Posted on

So what about sick leave, anyway?

There are a lot of rumours going around about what’s going to happen to our sick leave.  What is going to happen?  Let’s break it down and have an informed discussion about this topic.

First of all, sick leave is a benefit that is in our collective agreement.  Any changes to the current regime will need to be negotiated – let’s hope this happens at the bargaining table and not in the press!

To have an informed discussion, we need to understand how the current sick leave regime works.

Sick leave credits are accumulated each month where an employee has worked a minimum of ten days.  Each month an employee accumulates a day and a quarter, for a total of fifteen days per year.  Any unused credits at the end of the year are accumulated and banked. The accumulation of sick leave continues throughout an employee’s career, with no maximum.

It’s very much like an insurance policy. Your accumulated sick leave is your financial safety net should you succumb to illness or injury. It gives you peace of mind.

This accumulation of sick leave credits becomes incredibly important for any employee who suffers an accident or a catastrophic illness; it provides them with a buffer until such time as they qualify for long term disability. Long term disability benefits become payable after 13 weeks of disability or illness, or after the member’s accumulated paid sick leave is exhausted – whichever is later.

If an employee does not have 13 weeks of sick leave available to them, any shortfall can be covered through EI sick benefits.  During this period, an employee only receives 55% of their salary – and to top it all off, often that money takes a while to start trickling in!

When an employee does not have any sick leave credits accumulated, management has the discretionary ability to advance up to 25 days of sick leave.  These must be repaid with any sick leave credits earned at a later date.

Why does the government claim that the system isn’t working?

We hear many arguments that the current sick leave system is out of date.

“There are abuses,” the government says. “Government employees are using more than employees in the private sector,” it deplores. “There’s a $5.2 billion liability,” it cautions. “New employees are being discriminated against,” it laments.

And so on, and so forth.

Some of this may be true, or not.  There’s always going to be people who abuse the system, but these individuals are in the minority.

And that liability that keeps getting referred to isn’t really a liability.  It only becomes a liability in a la-la land where every public servant takes every sick day that they’ve accumulated. By and large, the liability disappears when an employee retires, because any accumulated sick leave is not paid out in any way and vanishes in a puff of smoke upon retirement. Poof!

As for new employees, they can be advanced up to 25 days of sick leave, depending on need.  Maybe new employees could receive the same provisions as those in the EX group, who are advanced all the sick leave they need and whose disability premiums are entirely covered by the employer.

Perhaps some of the government’s woes are a result of downloading corporate services to individual managers. Human resources in the public service used to be delivered quite differently than today.

When someone went on long-term sick leave, they were monitored by human resources who worked with the employee to ensure a smooth transition when they returned to the workplace.  Today, it is up to manager to monitor the employee, along with everything else a manager does.  Human resources departments provide information and guidance to managers; they no longer perform other tasks such as monitoring.

Often, a manager will change jobs and the new manager will not even be aware that they have an employee on long-term disability. In many cases, they won’t have acquired the skills and competencies to manage disability. And this is in addition to all other tasks that have been delegated to managers.

So what is being proposed to “modernize” sick leave?  For the time being, nothing has been proposed.  However, the 2013 budget indicates that “the government will be examining its human resources management practices and institutions in a number of areas, including disability and sick leave management, with a view to ensuring that public servants receive appropriate services that support a timely return to work.”

Further, the Seventh Report to the Prime Minister of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service states:  “Another area for change is the current regime for managing disability and absenteeism.  Here too, we find a complex and costly system that is out of step with other sectors of the economy and that does not offer a level playing field for all employees.  This too must change.”  This clearly indicates change is coming but what?

We can get an idea by looking at the sick leave program in place at Canada Post.  Sick leave has been drastically changed for those employees; in all likelihood, the model that’ll be proposed for us will resemble what’s been imposed there.  The annual sick leave allowance will be reduced.  Unused sick leave will not be accumulated or carried over. After a short time on sick leave, the employee will go on short-term disability at 70% of their pay. The employee will graduate to long-term disability after a certain period on short-term disability.

In effect, managers will not manage sick leave, a private insurance company will.  And, there will be a cost to that administration; private insurance doesn’t come free. Employees will lose seven to ten sick days per year, and there will be premiums to pay to be covered by a short term disability plan.  One question that comes to mind is: who will pay those premiums?

What will happen if the employee has used up their allotment of annual sick leave and then gets the flu?  Will employees come to work when they are ill in order to avoid any disruption in pay? And how will the government handle an outbreak of a highly contagious illness, like the H1N1 virus a few years ago?

Now is the time for us to talk about sick leave.  Does the current regime really need to be changed?  If there is change, what do we, the employees, want it to look like?

Your comments and ideas are welcomed!

Richard Ballance is the Regional Vice-President for the Union of National Employees’ NCR-TB region. Join the conversation by leaving a comment below. This article was written as part of our union’s member journalism program. If you’d like to find out more, click here – to pitch a story or for any questions, please send an email to communications@une-sen.org.

Posted on

Murder in Buckingham

For those who aren’t too familiar with the National Capital Region’s suburbs, you may not have heard of Buckingham. It’s a small community of roughly 10,000 people, though it’s now technically part of the post-mega-amalgamation of the city of Gatineau.

But in the early 1900s, Buckingham was very different.

“Let’s say it was like many similar areas in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere: it was almost a one-industry town,” explained Pierre-Louis Lapointe, a historian and author of several books about Buckingham.

For the town’s denizens, the options were limited; there were only two large employers in the area: the Electric Reduction Company and the MacLaren Company.

The MacLarens were very much the textbook definition of robber barons; they amassed great wealth by exploiting natural resources, having the right connections in government and not paying their employees very well.

By 1906, having bought out their only major competitor in town, the MacLarens owned two sawmills and a pulp mill. At this point, they’ve bought up every piece of the river that they can get their hands on – all the better to keep other companies from encroaching on their turf.

But just to be on the safe side, the MacLarens also acquire exclusive rights to deliver electricity and build railroads within the town.

“This enabled them to stop the other construction of any railroads going through the municipality,” explained Lapointe.

Without a railroad to carry lumber elsewhere, farmers and land owners in the area had little choice but to sell their lumber to the MacLaren Company.

“It was one of tools they used to build their monopoly.”

For the men employed by the MacLaren Company, times were tough.

“Do you think it’s human to give $1.25 per day to men who work from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. in water, in mud, on logs?” a worker is quoted as saying, in 1906. “The work is brutal and painful. And I have six kids; why don’t you try feeding that, educating that, clothing that and do the same thing, you, on a dollar and a quarter a day!”1

In 1906, the cost of living is quickly rising.

“By then, the employees can’t take it anymore,” said Lapointe.

The employees try to unionize and the MacLarens soon orders a lockout. The company hires armed guards; scabs are brought in to carry logs. The conflict culminates on October 8, 1906, when workers try to implore the scabs to leave work.

“Despite the mocking and the anti-French sarcasm hurled at them by the guards, [the workers] are determined to keep their calm. But, suddenly, a sinister commandment rings out, that will put a spark to the powder. Shoot them! This cry comes from the ranks of the guards.”2

“It was an ambush,” said Lapointe.

Two men were killed: Thomas Bélanger and François Thériault – both members of the executive. During the funeral, the men were hailed as martyrs of the labour movement.

The MacLarens were later acquitted of Murder. According to Lapointe’s book, the prosecutor was furious and declared that he would appeal the judge’s decision. It wasn’t long before he received a telegram from the attorney general in Quebec telling him not to appeal.

The MacLarens had friends in high places.

In the months and years following the troubles of October 1906, more than 60% of unionists would leave the village. The MacLarens had blacklisted the rabble-rousers – and this list was circulating amongst other employers in the village, who didn’t mind complying with the MacLaren family’s wishes.

“One of the people interviewed about this subject told me the case of a boy, who after having passed exams and interviews, was called to R.M. Kenny’s office who pulled a notebook from his desk drawer and interrogated him about his family ties to such and such worker tied to the troubles of 1906… And to conclude dryly: ‘Sorry, there’s no job for you here!’”3

“In a few years, the population of the town of Buckingham decreases by 25% – which is enormous,” adds Lapointe.

In 1934, the workers try again to unionize. The Pulp and Sulfite Workers’ Union got more than 60 workers to sign union cards. Unfortunately, the company got wind of the organizing attempt thanks to a spy among the workers.

The company reacted by firing those involved.

“It’s a second attempt to unionize that was killed in its infancy,” summed up Lapointe.

The only thing to ever strike a blow to the MacLaren Company were improvements to the road system, which allowed the town residents to sell lumber to other companies.

Around that same time, Lapointe explained, the provincial government of Quebec looked into the work conditions of lumberjacks. They institute a sort of minimum wage, which forced the MacLaren company to increase their workers’ salaries.

And finally…

“What helped employees the most, as funny as it sounds, was the Second World War,” said Lapointe.

At that time, practically everything was considered essential for the war effort. Unions weren’t allowed to strike and bosses weren’t allowed order lockout.

“The MacLarens were forced to accept the creation of a permanent bargaining committee between the employer and the employees,” said Lapointe.

“It marks an important change in the working conditions. And by 1944, a union is finally recognized by the MacLarens.”

This story isn’t well known outside Buckingham. In 1990, Lapointe wrote about the 1906 conflict in a book detailing the history of the town of Buckingham. The book was published in both English and French, but Lapointe says the English copies have all vanished.

“They can’t find it anywhere in libraries. I don’t want to imagine… but the MacLarens have a long arm,” he jokes. “It’s a story that doesn’t make certain elements of the capitalist society very happy.”

Lapointe said that this story illustrates how there are always links between politics and economics – and that rarely can they be proven as clearly as in the story of the conflict of 1906.

“Today, we blame unionism and unions for all that ail the economy and society,” wrote Lapointe in his 1983 book. “It’s important to remember the role that unionism played in improving our lives. We have to pick up our heads like Thomas Bélanger and François Thériault… for them, and for all those who sacrificed themselves for their brethren, we owe it to ourselves to react. We surely owe them that.”4

[Editor’s note: We are extremely thankful to Mr. Lapointe for allowing us to share excerpts from his work and for speaking with us about the conflict of 1906. All facts in this article were gathered from Mr. Lapointe’s book and from a phone interview on June 25, 2013.]

[1] Lapointe, Pierre-Louis. (1983). Buckingham : ville occupée. Diffusion Prologue inc. Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec.

[2] Idem

[3] Idem

[4] Idem

Posted on

11 days of celebration?

The period from June 21 to July 1 is commonly referred to as the Eleven Days of Celebration; they encompass National Aboriginal Day, St-Jean Baptiste Day, Canadian Multiculturalism Day and Canada Day. It’s an opportunity to celebrate all aspects of our heritage – to reflect on the wide range of people who contributed to building our great country.

But perhaps this is also a good time to talk about the importance of heritage — the importance of preserving it for future generations.

Institutions responsible for collecting and preserving our heritage have suffered drastic cuts. These include Library and Archives Canada, our national museums, Heritage Canada, Parks Canada and the National Capital Commission.

At Library and Archives Canada, like many other departments and agencies that we represent, the staff was cut by 20%.

“The people who’ve lost their jobs are the ones who assist visitors, teachers, researchers and students,” said National President Doug Marshall. “Canadians are being deprived of valuable services and it’s future generations that are going to be robbed of their heritage.”

When it comes to acquiring important pieces of our history, the department hasn’t been making acquisitions since a 10-month moratorium on purchases was put in place in 2009. Ten months, four years… same thing?

Meanwhile, the head of Library and Archives Canada just recently stepped down after it was revealed that he spent $170,000 in travel and hospitality expenses; twice that of the minister. And the expenses included $5,000 for Spanish lessons…. ¡Ayayay!

Another very sad cut was the loss of the National Archival Development Program; a small program that cost only $1.7 million per year. That very teeny, teeny, teeny, tiny, tiny little amount of money (in the great scheme of things!) helped support over 800 archives during the past 26 years.

Interesting math: the money spent on the war of 1812 could have kept the National Archival Development Program alive for 16 years.

The program provided education and advisory services for archives and archivists who would not otherwise be able to afford these services that helped them preserve the unique and irreplaceable documents, photos, plans and electronic records in their care.

It’s important to remember that many smaller archives are run by volunteers – so this service was incredibly important.

And while we’re on the topic of cuts that don’t really make sense; consider Library and Archives Canada has been touting digitization as the magic pill to make our history more accessible… but then it turned around and cut the staff responsible for digitizing archives was cut by 50%.

According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers, as of September 2012, only 0.5% of LAC’s holdings had been digitized. The association estimates that, “at the current rate of spending on digitization (approx $5 million annually) it would take LAC 300-700 years to digitize its published holdings.”

And, just to throw some more irony in the mix, the government that wants to make history more accessible just eliminated the inter-library loan service; a service that allowed Canadians to borrow material only available from the LAC via their local library. According to the CAUT:

In the fiscal year 2012-2013 alone, LAC filled 21,294 requests for loans and copies from its collections and helped locate materials at other facilities in response to another 11,658 requests. The loss of [the inter-library loan service] is a huge blow to Canadians’ ability to access our collective history.

Oh, but that’s okay! Because, err… Canadians have access to soooo much of LAC’s material online.

Seriously.

Posted on

It's a simple question!

It doesn’t take a Ph.D in logic to figure out that the decision to abolish Passport Canada just doesn’t make sense!

Today, we officially launched a campaign to inform the public about the Harper Government’s decision to scrap Passport Canada. We’re pretty sure we won’t need the services of Captain Obvious to make our case: it just doesn’t make sense to fix what ain’t broken!

To drive the point home, we created a pretty awesome infographic and we’re encouraging members of the public to share their passport stories with us. Since 99% of passports are delivered on time or earlier, we’re expecting a lot of really great stories.

Stay tuned for more!

For more background on this topic, check out our recent article: Government abolishes Passport Canada.

Posted on

Brace yourselves: they're coming for it!

Brace yourselves: the conservatives are coming to take away our sick leave!… if we let them!

Yes, it’s Public Service Week, and how thoughtful of Tony Clement to drop a big flaming bag of poo on our doorstep. Really, Tony, you shouldn’t have.

If you’re concerned about the attack on the rights we fought for (and you should be!), we highly recommend reading through the facts on sick leave collected by the PSAC.

There’s a lot of misinformation going on out there – it’s up to us to set the record straight!

Let’s tell Minister of Gazebos Tony Clement that he’s not going to steal our sick leave!

Posted on

Building stronger connections

There’s a lot of enthusiasm in PSAC regional offices right now; regional reps and education officers want to make sure that our Locals are well-equipped to have one-on-one conversations with members.

“We need to harness the full strength of our membership,” said Shelina Merani, an acting education officer in the NCR. “Building stronger connections between members is crucial.”

Crucial indeed – the current government seems hell-bent on attacking unions and taking away the benefits we fought for.

Merani hopes union activists will sign up in large numbers for the upcoming membership engagement courses. In the NCR, there are courses taking place in English on June 11 and 17 and in French on June 18.

Over in the Prairies, Carm Chan, a regional representative in Edmonton, said she’s offering campaigner training in a variety of ways.

“We’re going directly to the locals,” said Chan. “We’re holding training on Saturdays, during evenings… we’ve even staggered the 3-hour session across three lunch breaks!”

And in the Atlantic, Regional Representative Janice Grant said most Locals in Nova Scotia were trained on how to connect with members during leadership meetings. Now that the Locals know the basics, regional reps in Nova Scotia are providing campaigner training to the Locals who request it.

Grant said the training is being offered in a variety of ways in order to better accommodate members’ schedules.

“We want Locals to understand what they should be doing to reach each member,” said Grant.

For more information on how training is being delivered in your region, consult your PSAC regional website or contact your regional representative.

Posted on

$25M to destroy our museum

“You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck.”

That’s how Lorne Holyoak of the Canadian Anthropology Society described the Harper government’s plan to change the Museum of Civilization, yesterday, during a meeting of the standing committee on Canadian Heritage.

“We do not support the gutting of the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences,” added Holyoak.

Yesterday’s committee meeting was the single opportunity for the committee to discuss Bill C-49, which would rebrand the museum at the tune of $25 million and significantly change its mandate. The NDP did propose a motion to hold two more meetings on the subject, in order to interview more witnesses, but the motion failed thanks to the Conservative majority.

The Museum’s former President and CEO, Victor Rabinovich, was called as a witness; he described the new museum’s mandate as “narrow and parochial.”

“As it now stands, the CMC does a very extensive job of portraying Canadian history,” explained Rabinovich. He estimates that three quarters of the exhibition areas are already dedicated to Canadian history.

Rabinovich believes these can be improved without radically changing the museum.

A number of witnesses were also concerned that the language of the bill would greatly minimize the importance of research.

“It would be possible, under this language, for there to be no research undertaken within the museum itself,” said Holyoak. “And it appears planned that research may become an adjunct to exhibitions once they are decided upon rather than the informed and critical basis from which they arise.”

James L. Turk, executive director of the Canadian University Teachers Association, deplored the lack of engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists and archeologists in the planning of the museum. He believes this lack of consultation is partly to blame for the flaws within the bill.

For example, the new mandate would do away with the notion of increasing “critical understanding” to simply “understanding.”

“The removal of ‘critical understanding’ is one concern,” said Turk.“Promoting critical understanding of history is an essential goal of any great museum. Providing visitors with critical understanding of history means offering them an opportunity to consider different points of view – the opportunity to criticize and analyse the past, and to re-examine traditional viewpoints rather than simply venerating national heroes.”

Rabinovich echoed Turk’s concerns, noting that one word makes a big difference when a museum has to point to the legislation in order to justify every penny spent, whether to the Auditor General, Treasury Board or the Department of Canadian Heritage.

“The way the words are chosen is really important. It’s not window-dressing,” said Rabinovich.

“Critical understanding is an academic expression meaning the ability to criticize, to ability to engage with knowledge and challenge it,” explained Rabinovich.

“You have on the one hand the ability to engage, to debate, to argue and, on the other hand, the ability to distribute information to educate.”

Posted on

Solidarity with Foreign Service Officers

Members of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers officially walked off the job today. If you work for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we highly recommend reading the April 4 update (below) on how to continue your work while supporting the strike.

The April 17 update follows :

Our brothers and sisters at the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers have now been on strike for three weeks. Our union continues to firmly support their actions.

National President Doug Marshall is writing a letter to Assistant Deputy Minister Nadir Patel insisting that senior management and heads of mission respect Patel’s earlier instructions. On March 20, Patel advised, via email, that “local strike committees must be composed of non-represented senior managers from the EX and unrepresented groups.”

By back-tracking in this instruction and asking our management consular officer members to do what is clearly EX-level work, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is making life very uncomfortable for our members. These requests must stop immediately.

As this drags on, management consular officers will find themselves doing more work. That’s why we’re urging all PSAC members who are seeing an increase in their workload to document their situation. We want to ensure that you are claiming (and being paid for!) any overtime worked.

It also ensures that management consular officers, who are already doing more than their share of the work, document their workload in case something falls through the cracks. We simply can’t do it all!

Finally, this will ensure that after the PAFSO work actions are over, we can demonstrate how Treasury Board’s reluctance to bargain fairly with PAFSO had a negative impact on management consular officers.

Our members who work away from home are already coping with an enormous strain in their day-to-day lives. We urge the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to get back to the bargaining table.

If you have any questions, please use your personal email to email Regional Vice-President Heather Brooker at hbrooker97@gmail.com

The April 4 update follows:

Our brothers and sisters at the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers recently voted in favour of strike action. The Union of National Employees stands in solidarity with these members and calls on the Government of Canada to negotiate in good faith.

Many of our members work side-by-side with foreign service officers in Canadian embassies across the globe and at headquarters. For these members, it’s business as usual at the embassy and at 125 and 111 Sussex. Since this strike does not affect PSAC members, they must report to work and perform their regular duties.

While crossing a picket line is usually frowned upon, our members are obligated to report to the workplace. We encourage you to support your colleagues by walking the picket line with them outside your normal work hours. Better yet, drop by with some coffee and water!

This is a good time to explain your situation; you support their strike but you’re nonetheless obligated to show up to work. Your colleagues should understand your situation.

However, if you feel intimidated or have any concerns about your safety, step away from the picket line and call your supervisor. Your manager must provide you with a safe way of getting to work.

You should also be vigilant against being asked to perform work normally done by PAFSO members. If that does happen, obey your manager and contact your shop steward or union representative immediately.

As a PSAC member, you should not be involved in any strike strategy committees – that’s management’s job! Your role is to follow the directions that flow from these committees while making sure you don’t perform work normally done by your striking colleagues.

For more information on this strike, please visit the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers’ website. Your regional team and members of your local executive should also be in a position to provide you with more information.

Posted on

Finally! SSO Arbitration dates

The Public Service Labour Relations Board has officially set dates to hear the case of regional office members working at Statistical Survey Operations; the bargaining team will present its case on November 11 and 12, 2013.

The field interviewer group is still waiting to find out when the board will hear its case.

In its latest communication, the Public Service Alliance of Canada was clear: the bargaining team is prepared to return to the bargaining table at any point – but for that to happen, management will have to agree to a fair process when it comes to assigning work hours and provide wages that are comparable with public servants doing similar work elsewhere.

T-shirts sporting the slogan “Respect for our years of service” have been distributed to both regional office and field employees; the bargaining team is asking for SSO members to wear these during Public Service Week – preferably on June 12.

And we’ve also heard that, for field employees, training sessions are an especially good time to wear those t-shirts!

To find out more, please consult the SSO bargaining section of the PSAC website.

For more stories on SSO Bargaining on our website, click here.

Posted on

National Aboriginal History Month

A government bent on assimilation; that’s what our nation’s Aboriginal Peoples had to fight for more than a century. To talk about Aboriginal Peoples’ history, in a human rights context, means recognizing that for many years, the Canadian government’s goal was to make Aboriginal People incapable of directing their destiny – unable to resist assimilation.

Shortly after Confederation, the government began to force Aboriginal People into ‘becoming civilized’. The Constitution Act gave the federal government responsibility over ‘Indians’. The government then gave itself the business of determining who was and who wasn’t ‘Indian’.

Who was and wasn’t a ‘status Indian’ became a complicated thing. Indian status was passed down from fathers; if only your father was Indian, so were you. If only your mother was, then you weren’t. A status Indian woman who married a non-status man was suddenly not considered status Indian anymore. That policy stayed in effect until 1985.1

Many status Indians automatically also lost their status as a result of graduating college or university.

Band councils were established, but mainly to displace the dominance of elders. By undermining the elders, the Indian Act was designed to weaken Indian communities and make them easier to control.

“Despite this show of respect, the Indian Act allowed band councils limited authority. Indian agents could remove from office chiefs whom they considered unsuitable and overrule band council decisions with which they disagreed.”2

The government also attacked Aboriginal Peoples’ spirituality and cultural practices. Powwows and potlatches were banned until 1951. Government officials and missionaries felt that these practices “were preventing Aboriginal people from assimilating into Canadian society.”3

The government also restricted Aboriginal Peoples’ mobility.

“A pass system was introduced after the 1885 rebellion, confining Indians to reserves unless they procured a ‘pass’ from the Indian agent stating their place of travel, reason, and duration of visit. This pass system was completely extralegal and recognized as such by all Crown officials.”4

The pass system was nonetheless enforced by the North-Western Mounted Police, thus preventing traditional gatherings and further confining First Nations People to reserves. It made it impossible or aboriginal communities to work together to form a resistance.

Residential schools were another key mechanism by which the government hoped to assimilate Aboriginal Peoples. Children were separated from their families so they could be ‘changed’ away from their parents’ influence. These schools punished students severely for speaking their own language.

But the government didn’t have the resources to administer these schools, so they arranged for churches to do the work.

“The brutal treatment in the schools is said to have resulted in the deaths of some 50,000 native children, with countless others becoming victims of serious physical and sexual abuse.”5

In 1904, Dr. Peter Bryce was appointed Medical Inspector to the Department of the Interior and of Indian Affairs. Three years later, Bryce conducted inspections of 35 residential schools in the three Prairie Provinces. His report, Bryce revealed a surprising rate of sickness and death among the children. Among his recommendations, Bryce urged the government to “undertake the complete maintenance and control of the schools, since it had promised by treaty to ensure such.”

But the report was swept under the rug. Frustrated by the government’s inaction, Bryce resigned and, in 1922, published his findings in a book entitled The story of a national crime.

“This story should have been written years ago and then given to the public,” wrote Bryce in the book’s epilogue.6

“Today I am free to speak,” he added, after explaining that, after resigning from his position, he was no longer bound by the civil service’s oath of office, which had been the only thing keeping him silent for so long.7

[1] Henderson, William B. The Indian Act. Canadian Encyclopedia

[2] Berry, Susan & Brink, Jack. (2004) Aboriginal Cultures in Alberta: Five-hundred Generations. Edmonton, Alberta: McCallum Printing Group, Inc.

[3] Idem

[4] Harring, S. (2005) There Seemed to Be No Recognized Law: Canadian Law and the Prairie First Nations. In Knafla, Louis A. and  Swainger, Jonathan (Eds.), Laws and Societies in the Canadian Prairie West, 1670-1940. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press.

[5] Akhavan, Payam (2012) Reducing Genocide to Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[6] Bryce, P.H. (1922) The story of a national crime, as retrieved from http://www.archive.org/stream/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/storyofnationalc00brycuoft_djvu.txt

[7] Idem