FASD and TRC Call to Action 34.4: A Consideration of Evaluation Methods

TRC Calls to Action 34.4

Prior to discussing TRC Calls to Action 34.4, and the role of evaluation as it relates to this particular subsection of the call, it is critical to first review the broader contexts that surround the TRC. This includes the critical role it has played in demanding increased recognition of the ongoing impacts of colonialism, as well as the need for truth and accountability as part of transformational change. This section will provide a short summary of the TRC. Readers are encouraged to visit the TRC website, where all content is available free for review and download, or the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation website that includes further resources.

One of the most profound impacts of colonization in Canada was the establishment of an education system that undermined Indigenous families, communities, and nations. Children were taken from their families and removed entirely from their communities to attend mission, industrial, or as more commonly known, residential schools. The Indian residential school system (IRSS) was intended to separate children from parental and community influences in order to accelerate their assimilation into British North American/Canadian society. The goal of these schools was to ensure the disappearance of Indigenous peoples as distinct nations.

Indigenous peoples had wanted access to Canadian education and negotiated for schools and teachers to be provided by the government. Canadian officials co-opted the treaty promise of education for Indigenous children by creating a country-wide system of schools where children stayed in generally church-run primary schools that were intended to be self-sufficient via farming. The government’s intention to implement the education treaty promise at low cost meant that teachers and staff were underpaid, the facilities were inadequate and unhealthy, and Indigenous children were underfed and under-clothed while being expected to work to keep the schools running. The result was a disaster for Indigenous children; students experienced high death rates that the Indian Department’s health inspector described as a “national crime.” Students were frequently subjected to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse within the schools.

The Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Commission of Canada was established as part of a Settlement Agreement between Canada, the churches responsible, survivors, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Indigenous peoples organized a series of class action lawsuits that culminated in a settlement to provide compensation to former students of the IRSS. Former students, also known as survivors, insisted on the establishment of a truth commission to determine how and why the schools were created, as well as how and why the system had been allowed to continue for over a century, from the 1880s until the 1990s. The last boarding school closed in Saskatchewan in 1996 and the federal government is negotiating settlements with those survivors who attended schools that were outside the scope of the original settlement. The TRC delivered its 94 Calls to Action in 2015.

The TRC focused on issues that need reform in the justice sector, including concerns about people with FASD being involved in the CJS as both victims and offenders. In testimony of survivors and case law, there were examples such as R. v. Jessie George and R. v. Charlie. For example, in the case of R. v. George, the judge stated:

Mr. George did not ask for the hand he was dealt even before his birth. He did not ask for a chaotic childhood. His mother did not ask for the hand she was dealt in her childhood. Her inability to parent compounded the prenatal effects of alcohol on Mr. George’s brain. These are handicaps he will have to deal with for the rest of his life. I am sorry he has to deal with them. I hope he can overcome them. Nevertheless, the court must be concerned with the risk this young man presents to the public as a result of his impaired judgment and inability to control his impulsive behaviour. (TRC 2015, 163)

R. v. Jessie George reveals the links between FASD, justice, and residential schools in the courts, but such awareness does not appear to serve as mitigation. Conversely, with R. v. Charlie, Judge Lilles (Yukon) identifies and makes FASD and residential schools a mitigating factor in sentencing. Judge Lilles notes in his judgment that:

This history of Franklin Charlie’s family is important because it identifies a direct link between the colonization of the Yukon and the government’s residential school policies to the removal of children from their families into abusive environments for extended periods of time, the absence of parenting skills as a result of the residential school functioning as an inadequate parent, and their subsequent reliance on alcohol when returned to the communities. Franklin Charlie’s FASD is the direct result of these policies of the Federal Government, as implemented by the local Federal Indian Agent. Ironically, it is the Federal Government who, today, is prosecuting Mr. Franklin Charlie for the offences he has committed as a victim of maternal alcohol consumption. (TRC 2015, 225)

Judge Lilles’ sentence has served as a national example, and a template for sentencing in which FASD is a mitigating factor, and one that is traced to the legacy of residential schools. And while Judge Lilles offers this important intervention, we are often left with a judiciary and criminal justice system that has limited understanding of the nuances of FASD.