Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

Episode 8

[theme]

Connie: I’m Connie Walker and this is Missing and Murdered: Finding Cleo, an investigative podcast by CBC News.

Connie: I think that is Annette and I think that’s April. Oh my gosh, it looks like them. There's no doubt that Ruth and Dawn will soon have their permanent home. Ruth is almost five and Dawn has just turned five. So when were April and Annette born? Oh my gosh. That would be the right age. Right?

Jennifer: She would have just turned six.

Connie: They're very close and that looks so much like her.

Connie: I find the photo that Cleo's sister April gave us when we met. It's the adoption picture of her and Annette, the only two Semaganis kids who were adopted together. We compare it to the AIM ad we just found.

Connie: Oh yes, that looks them.

Jennifer: Oh my gosh.

Connie: Look at that picture that you have there. That looks exactly like them. Yes. April, Annette, there they are.

Jennifer: That's April's, her eyes, She has those distinct eyes.

Connie: The girls in the paper are called Ruth and Dawn but there’s no doubt in my mind that this is April and Annette. We found it. This has to have been the ad that Lillian saw in the paper.

Connie: This must have been it, it must have been, because it was just a few weeks before the meeting with the minister.

Jennifer: Yeah.

Connie: The girls are wearing matching white dresses with little round Peter Pan collars. They both have white ribbons peeking out of big curls. Their expressions are almost identical to the adoption photo. April has a big smile that scrunches up her eyes. Annette’s smile is small, but you can see a hint of her dimple.

Connie: Dawn has just turned five. Both girls are polite, intelligent, and well-mannered with flourishing social development. Both are good-natured, cheerful, and affectionate.

Connie: In Johnny’s ward file we saw a note that makes sense now that we understand a little bit more about what was going on in Lillian’s life. It’s from June 1973. Two months after Lillian saw April and Annette’s ad.

Female Voice: In early June, we received word from Saskatoon that she is applying to adopt her own children. This would be unnecessary, for she could launch an appeal of the court’s decision instead, through a lawyer.

Connie: I think of Wayne. He wondered if Lillian understood the process when she asked the government for help and when her kids became permanent wards. But this note makes it clear that she really didn't.

Male Voice: Johnny was not informed of the possibility of him being returned to this mom. He would be most happy with a decision like this, but would likely be very hurt if, at the last minute, it did not materialize.

Connie: So two months after Lillian saw April and Annette’s ad, she told the government she wanted to adopt her children back. This investigation has been about finding Cleo and the truth about what happened to her. We’re still hoping to see the police report into her death. And in a few weeks, we are planning a trip with Christine to New Jersey. She wants to visit Cleo’s grave

and find more answers. But before we delve deeper and try to find out what happened in the weeks before Cleo died, I want to know more about how she got there in the first place. Why didn’t Lillian get her kids back? What were the government decisions that led to Cleo being adopted into a white family in the United States? Who were the people who thought this was a good idea? And why?

Connie: Okay. We've just gotten to the Saskatchewan Archives in Regina, and planning on spending the better part of three days here going through a bunch of archives from the '60s and '70s having to do with the Adopt Indian Metis program. We know there was a backlash. But we really just want to try to get some insight from the government point of view.

[door creaking, indistinct muttering]

Connie: Within minutes we’re set up in the library of the provincial archives with 12 banker boxes worth of documents.

Jennifer: Where to begin.

Connie: We also ask to see some of the old AIM TV ads.

[tape loaded]

Voice in ad: Sometimes when you think the world's gone mad and it's time to say goodbye. Why don't you listen very hard the next time a baby cries. Because you know he's calling out to you and it’s sure a happy sound. Each time a baby is born, the Lord tells mankind, take it one more round.

Connie: It’s actually a really sweet ad. The kids are doing normal kid things. There’s a shot of two of them wearing matching red sweaters reading a book. In the next shot, a little boy is kneeling next to a small bed, his hands clasped in prayer. One kid does a somersault on a bright red carpet. Actually, almost all of the shots are on the same blue couch and red carpet. I wonder if it’s someone’s living room or a fake set used by the advertising agency.

[singing from the ad]

Connie: Before they would show it to us, the archivists blurred the faces of the kids in this ad. But you can still see their little brown ears that peek out from the pixels, so you know they’re all Indigenous. The ad seems to be saying, look at these kids: they’re brown, they’re cute, and they can be ‘normal’ too.

[singing from the ad]

Song: One more round mankind will you make it. One more chance mankind, will you take it. Take it the way a child takes love.

Connie: When the AIM program was announced in 1967, Cyril MacDonald, the Minister of Welfare for the province, taped this statement.

Cyril MacDonald: This is a special adoption program. For the past five years, the number of children in care of the Department of Welfare has been increasing by approximately 180 a year. This trend is causing us real concern.

Connie: It’s in black and white. MacDonald is holding a script, looking very earnest about this new government program he seems quite proud of.

Cyril MacDonald: While we have had reasonable success in placing white children for adoption, we have had great difficulty in placing Indian and Metis children. One of the main reasons people have given for hesitating to take Indian and Metis children in their home is the fear of the possibility of discrimination against the child in the community itself.

Connie: MacDonald says racism is stopping people from adopting Indian and Metis kids and it's the government's job to educate people and convince them it’s a good idea to open their homes.

Cyril MacDonald: After all, Indian and Metis children have the same potential as white. The only difference is the colour of their skin.

[shuffling]

Connie: All right, what is this? Oh, my gosh. This is a lot of paper.

Connie: Jen and I start pouring through the papers and learning about the AIM program. Several of the documents describe Indian and Metis kids as 'hard to place' and put them in the same category as 'children with special needs,' even if they don’t have any. We come across plenty of instances where the government talks about the importance of giving kids a permanent home, out of the foster system. But that wasn’t their only motivation. An early AIM report highlights the fact that adopting out Indigenous kids will also save the government money. The report says paying foster parents is expensive. Back then, each child costs $1,000 per year. So in the long run, adopting out kids instead of fostering them will save the government tens of millions of dollars. The report also says that kids who stay in foster homes often end up in correctional institutions or juvenile court. And that giving a child a chance to find a good home will also pay real dividends in the future. Kids who were hard to adopt in Saskatchewan were sometimes sent to the United States and beyond, like Johnny and Cleo. They stopped doing that in 1975, one week after Johnny's adoption was finalized.

Connie: This is a department memo from minister Alex Taylor to the deputy minister about adoptions to the United States. [reading] "Our government certainly does not want to be seen as one which exports its Native people in order to solve its Native problems." Okay, so this is in a folder marked North Battleford Correspondence...

Connie: A folder marked "Correspondence - North Battleford Region" catches my eye. I read a strange memo about a social worker getting special recognition. Remember that Cleo and Johnny and all of their siblings went to court in 1972 in North Battleford. A judge made them all permanent wards of the province of Saskatchewan, and therefore eligible for adoption.

CONNIE: Here’s a memo. She's getting an award of merit. "You have been unanimously nominated by the aim center staff for the salesperson of the year award."

Jennifer: The salesperson of the year award?

Connie: Yes.

Jennifer: It kind of sounds like she works at Sears.

Connie: We will wait to receive further news of children who may appear suspiciously adoptable.

Jennifer: What does all that mean?

Connie: We don’t quite understand why this social worker would be awarded a 'salesperson of the year award' until a few minutes later, when we see the original memo it was referring to.

Connie: Oh, this is it. This must be the memo right here.

Connie: The supervisor in North Battleford wanted to let head office know that the social workers in North Battleford had a lot of court dates coming up, and would, therefore, be getting more kids into care. And more kids who’d be eligible for adoption:

Female Voice: North Battleford has about 17 courts taking place before the end of October. We have babies, little boys, little girls, sibling groups, we can mix and match. Some are blonde, some are dark. When the courts are completed and we obtain permanent wardship, histories and pictures will be forwarded as soon as possible. We're the only region that offers a full guarantee on our kids.

[fades back into Connie reading]

Connie: They're all lovely, personable little people and we know your families will be delighted with our selection.

Jennifer: That's so strange.

Connie: Oh, my god. Like, "Wait, wait, wait, we've got some really good kids coming for adoption here. You can mix and match them. Our kids are guaranteed."

Jennifer: That's such a strange tone to take.

Connie: And then his response to it. "You've been unanimously nominated by AIM center staff for the salesperson of the year award."

Jennifer: Maybe it's all a big joke.

Connie: I think the memo is supposed to be a joke. But it seems strange that social workers are joking about the selection of children they were making permanent wards and eligible for adoption. Advocates at the time weren’t privy to memos like this but still they had strong objections to the AIM program, and especially its ads. The Metis Society of Saskatchewan wrote a letter to the Minister, calling the AIM ads racist. They questioned why children were placed in white homes and why some kids, like Johnny and Cleo, were sent to the United States.

Connie: So this is a memo from the director of AIM to…

Connie: By 1972, it seemed the government bowed to pressure from Indigenous groups and slightly changed the name from Adopt Indian and Metis to AIM Centre. They shifted the focus to include "all hard to place children," but acknowledged most of them "would still be of Native origin." But Indigenous groups didn’t just want a name change, they wanted to change the system. They pitched proposal after proposal to create Indigenous-run foster centres or to find more First Nation or Metis families to adopt kids and to fund programs for mothers. The Saskatchewan Native women’s association wanted to create a centre called Native homes for Native children. They said:

Female Voice: Each child has a right to his cultural identity and heritage. Native Children in many cases, are being placed in white middle-class homes, which provide an environment alien to their emotional, spiritual, and cultural needs.

Connie: Two years later, the group issued another memo.

Connie: [reading] Whereas the Provincial Department of Social Services practices cultural genocide.

Connie: They claimed the government "practices cultural genocide by purposely placing Native children in white homes," and that this violates their right to self-determination.

Female Voice: Native children suffer cultural shock when placed in an alien white environment.

Connie: Reading these memos, I’m reminded of Christine and how she says she is still affected by being disconnected from her community and culture. I also think about Cleo. How did being separated from her home affect her and her decision to take her own life? It’s taken decades for the courts to recognize what those advocates were saying 50 years ago. In 2017, Justice Belobaba ruled in favour of Sixties Scoop survivors in their lawsuit against the fed government. In his decision, he said:

Male Voice: The impact on the removed aboriginal children has been described as “horrendous, destructive, devastating and tragic.” 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.

Connie: And I was surprised reading the next part of his decision. He said some researchers argue that the Sixties Scoop was even more harmful than the residential schools.

Male Voice: Residential schools incarcerated children for 10 months of the year, but at least the children stayed in an Aboriginal peer group; they always knew their First Nation of origin and who their parents were and they knew that eventually they would be going home.

Connie: Reading through the archives, it’s clear that at the time, people in government didn’t believe they were practicing cultural genocide. We find a memo from 1974 from the Director of Social Services. He dismisses the idea that Indigenous culture even needs protecting.

Male Voice: It appears that the Indian people are fearful that their Indian culture is in danger of disappearing. I do not wish to give the impression that I feel that the Indian culture is of no value, although it is quite difficult to understand exactly what it is. While attempts should be made to ensure that the child can live within this cultural heritage, this must be a secondary consideration.

Connie: I don’t want to paint an unfair picture, though. We look through thousands of documents and there do seem to be efforts by government to try to recruit more Indigenous parents. And there is plenty of evidence that Social Services in all regions of the province were struggling to deal with the increasing number of Indigenous kids in care. We see memos by bureaucrats grappling to respond to the ongoing criticism from Indigenous groups. For years, Nora Cummings and other Indigenous advocates seemed to try everything in their power to get attention and make change.

Nora: As grandmas and mothers and aunties, we know what it’s like to go through that. Those children are first and foremost. Because I am their voice. And I'm going to be their protector.

Connie: So why didn’t it work? If they had been successful, would it have made a difference for Cleo or any of her siblings? Why didn’t social workers and politicians listen to people like Nora? Why did thousands of Indian and Metis kids have to go through the trauma that Justice Belobaba outlined in his decision? We try to ask several people associated with AIM and child welfare in Saskatchewan those questions, but many people who were directly involved in the program are hesitant to talk about it. It’s become so controversial.

Connie: Okay, we’re here.

Connie: Except for Otto and Florence Driedger.

Otto: Come on in, come on in!

Connie: Hi, how are you, I’m Connie.

Otto: Fine, you're Connie?

Connie: I'm Connie, nice to meet you.

Otto: I’m Otto.

Connie: Hi Florence, nice to meet you.

Connie: They’re both retired now, but they were social workers who worked for the government of Saskatchewan during the 60s and 70s.

Florence: I always remember these two children were left without anybody looking after them, and I was, there was no adult, there was no food. And we found the mother, she had come home, and I don't know how I found her, but anyhow. And we talked about where she had been. She had grown up, or she had spent most of her time in a residential school, and you know, all those things.

Connie: How often did you hear that? How common was that, that the mothers or parents were residential school survivors?

Florence: Just about everybody.

Connie: Did you have any knowledge of residential schools at that point, like, did you know what was going on?

Otto: Oh, yes.

Florence: Oh yeah, yeah. You know, we were young social workers. We weren't in policy positions or anything like that at that point and you tried to do the best you could with...

Connie: They might not have been in policy positions when they first started out, but within a few years, Otto and Florence had moved to Regina. While Florence continued as a frontline social worker, Otto went on to start the AIM program.

Otto: I was the Director of Child Welfare.

Connie: So that would have been right when the AIM program started. So what was the AIM program-- what was the goal of the AIM program?

Otto: Stability. So our thinking was that what we need to do is develop a program that will focus on getting basically many Indian children into adoption homes...

Connie: Otto echoes a lot of what we found from the archives. He says it was harder for them to place Indigenous kids in permanent homes and those that didn’t get adopted often ended up in bad situations. They felt security and stability were the most important.

Otto: And the objective was to get as many adoption homes as possible in the first Nations communities for First Nations kids.

Connie: So there wasn't a focus on adopting into white families?

Otto: Into everybody... into any homes.

Connie: Otto rejects the idea that this was a deliberate continuation of the cultural genocide that Indigenous advocates warned against.

Connie: What was the reaction from the public to the ads?

Otto: It was a very good response. So there were a lot of children that were placed into adoption. Was not in terms of ---- that this is an alternative to the residential schools and we're taking them away and then putting them into white foster homes. That was not the basis of the child welfare program.

Connie: But if it wasn't the basis, it was often the result?

Otto: Well, the result was that children were placed for adoption, but the alternative was for them to be in foster homes because of the neglect there was or the abuse that there was in families.

Florence: Some of the cases, I mean, it was just horrendous what kids were going through.

Connie: Otto was only part of the AIM program for the first few years, so he says he didn’t hear much about the opposition at the time. But he’s heard plenty since then.

Connie: But you mentioned the Sixties Scoop, I'm curious what you think about-- because you know, it's recently just started getting a lot more attention.

Otto: Yes, right.

Connie: And I think that, you know, most of the attention is focused on the kids who are now adults and who are recovering from their experiences, but are very critical of programs like AIM.

Otto: Right. Yeah.

Connie: What do you think of those criticisms that they have?

Otto: Well for them, from where they're sitting, they're appropriate. But some of the assumptions that are made by some people are not accurate.

Connie: Like what? Which ones are not accurate?

Otto: Their assumptions are that they were taken away from their families just in order to be in white families. And that's what I mean.

Connie: So you take issue with the scoop part of it that that implies that it was not because of--

Florence: Deliberately taking away their culture.

Otto: But I can understand the hostility that people have, because they were taken away from their identity, and obviously that is... it is… So I don't criticize them. It's just that's the dynamic of it.

Connie: Otto’s been hesitant to speak publicly about his role in the AIM program because he says he understands why survivors of the Sixties Scoop are angry. But he feels it is not a black and white issue. There are many shades of grey.

Otto: And the reason some of us like myself have not spoken out against the scoop is because it would immediately be seen as being defensive and critical of what's happening. And so that the only way I feel that we can talk about it is with people like yourself who are looking at the depths of this thing, trying to get an understanding of what really is going on. Either this kind of like the podcast you're doing or research that is done so that you really get an understanding of what the dynamics are. Otherwise, it's just, well, those guys are just being defensive of the evil that they've done. [dry chuckle]

Connie: No, I appreciate that, and we are very much trying to take that approach where we're looking at the bigger context and exactly what you're saying, trying to help people understand how--

Otto: And that's why I'm prepared to talk to you about that.

Connie: I appreciate it. Having said that, do you have any regrets about the program or the way it was executed, or even not just AIM, but child welfare in general at that time?

Otto: I don't-- I wouldn't say regrets. I say I have mixed feelings.

[solemn music]

Connie: I mean, just in hearing so many stories and experiences from people who went through those kinds of adoptions into white families. There are so many devastating experiences. Like, do you feel like that was a success?

Otto: There's never been a study done in terms of how many really were-- worked out very well.

Connie: Did you hear those stories, though?

Otto: Pardon?

Connie: Did you hear the stories?

Otto: Oh, yes. And I've heard those kind of stories from when they were adults. But they're not the ones that are going to speak out. And so that's why you need a recent study on that in terms of seeing, okay now, of all the children that were placed, how many worked out well? And what the percentage is, I wouldn't know.

Connie: What would you imagine a study like that would find, though?

Otto: I would find that well over half of them would be on the positive side.

[solemn music]

Connie: There are academics who study the success rate of transracial adoption and others who have dedicated their careers to studying Indigenous child welfare. Raven Sinclair is a Cree academic from Saskatchewan, and she is also a Sixties Scoop survivor.

Raven: The practice has always been about removal because of the cultural biases. Right. We've never been perceived of as people who could raise children.

Connie: Raven is researching just how common it was for these kinds of adoptions to break down. She tells us about an academic named Christopher Bagley who studied this in the 1990s.

Raven: But Indigenous-to-white transracial adoption is the anomaly. It's just a failure and he thought it was because of the denigration of Indigenous culture- basically racism, systemic institutional and individual interpersonal racism had, you know, played some factor, and I have to agree with him, absolutely.

Connie: Raven says children who survived in the SIxties Scoop not only had to deal with racism in society, but often in their own homes.

Raven: So when we experience racism, we're in isolation. So it becomes a really, really solitary journey. There's only so much of that psychological turmoil you can contend with before you have to just go.

Connie: Raven says the research found that half of the adoptions of Indigenous kids in white homes broke down. Jen tells Raven that this sounds a lot like what happened with the Semaganis children. And it resonates with her because she also left her adopted home at a young age.

Jennifer: Your story so much like this story. It’s just the themes.

Raven: I like hearing that. I grew up thinking I was the only one.

Connie: But Raven and Cleo and Johnny and Christine were not the only ones. There were thousands of Indigenous kids apprehended in the SIxties Scoop, and there are still thousands of kids in care today. Some say that the number of Indigenous kids in care is higher than during the height of residential schools.

Raven: Cindy Blackstock did incredible research. And she said Indigenous children have spent between ‘89 and 2012 the equivalent of 66 million nights in foster care. That is a machine. So has it changed? No, it's gotten worse, it's gotten worse.

Connie: The federal government now agrees with people like Raven and Nora and says that taking Indian and Metis kids from their homes was wrong. They call the overrepresentation of Indigenous kids in care a humanitarian crisis and they’ve promised swift action.

Jane Philpott: We are facing a humanitarian crisis in this country where Indigenous children are vastly, disproportionately over-represented in the child welfare system.

Connie: But I’ve learned through this story that helping Indigenous children is about more than ensuring they don’t lose their culture in an alien environment. I wonder if the government solutions will actually support families who are still struggling? Struggling with poverty, insecure housing. Struggling with the ongoing effects of residential schools. Struggling with the racism that still divides us. The people behind the Sixties Scoop also believed they were going to make things better for the Indigenous kids in their care. Will the latest government initiatives actually help kids like Cleo and mothers like Lillian? There is a note in Johnny’s ward file that I read before and didn’t think much of. But now that I know more of Lillian’s story, I realize how poignant this one little line is. Five months after all of her children were made permanent wards and eligible for adoption, there was a note from February 1973. It says that Lillian left a Valentines gift for Johnny at the foster home where he was staying. We don’t know why, but Lillian wasn't successful in her attempt to get her children back. Instead, they were all adopted out into white families and she didn’t see them again for years. She reconnected with all of them as adults. Except Cleo. Nora - the woman who tried to help Lillian get her kids back - also lost touch with her for many years until 2012 at a hearing for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The TRC travelled across the country, hearing from survivors of residential schools to bear witness to their stories and to ensure that this dark chapter in Canadian history would never be forgotten. Nora went to the event in Saskatoon.

Nora: I walked in and she's in this wheelchair and I looked at her and I thought, that looks like Lillian. And I looked at her and then she looked at me, cause I was a Thibodaux then, and she looked at me and she, "My angel Thibodaux."

Nora: And I said, "Lillian." So we, of course, we hugged and had a cry.

Connie: Nora says that Lillian asked her to be there when she spoke about her life at the TRC hearing.

Nora: So I had to go and speak at one of the, and she said, "Can I come with you and tell my story?" So I pushed her, and it was in a teepee. I took her in and she talked in a circle. She talked about losing her children and now getting her children back. I don't know how long she got to, when her children came back. How much time she had with her children. But whatever time it was, she was she was very happy about it. And for her children to know that their mother never, never gave up on them. And a lot of the people that sat in there were very sad and they shook hands with her and hugged her. And she was very proud that they told her, "You're a very strong lady." So she had her say. And that was the last time I seen her.

[solemn music]

Connie: This has been an incredibly difficult story to uncover. I know that to truly understand Cleo’s story, we need to know Lillian’s. We need to feel the weight of what they both went through. When I think that that this is just one family out of thousands, it feels heavy in my chest. Learning about Cleo and Lillian has helped me see the ripple effects across families and generations. I’m beginning to understand how women, and girls in particular, have borne the brunt of the effects of the violence that colonization and residential schools and racism have had on our communities. My heart breaks for a young Lillian. Only seven years old, living all alone in the world that Roderick King described. And then for a young Cleo, in and out of foster homes and sent away to live in a foreign place all by herself. But I know that this is not the end of Cleo’s story. Christine and the rest of her siblings want to know what’s in that police report. We’re headed back to New Jersey with Christine. She’s determined to find more answers about her sister and to try to find out why Cleo took her life.

Connie: To hear more about the history and legacy of residential schools in Canada, check out the first season of our podcast. To find it, just follow the links on our website at www.cbc.ca/findingcleo. Finding Cleo is written and hosted by me, Connie Walker. The podcast is produced by Marnie Luke & Jennifer Fowler. Mieke Anderson is our audio producer. And our senior producer is Heather Evans.

TRANSCRIPT: Missing & Murdered - Season 2, EP 8

Social Sharing