Federal government seeking to settle suits from ’60s Scoop ‘dark chapter’

Two former aboriginal leaders were expected to tell the court about the advice they would have given the government — had they been asked — on helping on-reserve children retain their cultural identities after placement in non-indigenous homes.

Instead, government lawyers this week informed Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba that they now had no plans to cross-examine the aging elders or any further evidence to tender, documents show.

In response, Belobaba scrapped the hearing and instead asked for brief written submissions to be filed before the weekend. He also said he expected to announce a date for his ruling next week.

Bennett’s announcement would have no impact on Belobaba’s ruling, said Morris Cooper, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

“Seven years of battling have come to the point where the federal government has changed its profound opposition to this claim that has been the hallmark of their attitude,” Morris said.

Initial claims have been filed on behalf of aboriginal children in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia, but none has been certified.

The Ontario action filed in 2009 alleges about 16,000 at-risk indigenous children in Ontario suffered a devastating loss of identity when they were placed in non-aboriginal homes from 1965 to 1984 under terms of a federal-provincial agreement.

The plaintiffs maintain the government violated the agreement by failing to consult with the various Indian bands about the child-welfare program — an assertion Belobaba appeared to have accepted.

The government does admit the children may have suffered harm but insists it is not liable because it had no “duty of care” toward them, and that it was acting with good intentions within the prevailing norms of the day.

“To the extent the public is led to believe that the Liberal government is embracing First Nations towards reconciliation, the life of this case suggests the contrary,” said Jeffery Wilson, another of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

The Ontario plaintiffs want Belobaba to find in their favour without further ado, while Ottawa wants him to toss the action. If he sides with the plaintiffs, the next step would be to determine what damages they deserve.

In December, Belobaba ordered Thursday’s now cancelled mini-hearing on the narrow question of what bands might have told Ottawa.

Wilmer Nadjiwon, 95, was chief of Chippewas Nawash Nation for 14 years starting in 1964, had planned to testify.

“What we would have done is tell the federal minister of Indian affairs that this is not the way to respect our people, not the way to preserve our identity and honour our special relationship with the Crown,” Nadjiwon says in an affidavit.

“And if our children are forced to leave, we need to know they will return to the reserve because they have family here who love them … that they have a special place in our community … but we did not have the opportunity to say these things.”

The plaintiffs received some high-profile support from philosopher-author and activist John Ralston Saul this week. In a statement obtained by The Canadian Press, Saul decried what he called the government’s “cynical” argument that it could not have foreseen the cultural confusion the children suffered.

“The very idea that the Crown would argue a lack of foresight is itself a form of evil,” Saul says.

Colin Perkel and Kristy Kirkup, The Canadian Press

by Canadian Press

Federal government seeking to settle suits from ’60s Scoop ‘dark chapter’

What's Happening