The Sixties Scoop: A Human Rights Violation in Canada

The Sixties Scoop: A Human Rights Violation in Canada

Introduction to the Sixties Scoop

• The term "Sixties Scoop" was first coined by Patrick Johnston in $1983$ in his report, Native Children and the Child Welfare System.

• It refers to the widespread practice of removing Indigenous children from their families and placing them into the Canadian child welfare system, primarily with non-Indigenous families or institutions.

• Johnston devised the phrase after a social worker revealed that it was common practice in British Columbia in the mid-$1960$s to "scoop" almost all newly born Indigenous children from their mothers on reserves.

Historical Context and Policy Shifts Post-World War II

• After World War II, the Canadian federal government sought new methods to integrate Indigenous peoples into "Canadian" society.

• The federal government assumed administration of residential schools and began phasing out the system.

• This shift transformed residential schools from educational institutions into child welfare institutions for Indigenous children whose families were deemed incapable of care by the federal government.

• Simultaneously, the social services sector experienced a boom in post-World War II Canada.

• There was growing recognition within Euro-Canadian society of the disparity in services available on and off reserves.

• In $1947$, the Canadian Welfare Council and the Canadian Association of Social Workers petitioned the Senate and the House of Commons.

  • Their petition advocated for changes to the Indian Act to allow provincial health, welfare, and education ministries to extend their services to Indigenous people living on reserves.

"Best of Intentions" and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion

• Johnston ($1983$) acknowledged that the changes suggested by the Canadian Welfare Council and the Canadian Association of Social Workers originated from "best of intentions."

• In subsequent years, provincial governments had to determine the provision and funding mechanisms for welfare services, resulting in varied policies across different provinces.

• Hermeneutics of Suspicion: This is a crucial method of interpretation that encourages skeptical reading of texts to uncover underlying, unstated, or implicitly communicated meanings.

  • It prompts questions such as: What is intentionally omitted or subtly communicated?

  • Which specific words are chosen and why?

  • Who is framed as the "norm" in the discourse, and who is identified as the "Other"?

Criteria for Judgment and Undue Focus on Indigenous Families

• The historical context raises critical questions about the authority and criteria used to assess Indigenous families:

  • Who possessed the authority to determine whether an Indigenous child was being properly cared for?

  • What specific criteria were employed to make such a judgment?

  • Were all families, irrespective of their racial or cultural background, subjected to the same evaluative criteria?

  • Was there an disproportionate or "undue focus" on Indigenous families compared to non-Indigenous families?

Social Workers' Perceptions and Rationales

• Many social workers involved in the Sixties Scoop were deeply unfamiliar with the distinct culture and history of the Indigenous communities they entered.

• They often made assumptions based on Euro-Canadian norms:

  • For instance, observing traditional Indigenous diets (dried game, fish, berries) and the absence of Euro-Canadian style refrigerators or stocked cupboards led social workers to wrongly conclude that parents were not adequately providing for their children.

• Additionally, social workers encountering prevalent social challenges in reserve communities such as poverty, unemployment, and addiction, often felt a "duty to protect" the local children.

• Johnston ($1983$, p. $47$) reported that provincial social workers would "literally, scoop children from reserves on the slightest pretext."

• These social workers, along with their colleagues, genuinely believed their actions were in the children's best interests, aiming to "save them from the effects of crushing poverty, unsanitary health conditions, poor housing and malnutrition, which were facts of life on many reserves."

Statistical Data: Housing Conditions and Child Apprehension

Housing Conditions in Indigenous Communities (Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, $2021$)

• First Nations People:

  • Manitoba ($36$%) and Saskatchewan ($34$%) reported the highest percentages of First Nations people living in crowded housing.

  • Yukon ($29$%), Northwest Territories ($29$%), and Nunavut ($30$%) also showed high rates of crowded dwellings.

  • Dwellings in need of major repairs were significant in the Northwest Territories ($20$%), Nunavut ($19$%), and Saskatchewan ($17$%).

• Métis People:

  • The Northwest Territories had the highest rates for Métis in dwellings needing major repairs ($13$%) and crowded dwellings ($19$%).

  • Other provinces like Manitoba, Alberta, and Quebec also showed crowded dwelling percentages between $8$% and $11$%.

• Inuit People:

  • Nunavut reported exceedingly high rates, with $60$% of Inuit living in crowded housing and $36$% in dwellings needing major repairs.

  • Other Inuit regions also faced significant challenges: Inuvialuit region ($33$% crowded, $28$% major repairs), Nunavik ($31$% crowded, $27$% major repairs), and Nunatsiavut ($18$% crowded, $11$% major repairs).

  • Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat faced $47$% crowded housing and $12$% needing major repairs.

Indigenous Children in Protective Services Over Time

• In $1951$, $29$ Indigenous children were in protective services.

• By $1964$, this number dramatically increased to $1466$ Indigenous children.

• By $1977$, the figure stood at $15,500$ Indigenous children in protective services.

• Despite Indigenous children representing only $1$% of all children in Canada, they constituted $34$% of all children in protective services during this period.

Contemporary Statistics (Census $2021$ Data)

• Indigenous children under $14$ years old make up $7.7$% of the total child population in Canada.

• However, Indigenous children under $14$ represent a staggering $53.8$% of all children in foster care.

Experiences and Motivations in Foster Care

• Approximately $70$% of the children removed during the Sixties Scoop were placed in non-Indigenous homes.

• Many children were deliberately misinformed about their heritage, being told they were of French or Italian descent, among others, rather than Indigenous.

• Experiences of inferior care, sexual assault, mental abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect were alarmingly prevalent in these foster homes.

• Some foster families harbored less than honorable motivations for taking in Indigenous children:

  • The availability of a modest stipend for fostering a child.

  • The opportunity to facilitate the sale of Indigenous children to adoptive parents in the USA, some of whom sought children as sources of labor.

  • The ability to put children to work in their households or on farms.

Justice Edwin Kimelman's Review

• In the early $1980$s, the Manitoba government established a review committee to investigate the issue.

• In $1985$, this committee published its findings in a report titled, No Quiet Place: Review Committee on Indian and Métis Adoptions and Placements.

Current Statistics: British Columbia Example

• In British Columbia, Indigenous children account for $51$% of all children in care, even though Indigenous people constitute only $8$% of BC's total population.

• An Indigenous child in BC is $6$ times more likely to be taken into care than a non-Indigenous child.

The Sixties Scoop as Cultural Genocide

• The Sixties Scoop is widely recognized as an example of cultural genocide.

• Cultural genocide is defined as the deliberate destruction of a culture in a manner that leads to its extinction.

• Manifestations of cultural genocide include the destruction of cultural landmarks, statues, art, and books, as well as the suppression of language and the banning of rituals.

• The separation of Indigenous children from their families, despite any purported "good intentions," directly resulted in the erasure of their identity, culture, and language, fulfilling the criteria of cultural genocide.