Transcript: Sixties Scoop Ruling | Feb 17, 2017

Nam sits in the studio. She’s in her early forties, over the shoulder curly brown hair. She wears blue rimmed glasses, a black top, a gree blazer and a pendant necklace. Behind her, a screen reads "The agenda."

A caption reads "Nam Kiwanuka. Twitter: @namshine @theagenda."

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling."

Nam says "GREAT HARM WAS DONE," WROTE
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICE
EDWARD BELOBABA IN A DECISION
HANDED DOWN THIS WEEK IN A CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT RESULTING FROM
THE SO-CALLED "SIXTIES SCOOP."
THE CASE PURSUED DAMAGES FOR
NEARLY TWO DECADES OF GOVERNMENT
ACTION THAT REMOVED INDIGENOUS
CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES AND PLACED THEM IN
NON-INDIGENOUS HOMES OR FOSTER
CARE IN ONTARIO, FROM THE
MID-1960s TO THE MID-1980s.
THE COURT SIDED WITH THE
PLAINTIFFS THIS WEEK, AND THAT
RULING BRINGS TO OUR STUDIO:
MARCIA BROWN MARTEL, CHIEF,
BEAVERHOUSE FIRST NATION AND THE
LEAD PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT;

Marcia is in her fifties, with short thinning brown hair and she wears a printed green T-shirt.

Nam says AND, LAWYER JEFFREY WILSON, OF
WILSON CHRISTEN LLP.

Lawyer is in his fifties, clean-shaven and with short wavy gray hair. He wears glasses, a white shirt and a colourful checker scarf.

Nam says WELCOME TO YOU BOTH.
WHAT A WEEK.
BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THE
JUDGMENT, I WANTED TO SHOW YOU A
CLIP OF YOUR REACTION TO THE
RULING.

The clip rolls.

Marcia says MY MOTHER GAVE ME THE NAME OF
SALLY SUSAN MATTHIAS, BUT THAT
NAME IS NO MORE, AND THE SIXTIES
SCOOP HAS COME TO THIS DAY, THIS
GREAT PLATEAU.
IT IS A GREAT DAY IN CANADA WHEN
CANADA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM CHOOSES
TO SAY THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE SO
VALUABLE AND SACRED AND PRECIOUS
THAT WE WILL PROTECT THEM BY
LAW.
WHAT A DAY THIS IS.
YES.
[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

The clip ends.

Nam says CHIEF MARTEL, YOU'VE
HAD A FEW DAYS FOR THE RULING TO
SINK IN.
WHAT DOES THE JUDGMENT MEAN TO
YOU PERSONALLY?

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling. One victim’s story."

The caption changes to "Marcia Brown Martel. Beaverhouse First Nation."

Marcia says THAT
THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE,
VERY FOCUSED WORK THAT HAS BEEN
DONE OVER THESE YEARS, THE MANY,
MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME
TOGETHER TO SAY, WE WANT CANADA
TO BE A BETTER PLACE.
WE WANT THE CHILDREN WITHIN OUR
COUNTRY... WE WANT OUR CHILDREN
IN THE WORLD.
WE WANT OUR CHILDREN WITHIN
CANADA TO BE PROTECTED BY LAW,
NOT BY AN INTERPRETATION OF AN
UNDERSTANDING, NOT BY
INTERPRETATION, BUT BY THE VERY
LAW WITHIN CANADA THAT CHILDREN,
THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, ARE PROTECTED.

Nam says JEFFREY, WHAT PROMPTED
THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE THESE
KIDS OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND
COMMUNITIES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The caption changes to "Jeffrey Wilson. Wilson Christen LLP."

Jeffrey says WELL,
THAT'S A PRETTY LOADED QUESTION.
THE GOVERNMENT MAY SAY THAT WE
DID IT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CHILD, THAT WE THOUGHT THAT
HUMAN BEINGS CAN BE RAISED AND
RAISED TO THEIR BENEFIT EVEN IF
THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR
NATURAL BEING, OF THEIR
CONNECTIONS TO THEIR FAMILY,
THEIR EXTENDED FAMILY, OR THEIR
COMMUNITIES.
SOME OTHERS MIGHT SAY THAT IT
WAS A FORM OF ASSIMILATION.
SOME GO SO FAR... ALTHOUGH I'M
NOT SURE "GO SO FAR" IS THE
PROPER TERM... TO DESCRIBE IT AS
CULTURAL GENOCIDE IN THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CONSCIOUSLY OR
UNCONSCIOUSLY WANTED TO GET RID
OF THE INDIAN PROBLEM OR WANTED
TO TAKE THE "SAVAGE OUT OF THE
CHILD," AND THE WAY TO DO THAT
WAS BY PLACING THEM IN
NON-ABORIGINAL HOMES, TO BE
RAISED AS WHITE FOLK, AND BY THE
WORD "WHITE," I MEAN AS
NON-ABORIGINALS.
SO THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY
THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE DONE
THIS, OR PERMITTED IT TO OCCUR,
BUT IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT
BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT,
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS THE
PEOPLE OF CANADA.

Nam says WHO ELSE DOES IT
BELONG TO?

Jeffrey says WELL, IT
BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA.
SO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA TODAY,
AND WHY THE DECISION HOPEFULLY
IS OF SIGNIFICANCE, IS BECAUSE
THE PEOPLE OF CANADA SHOULD
ENGAGE IN A PROCESS OF HEALING
AND I'M NOT JUST REFERRING TO
THE HEALING THAT FIRST NATIONS
SURVIVORS HAVE TO DO, I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE HEALING THAT
NON-ABORIGINALS HAVE TO DO IN
THE SENSE OF, WE WERE
COMPLICITOUS IN PERMITTING THIS
TO HAPPEN, OR THE MANY LOVING
PARENTS WHO TOOK CARE OF FIRST
NATIONS CHILDREN, THOSE WHO
ADOPTED THEM OR WERE LONG-TERM
PARENTS, THERE'S A HEALING THERE
TOO BECAUSE THEY WERE DEPRIVED
OF THE OPPORTUNITY, NOT JUST THE
CHILDREN, BUT THEY TOO, IN
GIVING OF LOVE TO THE CHILDREN,
WERE DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY
OF ENABLING THE CHILD TO BENEFIT
FROM THEIR LOVE AND ALSO
MAINTAIN A SENSE OF BELONGING
AND A CONNECTEDNESS TO THE HOME
THAT THAT CHILD HAS TO THEIR
COMMUNITY.
YOU CAN BE A FIRST NATION CHILD
AND KNOW YOUR FIRST NATION CHILD
AND BE LOVED BY SOMEBODY WHO IS
NOT FIRST NATION.
THAT IS... THOSE ARE
RECONCILABLE CONCEPTS.
AND WHAT THIS LAWSUIT WAS ABOUT
WAS, WHY DID CANADA PERMIT A
SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN'T DO
THAT?
IF YOU GO INTO A NON-FIRST
NATION HOME, THEN THE EFFECT OF
THAT IS YOU LOSE...

Nam says OUR HERITAGE.
CHIEF MARTEL, YOU WERE TAKEN
FROM YOUR HOME WHEN YOU WERE
FOUR AND YOU WERE ADOPTED AT
NINE.
DID YOUR LIFE CHANGE
SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER YOU WERE
ADOPTED?

Marcia says DEFINITELY.

Nam says HOW?

The caption changes to Marcia Brown Martel. Lead plaintiff, ‘Brown versus Canada.'"

Marcia says THERE
WAS NO ONE TO SPEAK MY LANGUAGE
WITH, MY ALGONQUIN LANGUAGE, MY
FIRST LANGUAGE.
IT WAS THE ONE I UNDERSTOOD
BEST.
IT WAS MY LANGUAGE.
I COULD ONLY SPEAK WITH IT WITH
SO MANY PEOPLE, AND THOSE PEOPLE
WERE NOT WITH ME ANYMORE.
THEY WERE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE,
BUT THEY WERE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THEY WEREN'T WITH ME.
AND NOW I WAS WITH PEOPLE WHO
COULDN'T COMMUNICATE WITH ME IN
THE WAY THAT I THOUGHT AND THE
WAY THAT I THINK AND IN THE WAY
THAT I LEARN.
THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THOSE
THINGS.

Nam says IT MUST HAVE BEEN VERY
SCARY.

Marcia says IT WAS
TERRIFYING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN BECOME
ACCUSTOMED TO BEING TERRIFIED.
YOU JUST DEAL WITH IT.
THEN THE ABUSE COMES.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE PEOPLE THAT DROPPED ME OFF
WERE ACCOUNTABLE ANYMORE.
WHO WAS GOING TO TELL THEM OF
THE TERRIBLE THINGS THAT
HAPPENED TO ME?
NO, NOT ME.
I WAS YOUNG.
I HAD ALREADY LEARNED THAT I
DON'T GET LISTENED TO, SO I
DON'T TALK.
THAT WAS A CHOICE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IN PLACES LIKE MY
ADOPTED FAMILY.
IT WAS THEIR GOOD INTENTION TO
BRING ME IN, LOVING LITTLE GIRL,
LOVING LITTLE GIRL.
I DIDN'T SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE.
I DIDN'T SPEAK IN THE WAY THAT
THEY THOUGHT.
I DIDN'T THINK OF REGULAR THINGS
IN THE SAME WAY.
I DIDN'T THINK OF SPIRITUAL
THINGS IN THE SAME WAY BECAUSE I
WASN'T TAUGHT THAT, OR TAUGHT A
DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING IT.
SAME THING.
JUST A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND HOW COULD I DO ANYTHING BUT
FAIL?
NOBODY BROUGHT US TOGETHER TO
UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES AND
THE DIFFERENCES AND THOSE KIND
OF THINGS.
IT COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BUT
FAIL.
WHERE I WAS, LOVING, CARING
PEOPLE TOOK ME IN, AND WHEN LIFE
GOT HARD AND PEOPLE WANT TO BE
LOVING PARENTS AND THAT ISN'T
WORKING OUT WELL BECAUSE WE HAVE
DIFFERENCES, DIFFERENCES IN SO
MANY WAYS...

Nam says YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO
COMMUNICATE.

Marcia says I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO COMMUNICATE
WITH THEM AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
THEY CAN'T SPEAK MY MOTHER
TONGUE.
THEY CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH ME
EITHER.
IT MUST BE FRUSTRATING.
I'M A PARENT.

Nam says PART OF THE PRESS
CONFERENCE WE HAD AFTER THE
RULING CAME OUT, YOU SAID THAT
WHEN YOU WERE THAT AGE, YOU WERE
VULNERABLE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T
HAVE A VOICE, BUT NOW YOU HAVE A
VOICE.
AND BEFORE WE STARTED TAPING, I
WAS ASKING ABOUT YOUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH JEFFREY, AND
YOU SAID IT TOOK YOU A WHILE TO
FIND SOMEONE WHO HELP YOU TO GET
THIS CASE OUT.
I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR
RELATIONSHIP.
JEFFREY, HOW DID YOU TWO CONNECT
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN
WORKING TOWARDS THIS GOAL?

Jeffrey says I THINK WE
CONNECTED... I THINK THE GREAT
DAY HAPPENED UP IN KIRKLAND LAKE
OR SOMEWHERE ABOUT 11 YEARS AGO.

Marcia says MM-HMM.
YES.

The caption changes to "Jeffrey Wilson. @Ontario60sScoop."

The caption changes to "Connect with us: @theagenda, tvo.org, Facebook, Youtube, Periscope, Instagram."

Jeffrey says I WAS
WORKING... I'M NOT A CLASS
ACTION LAWYER, ALTHOUGH THIS IS
A CLASS ACTION CASE.
I WAS DOING CHILD PROTECTION
WORK.

Nam says SO WHY TAKE ON THIS
CASE THEN?

Jeffrey says BECAUSE YOU
SAW REPEATEDLY IN MY WORK THE
PROBLEM OF DYSFUNCTION,
DYSFUNCTION OWING TO THE FACT
THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF
BELONGING.
THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF
CONNECTION.
THEY HAVE NO IDENTITY.
AND YOU SEE THAT DYSFUNCTION
PLAYING ITSELF OUT IN THEIR
LIVES AND IN THEIR ROLES AS
PARENTS TO THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
YOU SEE THE SAME REPEATED
PATTERNS AND THEN YOU SAY TO
YOURSELF, "HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN?
WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO HOLD TO
THE LEGAL FICTION THAT IF I AM
AN ADOPTING PARENT, I OWN YOU,
AND I OWN YOU EXCLUSIVE OF YOUR
OTHER VERY IMPORTANT PART OF
YOUR LIFE, WHICH IS YOUR
ORIGINS, YOUR NATURE.
WHY DO WE DO THAT?
AND SO THEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE,
FIRST NATIONS PRIMARILY, WE MET,
AND THEN... I'M NOT SURE HOW...
IT WAS A GIFT, IT WAS A GIFT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW I ACTUALLY RAN
INTO MARCIA AND THEN WE MET, AND
THEN MARCIA RECOUNTED TO ME HER
LIFE AND THE FACT THAT SHE WAS
REGISTERED.
YOU KNOW THAT FROM THE CLAIM.
THE PERSON WITH WHOM I'VE HAD
THE GREAT PLEASURE AND HONOUR TO
REPRESENT, ACCORDING TO THE
RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL INDIAN
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, WAS
DECEASED.
SHE WAS REGISTERED AS DECEASED.

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling. The legal battle."

Marcia says I CAME
BACK THEN TO CANADA AND SOUGHT
MY IDENTITY IN A WAY... SOME
PAPERWORK THAT I COULD HAVE,
CARDS, TO GO TO THE BANK AND GO
TO SCHOOL AND DO ALL OF THOSE
THINGS WITH, AND FOUND OUT I
DIDN'T EXIST.
I FELT ALONE BEFORE.

Nam says NOW YOU REALLY FELT
ALONE.

Marcia says I
FELT... AND I WAS ALONE.
IT WASN'T THAT IT WAS JUST A
FEELING.
I WAS ALONE.
IF I HAD DIED ANY TIME BEFORE I
WAS 18, I WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE
MANY OTHERS, IN A GRAVEYARD
SOMEWHERE... SOMEWHERE.
THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD HAVE
BURIED ME SOMEWHERE WITH NO
NAME.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

Nam says NO.

Marcia says AND
THEN VICKI CAME ALONG.

Nam says WHO IS VICKI?

Marcia says VICKI
WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF...
AND SHE CAME AND PRESENTED
ABOUT... THERE'S SOMETHING THAT
I HEAR FAIRLY OFTEN AND I HEARD
IT TODAY AS WELL, NOT IN
CRITICISM, BUT PEOPLE SAY THE
"SO-CALLED SIXTIES SCOOP."
WITHIN THE FIRST NATIONS, WHEN
WE SPEAK OF THIS TIME, WHEN WE
SPEAK OF... THE SO-CALLED.
WE DON'T SAY THAT.
BECAUSE IT'S SO REAL TO US, IT
IS THE SIXTIES SCOOP.
IT IS THE MILLENNIUM SCOOP,
WHICH IS HAPPENING NOW.
WE DON'T SAY "SO-CALLED."
IT IS.

Nam says IT HAPPENED.

Marcia says IT
HAPPENED.
IT'S PART OF OUR HISTORY.
WHETHER WE ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR
NOT, IT'S PART OF CANADIAN
HISTORY, SIXTIES SCOOP IS PART
OF CANADIAN HISTORY.
THE MILLENNIUM SCOOP, WHICH IS
HAPPENING NOW.
SAME THING.
DIFFERENT ERA.
DIFFERENT DAY.
DIFFERENT TACTICS.

Nam says JEFFREY, YOU'VE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR 11 YEARS, 8
YEARS IN COURT.
WERE YOU SURPRISED BY ANY OF THE
LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT MADE UP THE
GOVERNMENT CASE?

Jeffrey says ON CERTAIN
DAYS I WAS AND ON CERTAIN DAYS I
WASN'T.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MIND-BOGGLING,
CONFUSING, DISAPPOINTING,
BEWILDERING, TO HEAR A
GOVERNMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE
CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT OR THE
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT, AND BOTH
ARGUED THE SAME THING, THAT WHAT
TOOK PLACE SHOULD BE CONDONED OR
SHOULD NOT FORM THE BASIS OF ANY
ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE THE COURTS
BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, WE DID IT IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
SO THAT'S A LITTLE PROVOCATIVE
FOR ME AND I THINK FOR MANY
OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU WOULD
THEN ARGUE THAT IT WAS ALSO IN
THE BEST INTERESTS TO DO WHAT WE
DID IN RESPECT OF THE MANY
SURVIVORS OF THE RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOLS.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY... NOT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, AND ALSO, AND
SOMEWHAT FEARFULLY, IF PEOPLE
BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY DID THEN
WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CHILD, THEN OF COURSE IT COULD
HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE WE COULD DO
IT AGAIN SAYING IT'S IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IN
RESPECT OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN
OR ANY PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE CASE MAY
SIGNIFY, THAT THERE'S A LIMIT TO
WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF A CHILD.
THERE ARE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.
I THINK GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Nam says WHAT IMPACT WILL THIS
WEEK'S RULING HAVE ON THE
EFFORTS OF THE MINISTER OF
INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS,
CAROLYN BENNETT, TO NEGOTIATE A
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE SURVIVORS OF
THE SIXTIES SCOOP?

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling. Impact Statement."

Jeffrey says WELL, THE
HONOURABLE MINISTER HAS
INDICATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT
ABSOLUTELY... THE WORD
"ABSOLUTELY" WAS HER WORD, HAS
NO INTENTION OF APPEALING, AND
THEN THE NEXT STEP IS, IF THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NO INTENTION OF
APPEALING AND ACCEPTS THE
RULING, THEN LIABILITY HAS BEEN
SHOWN IN RESPECT OF THE CONDUCT
OF CANADA AS A DEFENDANT, AND
THE NEXT STEP IS TO MOVE ON TO
DISCUSS DAMAGES.
DAMAGES ARE THEN BROKEN INTO TWO
BRANCHES: DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMANTS RECEIVING
MONETARY COMPENSATION, AND THEN
AGGREGATE DAMAGES IS ANOTHER WAY
OF LOOKING AT IT, OR PROVIDING
FOR A FUND TO CREATE A HEALING
FOUNDATION AND MORE CREATIVE
WAYS OF ENSURING THAT THIS
DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
AND THE LAWSUIT WAS COMMENCED
NOT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PUTTING MONEY IN PEOPLE'S
POCKETS, AND I DON'T SAY THAT IN
A HARSH WAY, BUT IT WAS MY
CLIENT, WHO I HAVE SITTING TO MY
RIGHT, OUR CONCERN AND HER
CONCERN WAS, AS A RESULT OF THIS
CASE, IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL, CAN
WE MAKE CHANGES IN SOCIETY,
SYSTEMATICALLY TO ENSURE THAT
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
SO WE INVITE AND WE WANT TO SIT
DOWN WITH THE MINISTER TO
DISCUSS OUT-OF-COURT RESOLUTION
THAT PERHAPS PROVIDES FOR A
HEALING FOUNDATION FOR
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND SOME
KIND OF A CONSUMER WATCHDOG
FOUNDATION WITHIN THE FIRST
NATIONS COMMUNITY THAT MONITORS
LEGISLATION AS IT AFFECTS
CHILDREN, ALL CHILDREN, BUT
ESPECIALLY INDIGENOUS CHILDREN,
TO ENSURE THAT THIS DOESN'T
HAPPEN.

Nam says WELL, I WANTED TO
READ... TAKE A LOOK AT SOME
NUMBERS.
DATA FROM THE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD
SURVEY OF THE APPROXIMATELY
30,000 CHILDREN IN CARE IN
CANADA IN 2011, 14,225 WERE
ABORIGINAL.
OVERALL, FOUR PERCENT OF
ABORIGINAL CHILDREN WERE IN
CARE...

A slate appears with the caption "The current numbers. Data from the National Household Survey suggest that, of the approximately 30,000 children in care in Canada in 2011, 14,225 were Aboriginal. Overall, four percent of Aboriginal children were in care, compared to a scant 0.3 per cent of non-Aboriginal children, or 15,345 children. Michael Woods and Sharon Kirkey, Postmeduia News (May 8, 2013)."

Another slate appears with the caption "From the ruling. The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff’s experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides. Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba, Summary Judgement (February 14, 2017)."

Nam says JEFFREY, HOW DO YOU
THINK THIS WEEK'S DECISION WILL
EXACT INDIGENOUS CHILDREN WHO
ARE CURRENTLY IN CARE IN
ONTARIO?

Jeffrey says THE
DECISION WILL HAVE A RIPPLE
EFFECT AS JURISPRUDENCE OFTEN
DOES, AND IT WILL MAKE CLEAR, I
THINK... OR I HOPE... THAT WE
CAN NO LONGER PRETEND THAT WE
CAN TAKE CARE OF CHILDREN AND
DENY THEM A CONNECTION TO THEIR
FAMILY, EXTENDED FAMILY, AND
COMMUNITIES.
I THINK THAT WILL BE THE ONE
IMPORTANT RESULT OF THIS
DECISION.
IT COMES FROM THE CIVIL ACTION,
THAT THE CIVIL ACTION AND THE
OBSERVATION THAT YOU RECITED
WILL SAY THAT GOVERNMENT CAN BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF IT FAILS TO
ENSURE THAT WE BELONG.
WE ALL BELONG TO THE TRADITIONS
AND CUSTOMS OF LANGUAGES WHENCE
WHERE WE WERE BORN, WHICH IS OUR
FAMILY.

Nam says MARCIA, WHAT ROLE DO
YOU HOPE TO PLAY IN THE
CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY NOW
THAT WE HAVE THIS RULING?

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling. More to come."

Marcia says MY
SELF WITH OVER 600 OTHERS, I
BELIEVE PART OF OUR ROLE IS TO
ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT WHEN
ORGANIZATIONS COME TO FIRST
NATIONS AND SPEAK OF THEIR
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE OF THIS LAND, THAT THERE
WILL BE AN ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN
THAT MANDATED CHECK MARK BOX OF
WE DID THIS, WE DID THIS, AND
ONE OF THOSE THINGS BEING, WE
INVOLVED THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
IN THE INCLUSION OF OUR
PROGRAMMING, IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF PROGRAMMING, THINGS LIKE
THAT, THAT IT WILL NOT BE SOME
FINE ARTIST'S WORK ON A WALL,
THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY BE A
PRACTICAL PIECE OF, WE SAT DOWN
WITH PEOPLE AND WE TALKED BEST
HOW TO INVOLVE AND HOW TO
ADDRESS THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY AND HOW IT WOULD BE
BEST ADDRESSED FOR OUR PEOPLE TO
COME OUT AND COME, A GROUP OF
PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER, NOT
ONLY WITHIN THE FIRST NATIONS
BUT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS
WELL.

Jeffrey says DON'T THINK
FOR A MOMENT THAT THIS RULING IN
AND OF ITSELF IS THE REASON FOR
THE DATA THAT YOU OBSERVED.
WHAT THIS RULING SHOULD INSPIRE
IS FOR CANADIANS AGAIN TO
EXAMINE WHY THERE ARE THESE
PROBLEMS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION
OR COMPLICITY IN PERMITTING
THESE PROBLEMS TO EXIST.
I MEAN, BELONGING IS IMPORTANT.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
BUT SO ARE OTHER FACTORS.
POVERTY.
RIGHT?
AWFUL CONDITIONS.
HOUSING.
RIGHT?
LACK OF APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR
SOCIAL SERVICES ON THE RESERVES
THAT ARE IN ANY WAY EQUAL TO
THOSE SOCIAL SERVICES FOR
NON-ABORIGINAL CHILDREN OR
ABORIGINAL CHILDREN OFF THE
RESERVE.
SO THERE'S A HOST OF PROBLEMS IN
RESPECT OF WHICH REPEATED
GOVERNMENTS HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.
THIS GOVERNMENT AS WELL.
AND SO CANADIANS... I APOLOGIZED
ON AUGUST 23RD IN COURT AT THE
END OF MY SUBMISSION, AS A
CANADIAN, TO MY CLIENT AND TO MY
CONSTITUENTS.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THIS AND
WHEN YOU BECOME IMMERSED IN IT,
AS A WHITE PRIVILEGED MALE, YOU
HAVE TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND
YOU HAVE TO SAY, "I'M SORRY.
I APOLOGIZE AS A LAWYER AND I
APOLOGIZE AS A CANADIAN FOR THE
FACT AND NATURE OF THE HARM THAT
HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED BY OUR
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE."

Nam says CONGRATULATIONS AND
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING THE
FIGHT.

Jeffrey says THANK YOU.

Nam says THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
JEFFREY, AND CHIEF MARTEL.
SAFE TRAVELS HOME.

Marcia says MIIGWECH.

The caption changes to "The sixties scoop ruling. Producer: Gregg Thurlbeck @GreggThurlbeck."

Watch: Sixties Scoop Ruling