A full length documentary on Residential Schools: a painful Canadian legacy

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
donate button
notice board blogger icon
New links

On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
parents must read
  1. MCFD Tactics
  2. MCFD Surveillance
  3. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  4. Psychotherapy
  5. Flaws of CFCSA
  6. Absolute Power and Corruption
  7. Myths & Reality
  8. On-line Service Application
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD Tactics
  3. MCFD Surveillance
  4. MCFD & The First Nation
  5. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  6. Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting
  7. Empirical and Statistical Data
  8. Child Removal Cases
  9. Video Archives
contact us
most popular
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD & The First Nation
  3. The Child Protection Industry
  4. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  5. Our Comment on "When Talk Trumped Service"
  6. "The problem with Children’s Aid Societies" by Barbara Kay for National Post
  7. Powerful As God (2011 documentary)
  8. CPS Quotas: How Child Protective Services is Incentivized To Take Children video
  9. Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
  10. "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation"
  11. 3-part WLKY Target 32 Investigates (Kentucky, U.S.A.):
    1. "CPS Makes Shocking Allegations at 2 Moms Part 1 of 3"
    2. "CPS Does About Face, Accuses Parents Of Abuse Part 2 of 3"
    3. "CPS Makes More Disturbing Allegations Against Parents Part 3 of 3"
  12. "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 1"; and
    "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 2"
  13. Documentary on the Ministry of Children and Family Development Part 1 and Part 2
  14. "The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children" (Wikipedia)
  15. "Mass CPS corruption Part 2"
  16. "Deconstructing America Part 1" "Deconstructing America Part 2"
  17. "Death of a foster child Dontel Jeffers, Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" ABC News
  18. U.S. Republican Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on "child protective service" (CPS) corruption video
  19. "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" National Post
  20. Wrongful Removal of Christina Harrison's Baby
  21. Jessica Laboy case
  22. Removal of the 13 Gates Children in Texas, U.S.A.
  23. "Married to the State: How government colonizes the family"
    by Professor Stephen Baskerville (September 2009)
Table of Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Residential Schools
  3. The First Nation & Modern Child Protection
  4. A Disturbing Canadian History
  5. Some Alleged Evidence
  6. Similarities Between Residential Schools & Modern Child Protection
  7. Political Implications of State Sponsored Child Removal
  8. MCFD's Aboriginal Child & Family Development
  9. Keys to Success of the Child Protection Industry
  10. Concluding Remarks

MCFD & The First Nation


At first glance, it appears that residential schools (used as a cultural assimilation tool on the First Nation) and the child protection activities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) are unrelated. Based on the findings from statistical data in Appendix 1 of "2006 B.C. Budget" published by a Vancouver accounting firm in February 2006, an Aboriginal child stands a chance of removal by MCFD 10 times higher than a non-native child on a per capita basis. This exceptionally high ratio based on the government statistics between 1999 to 2001 warrants further research to examine why. The data analysis is reproduced with permission from the original author as follows:

March 31, 1999 March 31, 2000 March 31, 2001
(A) Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD 2,961 3,078 3,534
(B) Total Number of Children "in care" of MCFD 9,813 9,523 9,956
(A)/(B) 30.17% 32.32% 35.50%
(C) Aboriginal Population in BC in 2001 170,025
(D) Total Population in BC in 2001 3,160,565
(E) Non Aboriginal Population in BC in 2001 (D)-(C) 2,990,540
(F) Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD per capita (A)/(C) 2.08%
(G) Non Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD per capita [(B)-(A)]/(E) 0.21%
Ratio between Aboringial and Non Aboriginal Groups (F)/(G) 967.91%

Data source:

Canadian Government Propaganda Video in 1955
Reclaiming Our Children

Residential Schools

According to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia on "Canadian Indian residential school system", it read:

The Canadian residential school system was a place in which aboriginal children were abused and neglected. [It was] founded in the 19th century, intended to force their assimilation into European-Canadian society. The purpose of the schools, which separated children from their families, has been described by many commentators as "killing the Indian in the child."

Residential school is an extreme form of child removal. It is mandatory and discriminatory based on ethnic profiling. This policy of "cultural assimilation" is clearly for the purpose of assimilating (and hence destroying) native culture and families until the Aboriginal people ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation. Such notorious activities were needed for political reasons in the early era of the white man regime not only in Canada but also in most English-speaking nations (like the United States, Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the United Kingdom) with a colonial history. The propaganda film aired by CBC on the right was made by the Canadian government in 1955. It painted a rosy picture that authorities wanted the public and Natives to believe. Like modern "child protection", this infamous and tactful oppression was done under the pretext of "helping" Natives to acquire a "better life" by integrating them into the white man society. This strategy was very successful in suppressing Native resistance against exploitation and invasion of Native rights and land.

Like supervised visits in modern child protection, parents of removed Aboriginal children had to camp outside the gates of the residential schools to see their children. The first residential schools were established in the 1840s with the last residential school closing in 1996. During this time span, hundreds of thousand of Aboriginal families were destroyed when their children were forcibly removed and placed in government-sponsored residential schools.

Since the beginning of time, children have been used as political collaterals. Even the renowned Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇) who unified ancient China n 221 B.C. and built the Great Wall was a child hostage held in the State of Zhao to guarantee an armistice between the two states until the age of 13. Some children were used as pawns by those in power to ensure submission or to oppress a civilian population for political reasons as early as in biblical time.

Since the expansion of colonialism in the 19th century, almost all English-speaking nations evolved from colonial governments have a history of removing aboriginal children from their families under the pretext of "improving" their welfare or "protecting" them from the "corrupting influence" of their "barbaric" parents. For example, Canada and another British Commonwealth country Australia both have a hideous history of using "cultural assimilation" policy to destroy the native people and get their lands. We have developed a new page titled "Australian Experience" to further elaborate on what is known as the "stolen generation", which is part of the theme in the 20th Century Fox movie "Australia" (2008). The Australian stolen generation and the Canadian residential schools are results of cultural assimilation policy imposed on the Aboriginals.

The main purpose is to weaken the targeted victims and to reduce the perceived threat of the regime. This is a very powerful weapon and will bend the will of the toughest mind. Youngsters are easy targets. Like predators in the animal world targeting the young and the weak for food, human beings are of no difference when striving for survival, money, fame and power. The future of a people is effectively destroyed by sabotaging their offspring. As open massacre and ethnic cleansing are not viable options in those so-called "democratic and free" nations, oppression to achieve a political end is done in a more subtle and discreet, but equally effective, manner sugar coated by a noble cause. Such shrewd move will accomplish the following:

  1. avoid local and international criticism of tyranny;

  2. garner support from the populace who is largely unaware of the hidden motives and truly believe in the alleged cause;

  3. minimize resistance from target victims as some of them may naively believe in the alleged "good" intent;

  4. create employment and business opportunities to those who do research and implement the policies, hence guaranteeing support from a die hard core group as their livelihood depends on such activities;

  5. laud such policies and actions as good deeds to build political assets, supported by extolling from special interests and the media.

Oppression on the First Nation raises the following questions surrounding "child protection":

  1. why most English-speaking nations, especially those with a colonial background, have "child protection" law which gives government agents ("child protection" social workers as they are called) near absolute authority to remove children from families?

  2. why the Natives draw so much attention from child protection agencies?

  3. why, after receiving so much "help" from various levels of government, Natives are still a marginalized group?

  4. where does the money from various government spent on "child protection" go?

  5. who are the true beneficiaries of the huge amount of tax dollars spent under the pretext of "helping" the Natives?

  6. why parents, an irrefutable major stakeholder, have little or no representation in "child protection" legislation and policy making?

We will not attempt to answer all the aforesaid questions but to use them as food for thought.

The First Nation & Modern Child Protection

Many Canadians do not know much about the residential schools. Some of us may think that they are legacy from the previous millennium and bear little relevancy to in modern time. Most of us do not see a direct link between residential schools and child protection. We will further discuss the similarities between the two regimes below. First and foremost, atrocities like the residential school and the Sherry Charlie tragedy are possible because government has the authority to remove children from their families based on the opinion of bureaucrats and supported by financially motivated service providers of the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specified).

A Disturbing Canadian History

Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

In 1857, Canada passed the Gradual Civilization Act to assimilate surviving Native Indians. Residential schools became the prime tool of assimilation. By 1920, compulsory attendance for all Native Indian children was enforced. Catholic priests, Indian agents and police officers forcibly took Native children away from the families and dumped them in residential schools run by white men.

Like the discrimination against early Chinese Canadian immigrants by enacting the racist Chinese Immigration Act, 1923 (known in the Chinese Canadian community as the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923), residential schools were mandated by a Canadian federal statute called the Indian Act. Under this Act, the Canadian federal government provided funding to "educate" native peoples and integrate them into Western society with the intent of "encouraging self-sufficiency" within the First Nations. This system of "education" was a joint endeavor between the federal government and missionaries (mainly Roman Catholics and the rest by various Protestant denominations). Growth of the residential school system was ensured through an amendment to the Indian Act in 1920, making attendance mandatory for Native Indian children between the ages of 7 of 15. By 1930, the residential school program had reached its peak with roughly 80 institutions, mostly in Western provinces but stretching northward into the territories and eastward to Quebec. Today, the amended Indian Act is still in effect. Despite provisions stipulating mandatory Native child removal and placement into white man run residential schools had been repealed, Native families and children remain the largest victim of modern state-sponsored child removal activities.

The timeline below was extracted from "In Depth Aboriginal Canadians A timeline of residential schools" (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). It summarizes major events surrounding the issue of Native Indian residential schools in Canada.

IN DEPTH Aboriginal Canadians A timeline of residential schools

Some Alleged Evidence

As locations of mass graves of Native Indian children from residential schools were revealed by eyewitness accounts, documents, survey data and physical evidence, the horror of the genocide in Canada's Native Indian residential schools became public. An unknown number of Native Indian children (one source cites roughly 150,000 during the course of mandatory attendance of residential schools) were forcibly removed from their families. Most removed Native children were traumatized. Some, perhaps many, were killed and abused in captivity at Indian residential schools in Canada.

According to a web site posted by Brenda Norrell (an American reporter based in Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.) on 18 April 2008, there are 13 locations of mass graves at former Native Indian residential schools and hospitals in British Columbia. There are many more in the rest of Canada. Mass graves nearest to the Lower Mainland are in Squamish and Fraser River Heritage Park (formerly St. Mary Mission and Residential School) in Mission, B.C.

Fraser River Heritage Park
The concrete foundation of the demolished dormitory is clearly visible in St. Mary Catholic Residential School. Brenda Norrell's web site gives very specific locations of the 2 grave sites in this former school.

The mass grave in St. Mary Mission and Residential School was in the Fraser River Heritage Park located off 5th Avenue east of Stave Lake Street in Mission, British Columbia. In 1965, all of the buildings of the school were demolished due to deterioration. Today, the only physical remaining traces are some cement foundations scattered throughout Fraser River Heritage Park. According to the "Hidden From History Hidden From History " dated 10 April 2008, there are two grave sites in this area:

  1. immediately adjacent to former girl dormitory and present cemetery for priests, and a larger mass grave in an artificial earthen mound, north of the cemetery among overgrown foliage and blackberry bushes, and

  2. east of the old school grounds, on the hilly slopes next to the field leading to the newer school building which is presently used by the First Nation. Hill site is 150 metres west of building.

Since these allegations are not supported by archaeological evidence, they must be treated as personal beliefs at this time. Despite the lack of scientific support, it is certain that helpless First Nation parents who lost the custody of their children had suffered severely. Many Aboriginal families were destroyed and their cultural heritage lost. Few manage to retain their languages and family names. Ironically, most Native children were worse off in residential schools where parental love and care are both absent. Some suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse (confirmed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2008 apology below) from their caregivers in a system where there was little or no accountability.

Similarities Between Residential Schools & Modern Child Protection

Residential schools provide a shred of evidence to suggest that state-sponsored child removal owes its origin and existence to an oppression of a very hideous nature against a weak and marginalized minority victim. Residential school and state-sponsored child removal bear the following similarities:

  1. both are hypocritically done under the pretext of the noble cause of child protection and welfare;
  2. both are empowered by absolute statutory authority;
  3. both involve the use of force should targets ("beneficiaries" as government would like people to believe) dare to resist;
  4. Native Indian children and families are the prime victim in both regimes;
  5. both require fundings from taxpayers to generate business opportunities for some special interests involved in the process;
  6. both require removal of young children from their families to beat their parents into submission;
  7. both show no respect to the dignity and the free will of the subjects whom these regimes are supposed to help and protect;
  8. both are driven by quest of money and power;
  9. non-profit groups are involved to provide support and services in exchange of government funding in both regimes;
  10. both result in harming, at times, killing vulnerable children in government "care";
  11. both regimes are ineffective, cost inefficient and counter productive to serve their alleged intended cause (but very effective to serve their hidden purposes);
  12. both regimes cost taxpayers very dearly on reparation and damages from lawsuits of torts and wrongful deaths;
  13. both are oppressive, inhumane and barbaric;
  14. the true beneficiaries in both regimes are the service providers of the respective industries, not the intended subjects or the recipients of "service";
  15. special interests manipulate legislation and dictate government policies in both regimes;
  16. fear, public ignorance and apathy contribute to the success of both regimes.

These remarkable similarities suggest that modern "child protection" regime:

  • may originate from oppression against the Native Indians;
  • may be a modified extension or a disguised derivative of the oppressive "cultural assimilation" policy expanded to all ethnic groups as the standard and the interpretation of "child protection" is dictated by members of the service providers.

Political Implications of State Sponsored Child Removal

residential school
Stolen Children | Residential School victims speak out
Published on 2 Jun 2015 in the National, residential schools victims and their children and grandchildren spoke on the atrocities created by state sponsored child removal.

Children are invaluable to most parents who are prepared to do anything to protect them and to keep them from being kidnapped. Children are vulnerable and easy to manipulate. Whoever control their hearts and minds will shape the future of a nation. The Gay Pride Movement, for instance, has been very successful in using this tactic to further their cause. Influencing children, often under a noble cause, is also an extremely effective weapon to destroy a sovereign power. This invasive concept has been used repeatedly in the course of history to achieve political results. A recent example is the well planned Anglo-American induced "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" movement (aka Umbrella Movement) in Hong Kong that began on 28 September 2014. Contrary to what its name suggests, there is neither love nor peace but only violence and hatred in the 79-day long riot.

The National (CBC) documentary video on the right contains several citations from government officials during the residential school era that parellel statements made by politicians in modern child protection regime. The Canadian federal government has decentralized child removal authority to provincial and territorial governments. State sponsored child removal became the mandate of provincial and territorial governments in the modern child protection era. All politicians who defend the industry now are at the provincial level.

However, the federal government still plays the role of financier of the child removal business by way of subsidies to Aboriginal child removals and Children's Special Allowances (CSA) which is a tax-free monthly federal payment made to agencies, institutions and foster parents who are responsible for the care and education of children (of any ethnic background) under 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents. One of the first few things child protection workers do after removing children is to notify Canada Revenue Agency that parents no longer have custody of removed children so that the ministry or the foster parents could start collecting CSA while child tax benefit payments to parents cease. Removed children are tools to get transfer payments.

During the early stage of the residential school era, not all Canadians were allowed to vote. Before the mid 20th century, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, and women have no right to vote. Aboriginal people are not granted the right to vote until the Canadian Bill of Rights received Royal Assent in 1960. "Political correctness" was less important in an era in which there was no TV and internet. Open racial discrimination was much more acceptable. Politicians in the residential era had more liberty to speak their minds without fearing any political consequences. Their statements surrounding child removal are more informative on the real intent of the child removal regime than those from their successors in modern time.

Statements made in residential school era Statements made in modern child protection era Our comments
"The great aim of our leglislation has been to do away with the tribal sytem and to assimilate the Indian people in all respects." (Sir John A MacDonald, 2 May 1887).
Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Child removal decisions are often made based on a bureaucratic opinion, not on good evidence. Despite the lengthy child protection hearing process, there is little due process in law. Both statute and case law are so lopsided in favor of child protection agencies. Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. Service providers are financially motivated to remove children. The real motives of instituting residential schools are replacing the First Nation as a sovereign power with a white regime through cultural assimilation, seizing resources and land, subjugating helpless Native children and parents under guns. Modern child protection is all about power, money and fame backed by its muscle - the police and rule of law.
"In order to educate these children properly we must separate them from their families. Some people may say that this is hard, but if we want to civilize them we must do that." (A federal cabinet minister, 1883).
Civilizing and protecting children are nothing more than a pretext. There are numerous cases in children were removed without just cause or reasonable concern of child safety. Families are traumatized and some removed children are abused or killed in care. For example, 4-month old infant Delonna Sullivan died after 6 days in foster care in Edmonton, Alberta. Her removal from her mother Jamie Sullivan was completely incidental. Child protection workers came to remove the child of Jamie's roommate who was not home at that time. Delonna became their target. Child protection workers cannot leave empty handed. Noble causes are very much needed to cover up hideous business. Taking the moral high ground will put perpetrators in a better position to garner support, to evade responsibility when their activities backfire and, above all, to get more tax dollars to feed the racket.
"Indian children in the residential schools die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian Problem." (Duncan Campbell Scott, Deput Superintendent of Indian Affairs)
Final solution of the Indian problem and a child intervention system is one of hope are merely self-serving excuses to mitigate the damage created by state sponsored child removal. Empirical evidence convincingly refutes that child removal improves child welfare. Many misleading allegations made by service providers are based on:
  • circular logic, for example, Alberta's foster parent association representative Katherine Jones said in the 2013 news footage, "We have the best (foster care) system in Canada here in Alberta. Our foster parents just want me to say give us some positives."; and
  • twisted logic, for example, former Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock said in 2013, "Child intervention system is stereotyped as one of despair. The reality is: it is one of hope." A foster system with such a high fatality rate is misconstrued as a system of hope.
There are mountain of evidence confirming that children are at a much higher risk in care, despite the vast amount of tax dollars spent. Death and abuses of all kinds are common to removed children.

As long as most Canadians remain ignorant, misled, apathetic or afraid to speak out, the industry will be in business for a long time. Children will continue to die in care, more social problems will be created and more tax dollars wasted to finance the lifestyle of service providers, the true beneficiaries of the industry.
"Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian Question and no Indian Department." (Duncan Campbell Scott, Deput Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 1 January 1920)
In 2015, BC Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux said, "All of the policies in place in the Ministry are there for the very purpose of protecting children, that's why it is absolutely important that they be followed."
Andrew Chang of CBC News interviews Stephanie Cadieux, the political master of MCFD after the atrocity of Alex Gervais occurred on 18 September 2015.

MCFD's Aboriginal Child & Family Development

An Ontario Native Indian residential
school and CAS victim speaks ...

residential school

To deal with this special type of "client" from which federal subsidies could be obtained for social services rendered, MCFD has established a special Aboriginal Child & Family Development branch to improve outcomes for vulnerable Aboriginal children and youth. Some Aboriginal leaders and organizations are empowered to work collaboratively with MCFD in exercising jurisdiction in delivering child and family services. Of course, this includes exercising child removal power.

On the surface, this approach ensures Aboriginal people a say to design and deliver culturally appropriate child welfare services. Hence, the goals of restoring, revitalizing and strengthening First Nations communities are achieved. This brilliantly designed scheme does create an illusion that Aboriginal children will be better off in the good hands of their own people. It fails to address the corruption created by absolute power and financial motivation of service providers.

[10] of D.L.H. v. M.J.M., 2011 BCSC 1228 (CanLII) demonstrates that agencies that MCFD uses to provide services to aboriginal children and their families have no legal status and no separate legal existence from MCFD. They are, therefore, simply an arm of MCFD. The essence of the approach is to create service providers within the Aboriginal communities and turn them into beneficiaries of the industry. Despite their different ethnic background, they will eventually become puppet outfits that do the same child removal business under the control of their master. Such ruse is common in politics. For instance, the puppet state of Manchukuo (滿洲國) (1932 to 1945) and the Vichy France (July 1940 to August 1944) were used by victorious Axis powers to mitigate resistance of their invasion and exploitation.

Likewise, Aboriginal puppet outfits funded by MCFD will attract less resistance and project an impression that Aboriginal culture is respected. State sponsored child removal is a Western product created by primarily English speaking nations. We are not aware that the First Nation ever practices child removal until now. It is still cultural assimilation in a different sugar coating. It carries the added benefit of diluting or denying responsibility when removed Aboriginal children killed or abused in Aboriginal foster care.

The largest beauty of this scheme is the creation of die hard supporters within the Aboriginal communities when the industry extends its beneficiaries to this ethnic group. When Aboriginal service providers taste the influx of easy tax dollars, they will share the same value with their mainstream counterparts and become supporters of the industry. Money talks.

Keys to Success of the Child Protection Industry

The following factors are vital to the success of the child protection industry:

  1. Absolute Authority to Remove Children

    Statutory authority to remove children from their parents based on bureaucratic opinion is of paramount importance to the industry. Section 30 of the Child Family and Community Service Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 46 (CFCSA) grants precisely such power to child protection workers of MCFD, rendering them the most powerful bureaucrats in the entire government. They fear no personal repercussion of making wrong removal decisions and are either immune from legal actions or indemnified by their employer for all their actions taken in the course of exercising their child removal authority. For more information, please browse "Flaws of CFCSA" and "MCFD's Absolute Power".

  2. Government Funding

    Funding from both provincial and federal governments on child removal and subsequent activities (such lawsuits against parents, foster care and adoption) is an enticing financial incentive to many service providers in the industry who prey on tax dollars allocated to help families in need.

    MCFD budget 2012-13 bar chart

    Child protection is primarily a provincial government mandate. However, federal government also provides various financial subsidies to provincial governments and service providers to remove children from their parents. These subsidies are de facto tax clawback for provincial governments and at times lead to jurisdictional funding dispute (see Jordan's Principle: A Child-First Approach Fact Sheet).

    The MCFD budget changes of 2011/12 to 2012/13 indicates recoveries from federal governments and other sources. Recoveries from the federal government are for child protection services, children in care, and youth justice services and from other ministries, other provinces, organizations, and individuals for contributions to service delivery, repayable benefits, overpayments, and costs arising from third party settlements. (Source: MCFD Budget 2004/05 page 55).

    It is noteworthy to remark on the recovery of costs arising from third party settlements, which could include court-awarded damages of wrongful deaths of foster children while in care. This suggests the atrocities created by state-sponsored child removal on children and the financial burden on taxpayers.

    The federal government also provides a lesser-known Children's Special Allowances (CSA) which are tax-free monthly federal payments to agencies, institutions and foster parents who are responsible for the care and education of children under 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents (as governed by the Children’s Special Allowances Act (1992, c. 48, Sch.). CSA is the child tax benefit equivalent to biological parents and a financial incentive for provincial "child protection" agencies to remove children from their parents and keep them in government sponsored foster/group homes as long as possible.

    For more information on government financial incentives to service providers in the child protection industry, please browse "Financial Incentives to Special Interests and Burden on Taxpayers".

  3. A Subservient Populace

    A subservient society fostered by:

    1. blind faith in government Compliance poster
      The 2012 American movie
      "Compliance" inspired by
      a true prank call scam
      in a McDonald Restaurant
      in Mount Washington,
      how gullible North
      Americans are to
    2. fear of retaliation,
    3. apathy and ignorance on social issues,
    serves to minimize public resistance and maximize the financial benefits of service providers in the industry. Like glamorizing residential schools in the dark era, MCFD launches propaganda (of course on taxpayer's expense) to mislead and garner support from the public.

    To keep society guessing in the dark, legal obstacles are instituted to prohibit publishing anything that would reasonably be likely to disclose to members of the public the identity of the child or party. Parental consent does not lift such ban per se. Of course, this is done under the pretext of protecting the privacy of children. Section 3 (6) of the Provincial Court Act in B.C. and Alberta's provincial legislation provi de precisely this power to facilitate cover up of wrongdoings and abuse of power. It is also a means to outlaw and punish those who dare to unveil injustice and atrocities created by the child protection industry.

    The case of Edmonton mother Jamie Sullivan is a good example to illustrate how publication ban of identifiable information helps to protect the child protection agency in question. The helpless mother went public after her 4-month old infant Delonna Sullivan died in care after 6 days in care on 11 April 2011. Alberta law prohibits naming of children and guardians in child protection cases, she risked breaking the law in her endeavor to seek justice. Her identity was made known to the public after an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge lifted a publication ban on 13 October 2011. It is obvious in many cases whose interests are being protected by publication ban law.

UFV poster depicts legacy of residential schools
Replacing Residential Schools with Child Protection: A Meaningless Gesture of reconciliation

Since open discrimination and oppression against a minority group become socially unacceptable and outlawed, the industry shrewdly modified its strategy to cope with the changing situation. They realize that as long as government retains the statutory authority to remove children from their families, they can still maintain their lucrative businesses by sugar coating the cause. Once they occupy the moral high ground, they expand the market (the "protective" coverage as they would like people to believe) to all ethnic groups. Instead of dumping Native children in residential schools, now children forcibly seized from their families under the pretext of "child protection" are placed in foster homes or group homes or at times hotels where there is no parental care and love. Removed children suffer from trauma ranging from neglect to sexually abuse and murder in foster homes. Moreover, since there is no parental guidance and discipline, foster/group homes are melting pots for children to learn bad habits (including drugs addiction) from one another. As long as the number of children removed is below the threshold that will lead to social unrest, the position of special interests is secured. State-sponsored "child protection" parallels the worst oppression in Canadian history and has grown into a multi billion dollar industry nationwide and worldwide.

Concluding Remarks

Ethnic Breakdown of Removed Children in British Columbia

2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008
non-Aboriginal 1,830 54% 1,634 55% 1,716 53% 1,827 53% 1,650 52% 1,644 55%
Aboriginal 1,528 46% 1,343 45% 1,514 47% 1,631 47% 1,501 48% 1,370 45%
total 3,358 2,977 3,230 3,458 3,151 3,014

Source: MCFD reply to Freedom of Information application

Statistics above were provided by MCFD who claimed that it only compiles statistics between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups. From a research perspective, keeping statistics on ethnic background and other demographic data of all children removed will shed light on identifying child abuse problems in each ethnic group, hence allowing policy makers to:

  • identify the cause of the problem;
  • take preventive measures to minimize the chance of child abuse;
  • allocate resources and to make policies to deal with the problem more efficiently.
witch casting spell on Natives

It appears that MCFD has a keen interest only in keeping track of the number of Aboriginal children removed. Statistics are a key performance measure of how well Aboriginal families are "helped" and to claim subsidies from the federal government on a per head basis. Federal funding also sheds light to explain a strange phenomenon that some "child protection" social workers in British Columbia insist to classify families with very little Native blood as Native Indian families.

On 13 February 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations of Australian Aborigines for removing them from their families and communities over a century. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed suit. On 11 June 2008, he made similar apology to the First Nation in the House of Common. Nevertheless, his Conservative government is still funding the removal of native children on a per head basis. This creates financial incentive for provincial governments to target Native families. About 50% of children removed in British Columbia are Natives. As long as government has the power to remove children from their families, atrocities like the residential schools and abuse of authority are inevitable. The concept of residential school has re-emerged as "child protection". Instead of placing removed children in religious group operated residential schools, they are now placed in foster or group homes where some of them are abused and killed. It is a matter of time that governments enforcing state-sponsored child removal will have to face justice and apologize for implementing such hideous policy against their people.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement of apology to the victims of residential schools given on 11 June 2008 is applicable to victims of modern "child protection". Natives remain the largest victim in this disguised oppression under the pretext of "child protection" after residential schools were abolished. The yellow highlights below in the excerpts from the text of Harper's statement of apology bear remarkable similarities of the sufferings families endured when their children are removed by the state. French sections, which repeat the English text, have been excluded.

On 25 February 2013, a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission was held to examine whether Ottawa is treating native children unfairly. Shawn Atleo, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, was one of the first people to testify. He alleged that studies have shown that the provinces provide welfare to other Canadian children at rates 22% higher than the amount given by the federal government to first nations children and hold Ottawa responsible for social assistance on Aboriginal reserves where the levels of poverty and the associated problems are higher than most other places in Canada. In a phone interview, Mr. Atleo said that the numbers of children from reserves in foster care – estimated at 27,000 in 2006 – has surpassed the number of children who were being forcibly removed from their families during the height of the residential school era. They are being deprived of their language, their culture and the places they call home. The federal government’s refusal to provide equitable child welfare on reserves is forcing thousands of youth into foster care and ripping families apart in ways that echo the notorious residential school system of previous decades, says the head of the organization that represents Canada’s first nations.

This hearing is all about equity of child welfare funding. Who is the true beneficiary? A good portion of government fundings goes into the pockets of service providers in the child protection industry. The services they render may be of minimal value or even counter productive. The root of the problem is not insufficient or inequitable funding. It is the general child removal authority and the financial incentives provided by federal and provincial governments to remove children from their parents under the pretext of child safety. Those who support this regime is like legally authorize and pay someone to shoot them.

Interestingly, nations (like Japan and China) with more homogeneous ethnic mix do not have oppressive "child protection" law and policy similar to those in Canada. In spite of some rare real child abuse cases (a social problem that no law could ever eliminate), countries that do not have such destructive "child protection" law ironically have better disciplined children and stronger family ties from which a nation is built. They certainly do not have the problem of wrongful child abuse conviction on parents (a "false positive" or Type I error in statistical term) as their social workers do not have the authority to remove children. Does it mean that children in these nations are not adequately protected? Absolutely not.

As Canadians become less tolerant of prejudice, oppression and corruption in recent years, the industry evolved from blatant open oppression to subtle persecution under the noble pretext of child protection. It is safe to contend that modern child protection is a sugar-coated derivative of the now renounced residential schools. How could one denounce residential schools and yet praise modern child protection when the two regimes are essentially the same? It is illogical.

Child removal does not equal child protection. Absolute power to remove children is seldom called for and will corrupt absolutely. Such power is open to abuse not only by government and service providers but also by other parties such as estranged spouses, hostile in-laws and malicious informants for reasons other than child protection. After all, there is a due process of bail hearing in criminal law that allow authorities to legally separate abusive parents from vulnerable children. "Child protection" law contains provisions that allow bureaucrats to circumvent due process in law and creates an extremely powerful bureaucracy. There is little check and balance to curb corruption. Child removal authority is oppressive, redundant and counterproductive. As long as government retains child removal authority, our safety and freedom are in jeopardy.

[This page was added on 12 January 2009, last revised 18 October 2015.]