7 The Stewardship, Preservation, and Commemoration of the Mohawk Institute

Cody Groat

The Woodland Cultural Centre was established in 1972 at the site of the former Mohawk Institute Residential School and celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 2022. This milestone is appropriate for considering the public memory of the site and how local, provincial, and federal bodies have interpreted the narratives that they deem to be significant. Throughout the past five decades, the Mohawk Institute has been recognized as a site of remembrance for the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve, as seen through the Save the Evidence campaign and the Mohawk Village Memorial Park. It has also been recognized as a representative example of the entire residential school system by the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC). By comparing the public narratives associated with the former Mohawk Institute, it is possible to not only understand how it has been perceived over the past five decades but also to conceptualize the role that the site may have into the future.

Save the Evidence and Mohawk Village Memorial Park

The 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), which established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), also included an appendix classified as Schedule J. This was a commemoration policy directive stating that, in part, “commemoration is honouring, educating, remembering, memorializing, and/or paying tribute to residential school former students, their families and their communities, and acknowledging their experiences.”¹ Recognizing this, the IRSSA allocated $20 million for commemorative projects, including projects “that promote Aboriginal languages, cultures, and traditional spiritual values.”² Between 2011 and 2014, 144 projects were approved by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the disbursement agency for the commemorative funding.

The Woodland Cultural Centre was not approved for funding through Schedule J of the IRSSA, but the Mohawk Institute was referenced in alternative proposals, such as one submitted by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). In this document, the AFN proposed to install commemorative plaques at every former residential school, attempting, as some have argued, to “reinscribe the Canadian memorial landscape . . . as an historical corrective to the near absence of physical markers of a cultural genocide.”³ The proposal suggested identical plaques at each school with relevant contextual information including years of operation and the denomination that oversaw the institution. The first plaque proposed by the AFN was for the Mohawk Institute, and it stated, “on this site stood one of the 139 federal government-funded church-operated Indian Residential Schools designed to assimilate Aboriginal children into mainstream Canadian society.”⁴ The Mohawk Institute was likely chosen for the first proposed plaque as it was the longest continually operated residential school in Canada, and one of the few schools that remains standing. The AFN project received $1,609,068 in funding through the IRSSA, but its ultimate goals were never fully realized as criticisms were soon levied that a plaque-based program was rooted within Western conceptions of cultural heritage. It was further noted that the IRSSA funds could be reallocated toward community-driven initiatives.⁵

The communities responsible for stewarding the former residential school, including Six Nations of the Grand River, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, and the Wahta Mohawks, have ensured that the site remains a place of remembrance for survivors and intergenerational survivors. The Woodland Cultural Centre launched a restoration initiative called Save the Evidence in 2013. The first phase, a replacement of the original roof, took place between 2015 and 2017 at an expense of $1.6 million. The second phase, costing nearly $11 million, included upgrading the HVAC system, electrical and plumbing systems, and work on the floors, walls, and windows. The final phase addressed masonry repairs and the development of an interpretive plan that reflects the history of the Mohawk Institute and its transition to the Woodland Cultural Centre in 1972.⁶

Survivors have also established the Mohawk Village Memorial Park, located adjacent to the school and the cultural centre, as a commemorative space to honour the children who attended the Mohawk Institute. This park actively combats the assimilationist ideologies that were inherently associated with the residential school system. Survivors envision the park as a place where “children can play in the presence of their families and [have] loving experiences and form happy memories,” and also as “a place where ceremonies, cultural teachings, and family nurturing can take place in order to restore and reconcile some of what was lost by the Survivors.”⁷ These objectives indicate that the Mohawk Village Memorial Park is based upon the recognition of intangible values, or those that do not relate to the physical structure of the former residential school. This differs significantly from the commemorative strategies of the OHT and the HSMBC.

The Mohawk Institute and the Ontario Heritage Trust

The Mohawk Institute was the first residential school commemorated by the Archaeological and Historical Sites Board of Ontario, which eventually became the Ontario Heritage Trust. This recognition followed a recommendation made by the Brant Historical Society (BHS) in 1969. The BHS expressed its concern that “a plaque [was] required to keep alive the story of the [Mohawk Institute],” as the Government of Canada had recently announced the school’s imminent closure citing poor attendance from the local Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.⁸ Nineteen sixty-nine was a significant year for the entire residential school system as the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) formally concluded its partnership with religious denominations including the Anglican Church of Canada, which had administered the Mohawk Institute in various capacities since 1885.⁹ This closure was part of a broader process beginning with amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 that favoured the full integration of First Nations children into provincially operated school boards.¹⁰ Several critics argued that this was based on the same concept of cultural assimilation that guided First Nations education since the early nineteenth century, with the federal government failing to transition to alternatives such as the Cree School Board of Quebec, which was established in 1978.¹¹

Survivors of the Mohawk Institute were not consulted regarding the initial commemorative proposal, much as they were excluded from discussions regarding the school’s closure by the DIA. The BHS primarily worked alongside Canon W. J. Zimmerman, who was the principal of the Mohawk Institute when it closed in 1970. Zimmerman, a minister of the Anglican Church, had also served as chair of the BHS from 1958 to 1959.¹² His opinion was highly regarded by the society, and the BHS notified the OHT that it would only propose a provincial commemoration if it had the full endorsement of Zimmerman.¹³ This demonstrates the significant influence that school administrators had over the public interpretation of the schools that they ran.¹⁴ The OHT notified the BHS that “representatives of the Indian community” should also be consulted in the preparation of a commemorative plaque.¹⁵ Instead of preparing this collaboratively, however, the BHS and Canon Zimmerman wrote a version that they felt was appropriate and then sent this to the Six Nations Elected Council for approval.¹⁶

In the interim, the OHT approached the DIA regarding the future of the Mohawk Institute once it formally closed in 1970. They focused on the built infrastructure itself, noting that if the building was demolished, it was unlikely that a commemorative plaque would be erected elsewhere on the property.¹⁷ The assistant deputy minister noted that the property was being transferred to the Six Nations of the Grand River, who were “giving consideration to a number of proposals concerning the use of the facilities, including the possibility of an Indian college.”¹⁸ Alternatively, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians established the Woodland Cultural Centre through a partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, and the Wahta Mohawks. The Woodland Cultural Centre is now focused on the revitalization of Indigenous cultural heritage, directly combating the assimilationist ideologies of the Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School.¹⁹

The Six Nations Elected Council passed a resolution supporting the provincial commemoration in 1971.²⁰ The plaque was unveiled a year later by Norman Lickers, the first status First Nations person called to the bar in Ontario, who represented the former student body. It was then dedicated by Canon Zimmerman, who had served as the school’s principal for twenty-six years. The text on the plaque offered what was primarily an institutional history, noting that the Mohawk Institute “was the first residential school in Canada to complete 100 years of service to the Indian people . . . and, from its inception in 1831, offered academic and vocational training to children of the Six Nations Reserve.”²¹ The plaque remained in place for nearly twenty years until it was mysteriously removed in 1991.

The plaque’s removal came at a pivotal time in the history of residential schools. A year earlier, Phil Fontaine, a vice-chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (he became grand chief in 1991), had publicly disclosed abuses that he had suffered while attending the former Fort Alexander Indian Residential School. Historian J. R. Miller has noted that this disclosure brought an unprecedented level of public attention to residential school abuses, with several Indigenous organizations calling for a federal inquiry.²² Fontaine noted that “it wasn’t just sexual abuse; it was physical and psychological abuse. It was a violation.”²³ This disclosure led to a greater recognition of cultural assimilation and systematic abuse that were inherently associated with the residential school system.

Unbeknownst to Fontaine, this also had an impact on the provincial commemoration of the Mohawk Institute. With the plaque gone, a company called Shanahan Research Associates assisted in the first round of revisions for the OHT plaque in 1992. They interviewed Ken Raymer (who had been a teacher in the 1960s) and Sally English (a student in the 1930s and house mother in the 1960s). Shanahan Research Associates did not propose any revisions and there are no existing records associated with the remarks of Raymer or English.²⁴ A second round of revisions took place between 1995 and 1996, the same year that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) released its final report condemning the Indian Residential School system. Mary Ellen Perkins and Paul Litt were hired as consultants and worked alongside Joanna Bedard, who was serving as the executive director of the Woodland Cultural Centre.²⁵ The revised plaque was revealed in 1996 and reads, in part, “the Mohawk Institute tried to assimilate its students into the rapidly growing Euro-Canadian society. To that end, it disregarded native cultural traditions and stressed instead Christian teachings, English-language instruction, and manual labour skills. . . . The Institute closed in 1970. . . . It then became a centre for the renaissance of First Nations cultures.”²⁶

This new text differed significantly from the interpretation that was advanced by the former principal of the Mohawk Institute twenty years earlier. An OHT press release further condemned the assimilationist ideologies of the residential school system by noting that “the lack of success this attitude engendered is evident in official reports of the times and, more heart-breakingly, in the oral histories of First Nations people who, in the later years of the 20th century, began to speak openly about the spiritual and psychological pain they suffered.”²⁷

It is notable how far behind the HSMBC was in relation to its provincial counterpart, the OHT. The revised plaque for the Mohawk Institute was unveiled the same year that the DIA stalled the federal commemoration of St. Eugene’s Indian Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Instead of learning from the RCAP, as the OHT had, the HSMBC followed the advice of the federal government and chose not to commemorate a former residential school structure. This was based on concerns in the DIA that a negative interpretation of St. Eugene’s could be used in litigation against the Government of Canada as the HSMBC, per the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, was a federal advisory body.²⁸ It is possible that the provincial government did not exert similar pressure on the OHT because Indigenous education is a federal responsibility, and therefore, the Government of Ontario did not have the same level of legal culpability.

The Mohawk Institute and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada

Building on Schedule J of the IRSSA, the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada contained five Calls to Action (CTA) relating to commemoration. CTA 79 focused on the HSMBC and its role in designating National Historic Sites of Canada, with 79(iii) calling for the development and implementation of a national strategy for recognizing former residential schools.²⁹ While the TRC had a significant influence on the commemoration of these structures, the Mohawk Institute had actually been considered by the HSMBC as early as 1987. In the ensuring decades, however, the HSMBC had still not recognized the Mohawk Institute as a National Historic Site as of 2025. Regardless, the perspectives of the HSMBC demonstrate how the national narrative regarding the residential school system is still being actively shaped by the Government of Canada.

The HSMBC first considered the commemoration of Indian Residential Schools in 1987 while evaluating a six-volume study called Historic Schools of Canada, which, it was argued, allowed the HSMBC to commemorate school structures as “a crucial element of childhood [and as] a part of social development.”³⁰ The author of volume 1 of the study, Dana Johnson, wrote that Historic Schools of Canada “[attempted] to examine the changing role of formal schooling within the totality of socialization by looking at the changing role of family, church, community and state . . . at various points in time.”³¹ Johnson felt that this contextual information was vital when commemorating former school structures as these buildings often had little in the way of physical or tangible evidence associated with their use or significance, including the education of children, or, in the context of residential schools, the forced assimilation of Indigenous children.

Historic Schools of Canada included a list of structures from specific eras that could be considered for commemoration as National Historic Sites. These were classified as urban and rural schools, but the HSMBC had also requested that Indian Residential Schools be included as a category for consideration. Johnson noted several problems associated with the inclusion of residential schools in a study focusing on non-Indigenous educational provision. He wrote, for instance, that “federal officials argued that the destruction of the native way of life was a necessary and desirable consequence of changing economic circumstances.”³² Johnson still felt, though, that the commemoration of residential schools could achieve the HSMBC’s objective of recognizing the intangible values of childhood socialization through built structures. In order to effectively identify the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous education through architectural analysis, Johnson prepared a separate study that specifically focused on the structural legacy of Indian Residential Schools. This was presented at a later meeting of the HSMBC and was not included within Historic Schools of Canada.

The agenda paper prepared by Johnson was based on a specific case study—that of the Red Bank Day School in New Brunswick, proposed for commemoration as a National Historic Site by the Elected Council of the Red Bank Reserve in 1985.³³ Johnson wrote that the school “was built in 1916 and provides a convenient, if limited, point of reference from which the whole of native education in Canada can be seen.”³⁴ The Red Bank Day School was based on architectural plans developed by Robert M. Ogilvie for use on reserves across Canada. It was noted that these were structurally similar to early twentieth century non-Indigenous rural schoolhouses that were being considered by the HSMBC as part of Historic Schools of Canada, but Johnson argued against any comparison as “the purpose of the former was very different from the later, and the reasons for possible commemoration of rural and native day schools would therefore presumably be dissimilar.”³⁵ 

The agenda paper proposed three commemorative strategies for the HSMBC to consider. The first was the commemoration of a day school building as a National Historic Site. Johnson wrote that “the [DIA] reports that only ten structures of more than 50 years of age remain in use under band control.”³⁶ Five of these were located on the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve, including S.S. #3, S.S. #5, S.S. #7, and S.S. #11, all built in 1910. The agenda paper observed that it was rare for older day schools to remain standing as they represented assimilationist ideologies that were increasingly “the source of much debate and controversy.”³⁷ As with rural schoolhouses, it was noted that choosing one representative day school as a National Historic Site would prove problematic as “one structure appears to be very nearly like many others, and it is difficult to conceive how one building’s claim to suitability can be reasonably weighted against any others.”³⁸

The second strategy proposed to the HSMBC was the recognition of a single residential school building as a National Historic Site. Two options were proposed for the HSMBC to consider—the Mount Elgin Industrial Institute and the Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School.³⁹ These were recognized as “the earliest, and by general agreement, the most important boarding schools” funded by the DIA.⁴⁰ The agenda paper encouraged the HSMBC to consider the Mohawk Institute as more than just the extant structure of the school building. It was noted that this was a 380-acre working farm that included a recreation hall, a hospital, stables, greenhouses, a carpenter’s workshop, a fruit cellar, and a grain silo.⁴¹ As with other structures recommended in the Historic Schools of Canada report, it was noted that the Mohawk Institute was destroyed and rebuilt on numerous occasions, most recently in 1904. This led to questions about the commemorative integrity of the structure, demonstrating the significance that the HSMBC placed upon the tangible architectural aspects of the building itself instead of the intangible values associated with the broader landscape.⁴² 

The final strategy proposed to the HSMBC in 1987 was the commemoration of “Indian Education” as a National Historic Event without the specific recognition of an individual school structure.⁴³ Further consideration of all three strategies was deferred until 1988, when they were considered by the Historic Buildings Committee of the HSMBC. It was agreed that education itself was an aspect of social history that was worthy of commemoration by the Government of Canada, but members of the HSMBC debated if this theme could be appropriately interpreted through the commemoration of specific school structures as National Historic Sites. The Historic Buildings Committee developed four criteria for the evaluation of specific schools based on recommendations in Historic Schools of Canada. These were based in turn on the concepts of interpretive integrity and architectural significance that made a structure such as the Mohawk Institute, which was rebuilt in 1904, difficult for the HSMBC to consider for recognition as a National Historic Site. This reflected deeply engrained beliefs within the conservation movement that architectural values were more inherently significant than intangible or social values associated with a structure, meaning that the overarching beliefs associated with the Mohawk Institute, such as the forced assimilation of First Nations children, were viewed as less significant than its structural status.⁴⁴

The criteria developed by the Historic Buildings Committee was used once again in 1996 when the HSMBC considered the status of St. Eugene’s Indian Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia. St. Eugene’s was nominated for consideration by the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council, which was overseeing a thorough renovation of the property as a band-operated golf course and casino. It was recognized that federal commemoration as a National Historic Site would help to attract external investments for the renovation project while also making the structure eligible for financial assistance through the National Cost-Sharing Program, a funding mechanism aimed at preserving the architectural integrity of structures recognized as nationally significant by the HSMBC.⁴⁵ The HSMBC did not support the renovation plans and voted against the commemoration of St. Eugene’s after stating that the original architectural values associated with the structure had been lost.⁴⁶

The HSMBC was also influenced by the imminent publication of the RCAP’s report. HSMBC minutes record that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was concerned about Parks Canada undertaking any further research for the HSMBC relating to St. Eugene’s as this “would invite speculation about the . . . overall context of the government’s relations with Native groups,” adding that “INAC officials felt that this speculation could be potentially harmful because of the imminent release of [the RCAP report].”⁴⁷ Johnson, who wrote the agenda paper considered by the HSMBC in 1987, informed the board that RCAP would be calling for “a public inquiry into the residential school system and its effects on Native individuals and society.”⁴⁸ As a result, the HSMBC passed a resolution to defer the commemoration of Indigenous education and specific residential school structures for a period of five years, or until 2002.⁴⁹ 

It was not until the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, released in 2015, that the HSMBC considered the federal commemoration of residential schools once again. The HSMBC focused on CTA 79(iii), which calls for the development of a national commemorative strategy.⁵⁰ Richard Alway, who was then serving as the chairman of the HSMBC, said that there was no institutional memory of the 1987 report prepared by Dana Johnson that had considered the commemoration of the Mohawk Institute.⁵¹ In 2017, the HSMBC met with Paula Whitlow, the executive director of the Woodland Cultural Centre, and Ry Moran, the director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR). Whitlow discussed the adaptive reuse of the Mohawk Institute as the Woodland Cultural Centre and further discussed the community-driven Save the Evidence campaign. She noted that “the community is dedicated to saving the former Mohawk Institute as part of history,” adding that, “when restoration is complete, the former Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School will be a fully interpreted historic site, dedicated to the history of the Indian Residential School system in Canada.”⁵²

Whitlow and Moran stressed that the federal commemorative strategy had to be driven by survivors and intergenerational survivors of the residential school system, a notable shift from the architectural criteria that was developed in 1987. Recognizing this, the HSMBC passed a resolution calling on Parks Canada to work with the NCTR to “[develop] a report that presents the complex history and legacy of the residential school system.”⁵³ It was further recommended that the HSMBC, Parks Canada, and the NCTR collaborate on a nomination to recognize the Indian Residential School system as a National Historic Event, which was one of the recommendations made by Dana Johnson in 1987.⁵⁴

A further shift away from the HSMBC’s architectural focus emerged in 2019. That year the HSMBC considered a recently published report called Places of Memory and Indian Residential Schools: An Options Analysis. This discussed former schools that were engaged in adaptive reuse, such as the Mohawk Institute and its transformation into the Woodland Cultural Centre, and schools that were no longer physically standing, including the former Shubenacadie Indian Residential School, destroyed in 1986. After endorsing this report, the HSMBC evaluated the national significance of Shubenacadie in Nova Scotia and the former Portage La Prairie Indian Residential School in Saskatchewan. These were both designated National Historic Sites in 2019, the first residential schools to receive this designation from the Government of Canada. In describing the commemorative intent for Portage La Prairie, the HSMBC recognized that “the school has been readapted by [Long Plains First Nation] to serve a number of community purposes.”⁵⁵ Similarly, it recognized that “although the [Shubenacadie] school building is no longer standing, the site of the former school is a place of remembrance and healing for some of the survivors and their descendants.”⁵⁶

A central focus of these commemorations was the recognition that the holistic health and well-being of Indigenous people, rooted within cultural revitalization, was more significant than the mere commemoration of a building based on architectural determinants. A similar concept has been recognized through a report by the Indigenous Heritage Circle, a national not-for-profit, regarding the opportunities of embedding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into heritage legislation such as the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. In considering the adaptive reuse of these structures, the report recognized that “many communities want to create heritage facilities that will serve multiple goals—as places to hold and share historical materials, ancestral remains, and cultural belongings while also serving to protect and reinvigorate languages and cultural practices.”⁵⁷ It is certain that these ways of perceiving former residential schools, and the affirmative commemorations of Portage La Prairie and Shubenacadie in 2019, will influence the future evaluation of the Mohawk Institute, as discussed by the HSMBC.

Conclusion

Public memory of the Mohawk Institute has changed significantly since its closure. Before the school was even closed, the BHS approached the OHT in 1968 to see if the school could be provincially commemorated to “keep alive the story” of the Mohawk Institute. This was achieved in 1972, when the Institute became the first residential school to be recognized by the Province of Ontario through a heritage designation. Twenty years later, shortly after Phil Fontaine publicly disclosed the abuse that he had experienced at Fort Alexander Indian Residential School, the celebratory plaque prepared by Canon W. J. Zimmerman, the Mohawk Institute’s former principal, was removed by community members. The OHT plaque was revised following the publication of the RCAP’s report in 1996 with the support of Joanna Bedard, the executive director of the Woodland Cultural Centre. The new plaque, which remains standing at the time of writing in 2025, recognized both cultural assimilation at the Mohawk Institute and cultural revitalization at the Woodland Cultural Centre, reflecting the strength of survivors and the intangible significance of the site. These intangible aspects are similarly reflected through commemorative spaces including the Mohawk Village Memorial Park, which celebrates and upholds positive familial relationships.

These local and provincial commemorations differ from the work of the HSMBC, which emphasizes the concept of architectural significance. The HSMBC first considered the Mohawk Institute in 1988, with Parks Canada employee Dana Johnson calling for the recognition of intangible values, including cultural assimilation. The HSMBC chose to defer any commemoration as the school had been rebuilt in 1904 and allegedly lacked architectural integrity. It was only after the publication of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015 that the HSMBC followed the example of the OHT and began recognizing the intangible significance of former residential schools. This will likely impact any future consideration of the Mohawk Institute as a National Historic Site of Canada.

The communities responsible for the stewardship of the former Mohawk Institute recognize the site as a significant part of their own history. Only time will tell if the Government of Canada perceives it as a part of the country’s own history as well.

Notes

1. 1 See “Schedule ‘J’: Commemoration Policy Directive,” Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (2006), 1, https://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/Schedule_J-CommemorationPolicyDirective.PDF.

2. 2 “Schedule ‘J,’” 1.

3. 3 Trina Cooper-Bolam, “Healing Heritage: New Approaches to Commemorating Canada’s Indian Residential School System” (master’s thesis, Carleton University, 2014), 70.

4. 4 Cooper-Bolam, 70.

5. 5 Trina Cooper-Bolam, “On the Call for a Residential School National Monument,” Journal of Canadian Studies 51, no. 1 (June 2018): 72.

6. 6 Michelle Ruby, “Save the Evidence Campaign Entering Final Phases,” Brantford Expositor, 10 June 2021.

7. 7 Personal correspondence with Rick Monture via email, 13 January 2022.

8. 8 Richard Pilant to Richard Apted, 19 December 1969, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives, Toronto, Ontario.

9. 9 John Milloy, A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986 (University of Manitoba Press, 1999), xvii.

10. 10 J. R. Miller, Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential School (University of Toronto Press, 1996), 390.

11. 11 See Billy Diamond, “The Cree Experience,” in Indian Education in Canada, vol. 2, The Challenge, ed. Jean Barman, Yvonne Hebert, and Don McCaskill (UBC Press, 1987), and Jean Barman, Yvonne Hebert, and Don McCaskill, “The Challenge of Indian Education: An Overview,” in Barman et al., Indian Education in Canada, 2:86.

12. 12 Zimmerman was also the chaplain of Her Majesty’s Royal Chapel of the Mohawks, designated as a National Historic Site by the HSMBC in 1981, the final year of his chaplaincy.

13. 13 Richard Pilant to Richard Apted, 19 December 1969, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

14. 14 Isabelle Knockwood has also written of how the principal of Shubenacadie Indian Residential School played an active role in creating a celebratory interpretation of this residential school in Nova Scotia. See Isabelle Knockwood, Out of the Depths: The Experiences of Mi’kmaw Children at the Indian Residential School at Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia (Fernwood Publishing, 2015).

15. 15 W. Rutherford to Carl Thorpe, 19 December 1969, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

16. 16 Carl Thorpe to the Secretary, Six Nations Council House, Ohsweken, Ontario, 6 January 1970, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

17. 17 Richard Apted, Director, Historical Branch, to J. W. Churchman, Director, Indian and Eskimo Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 29 April 1970, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

18. 18 Apted to Churcman, 29 April 1970.

19. 19 Naohiro Nakamura, “Indigenous Cultural Self-Representation and Its Internal Critiques: A Case Study of the Woodland Cultural Centre, Canada” Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education 8, no. 3 (2014): 148.

20. 20 Letter from Six Nations Council, Office of the Secretary, signed by Council Clerk M. Bloomfield to the Department of Public Records and Archives, ℅ C. Thorpe, 10 March 1972, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

21. 21 Press Release: Historical Plaque to be Unveiled Commemorating the Founding of the Mohawk Institute, 8 June 1972, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

22. 22 Miller, Shingwauk’s Vision, 328.

23. 23 Miller, 328.

24. 24 Rough Notes: Shanahan Research Associates “Re: Mohawk Institute,” January 1992, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

25. 25 Rough Notes: Paul Litt and Mary Ellen Perkins, Provincial Plaque Consultants, undated, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

26. 26 Press Release: Provincial Historical Plaque Marks the History of the Mohawk Institute, 1996, File—Mohawk Institute, 1831, Ontario Heritage Trust Archives.

27. 27 Press Release: Provincial Historical Plaque Marks the History of the Mohawk Institute, 1996.

28. 28 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 1997. Received via email from Parks Canada on 13 February 2019.

29. 29 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (James Lorimer and Company, Toronto, 2015), 334.

30. 30 Dana Johnson, The History of School Design in Canada Before 1930, vol. 1, An Introduction (Architectural History Branch, Ottawa, 1987), 3.

31. 31 Johnson, 5.

32. 32 Johnson, 84.

33. 33 Dana Johnson, Indian Schools in Canada, Including the Red Bank Day School, Red Bank Reserve, New Brunswick (Architectural History Branch, 1988), 306.

34. 34 Johnson, 306.

35. 35 Johnson, 305.

36. 36 Johnson, 330.

37. 37 Johnson, 330.

38. 38 Johnson, 330.

39. 39 Johnson, 331.

40. 40 Johnson, 331.

41. 41 Johnson, 321.

42. 42 Johnson, 321.

43. 43 Johnson, 331.

44. 44 Cooper-Bolam, “Healing Heritage,” 62.

45. 45 Geoffrey Carr, “Difficult Inheritances: Canadian Commemoration Policy and the Indian Residential School,” in Des Couvents en heritage / Religious Houses: A Legacy, ed. Luc Noppen, Martin Drouin, and Thomas Coomans (University of Quebec Press, 2015), 464.

46. 46 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 1996. Received via email from Parks Canada on 13 February 2019.

47. 47 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 1997. Received via email from Parks Canada on 13 February 2019.

48. 48 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 1997.

49. 49 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 1997.

50. 50 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, 334.

51. 51 Interview with Richard Alway, 1 November 2021

52. 52 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, December 2017. Received via email from Parks Canada on 25 February 2019.

53. 53 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, December 2017.

54. 54 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, June 2018. Received via email from Parks Canada on 21 June 2019.

55. 55 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, December 2019. Received via email from Parks Canada on 16 November 2020.

56. 56 Minutes of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, December 2019.

57. 57 Indigenous Heritage Circle, Indigenous Heritage and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Heritage Circle, 2022), 25.