parent’s home.

“In many ways, the child welfare system put First Nations children under more pressure to assimilate than did the residential school system ... And, with all this pressure, assimilation may have succeeded had it not been for mainstream Canadians’ racist attitude towards people who were visibly of First Nations descent. It was their visibility which prevented many First Nations peoples from being accepted in mainstream society and which, consequently, made it impossible for them to assimilate..”²³

d. Genocide:

The forced assimilation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada tends to be referred to as both cultural genocide and genocide.^24,25,26 In 2008, Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, apologized to Indigenous Peoples in Canada for the Canadian policy of Aboriginal assimilation, forced removal of Indigenous children and residential schooling.²⁷ However, Canada does not interpret its policies on forced Aboriginal assimilation as cultural genocide.

“For purposes of Canadian law, we believe that the definition of genocide should be drawn somewhat more narrowly than in the international Convention so as to include only killing and its substantial equivalents ... The other components of the international definition, viz, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group and forcibly transferring children of one group to another group with the intent to destroy the group we deem inadvisable for Canada- the former because it is considerably less than a substantial equivalent of killing in our existing legal framework, the latter because it seems to have been intended to cover certain historical incidents in Europe that have little essential relevance to Canada where mass transfers of children to another group are unknown.”²⁸

There is no distinction between genocide and cultural genocide in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.²⁹ Enough circumstantial evidence exists that Canada engaged in each of the acts of genocide as set out in the United Nations Convention to warrant, at least, the suspicion that cultural genocide was a national policy in Canada.³⁰

Current Tools:

One perception of the policy of forced Aboriginal assimilation was as a duty to civilize Indigenous people. Federal legislation was created that purposely designed educational systems, social policies and economic developments to assimilate Indigenous Peoples into a better way of life. As a direct consequence of Canada’s policy on forced Aboriginal assimilation, two paths were laid out at confederation:

Indigenous Peoples simply had to choose enfranchisement, becoming non-Indigenous, to enjoy full participation in the affairs of Canada.

1. Selective Funding:

While the Indian Act, and the administration it produced, had the objective of displacement and assimilation for enfranchising Indigenous Peoples, most policy makers and individuals working with Indigenous people knew nothing about that objective by the 1950's. Non-Indigenous Canadians simply believed that mainstream, non-Indigenous Canada was the only worthwhile way to live in Canada; they truly wanted the best for Indigenous individuals.³² The Hawthorn Report (1966)³³ and its recommendations still guide much of the federal policy derived from this benevolence towards Indigenous Nations. In this policy, help is only available for Indigenous Peoples if the non-Indigenous path is chosen. Examples of this can be seen in the following recommendations from the Hawthorn Report:

Volume 1
- Recommendation 3: “The main emphasis on economic development should be on education, vocational training and techniques of mobility to enable Indians to take employment in wage and salaried jobs. Development of locally available resources should be viewed as playing a secondary role ...”
- Recommendation 22: “Community development should be viewed as playing a distinctly secondary role for most Northern and isolated, small communities ...”
- Recommendation 33: “Where it is desirable to extend provincial services to Indians, this should be undertaken as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, as a consequence of the growth in Indian population, the temptation to establish or maintain separate services will become more pronounced ...”
- Recommendation 35: “Provincial governments should be encouraged to make the policy decision that Indians are, in reality, provincial citizens ...”
- Recommendation 56: “All possible efforts should be made to induce Indians to demand and to accept provincial welfare services.”
- Recommendation 69: “At the present time, the Indian Act, suitably modified where necessary, constitutes the most appropriate legislative vehicle for the development of Indian local government.”
- Recommendation 74: “Reserves should be treated as municipalities for the purpose of all provincial and federal acts which provide grants...”
Volume 2
- Recommendation 1: “The principle of integrated education for all Canadian children is recommended without basic question. The integration of Indian children into the public school system should proceed...”
- Recommendation 2: “The Indian Affairs Branch should recognize a responsibility to see that integrated schooling, once embarked upon, is as successful as possible...”

The Hawthorn Report supported its policy recommendations for non-Indigenous education, economic development, government and social welfare with recommendations for 100's of millions of dollars in funding. Federal and provincial authorities applied many of the Hawthorn Report’s recommendations and provided funding for education, economic development, government and social welfare systems. Unfortunately, all funding was for non-Indigenous-based streams of education, economic development, government and social welfare. No funding was provided for culture-based Indigenous education, economic development, government and social welfare.

The Hawthorn Report paved the way for a new era in forced Aboriginal assimilation in Canada. Provincial and federal governments provided funding to Indigenous Peoples only if their request fell within government funding models. Funding models invariably provided funds for non-Indigenous solutions to Indigenous problems; problems that arose from the policy of forced assimilation. All funding for culture-based Indigenous solutions to Indigenous problems was denied because these solutions fell outside government program funding models.

This policy is still active in Canada and forces the assimilation of Indigenous Peoples by selectively funding only non-Indigenous solutions for education, economic development, government, social welfare and more.

2. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

In September 2007, the United Nations passed resolution 61/295, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).³⁴ Canada is withholding inherent International rights to:

Self-determination and self-government;
Pursue economic, social, and cultural development;
Own and manage lands and resources; and,
A nationality.

The withholding of these rights prevents Indigenous Nations from rebuilding traditional culture-based infrastructures needed to end the cycle of poverty and forced assimilation. Closed doors to sovereign Indigenous Immemorial rights coupled with open doors to non-Indigenous or Crown-granted Aboriginal rights are the hallmark of today’s expression of the policy of forced Aboriginal assimilation in Canada.

Canada is in apparent violation of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada continues to withhold these international Indigenous rights while Canada’s land mass, rich in natural resources, remains occupied by impoverished Indigenous Peoples. Canada presents Indigenous Nations with only two alternatives, assimilate or maintain the status quo of poverty.

Under UNDRIP Articles 1, 3, 6, 9, 40 and 41, and Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,³⁵ Indigenous Nations in Canada may now have five choices before them:

1. Assimilate;

2. Maintain the status quo with Canada;

3. Choose an internal form of self-determination within Canada;

4. Choose another nation as a partner; or,

5. Choose to take their place as an independent nation directly under the protection of the United Nations.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains a process within Articles 19 and 27 for resolving and preventing conflict between Indigenous Peoples and colonizing nations. That process is consultation.

3. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada:

Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867) transferred legislative authority over Indigenous people and lands reserved for Indigenous people to the federal government. The earliest predecessor of the department of Indigenous (initially Indian) and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was established in 1868. In 1876, all legislation on Indigenous people and their land was consolidated into the Indian Act and placed under the control of INAC, in its early morphology. Principal features of INAC’s early administration were the:³⁶

1. Superintendent of Indian Affairs and his in-community Indian Agents who governed Indigenous people using extensive powers provided by the Indian Act. Indigenous people were not citizens and so INAC exercised the power of citizenship for them. Indigenous People were children (wards) over whom INAC had absolute authority.

2. Indian band which was a non-traditional form of government created by the Indian Act. It was imposed on Indigenous people and controlled by INAC.

3. Church Mission which focussed on teaching colonial morality so that adult Indigenous people would become Christian, civilized and educated; assimilated and ready for enfranchisement into Canada. The mission work was administered by INAC.

4. Residential schools used to force the assimilation of Indigenous children. They were administered for INAC by other, usually religious, organizations.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) revealed that INAC’s authority over Indigenous people and their lands was laid on a foundation of four false assumptions; assumptions that were racist, or at best ignorant.³⁷ These four assumptions are:³⁸

1. Indigenous people are inherently inferior and incapable of governing themselves;

2. Treaties and other agreements are not covenants of trust and obligation, and, are less expensive and more acceptable tools than armed conflict. They are bureaucratic Memorandums of Understanding to be formally acknowledged but ignored when convenient. Policy, legislation, regulations and programs can run roughshod over treaty obligations;

3. Wardship is appropriate for Indigenous peoples. Actions deemed to be of benefit for Indigenous people can be taken unilaterally without their consent or involvement in design or implementation; and,

4. Concepts of development are defined for Indigenous people by non-Indigenous values. This applies to the individual, community and nation. This concept of development is equally applied whether to civilization and assimilation, or, resource development and exploitation of the land.

These prejudiced assumptions are a reflection of the time in which they were formed, a time of ignorance, displacement and forced assimilation. Under these conditions, bigoted assumptions prospered and became incorporated into government policies. These policies were an abuse of Canada’s fiduciary responsibility to Indigenous Peoples enabling INAC to abuse its power over Indigenous people and their land.

“We also draw attention to the abuse of power that took place — not just periodic unfairness, but excessive and systematic political dominance, reflected in both the processes and the outcomes of governance ... Once the cycle has begun, however, cause and effect can be, and often are, interactive; abuse of power produces new ideas that are false."³⁹

INAC’s abuse of power revealed itself by virtue of actions. The power abuse had two telltale attributes:⁴⁰

1. The crude, unjust intrusiveness of the instruments used by INAC against Indigenous Peoples. These policy tools were not designed to guide and influence Indigenous people. They were tools meant to invade lands, lives, families, and homes. These tools included:

a. The Indian Act;

b. Forced Residential Schooling;

c. Forced Relocations; and,

d. Wardship.

2. The unimpeded exercise of INAC’s authority and its accompanying bureaucratic refusal to change. INAC has often administered in a punitive fashion or with unconscionable use of bureaucratic power. The department should be guided by Ministerial authority but the institution that is INAC maintains its own status quo, refusing to change.

No amount of Ministerial or Prime Ministerial delegation changed INAC’s policies or direction; including, the public apology given to Indigenous Peoples by Prime Minister Harper in 2008.

“... the more intrusive the agencies and instruments of policy were, the harder they were to unravel and change. The exercise of unbridled authority leads inevitably to resistance to change and to a perverse inertia ...”⁴¹

a. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada:

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommendation 2.3.45 states the Government of Canada should present legislation to abolish and replace INAC.⁴² In 2017, the Government of Canada announced it would comply with this recommendation and dissolve the department creating two new departments. This was accomplished by retaining staff and creating Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. However, there has been no discernable change in the abuse of power previously seen under INAC.

Moving Forward:

Indigenous People need to be given back tools taken from them through which solutions can be built; tools destroyed by the policy of forced assimilation. These tools are normally found within core societal infrastructure. Core Indigenous infrastructures that have been completely or partially destroyed include:

Trade and commerce;
Traditional Food;
Resource Management;
Justice;
Education;
Health;
Government; and,
Community.

Indigenous Peoples need to rebuild their infrastructures based on their sovereignty and their Immemorial rights to realize self-determination. This can not happen if colonization and assimilation has ended in Canada. To do this, the Framework of Colonization must be dismantled.

The Framework of Colonization remains intact in Canada. Most of the historic assimilation policies are still in place in one form or another. However, Indigenous assimilation did get a facelift with some new secondary, assimilate-by, policies. These include:

1. An alternate rights regime that replaces sovereign Indigenous Immemorial rights;

2. Crown-Delegated Jurisdictions that replace sovereign Indigenous societal institutions and government; and,

3. The denial of sovereign and international rights to self-determination.

1. Oxoford on-line Dictionary. Accessed 2018-06-17 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/colonization

2. (1965) Montgomery, Malcolm. The Six Nations Indians and the Macdonald Franchise. Ontario History 57: p. 13.

3. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Part One: The Relationship in Historical Perspective. Chapter 6, Stage Three: Displacement and Assimilation; 8. Extending Measures of Control and Assimilation. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.6.pdf

4. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Part One: The Relationship in Historical Perspective. Chapter 6, Stage Three: Displacement and Assimilation; 6. Nonfulfillment of Treaties. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.6.pdf

5. (1969) United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 14, 26, 27 and 60. https://caid.ca/IntTreLaw1969.pdf

6. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship. Part One: Chapter 2, Treaties; 1.1 Treaties are Nation to Nation. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP2.2.pdf

7. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship. Part One: Chapter 2, Treaties; 1.2 Treaties are Sacred and Enduring. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP2.2.pdf

8. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship. Part One: Chapter 2, Treaties; 3.7 The Fiduciary Relationship: Restoring the Treaty Partnership. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP2.2.pdf

9. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 6. End of the Tripartite Imperial System. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

10. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 5. The Gradual Civilization Act: Assimilating Civilized Indians. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

11. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 4. Civilization to Assimilation: Indian Policy Formulated. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

12. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 7. The Gradual Enfranchisement Act: Responsible Band Government. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

13. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 8. The Indian Act and Indians: Children of the State. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

14. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 9, The Indian Act; 13. Conclusion. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf

15. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 78.

16. (2002) Chrisjohn, R.D., Wasacase, W., Nussey, L., Smith, A., Legault, M., Loiselle, P. and Bourgeois, M. Genocide and Indian Residential Schooling: The Past is Present. In Wiggers, R.D. & Griffiths, A.L (eds), Canada and International Humanitarian Law: Peacekeeping and War Crimes in the Modern Era. Halifax: Dalhousie University Press: 2002.

17. (1922) Peter H. Bryce, The Story of a National Crime: Being and Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, James Hope & Sons, Ltd.

18. (1986) Barman, J. (Ed) Indian Education in Canada, Vol. 1, The Legacy. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia.: p. 8.

19. (1948) United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Resolution 260 (III) A. https://caid.ca/Genocide1948.pdf

20. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 6.

21. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia.

22. (1966) Hawthorn, H. B. (Chair) A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: A Report on Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies. Ottawa, Supply and Services. lAND Publication No. QS-0603-020-EE-A-18. https://caid.ca/Hawthorn.html

23. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 120-121.

24. (2002) Wiggers, R.D. & Griffiths, A.L (eds), Canada and International Humanitarian Law: Peacekeeping and War Crimes in the Modern Era. Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.

25. (1973) Davis, R., and Zannis, M. The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North. Montréal, Québec. Black Rose Books.

26. (1986) Barman, J. (Ed) Indian Education in Canada, Vol. 1, The Legacy. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia.

27. (2008) Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Statement of Apology. Wednesday, June 11, 2008 CBC News. https://caid.ca/CanPMApol061108.pdf

28. (1973) A Quote from the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. In Davis, R., and Zannis, M. The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North. Montréal, Québec. Black Rose Books: p. 23.

29. (1998) Craven, James M., Judicial Findings From the Inter-Tribal Tribunal on Residential Schools in Canada, Part III: On the Issue of Ethnocide versus Genocide. https://caid.ca/IntJudFin1998.pdf

30. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 6.

31. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Part One: The Relationship in Historical Perspective. Chapter 6, Stage Three: Displacement and Assimilation; 8. Extending Measures of Control and Assimilation. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.6.pdf

32. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 121.

33. (1966) Hawthorn, H. B. (Chair) A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: A Report on Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies. Ottawa, Supply and Services. lAND Publication No. QS-0603-020-EE-A-18. https://caid.ca/Hawthorn.html

34. (2007) Resolution 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://caid.ca/UNIndDec010208.pdf

35. (1948) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Resolution 217A(III). https://caid.ca/UNdecHumRig1948.pdf

36. (1995) Armitage, A. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. UBC Press, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia: p. 95-97.

37. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 8, Introduction. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.8.pdf

38. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 8, Introduction; 1. False Assumptions. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.8.pdf

39. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 8, Introduction. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.8.pdf

40. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 8, Introduction; 2. The Abuse of Power and 3. The Four Policies in Brief. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.8.pdf

41. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 1: Looking Forward Looking Back. Part Two: False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship. Chapter 8, Introduction; 2. The Abuse of Power. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP1.8.pdf

42. (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship. Part Two: Appendix A: Summary of Recommendations in Volume 2, Parts One and Two. Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. https://caid.ca/RRCAP2.APP.A.pdf