Content uploaded by Vicki Chartrand
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vicki Chartrand on Dec 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Unsettled Times: Indigenous Incarceration and the
Links between Colonialism and the Penitentiary in
Canada1
Vicki Chartrand*
Bishop’s University
Abstract: e high rate of Indigenous incarceration is a well-documented problem throughout Canada.
Within mainstream discourses, this problem is oen framed as the legacy or eects of colonialism, which
has resulted in the systemic racism and cultural and socio-economic deprivation experienced by Indigenous
people today. An increasing body of scholarly literature is challenging the assumption that colonialism is
something of the past by looking at how its structures and logics persist today. us far, however, little
consideration has been given to the colonial context and emergence of Indigenous incarceration in Canada.
By tracing the historical links between modern colonialism and the emergence of the Canadian peniten-
tiary into the present, this research reveals some of the hidden connections that contribute to the current
rates of Indigenous incarceration and the relationship that continues to exist between colonialism and the
penal system today. ese ndings highlight a socio-politics of incarceration that go beyond a crime and
justice framework.
Keywords: modernity, over-representation, penitentiary, settler colonialism, penal system, Indigenous
incarceration
Résumé : Le haut taux d’incarcération autochtone est un problème bien documenté partout au Canada.
Dans le discours dominant, ce problème est souvent présenté comme étant les résultats ou les eets du colo-
nialisme, lequel a entraîné le racisme systémique et les privations socio-économiques vécues par les peuples
autochtones aujourd’hui. Un corpus croissant d’études conteste la supposition que le colonialisme est une
chose du passé en regardant comment ses structures et sa logique se perpétuent. Par contre, à ce jour, peu
d’études ont porté sur le contexte colonial et l’émergence de l’incarcération autochtone au Canada. En reliant
les chaînons historiques entre le colonialisme moderne et l’émergence du pénitencier canadien jusqu’à main-
tenant, cette étude dévoile certaines des connexions cachées qui contribuent aux taux actuels d’incarcération
autochtone et la relation qui continue d’exister entre le colonialisme et le système pénal actuel. Ces résultats
soulignent un aspect sociopolitique de l’incarcération qui va au-delà d’un cadre de crime et de justice.
Mots-clés : modernité, surreprésentation, pénitencier, colonisation européenne, système pénal, incar-
cération autochtone
* Please direct correspondence to Vicki Chartrand, Sociology, Bishop’s University, 2600 rue College Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, QC J1M 1Z7; vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca
© 2019 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice / Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale,
61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
68 68 Chartrand
e concern with the incarceration of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system
is currently at the forefront of Canadian intellectual, political, and public discussion.2 In
2016, Maclean’s, one of Canada’s largest mainstream magazines, published an article enti-
tled “Canada’s Prisons are the New ‘Residential Schools’” (Macdonald 2016). Building on a
substantial body of research, the exposé oers an investigation into how Canada’s criminal
justice system works against Indigenous people at every level, from police checks and ar-
rests (e.g., Nettelbeck and Smandych 2010) to bail denial and detention (e.g., Roberts and
Stenning 2002), sentencing miscarriages and disparities (e.g., Roberts and Melchers 2003;
Roberts and Reid 2017), and higher rates of imprisonment, classication, and segrega-
tion (e.g., Martel 2001; LaPrairie 2002). Consequently, these criminal justice trends with
Indigenous populations are also well documented across other settler colonial countries,
including Australia (Blagg 2008), New Zealand (Tauri 1999), and the United States (Je ries
and Stenning 2014). While the Maclean’s article locates these trends within the context of
colonialism, it nonetheless continues to describe what are oen referred to as the “e ects”
or a “legacy” of a colonial past that has resulted in a subsequent economic and sociocultural
deprivation and racism experienced by Indigenous people today (e.g., Adjin-Tettey 2008;
Monchalin and Marques 2012). Framing colonialism as something of the past, however,
de-historicizes existing colonial relationships and displaces an understanding of the links
between incarceration, sovereignty, and the state (Nichols 2014: 444). Indigenous struggles
and experiences are thus symptomized as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence, while
the structural and systemic manners in which Indigenous people continue to be colonized
are rarely explored.
Challenging this colonial legacy hypothesis is an increasing body of scholarly literature that
analyses current and ongoing practices, arrangements, and discourses of colonialism within
the criminal justice system today (e.g., Balfour 2008; Blagg 2008; Muhammad 2010; Doug-
las and Finnane 2012; Murdocca 2013; Cunneen and Tauri 2016; Nettelbeck et al. 2016).
is work highlights how the underlying structures and logics of colonialism continue to
pervade criminal justice practices, albeit within diversied and fragmented forms. Stoler
(2008: 196) points out that terms such as “colonial eect” or “colonial legacy” are deceptive
and arbitrary placeholders in time that gloss over the dispersed eects of colonialism into
the present. While it is oen assumed that the present is a break from our colonial past, in
this article, I investigate the Canadian penal system and how the high rates of Indigenous
incarceration are linked to a continuing colonial project in Canada. As argued by (post-)
colonial theorists, colonialism has not simply dissipated but is central to understanding
current events and arrangements throughout our world (e.g., Spivak 1988; Bhabha 1994;
Said 1995).3
Although signicant discussion on Indigenous imprisonment has taken place in both
scholarly and public debate, there has been little consideration of when the levels of contact
between Indigenous people and the federal Canadian prison system began to occur, or of
the socio-political context of that occurrence.4 To develop this insight, I analyse the role
of the penitentiary in the project of settler colonialism through a historical study of penal
trends in the Canadian federal prison system. I consider this trajectory by (1) tracing the
emergence of the penitentiary system and its role in establishing the Dominion of Canada;
(2) establishing the parallels between the penitentiary and the colonization of Indigenous
people; (3) highlighting major key colonial and penal events and shis in the building and
settlement of the nation; and (4) identifying the convergence between the penitentiary and
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
69 Unsettled Times 69
Indigenous imprisonment into the present. is investigation reveals how the penitentiary
eventually assumed a new role in the lives of Indigenous people by the middle of the twen-
tieth century as a normal and legal step to historical settler processes of dispossession,
assimilation, and segregation. I conclude that Indigenous incarceration is not the result of
a colonial past but rather a part of the colonial process itself.
Socio-politics of Indigenous incarceration
Since the 1970s, signi cant eorts have been made to explain and address the disparities
in the justice system for Indigenous people (e.g., Royal Commission on the Donald Mar-
shall, Jr., Prosecution 1989; LaPrairie 1990, 1997, 2002 ; Aboriginal Justice Implementation
Commission 1991; Law Reform Commission of Canada 1991; Task Force on the Criminal
Justice System and Its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta 1991; Royal Com-
mission on Canada’s Aboriginal People 1996; Roberts and Stenning 2002; Rudin 2005; inter
alia ). ere have also been several signicant legal initiatives to address the rate of Indig-
enous incarceration, such as with the 1996 Sentencing Reform Act, which added section
718.2(e) to the Criminal Code to direct sentencing judges to consider alternative sanctions
to imprisonment for Indigenous people. In R v Gladue (1999 ), a landmark interpretation
of section 718.2(e), the Supreme Court held that widespread discrimination and adverse
socio-economic factors serve as the source of Indigenous over-representation in the crim-
inal justice system and that alternatives need to be fully considered in sentencing. ere
were also the Supreme Court of Canada cases of R v Ipeelee (2012 ) and the Federal Court
decision in Twins v Canada (Attorney General) (2017) that extend the Gladue principles
to breaches of parole and parole, respectively. Under sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act ( 1992 ), Indigenous-specic planning and programming in
federal corrections were introduced to allow corrections to enter into agreement with
Indigenous communities for the provision of correctional and parole services. Restorative
justice approaches – such as an Aboriginal court in Toronto – were also introduced into
the criminal justice system’s existing arrangements. ese and other initiatives have been a
part of ongoing justice reforms in Canada to address Indigenous incarceration at various
levels of the system.
Despite these recommendations and reforms, the Oce of the Correctional Investigator
(OCI 2015: 36) points out that in the 10-year period between March 2005 and March
2015, the Indigenous federal prison population increased by more than 50%, compared
with a 10% overall population growth during the same period. Today, Indigenous people
make up 26.4% of the total federal prison population, with Indigenous women composing
37.6% of the federal women prison population (OCI 2017). In the provincial prisons, In-
digenous incarceration rates are as high as 80%–90% in some regions of Canada (Perreault
2009). Although policing (e.g., LaPrairie 2002; Rudin 2005) and sentencing (e.g., LaPrairie
1990; Roberts and Reid 2017) have no doubt gured into these rates, the prison itself also
contributes to this outcome. According to the OCI (2017 ), Indigenous prisoners are dis-
proportionately over-represented in higher security classications, segregation placements,
use-of-force interventions, maximum security, and forced interventions – all of which o en
lead to longer institutional stays. According to the Auditor General of Canada (2016; see
also Zinger 2016), in 2015–16, of the Indigenous prisoners released from custody at their
statutory release date, 79% were released into the community directly from a maximum
or medium security institution without a graduated or structured return. Only 12% of
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
70 70 Chartrand
Indigenous prisoners had their cases prepared for a parole hearing once they were eligible,
just 20% were able to complete their mandatory programs by the time they were rst eligi-
ble for release, and 83% postponed their parole hearings. Fewer Indigenous prisoners are
granted full parole by the Parole Board of Canada, and, if they are granted some form of
release, it is oen later in their sentence. e Auditor General (2016 : 16) further notes that
CSC [Correctional Service Canada] has yet to develop tools to assess how culturally spe-
cic correctional interventions for Indigenous oenders, such as Elder services, Healing
Lodges, Pathways Initiatives and partnerships with community groups and organizations
contribute to an oender’s progress toward successful reintegration. CSC sometimes
makes security assessments and program referrals for incarcerated Indigenous persons
without adequate information from the provincial or territorial courts system. CSC
assessments and program referrals can be delayed for months awaiting this information.
Webster and Doob (2014 ), in their study on Alberta’s 1993 decarceration strategy, point out
that the reduction in the prison population was the result of a scal, political, and public
will, and not simply the result of changes in a crime and justice framework. e idea that
prisons are a neutral arbitrator of colonial wrongs is nonetheless consistently re ected in
the various reports that advance the notion that the penitentiary can do little to address the
rates of incarceration (e.g., Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections 1988:
8; Standing Committee on the Status of Women 2017: 1). ese works, however, alert us to
the need to consider the socio-politics of imprisonment and to situate the penal system in
a broader set of concerns outside of simply criminal justice reforms.
Locating the penal system in colonialism
(Post-)colonial and Indigenous studies have long pointed out that colonialism is a recurrent
and worldwide feature of human history. Unlike in what are referred to as the post-colonies,
in settler colonial countries such as Canada, the colonizers stay: “Invasion is a structure
and not an event” (Wolfe 1999: 2; see also Veracini 2010, 2013). Settler colonial studies
have been useful in rethinking the context of historical and contemporary colonial rela-
tions. Strakosch (2015 ), in her work on neo-liberal colonialism in Australia, shows how
the “Aboriginal problem” was reimagined as social and economic deciencies, leading to a
liberal preoccupation with Indigenous welfare, capacity, and resources rather than ongoing
colonial arrangements. Audra Simpson (2016 ) looks at how national apologies, such as the
one issued by Stephen Harper in June 2008, give a temporal past to a settler colonial project
that masks ongoing genocide, land seizure, and capital accumulation (see also Alfred 2005).
Of course, Indigenous communities are not simply “victims” of a modern liberal genesis;
they are also actively weaving their own past, present, and future through resurgence and
presencing – as seen with the Idle No More movement, for example, among others ( Simp-
son 2011; Corntassel 2012; de Finney 2017; Savarese 2017). Settler colonial studies draw
attention to an ongoing colonial enterprise and the ensuing resistances that operate from a
decolonial and anti-colonial framework.
Drawing from colonial and Indigenous studies, an emergent body of scholarly literature
similarly locates the penal system within a broader context of colonialism. Alexander
(2010 ) and Childs (2015 ) link the incarceration of black people in the United States to
the practices of slavery and segregation as legitimated through Jim Crow laws and prison
privatization. In Australia, Baldry, Carlton, and Cunneen (2012 ) consider how the historic
colonial practice of racial “dierence” continues to target Aboriginal Australians today in
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
71 Unsettled Times 71
the penal system. Razack (2015 ) links Indigenous deaths in custody throughout Canada
with the historical violent paternalism that continues through discourses of institutional
benevolence. By exploring the penal system within a context of colonialism, this literature
reveals how historical practices such as slavery, assimilation, segregation, exploitation, and
violence can transform through language and institutions into the present. According to
Cunneen and Rowe (2014 ), there is a dearth of colonial analysis in criminology that recog-
nizes the continuing practices of colonialism in the criminal justice system (see also Blagg
2012). Building on this scholarship that connects interdisciplinary and theoretical bound-
aries of criminological, (post-/settler) colonial, and Indigenous studies, this work reveals
the historical and present links between the penal system and the governing colonial logics
implicated in Indigenous incarceration in Canada.
Foundational to understanding the links that continue to exist between colonialism and
penality today is the “episteme” – a generalized structure of thought and knowledge that
gives discourses and practices their regularity (Foucault 1970). An episteme can be traced
through a history of the present that reveals how historic processes have discursively emerged
into specic logics – or modes of reasoning – that we continue to cultivate today. A logic
of colonialism emerged within modern narratives of progress that made the containment,
segregation, assimilation, and elimination of entire populations a central feature of its or-
ganizing practices (see Patel 2014). To trace a colonial episteme linked to the penitentiary,
I analyse archival material related to the federal penitentiaries from 1838 into the present,
alongside major key events in colonial development.5 For data management, I used NVivo
11.4.3 soware (QSR International, 2017) to establish initial themes and link nodal catego-
ries, used keyword searches related to Indigenous incarceration, and explored documents on
a text-by-text basis. is multi-coding method was useful in both broadly and speci cally
detecting and linking multiple themes and codes that would not have otherwise been evident
or repeatedly saturated (Berg and Lune 2014). Although ocial reports do not oer a com-
plete account of the material past, they nonetheless provide epistemic insight into the links
between colonial and penal systems over time. Stoler (2002: 87) points out that archives must
be treated as epistemological experiments “on which power relations were inscribed and [as]
intricate technologies of rule in themselves.” Rather than complete or accurate sources, o-
cial penal reports provide a window into the penitentiary’s role in Canada’s colonial history.
Colonial logics
With modern colonialism beginning in approximately the mid- eenth century, Loomba
(1998: 15) points out that by the 1930s, European colonies and ex-colonies covered almost
85% of the globe’s land surface. She locates the economic system of advanced capitalism as
a crucial dierence from earlier forms of colonialism, whereby modern colonialism not only
extracted tribute, goods, and wealth from the countries that it conquered but also consisted
of a restructuring of local economies, markets, and governance. Quijano and Wallerstein
(1992 ) argue that this pervasive arrangement of colonialism has been so e ectively inscribed
and normalized into the narration of the genesis of the modern world that colonial logics
now constitute modernity itself. What is oen considered progress or “civilized” is re ective
of a colonial logic that establishes sovereignty over lands, resources, and people – in other
words, modernity and colonialism are imbricated aspects of one another (Jackson 2017: 20).
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
72 72 Chartrand
(Post-)colonial studies identify modernity as emerging in the Enlightenment period, with
deeply structured processes of colonization rationalized through discourses of progress,
science, reason, and nature (see Hall and Gieben 1992). Quijano (2005 ) identi es four
main products of modern colonialism – namely, (1) the racialization of relations between
colonizers and colonized, as well as sex, class, and age, among other categorizations;
(2) the formation of a new capitalist system of exploitation that included slavery, servitude,
and simple commodity production; (3) Eurocentrism as the new mode of production and
control, with subjectivity developed within the experience of the colonizer; and (4) the
establishment of the nation-state as a new system of control and collective authority. Al-
though not monolithic, these advances framed the basis for advancing imperial control and
colonial conquest.
Following Said (1995 ), the widespread restructuring central to modern colonialism was
legitimated through a knowledge system that elevated the colonized through the separation
and subordination of the other. Institutions were developed for the specic purpose of sep-
arating populations – the old from the young, the sick from the healthy, the mad from the
reasonable, the savage from the civil, and the criminal from the law-abiding (Foucault 2003;
Chartrand 2017: 677). Advanced through discourses of modern progress, colonial logics
made invisible a construction of the colonized as inferior that subordinated their welfare to
the colonizer. obani (2007 ) argues that through sociocultural hierarchies, the colonizer
was naturalized and universalized as the national subject – a stable, conscious, uni ed, and
reasonable gure, exemplary of the natural order of humanity. ese epistemic orderings,
central to modern colonial logics, are more obviously reected in the practices of enslave-
ment, genocide, assimilation, and segregation, but are also perpetuated through refugee,
citizenship, and immigrations laws; sterilization practices; child welfare apprehensions; and
committal to carceral systems. As obani (2007 ) further argues, colonial logics invest a
dierence in the quality of humanity that sees the colonized – or other – as deserving of
dierent claims from the national subject and with less entitlements.
Colonial logics are reective of what Spivak (1988 ) refers to as an “epistemic violence” – a
repressive ordering that has become such a pervasive part of our modern ontological fabric
and psyche that we fail to recognize its patterns or challenge its structures. Wolfe (1999,
2006) argues that in modern imperial projects of settler colonies, the language, techniques
and practices change, but the overriding colonial logics and structures for dispossession
remain. In the context of the penal system, although emerging discursively, this framework
also expresses itself throughout Canada’s colonial history. By tracing the historic episteme
of colonial logics in relation to the penal system, this research makes visible a colonial
ordering that persists in Canada today, and it demonstrates how the penal system remains
complicit in a project of colonization that continues to project Indigenous people as a
problem population.
Modern punishments
In Canada, justice and security apparatuses such as the police, courts, and penitentiaries
emerged during the period of early settlement (1763–1867) and nation building (1867–
1910) as part of a process to consolidate the nation.6 Systems of justice helped establish
the colony throughout the land through the laying of British laws (e.g., Provincial Peni-
tentiary Act 1851 ; British North America Act 1867 ; Federal Penitentiary Act 1868 ), the
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
73 Unsettled Times 73
establishment of a federal police force (the Dominion of Police in 1868, the North-West
Mounted Police in 1873, and the Royal North-West Mounted Police in 1904), and a national
court of justice (the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875). To manage the colonies and secure
dominion, penitentiaries would be strategically erected in the more populated areas of the
province within ve to seven years of joining the federation. is was considered to have
a “commanding and salubrious” eect on the population (Minister of Justice 1877: 7). As
a structure of modern progress, the penitentiary symbolized advancement for the colony
in modernity’s quest to establish the laws of the land and eradicate “evils” through humane
discipline (Inspectors of the Provincial Penitentiary of Canada 1857: 37).
Oen referred to as the great incarceration (Foucault 1977; Beiras 2005; Wacquant 2014),
carceral landscapes proliferated to manage and spatialize populations in a way that was
compatible with advanced modern systems of governance and sovereignty in regulating
populations (Widder 2004: 421). First emerging in 1835, the Kingston Penitentiary was
modelled as a state-of-the-art institution at the vanguard of humanitarianism and civi-
lization. Up until the late nineteenth century, visitors would tour the facility, a symbol of
modern progress, to admire its structures (Miron 2011). Local gaols, however, predated the
penitentiary and operated within the districts to regulate local issues, including Indigenous
aairs. Jacobs (2012 ) establishes the links between the gaols and colonialism: Indian Agents
would use band funds to build local gaols on reserves to take over where reserve policies
failed. e purpose of the penitentiary, on the other hand, was to replace frontier justice
and arbitrary punishments with rationalized measures of punishment and deprivation
(Chartrand 2014). For instance, corporal punishment was only administered through scales
considered necessary for individual reform: “One lash was inicted on an Indian, merely as
a caution” (Minister of Justice 1884: 26). is policing of a rational penal administration was
sought to advance the modern value of the penitentiary, as “prisons shall not become the
moral tomb of those who enter them, but rather schools where the ignorant are enlightened
and the repentant strengthened. e permanent moral reform of the convict is the chief
aim” (Brown Commission 1849: 281). From the onset of early settlement, the penitentiary
was intimately woven into the politics of colonialism as a vast new modern mechanism of
social control through reformation and securing the nation.
e policing of modern logics within the penitentiary was achieved through a micro-reg-
ulation over labour and economics (the superintendent/wardens), moral instruction and
schooling (chaplains), and the health of the body (the surgeon). Penitentiary reports
consisted of detailed reporting on the minutiae operations of the penitentiaries, including
costs, labour, nancial disbursements, items owned, population, nationalities, escapes,
convictions, refractors, punishments, crimes, convicts returned, injuries, schooling, health,
and so on. is level of detail corresponded with a rational modern punishment that sought
reformation by maximizing the capacity of the institution and the individual: “ e peni-
tentiary is adapted to those whose criminal habits have been formed, and who therefore
require reformation in the full sense of the expression” (Minister of Justice 1906: 33). e
penitentiary and convict were calculated in terms of their specic function, capacity, and
worth; unless properly administered, its object of reformation would be lessened. In short,
the administration of the modern prison was established with modes of reasoning that
sought to colonize the body, mind, and soul.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
74 74 Chartrand
Until the mid-twentieth century, the penitentiary in Canada was mostly reserved for white
settlers. Race was part of a penal management that was recorded in annual reports through
categories such as “White,” “Indian,” “Half-Breed,” “Negroe,” “Mullatoe,” and “Mongloid.”
Quijano (2007 ) points out that the new social classication of race was a part of the process
of Eurocentrication that used physiognomic traits as external manifestations of one’s “ra-
cial” nature. For example, the acting chaplain of the British Columbia penitentiary “strongly
advised” that “something be done to separate young oenders from the hardened criminals
and especially that the Indians and Half-breeds be permitted to associate as little as possible
with the white prisoners” (Minister of Justice 1895: 113). Of the 106 penitentiary reports
dating from 1838 to 1968, outside of reported rates of incarceration, Indigenous people
were only spoken of in 39 reports, and in no particularly substantive way. Racial themes
of pathology and contamination were a part of a colonial logic in penal administration to
segregate populations and serve the biopolitical function of increasing the utility and health
of the settler state.
As a contaminating inuence, penal administration did not see Indigenous people as having
the same capacities or needs as settler convicts. Indigenous prisoners were oen said to be
easily amenable to reform, to have weak constitutions, to lack an ability to adapt to long
prison sentences, to be predisposed to diseases like scrofula or tuberculosis, and to pose
a signi cant expense for the penitentiary: “Negroes and Indians cannot bear con nement
long in the prison until they are seized with the disease [scrofula] in some of its phases.
e Indians, more especially can scarcely spend the full period of the shortest sentence for
which they can be sent to the penitentiary” (Directors of Penitentiaries 1870: 28).
Eorts to reduce the Indigenous population in the penitentiary were ongoing and achieved
by oering clemency, issuing tickets of leave, providing compassionate leaves, or exonerating
through pardons:
It is pleasing to note that during the year a number of the Indian convicts of the
Rebellion of 1885 have been discharged or pardoned. (Minister of Justice 1890: 96)
I think that [for] the Indian a ten-year sentence means death if not sooner liberated.
e possibility of granting a “ticket of leave” is a great boon to this case. (Minister of
Justice 1902: 63)
From the 1830s into the 1960s, the rates of Indigenous incarceration in the penitentiaries
remained low, averaging from 1% to 8% of the prison population.7 ough the logics of
reformation and assimilation were similar, colonial administration did not see Indigenous
peoples as having the same capacities or needs as settler convicts or as belonging to a penal
institution.
Reformation, segregation, and assimilation
Lloyd and Wolfe (2016: 111) point out that the period aer “conquering the frontier” is
typically marked by intensied programs of Native assimilation or “mopping-up exercises
for civilization.” While colonial systems of justice were initially reserved for the white settler
population, the so-called Indian problem was almost exclusively managed by the Indian
agent through segregation and assimilation projects to improve on the “less developed
people” (TRCC 2015: 18). During the initial stages of settlement, Indigenous people were
not considered a part of modernity’s advances and were regulated outside of modern institu-
tions on reserves and in local gaols, and they were segregated through racialized legislation.8
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
75 Unsettled Times 75
is dispossession included the ceding of land, the criminalization of culture and ceremony,
Indigenous peoples’ connement to and regulation over reserves, the restructuring of Native
governance, and mandated residential and industrial school requirements. Given the simi-
larities in the colonial logics of segregation and reformation, the regulation over Indigenous
people was consistent with penal models of colonizing the body, mind, and soul. Indigenous
regulation was thus similarly achieved through routines of labour and material hardship,
moral instruction, and bodily discipline.
Labour in the penitentiary, on reserves, and in residential schools was central to the reg-
ulation of populations. Residential school children were making garments and uniforms
for prisoners; women prisoners were making clothing for men in prison; and the men in
prison would make uniforms, shoes, and desks for the Indigenous children. Labour in
the penitentiary was instrumental to an agenda of reforming the criminal, who was sen-
tenced to both the penitentiary and hard labour: “ e insuciency of suitable work for
the convicts is a serious detriment to the proper management of the prisons, and it seems
extremely desirable for nancial, disciplinary and reformatory reasons” (Minister of Justice
1913: 13). Agriculture on reserves was also introduced to provide local sustenance, reduce
costs, eliminate nomadic traditions, and instil a work ethic (Milloy 1999: 21). Mosby (2013 ),
in his research on the post-war scientic experiments of testing nutrition on Indigenous
populations, highlights that medical practitioners were interested in solving the “Indian
problem” by constructing malnutrition as evidence of laziness and apathy. Essential to the
colonization of lands and physical infrastructure, forced labour was an organizing feature
in the reform of both “problem populations.”
In addition to labour, punishments in the forms of oggings, whippings, beatings, food
deprivation, and solitary connement were common practices in both penitentiaries and
residential schools. Indigenous children were oen chained to their beds, and stocks were
used in the playgrounds to prevent escapes (Kelm 1996). In the 1920s, several young In-
digenous boys were documented to have committed suicide or died trying to escape the
schools to avoid punishment (Kelm 1996: 73). Punishments in the penitentiaries were
also documented and debated all throughout the nineteenth- and mid-twentieth-century
reports: “Flogging, if it is to be useful as a deterrent, should be at least as public as the exe-
cution of a death sentence” (Minister of Justice 1909: 22). Also central to penal and colonial
regulation was the control of movement. Indigenous mobility was restricted through a pass
system whereby Indian agent authorization and regular reporting to the police chief was
required to travel o-reserve. Convicts were similarly regulated through remission and
tickets of leave, which also required regular reporting to the police chief. With restricted
mobility, as with the penitentiary, the overcrowding of reserves and residential schools were
common occurrences (see Minister of Justice 1912; Superintendent of Penitentiaries 1929;
Commissioner of Penitentiaries 1959; Kelm 1996: 56). In 1914, the Indian Act (no. 6, s 92)
was amended to limit “habitat dwelling” in order to avoid overcrowding and the spread
of disease. For prisoners, overcrowding oen resulted in transfers to other penitentiaries
across the country (e.g., Minister of Justice 1887; Superintendent of Penitentiaries 1924,
1931). Overcrowding and restricted mobility also resulted in higher rates of infectious
diseases, particularly tuberculosis or scrofula, on reserves, in residential schools, and in
penitentiaries. School administrators oen sent sick children home to their reserves, where
the contagion would be spread. In prison, sick Indigenous populations would be o ered a
form of clemency to prevent further spread of infection. As discussed above, the colonial
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
76 76 Chartrand
projects that enabled widespread Indigenous segregation and assimilation were borne of
the same modern logics that advanced criminal containment and reformation, with very
similar eects. By the mid-twentieth century, however, both the Indian agent and penal
operations were inconsistent with modern advances in resolving the “Indian problem” or
reforming the “criminal.”
Penal assimilation
In Canada, the post-war era brought a new wave of humanitarian-based reforms in settling
the nation. Along with civil and human rights, a new relationship between the colonizer
and colonized was also developing. Formal segregation and assimilation legislation were
replaced with integration policies and “a repositioning of ‘Indians’ within the general so-
cial welfare programs of the state” (Jacobs 2012: 4; see also Sangster 2011; Nason 2016). In
1950, Indian Act amendments repealed the anti-ceremonial and potlatch provisions and
barriers to making land claims. Further amendments in 1951 allowed Indigenous women
to participate in band democracy; additionally, prohibitions on traditional ceremonies were
removed, the residential and industrial school requirement was abandoned, and a standard
curriculum was introduced. ese trends were the beginning of what Coulthard (2014:
3) explains as a “politics of recognition” – “the now expansive range of recognition-based
models of liberal pluralism that seek to reconcile Indigenous assertions of nationhood
with settler state sovereignty.” During this period, colonialism in Canada shi ed from
overt domination to a cultural model of acknowledgement with apologies, occasional land
titles, and nancial restitutions, while the same colonizing relationship that subordinates
Indigenous interests to the state was retained (Coulthard 2014: 30–31; see also Macoun and
Strakosch 2013: 435).9 In acknowledging “past wrongs,” this shi to a politics of recognition
established colonialism as a historic moment, eacing European settlement and Indigenous
sovereignty while establishing white settlers as the rightful and national subject. As Scott
(1995: 213) points out, while reforms mark a great leap forward in the march of rationality,
progress, and freedom, they also signal a reconguration of colonial power, its redistribu-
tion, and redeployment.
As Canada was hosting a new era of post-war humanitarian reforms, the security function
of the state was rening its dominion. In 1955, the Criminal Code was revised to de ne
criminal oences and establish penalties. In 1958, the Parole Act and the National Parole
Board were established to replace tickets of leave. In 1947, a national rehabilitation proj-
ect was implemented for the one federal and eight provincial penitentiaries spanning the
nation. Rehabilitation was to restore the promise of an enlightened reformation project
of the post-war era. e penitentiary revised its focus to be more in line with a corrective
philosophy over labour as the rehabilitative value (Commissioner of Penitentiaries 1959:
1). In 1961, the Penitentiary Act underwent a complete revision to professionalize the
system and “reinforce faith in modern, enlightened solutions” (McCoy 2012: 3). Part of
this new correctional vision was to include the protection of society, the safe custody of
inmates, strict but humane discipline, and the rehabilitation of prisoners through treatment
and classi cations. Reform was no longer to occur through physical punishments, labour,
and moral teaching, but instead through discipline, training, treatment, and re-education
(Commissioner of Penitentiaries 1959).
In line with this new penal model, from 1950 to 2000, with the building of penitentiaries,
farms, camps, Annexes, training centres, Healing Lodges, and women’s facilities, there was
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
77 Unsettled Times 77
an explosion in the number of prisons. In this 50-year period, approximately 46 federal
prisons were built, compared with the 13 penitentiaries constructed in the previous 115-year
period. Prior to this, from 1900 to 1960, the general penitentiary population increased by
345%, from 1,424 convicts to 6,344, while rates of Indigenous incarceration only increased
174%, from 31 Indigenous convicts to 85. Aer 1960, however, the federal rate of Indige-
nous incarceration increased 1%–3% every year to its current rate of 26.4% – an increase
that continues, despite a decrease in the overall prison population since at least 2012 (CSC
2018). Also coinciding with this new penal vision was the disappearance of race from all
the federal penal reporting schemes aer 1960. By the twenty-rst century, with race having
disappeared from its reports, the penitentiary was quietly hosting a new problem popula-
tion as formal assimilation practices receded (see Hogg 2001; Cunneen and Tauri 2016).
e active biological racism of colonial times was giving way to a sanitized racism of equal
opportunity and treatment (Harding 2006).
Where in the earlier periods of colonialism, Indigenous people were considered to have
the wrong constitution for the advances of the penitentiary, in the era of recognition, new
knowledge was now developing around the “Native criminal.” In 1964, the Department of
Indian Aairs and Northern Development commissioned the Canadian Corrections Asso-
ciation (1967 ) to investigate Indian criminality and imprisonment as a result of increasing
negative media accounts that projected the stereotype of the “drunk Indian.” e report,
entitled Indians and the Law, showed that Indigenous incarceration increased from 2.5%
in 1960 to 15% in 1965 across six federal penitentiaries – Dorchester Penitentiary, Mani-
toba Penitentiary, Saskatchewan Penitentiary, BC Penitentiary, William Head Institution,
and Agassiz Camp.
10 e report established a “legacy of colonialism” as the driving force
to the incarceration rates. To address this, the report recommended Native programming,
community liaison, aer-care support, legal advocacy, less policing, reduced jail sentences
for liquor oences, the expansion of existing criminal justice services, the hiring of Native
people in the system, the elimination of residential schools, and addressing treaty and land
rights. Since this rst report in 1967, many studies have followed in a long and ongoing
series of similar accounts and recommendations (e.g., Law Reform Commission of Canada
1974; Solicitor General of Canada 1975; Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Cor-
rections 1988; Law Reform Commission of Canada 1991; Solicitor General Canada 1994;
Forum on Corrections Research 2002; OCI 2004, 2012; inter alia). As Strakosch (2015: 7)
points out, a politics of recognition advances a liberal citizenship that “includes Indigenous
people as citizens and … allows the [ongoing] selective coercion, racial pathologisation and
exclusion of Indigenous subjects in order to maintain settler privileges.” Having already
passed through similar institutions and laws of segregation and assimilation, a shi from
the Indian agent to a penal ethos was invisible, uneventful, and seamless.
e penitentiary silently displaced reserves and residential schools to what now has become
“Native” and eventually “Aboriginal criminality.” With penal advances and expansion acting
in tandem with the receding of formal colonization practices, the prison took over as the
new expression of colonialism. Civilizing Indigenous dierence remains the deep logic
of settler colonial authority (Wolfe 2006). As Douglas and Finnane (2012 ) show in their
research on colonial law in Australia, shis and ruptures are oen simply concessions and
reforms rather than actual moves toward self-determination (see also Million 2013). is
does not suggest that Indigenous dierence and autonomy has been erased or vanished
(see Coulthard 2010; Simpson 2011) but that rather little has been done by the nation-state
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
78 78 Chartrand
to dismantle the settler colonial relationship or a project of reformation, segregation, and
assimilation. Muhammad (2010 ) argues that the colonial principles of inferiority have been
repackaged now through a language of criminal justice. As the author argues, black people
are assumed not to be worthy of full citizenship until they conquer their vices, now through
the tropes of broken homes, violence, alcohol and drug use, poverty, and bad parenting.
Where civility and savagery were the tropes of the Indian agent, the discourse eventually
shied to symptoms of a colonial legacy and ensuing criminality. e penitentiary is funda-
mental to this process of reproducing Indigenous people as a colonized and now criminal-
ized group, subsumed into criminal justice language and logics (Cunneen and Tauri 2016:
69). In the penal system, the social hierarchies upon which modern colonialism is built
remain obscured in its project of reforming the “criminal” (see Andersen and Denis 2003).
Projected in rationalist terms of modern progress and intervening along well-established
discourses of criminal reformation, Indigenous incarceration became a normal and legal re-
sponse to former assimilation and segregation practices – slowly replacing the white settler
as overall decarceration rates decline. e historical racial divides used to keep Indigenous
people out of the penitentiary (e.g., lack of resources, capacity, weak constitution) shi ed to
a politics of recognition that assumed equal treatment and participation within the system.
While penal research and recommendations continue to attempt to address the context of a
colonial past, the underlying episteme nonetheless maintains the rationality of segregation
and assimilation. In other words, the question of “why the prison?” never enters the discus-
sion. As Saleh-Hanna (2015: para 9) points out, “crimes of enslavement within plantations,
chain gangs, reservations, and penitentiaries are shielded from moral interrogation, while
processes of connement (whom, how and for how long) take precedence.” is shi is an
important epistemological cornerstone of a colonial trajectory whereby, given its coherence
with colonial logics, the penitentiary, along with similar carceral institutions such as youth
detention centres (Sangster 2002) and child welfare (Blackstock 2007), quietly emerged as
a natural response to the “Indian problem.” A shi to the criminal justice system disperses
the colonial logic into something necessary and normal and obfuscates the same logic and
processes used throughout the history of colonization. is is the epistemic violence of
colonialism that retains the historical binaries of colonizer and colonized.
Conclusion
From its inception, the penitentiary has been central to a project of modern colonialism in
Canada in establishing settler dominion. Although the penitentiary was not a part of the
initial project of colonizing Indigenous people, given that it was born of the same logics, it
quickly replaced the receding of formal assimilation and segregation policies in the latter part
of the twentieth century. Part of what has made it dicult to investigate colonialism as part
of the present has been a politics of recognition that situates colonialism as an artifact of the
past. Discourses of progress and modernity give the appearance that Indigenous incarcera-
tion is a consequence or eect of a colonial legacy that exonerates our current systems and
structures from scrutiny. Similarly, where the literature links Indigenous incarceration to
administrative, procedural, and systemic forms of racism and socio-economic deprivation, it
makes the existing colonial relationship appear irrelevant today. is is particularly germane
when containment, segregation, and reformation remain a part of ordering and regulating
populations. Modernity still has violent consequences for colonized people.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
79 Unsettled Times 79
By tracing a colonial episteme that has persisted over time between the penitentiary and a
project of colonization, this research goes beyond a crime and justice framework by locat-
ing when the levels of contact between Indigenous people and the federal prison system
began to occur and the socio-political context of that occurrence. is is signi cant from
both an analytical and conceptual standpoint, as a historical analysis of penal and colonial
trends makes visible the frequently denied or obscured connection between penal and
colonial structures and logics that persist today. Without changing the underlying colonial
relationship, we not only ignore the ways that colonialism continues to exist today; we also
continue to o er colonizing arrangements as part of the remedy. is is relevant not only
for Canada but also for other settler countries with similar trends and increasing rates of
incarceration. As we move into justice reforms, with studies and restructuring under way
in Canada, discussions should focus on this context of colonialism, with solutions rooted
in untethering the colonizing relationship. is involves front-end and long-term strategies
that are Indigenous-led and invested in self-determination, rights and entitlements, de-
carceration strategies, and the mitigation of the damaging impacts of an ongoing colonial
encounter within the criminal justice system.11 As was seen in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, and as highlighted by others ( Webster and Doob 2014; Auditor General
of Canada 2016; OCI 2017), the prison administration has signicant capacity to a ect the
rates of Indigenous incarceration.
Notes
1 I rst acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land known today as Canada. I also ac-
knowledge Robert Otagan, Neegan Sinclair, and Jacqueline Ramanow for their teachings
during the creation of this work. I would like to thank Kevin Walby for his generous feedback
on an earlier dra. I am also grateful to the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Jus-
tice reviewers for their thoughtful comments. is work was funded by the Bishop’s University
Senate Research Committee’s Research and Creative Activity grant. e opinions, ndings, con-
clusions, and recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not nec-
essarily reect those of the funding agency.
2 In addition to a wide-scale review by the Justice Department’s “transforming the criminal jus-
tice system,” there is also the Senate Committee on Human Rights, which carried out what has
been referred to as a landmark study on the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in
the correctional system. At the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and
National Security investigated Indigenous people in the correctional system, while the Standing
Committee on the Status of Women explored Indigenous women in the correctional system.
Quebec also carried out its own work in this area through the Public Inquiry Commission on
relations between Indigenous peoples and certain public services in Quebec.
3 e term “post-colonial” has been widely criticized for conveying an idea of linear progress that
telescopes crucial geopolitical distinctions into invisibility, infers a break with historic practices,
and fails to consider settler colonial relations (McClintock 1992; Shohat 1992; Saleh-Hanna
2015). While it is important to highlight that the term “post-colonial” creates numerous unre-
solved tensions and contradictions for colonial scholars, it is beyond the scope of this article to
resolve them.
4 e Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (OCI
2012: 12) report states that “up until the 1960s, it is generally acknowledged that Aboriginal
people were, in fact, underrepresented in federal penitentiaries. at changed over the follow-
ing years and was nally recognized by the Federal Government in a 1975 report by the Trea-
sury Board Secretariat” – however, there is no actual recorded documentation of this nding.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
80 80 Chartrand
5 Archival data related to the Ministry of Justice, the Oce of the Solicitor General, the O ce of the
Correctional Investigator, the Correctional Service of Canada, Public Safety Canada, and Aboriginal
Aairs and Northern Development Canada were obtained online and from Library and Archives
Canada and the Government of Canada Public Library. Data consist of annual penal reports, com-
missions, correctional studies, legal analyses and briefs, legislative acts, and other o cial reports.
6 Modern colonialism in Canada can be generally divided into ve time periods: contact and
conquest (1497–1763), early settlement (1763–1867), nation building (1867–1910), the height
of assimilation and segregation (1910–60), and the rights and humanitarianism era (1960–
present) (adapted from Armitage 1995).
7 It is important to note that incarceration rates varied between regions, whereby the Prairies and
British Columbia o en reected elevated numbers of Indigenous incarceration, sometimes up-
ward of 11%.
8 e Gradual Civilization Act ( 1857) set out enfranchisement processes. e Enfranchisement
Act (1859 ) further elaborated on enfranchisement, restricted individual land holdings, and
stripped women and children of their Indian status through marriage to non-Indians. e Do-
minion Lands Act ( 1872) encouraged European settlement through land entitlements. e Indian
Act (1876) consolidated existing legislation with more power to the superintendent general of
Indian Aairs and provided the Department of Indian Aairs with legal and administrative
powers to declare any traditions, ritual life, social and political organization, or economic prac-
tices as obstacles to Christianity and civilization. In 1909, the Indian Act was amended to make
residential school attendance compulsory for Indigenous children between the ages of 7 and 15
years. By 1927, 80 residential and industrial schools were in operation, with over 17,000 children
in forced attendance (Legacy of Hope Foundation 2011).
9 e post-war shi was catalysed with the Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian
Policy (e White Paper, 1969) (Department of Indian Aairs and Northern Development
1969), which sought complete Indigenous assimilation, the dismantling of state duciary duty,
and the elimination of Indigenous claims to land, self-determination, treaty rights, and nation-
hood (Gardner and Clancy 2017).
10 Ontario and Quebec were found to have insu cient data.
11 For example, the Private Member’s Bill C-262 (42-1), An Act to ensure that the laws of Can-
ada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,
introduced in 2016 and currently in its second reading in the Senate, outlines the implemen-
tation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People with a right to
self-determination. Other existing legislative remedies allow for the use of sections 81–84 of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), where Indigenous and non-Indigenous pris-
oners can serve their sentence and parole in a supported way in the community.
References
Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission.
1991. Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba.
Adjin-Tettey, Elizabeth.
2008. Sentencing Aboriginal oenders: Balancing oenders’ needs, the interests of victims and
society, and the decolonization of Aboriginal peoples. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law
19 (1): 179–216. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1931107.
Alexander, Michelle.
2010. e New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New
Press.
Alfred, Taiaiake.
2005. Wasa’se: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Peterborough, ON: Broadview.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
81 Unsettled Times 81
Andersen, Chris, and Claude Denis.
2003. Urban Natives and the nation: Before and aer the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 40 (4): 373–90. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2003.tb00253.x.
Armitage, Andrew.
1995. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Auditor General of Canada.
2016. Reports of the Auditor General of Canada: Report 3 Preparing Indigenous O enders for
Release – Correctional Service Canada. Ottawa: Oce of the Auditor General of Canada.
Baldry, Eileen, Bree Carlton, and Chris Cunneen.
2012. Abolitionism and the paradox of penal reform in Australia: Indigenous women, colonial
patriarchy and co-option. Social Justice 41 (3): 168–89. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2200781.
Balfour, Gillian.
2008. Falling between the cracks of retributive and restorative justice: e victimization
andpunishment of Aboriginal women. Feminist Criminology 3 (2): 101–20. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1557085108317551.
Beiras, Inaki Rivera.
2005. State form, labour market and penal system: e new punitive rationality in context. Pun-
ishment and Society 7 (2): 167–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474505050441.
Berg, Bruce, and Howard Lune.
2014. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 8th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education.
Bhabha, Homi K.
1994. e Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Blackstock, Cindy.
2007. Residential schools: Did they really close or just morph into child welfare? Indigenous
Law Journal 6 (1): 71–8. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
ilj6&div=7&id=&page.
Blagg, Harry.
2008. Crime, Aboriginality and the Decolonisation of Justice. Sydney: Hawkins Press.
Blagg, Harry.
2012. Re-imagining youth justice: cultural contestation in the Kimberley region of Australia
since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. eoretical Criminology
16 (4): 481–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480611436360.
Brown Commission.
1849. Report of the Royal Commission to Inquire and en Report upon the Conduct, Econo-
my, Discipline, and Management of the Provincial Penitentiary. Ottawa: Journals of the Legisla-
tive Assembly.
Canadian Corrections Association.
1967. Indians and the Law. Ottawa: Department of Indian Aairs and Northern Development.
Chartrand, Vicki.
2014. Penal and colonial politics over life: Women and penal release schemes in NSW, Australia.
Settler Colonial Studies 4 (3): 305–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2013.864548.
Chartrand, Vicki.
2017. Penal tourism of the carceral other as colonial narrative. In e Palgrave Handbook of
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
82 82 Chartrand
Prison Tourism, ed. Jacqueline Z. Wilson, Sarah Hodgkinson, Justin Piché, and Kevin Walby,
673–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057%2F978-1-137-56135-0_32.
Childs, Dennis.
2015. Slaves of the State: Black Incarceration from the Chain Gang to the Penitentiary. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Commissioner of Penitentiaries.
1959. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
1959. Ottawa: Queens Printer.
Corntassel, Je .
2012. Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable
self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1 (1): 86–101.
Correctional Service Canada (CSC). 2018. Data Warehouse at 2012–2013 Year-End and
2017–2018 Mid-Year. Ottawa: CSC.
Coulthard, Glen S.
2010. Place against empire: Understanding Indigenous anti-colonialism. A nities: A Journal
of Radical eory, Culture, and Action 4 (2): 79–83. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/
a nities/article/view/6141.
Coulthard, Glen S.
2014. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Cunneen, Chris, and Simone Rowe.
2014. Changing narratives: Colonised people, criminology and social work. International Jour-
nal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 3 (1): 49–67. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v3i1.138.
Cunneen, Chris, and Juan Tauri.
2016. Indigenous Criminology. Bristol: Policy Press.
de Finney, Sandrina.
2017. Indigenous girls’ resilience in settler states: Honouring body and land sovereignty. Agenda
31 (2): 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2017.1366179.
Department of Indian Aairs and Northern Development.
1969. Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy (e White Paper, 1969).
Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
Directors of Penitentiaries.
1870. First Annual Report of the Directors of Penitentiaries of the Dominion of Canada for the
Year 1868. Ottawa: I.B. Taylor.
Douglas, Heather, and Mark Finnane.
2012. Indigenous Crime and Settler Law: White Sovereignty aer Empire. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Forum on Corrections Research.
2002. Focusing on Aboriginal issues. Correctional Service Canada 14 (3). http://www.csc-scc
.gc.ca/research/forum/e143/e143ind-eng.shtml.
Foucault, Michel.
1970. e Order of ings. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel.
1977. Discipline and Punish: e Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
83 Unsettled Times 83
Foucault, Michel.
2003. Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1974–1975. Ed. Antonella Salomoni, Valerio
Marchetti and Arnold Ira Davidson. Trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Picador.
Gardner, Karl, and Devin Clancy.
2017. From recognition to decolonization: An interview with Glen Coulthard. Upping the Anti
19. http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/19-from-recognition-to-decolonization/.
Hall, Stuart, and Bram Gieben, eds.
1992. Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harding, Robert.
2006. Historical representations of Aboriginal people in the Canadian news media. Discourse
and Society 17 (2): 205–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058059.
Hogg, Russell.
2001. Penality and modes of regulating Indigenous people in Australia. Punishment and Society
3 (3): 355–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474501003003002.
Inspectors of the Provincial Penitentiary of Canada.
1857. Report of the Inspectors of the Provincial Penitentiary of Canada, for 1856. Toronto: Hon-
ourable Provincial Secretary.
Jackson, Mark.
2017. For new ecologies of thought: Towards decolonising critique. In Coloniality, Ontology,
and the Question of the Posthuman, ed. Mark Jackson, 18–62. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Jacobs, Madelaine C.
2012. Assimilation through Incarceration: e Geographic Imposition of Canadian Law Over
Indigenous People. PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.
Jeries, Samantha, and Philip Stenning.
2014. Sentencing Aboriginal oenders: Law, policy, and practice in three countries. Canadian
Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 56 (4): 447–94. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2014
.S03.
Kelm, Mary-Ellen.
1996. A scandalous procession: Residential schooling and the re/formation of Aboriginal bodies,
1900–1950. Native Studies Review 11 (2): 51–88.
LaPrairie, Carol.
1990. Role of sentencing in the over-representation of Aboriginal people in correctional institu-
tions. Canadian Journal of Criminology 32 (3): 429–40.
LaPrairie, Carol.
1997. Reconstructing theory: Explaining Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice
system in Canada. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 30 (1): 39–54. https://
doi.org/10.1177/000486589703000104.
LaPrairie, Carol.
2002. Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice system: A tale of nine cities. Cana-
dian Journal of Criminology 44 (2): 181–208.
Law Reform Commission of Canada.
1974. e Native Oender and the Law. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.
Law Reform Commission of Canada.
1991. Report on Aboriginal Peoples and Criminal Justice: Equality, Respect and the Search for
Justice. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
84 84 Chartrand
Legacy of Hope Foundation.
2011. 100 Years of Loss: e Residential School System in Canada. Ottawa: Legacy of Hope
Foundation.
Lloyd, David, and Patrick Wolfe.
2016. Settler colonial logics and the neoliberal regime. Settler Colonial Studies 6 (2): 109–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2015.1035361.
Loomba, Ania.
1998. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.
Macdonald, Nancy.
2016. 18 February. Canada’s prisons are the new “residential schools.” Maclean’s. https://www
.macleans.ca/news/canada/canadas-prisons-are-the-new-residential-schools/.
Macoun, Alissa, and Elizabeth Strakosch.
2013. e ethical demands of settler colonial theory. Settler Colonial Studies 3 (3–4): 426–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2013.810695.
Martel, Joane.
2001. Telling the story: A study in the segregation of women prisoners. Social Justice 28 (1):
196–215. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768065.
McClintock, Anne.
1992. e angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term “post-colonialism.” Social Text (31/32): 84–98.
https://doi.org/10.2307/466219.
McCoy, Ted.
2012. Hard Time: Reforming the Penitentiary in Nineteenth-Century Canada. Edmonton: Atha-
basca University Press.
Million, Dian.
2013. erapeutic Nations: Healing in an Age of Indigenous Human Rights. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Milloy, John S.
1999. A National Crime: e Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to
1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Minister of Justice.
1877. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries in Canada for the Year Ended 31st
December, 1876. Ottawa: Maclean, Roger and Co.
Minister of Justice.
1884. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries in Canada for the Year Ended 30th
June, 1883. Ottawa: Maclean, Roger and Co.
Minister of Justice.
1887. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries in Canada for the Year Ended 30th
June, 1886. Ottawa: Maclean, Roger and Co.
Minister of Justice.
1890. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries in Canada for the Year Ended 30th
June, 1890. Ottawa: Brown Chamberlin.
Minister of Justice.
1895. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries in Canada for the Year Ended 30th
June, 1894. Ottawa: S.E. Dawson.
Minister of Justice.
1902. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries of Canada for the Year Ended June 30,
1901. Ottawa: S.E. Dawson.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
85 Unsettled Times 85
Minister of Justice.
1906. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries of Canada for the Year Ended June 30
1905. Ottawa: S.E. Dawson.
Minister of Justice.
1909. Report of the Minister of Justice as to the Penitentiaries of Canada for the Year Ended
March 31 1909. Ottawa: C.H. Parmelee.
Minister of Justice.
1912. Report of the Minister of Justice as to the Penitentiaries of Canada for the Fiscal Year
Ended March 31 1912. Ottawa: C.H. Parmelee.
Minister of Justice.
1913. Report of the Minister of Justice as to the Penitentiaries of Canada for the Fiscal Year
Ended March 31 1913. Ottawa: C.H. Parmelee.
Miron, Janet.
2011. Prisons, Asylums, and the Public: Institutional Visiting in the Nineteenth Century. Toron-
to: University of Toronto Press.
Monchalin, Lisa, and Olga Marques.
2012. Preventing crime and poor health among Aboriginal people: e potential for preventa-
tive programming. First Peoples Child and Family Review 7 (2): 112–29.
Mosby, Ian.
2013. Administering colonial science: Nutrition research and human biomedical experimen-
tation in Aboriginal communities and residential schools, 1942–1952. Histoire sociale/Social
History 46 (1): 145–72. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/his/summary/v046/46.91.mosby.html.
Muhammad, Khalil Gibran.
2010. e Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban Ameri-
ca. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murdocca, Carmela.
2013. To Right Historical Wrongs: Race, Gender, and Sentencing in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Nason, Dory.
2016. Carceral power and Indigenous feminist resurgence in D’Arcy McNickle’s e Surrounded
and Janet Campbell Hale’s “Claire.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 40 (1):
141–60. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicrj.40.1.nason.
Nettelbeck, Amanda, Louis A. Knaa, Russell Charles Smandych, and Robert Foster.
2016. Fragile Settlements. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Nettelbeck, Amanda, and Russell C. Smandych.
2010. Policing Indigenous peoples on two colonial frontiers: Australia’s Mounted Police and
Canada’s North-West Mounted Police. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 43
(2): 356–75. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.2.356.
Nichols, Robert.
2014. e colonialism of incarceration. Radical Philosophy Review 17 (2): 435–55. https://doi
.org/10.5840/radphilrev201491622.
Oce of the Correctional Investigator (OCI).
2004. Shiing the Orbit: Human Rights, Independent Review and Accountability in the Canadi-
an Corrections System. A discussion paper. Ottawa: OCI Canada.
Oce of the Correctional Investigator (OCI).
2012. Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Final
Report. Ottawa: OCI Canada.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
86 86 Chartrand
Oce of the Correctional Investigator (OCI).
2015. Annual Report of the Oce of the Correctional Investigator 2014–2015. Ottawa: OCI
Canada.
Oce of the Correctional Investigator (OCI).
2017. Annual Report of the Oce of the Correctional Investigator 2016–2017. Ottawa: OCI Canada.
Patel, Sujata.
2014. Gazing backwards or looking forwards: Colonial modernity and making of a sociology of
modern India. In Social eory and Regional Studies, ed. Saïd Amir Arjomand, 437–60. New
York: SUNY Press.
Perreault, Samuel.
2009. July. e incarceration of Aboriginal people in adult correctional services. Juristat. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009003/article/10903-eng.htm.
Quijano, Aníbal.
2005. e challenge of the “Indigenous movement” in Latin America. Socialism and Democracy
19 (3): 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300500258011.
Quijano, Aníbal.
2007. Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 168–78. https://doi
.org/10.1080/09502380601164353.
Quijano, Aníbal, and Immanuel Wallerstein.
1992. Americanity as a concept, or the Americas in the modern world-system. International
Social Science Journal 134: 549–57. http://www.javeriana.edu.co/blogs/syie/ les/Quijano-
and-Wallerstein-Americanity-as-a-Concept.pdf.
Razack, Sherene.
2015. Dying from Improvement: Inquests and Inquiries into Indigenous Deaths in Custody.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Roberts, Julian V., and Ronald Melchers.
2003. e incarceration of Aboriginal oenders: Trends from 1978 to 2001. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice 45 (2): 211–42. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.45.2.211.
Roberts, Julian V., and Andrew A. Reid.
2017. Aboriginal incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every picture tells the same story. Ca-
nadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 59 (3): 313–45. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cjccj.2016.E24.
Roberts, Julian V., and Philip C. Stenning.
2002. e sentencing of Aboriginal oenders in Canada: A rejoinder. Saskatchewan Law Review
65 (1): 75–95.
Royal Commission on Canada’s Aboriginal People.
1996. Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in
Canada. Ottawa: Governor General in Council.
Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution.
1989. Digest of Findings and Recommendations. Ottawa: Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Rudin, Jonathan.
2005. Aboriginal people and the criminal justice system. Ipperwash Inquiry research paper on
policing Aboriginal occupations and Aboriginal/police relations. Toronto.
Said, Edward W.
1995. Orientalism. London: Penguin.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
87 Unsettled Times 87
Saleh-Hanna, Viviane.
2015. Black feminist hauntology: Rememory the ghosts of abolition? Champ pénal/Penal Field
12. https://journals.openedition.org/champpenal/9168.
Sangster, Joan.
2002. “She is hostile to our ways”: First Nations girls sentenced to the Ontario Training School
for Girls, 1933–1960. Law and History Review 20 (1): 59–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/744155.
Sangster, Joan.
2011. rough Feminist Eyes: Essays on Canadian Women’s History. Edmonton: Athabasca
University Press.
Savarese, Josephine L.
2017. Challenging colonial norms and attending to presencing in stories of missing and mur-
dered Indigenous women. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 29 (1): 157–81. https://doi
.org/10.3138/cjw1.29.1.157.
Scott, David.
1995. Colonial governmentality. Social Text 43 (1): 191–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/466631.
Shohat, Ella.
1992. Notes on the post-colonial. Social Text (31/32): 99–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/466220.
Simpson, Audra.
2016. Whither settler colonialism? Settler Colonial Studies 6 (4): 438–45. https://doi.org/10.1080
/2201473X.2015.1124427.
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake.
2011. Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-creation, Resurgence and a New
Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring.
Solicitor General of Canada.
1975. Native Peoples and Justice: Reports on the National Conference and the Federal-
Provincial Conference on Native Peoples and the Criminal Justice System, Edmonton,
3–5 February. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
Solicitor General of Canada.
1994. Conquest by Law. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada, Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.
1988. Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Cary Neslon
and Lawrence Grossberg, 66–111. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
2017. November 28. Indigenous Women in the Federal Justice and Correctional Systems, House
of Commons Canada, FEW080 1st Sess, 42nd Parl.
Stoler, Ann Laura.
2002. Colonial archives and the arts of governance. Archival Science 2 (1–2): 87–109. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0570-8_7.
Stoler, Ann Laura.
2008. Imperial debris: Reections on ruin and ruination. Cultural Anthropology 23 (2):
191–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00007.x.
Strakosch, Elizabeth.
2015. Neoliberal Indigenous Policy: Settler Colonialism and the “Post-Welfare” State. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
88 88 Chartrand
Superintendent of Penitentiaries.
1924. Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1923.
Ottawa: F.A. Acland.
Superintendent of Penitentiaries.
1929. Dominion of Canada Annual Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the Fiscal
Year Ended March 31, 1929. Ottawa: F.A. Acland.
Superintendent of Penitentiaries.
1931. Annual Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the Fiscal Year Ended March
31, 1930. Ottawa: F.A. Acland.
Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections.
1988. Final Report. Ottawa: Communications Divisions of the National Parole Board.
Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and Its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of
Alberta.
1991. Justice on Trial: Report of the Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact
on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta. Vol. 1. Edmonton: Attorney General of Alberta and
Solicitor General of Canada.
Tauri, Juan.
1999. Explaining recent innovations in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Empowering
Maori or biculturalising the state? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 32 (2):
153–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/000486589903200205.
obani, Sunera.
2007. Exalted Subjects: Studies in the Making of Race and Nation in Canada. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC).
2015. e Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Vol. 1. Montre-
al: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Veracini, Lorenzo.
2010. Settler Colonialism: A eoretical Overview. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Veracini, Lorenzo.
2013. “Settler colonialism”: Career of a concept. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History
41 (2): 313–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2013.768099.
Wacquant, Loïc.
2014. Marginality, ethnicity and penality in the neo-liberal city: An analytic cartography. Ethnic
and Racial Studies 37 (10): 1687–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.931991.
Webster, Cheryl M., and Anthony N. Doob.
2014. Penal reform “Canadian style”: Fiscal responsibility and decarceration in Alberta, Canada.
Punishment and Society 16 (1): 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474513506272.
Widder, Nathan.
2004. Foucault and power revisited. European Journal of Political eory 3 (4): 411–32. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1474885104045913.
Wolfe, Patrick.
1999. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: e Politics and Poetics of
an Ethnographic Event. London: Cassell.
Wolfe, Patrick.
2006. Settler colonialism and the elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4):
387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240.
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
89 Unsettled Times 89
Zinger, Ivan.
2016. Human rights and federal corrections: A commentary on a decade of tough on crime pol-
icies in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 58 (4): 609–27. https://
doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2016.E06.
Cases cited
R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688.
R v Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433.
Twins v Canada (Attorney General), [2017] 1 FCR 79, 2016 FC 537.
Legislation cited
Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes in this Province, and to Amend the Laws
Relating to Indians, 3rd Sess, 5th Parl, 1857 (Gradual Civilization Act).
An Act for the better management of the Provincial Penitentiary, 1851, 14 and 15 Vict c 2, s VI.
An Act respecting Penitentiaries, 6E, VII, c 38, s 1 (Penitentiary Act).
An Act Respecting the Public Lands of the Dominion, 1872, 35 Vict, c 23 (UK) (Dominion Lands
Act).
An Act respecting the civilization and enfranchisement of certain Indians, SC 1859, 22 Vict, c 9.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, SC 1955, c 2.
An Act respecting the Criminal Law, RSC 1985, c C-46 (Criminal Code).
British North America Act, 1867, 30–31 Vict, c 3 (UK).
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20.
Indian Ac t, RSC, 1985, c I-5 [1876] 1909.
Parole Act, SC 1958, c 38.
Penitentiary Act, 1868, 39 Vict c 75, s 61.
ORCID iDs
Vicki Chartrand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6305-8694
© CJCCJ/RCCJP, 61, 3, (July / juillet), 67-89 doi:10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029
${protocol}://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.2018-0029 - Vicki Chartrand <vicki.chartrand@ubishops.ca> - Monday, July 22, 2019 8:13:23 AM - IP Address:69.157.149.147
