Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 1 Origins to 1939: Volume 1

The Shingwauk fire underscores the serious risk that fire posed in the late nineteenth century. Residential schools were often poorly built and isolated from help in case of fire. Many of the boarding schools were of wood-frame construction. The wood- and coal-burning stoves used to heat the buildings could throw off sparks that could result in a blaze. Heat was transmitted from room to room by stovepipes that were themselves a potential source of fire. Most of the schools were far from any source of electricity, and, for years, most of them were lit by gas lamps. For example, at the Yale, British Columbia, school in 1908: “Coal-oil lamps are almost entirely used for lighting purposes. These lamps are attached to the walls or ceiling, in rooms occupied by the children, or in the passages. Candles in addition to lamps are used in the chapel, and sometimes by the teachers.”⁵

The January 1904 fire that destroyed the Qu’Appelle school started in the school lamp room that stored 150 lamps along with a supply of coal oil and other inflammable materials. In reviewing the fire, Indian Affairs official Martin Benson noted that although the fire had been caused accidentally, the school administration had been careless in not ensuring that students did not have access to the room.⁶

Over time, most schools acquired electrical generators, but poor wiring was often the cause of school fires. An electrical short circuit started a fire that destroyed the rebuilt Qu’Appelle school in 1932.7 A 1938 inspection of the Cranbrook, British Columbia, school noted that the poor condition of the plaster walls throughout the building meant that “should fire break out it would be drawn up through the walls and ceilings through the places where the plaster is missing, and run under the floors all over the building before anyone would be aware.”⁸ Efforts to control student behaviour also increased the fire risks. The school principal at Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, J. P. Mackey, thought that a 1936 boiler-room fire could have been the result of “boys sneaking their way to the boiler room, in order to have a smoke” and throwing their cigarettes away to avoid detection.⁹ Some fires were deliberately set by students. Although there was no official determination that the 1873 Shingwauk Home fire was the work of an arsonist, there were reports that the fire was started by band members. According to some accounts, the opponents of the school objected to English-language education; other accounts suggest they were opposed to the cultural change that the school presented; and, in yet other accounts, the arsonists may have harboured a personal grudge against Wilson.¹⁰

From the records produced and available to it, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has determined that at least thirty-seven schools were destroyed by fire between 1867 and 1939. During this period, there were never more than eighty schools in operation at any one time (see Table 18.1). In addition, at least thirty-two out-buildings were destroyed by fire during this period (see Table 18.2). There were at least forty-eight additional recorded fires (see Table 18.3). It was suspected or proven that at least 26 of these 117 fires were deliberately set (see Table 18.4).

There were three tragic building fires throughout this period (from 1867 to 1939). The 1905 fire at Saint-Paul-des-Métis, in what is now Alberta, claimed one life;¹¹ the 1927 fire at the Beauval, Saskatchewan, school claimed twenty;¹² and the 1930 fire at the Cross Lake, Manitoba, school claimed thirteen.¹³ In addition, in three separate incidents (Middlechurch, Manitoba, 1895;¹⁴ Beauval, 1909;¹⁵ and Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, 1924¹⁶), students died from burns when garbage-disposal fires set their clothing on fire. It also appears that a girl from the Ahousaht, British Columbia, school died of fire-related injuries in 1916.¹⁷

Even when there were no deaths, fires could be devastating. When fire destroyed the Anglican school at Wabasca, Alberta (also known as Lake Wapuskow), in 1903, staff and children lost everything but their nightclothes.¹⁸ After a fire at the Kamloops, British Columbia, school in 1925, one of the Sisters of St. Ann lamented, “All our wardrobe, library, and valuables acquired during the fifty years of service went up in flames.”¹⁹ When fire destroyed the Qu’Appelle school in 1932, the boys were able to salvage some clothing and bedding, but the girls, who were in church when the fire broke out, lost everything but the clothes they were wearing.²⁰

Fire escapes were essential in otherwise unsafe buildings, but they were a measure of last resort. By the early twentieth century, it was recognized that student safety was best ensured by improved building techniques, including the use of fire-resistant materials. Many people also argued that public schools should not be more than two storeys in height, effectively decreasing the difficulty in evacuating students from the building in case of fire.²⁴ By the 1920s, the benefit of fireproof-construction techniques in New York City was apparent. In 1921, there were forty-four school fires in city schools, but no fatalities.²⁵

Canadian officials were well aware of the fire risk to large public buildings: most famously, in 1916, a fire took seven lives and destroyed most of the Canadian Parliament Buildings.²⁶ Between 1907 and 1938, there were five disastrous fires at schools and orphanages in Québec.

•February 1907, Hochelaga School in Montréal, sixteen students and one teacher dead²⁷

•February 1918, Montréal Grey Nuns Orphanage, fifty-three children dead²⁸

•Summer 1922, Shawbridge, Québec, Jewish Orphanage camp, twelve children dead²⁹

•December 14, 1927, Québec City, St. Charles Convent (orphanage), thirty-seven children dead³⁰

•January 18, 1938, St-Hyacinthe, Québec, College of the Sacred Heart, at least forty-five students and staff dead 31

As noted in the previous chapter on building quality, in 1940, the Welfare and Training superintendent, R. A. Hoey, informed the Indian Affairs director, Harold McGill (the most senior official within Indian Affairs), that most of the country’s residential schools had been poorly built and poorly maintained. Because the minimum standards for the construction of public buildings had not been adhered to, many buildings were fire hazards.³² Hoey was merely restating what was both obvious and very well known within the department. For decades, field staff had been identifying and reporting fire hazards, insufficient fire-fighting capacity, and inadequate fire-safety planning and equipment at school after school.

In investigating a fire that broke out in 1901 at the Birtle school when a furnace pipe overheated, causing a joist to ignite, Indian agent G. H. Wheatley commented that he was amazed “to see what a fire-trap the work about the furnace pipe hole was.” Given the school’s condition, he said, it was “a mystery that the building has escaped so long.”³³ A 1927 inspection by W. Murison of the same school twenty-six years later concluded, “This building, as you know, owing to its narrow and intricate passages would be a death trap in case of fire.”³⁴ Inspector J. G. McKechnie wrote of the Gordon’s Reserve school in Saskatchewan in 1918, “The danger of fire in the present building, lighted as it is by kerosene lamps and heated by stoves and without an adequate water supply is very great. It is providential that no tragedy has so far occurred.” He recommended that the building be replaced.³⁵ In 1927, the principal of the Peigan school at Brocket, Alberta, reported that, at this recently constructed school, “all the doors leading to the fire escapes open in: I have always been wondering why Mr. Gardner Smith allowed the contractor to make that mistake.”³⁶

In 1928, local Indian agent A. O’N. Daunt reported to Ottawa that the British Columbia fire marshal and the local fire chief “have registered severe complaints of the Fire hazzard [sic]” at the school at Mission, British Columbia.³⁷ In October 1929, the Sault Ste. Marie fire chief, W. J. Phillips, described the Shingwauk Home as being “in a very dillipated [sic] condition and almost falling down and Fire trap to keep Children in this Building the Roof is leaking something terrible all over.” He recommended the purchase of new hoses and fire extinguishers, and the construction of three new fire escapes.³⁸ Even though the federal government and the Anglican Church had acknowledged that the school building at Wabasca had been in need of replacement since 1923, it was still in operation in 1934. By then, T. B. R. Westgate of the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada (MSCC) had informed Ottawa that because of the “ever-present danger of fire,” the MSCC would not accept any responsibility “for any consequences which might result from an outbreak of fire.”³⁹

A March 1932 inspection of the Qu’Appelle school noted that in two of the school furnace rooms, the pipe “leading from the furnace is almost burned through in places and should be renewed.” The inspector wrote that a fire could start easily in the paper-thin pipes used to conduct throughout the building.40 Later that year, a fire did start, originating in the wiring, rather than in the pipes. It destroyed the school.⁴¹ After the 1932 fire, the boys were moved to a nearby Oblate institution and the girls moved into the town hall of the village of Fort Qu’Appelle. Eleven months later, 125 girls were still in the town hall.

Inspector J. D. Sutherland described the town hall as “over-crowded, unsanitary, and a fire-trap. The girls are sleeping in bunks, 5 tiers deep, in the main building, while in the annex, sleeping in the loft, were 54 girls.” The main hall was used as a dining room, recreation room, and dormitory. There were no bathing facilities and the sanitary arrangements were “of the most primitive type.” According to Sutherland, “the odor in the building, mostly of creolin, used for disinfecting purposes, was nauseating.” In case of fire, he doubted anyone would escape alive. There was also danger of the outbreak of epidemics. In all his experience, he wrote, “I have never seen a situation such as is provided for the girls.”⁴²

In 1938, according to an Indian Affairs inspection report, the stove pipes at the Cranbrook, British Columbia, school were in need of replacement. Many of the fire alarms were out of order, while those that did work were too small, and there was a need for “panic bolts” on the fire-escape doors to ensure they would not become locked or hard to open in case of a fire.⁴³

Inadequate firefighting equipment

The high risk of fire was coupled with a poor water supply at many schools. In 1896, Indian agent Samuel Lucas reported that the Sarcee boarding school at T’suu Tina, in what is now Alberta, had no fire protection other than a hose that was not long enough to reach from the water supply to the school.⁴⁴ In April 1923, Inspector R. H. Cairns wrote that “inadequate water supply makes the fire protection very uncertain” at the school at Fraser Lake, British Columbia.⁴⁵ Two months later, a fire caused between $1,200 and $1,400 damage to the school.⁴⁶ Afterwards, Principal N. Coccola observed that “the water supply gave out so quickly it would have been impossible to check a more serious fire.”⁴⁷ This was not a case of a problem arising at an old, poorly built school. At the time, the school was only two years old.⁴⁸

In April 1924, Indian Commissioner W. M. Graham described the water system at the Edmonton school, which had opened only two weeks earlier, as “an absolute failure.” He said the system could supply only half the school’s needs.⁵¹ The significance of this failure was demonstrated a year later when, in May 1925, fire destroyed much of the school’s engine and laundry room. According to Principal J. F. Woodsworth, the Edmonton fire department saved the school from destruction; “Our own fire protection equipment was as we expected absolutely useless.”⁵² In the late 1920s, an inspector reported that the fire hose at The Pas, Manitoba, school was “worthless.”⁵³

The lack of water pressure remained a problem into the 1930s. In 1932, G. Forbes, principal of the school at Williams Lake, reported to Ottawa, “Our real worry is a fire. There is not sufficient water pressure for hoses.”⁵⁴ The problem at the school at Fort Alexander, Manitoba, was even more severe. In 1934, Principal S. Perrault reported that the only method available for fighting a fire at the school was from water hauled in buckets. Since there was not enough staff at the school to organize an effective bucket brigade, the school was, in his opinion, “an easy prey to the flames.”⁵⁵

A 1937 inspection of the school at Ahousat, British Columbia, noted that while the fire escapes and fire-fighting equipment were in good order, “nothing that can be done prevents this old building from being a fire trap.”⁵⁶ Two years later, Inspector G. H. Barry commented, “There is a definite fire hazard at this school.” The water pressure was so low that “it would not be possible to fight a fire at this school should it have taken any sort of hold on the old buildings.”⁵⁷ He was correct: on January 26, 1940, the school was destroyed by fire.⁵⁸

Fire protection

The federal government was slow to develop adequate fire-protection policy. It appears not to have enforced the policies that it did establish. Deputy Minister Hayter Reed was spurred into action by an 1895 attempt by students to set fire to the school at Kuper Island, British Columbia. He instructed British Columbia Indian superintendent A. W. Vowell to inform residential school principals in that province that they were expected to adopt a number of fire-protection measures. These included locating buckets of water throughout the building, training staff in the use of any fire-fighting equipment, and training staff and students in what to do if fire broke out. Reed’s instructions were typical of Indian Affairs practice. They were limited, in that they applied only to British Columbia, and they were inadequate, in that it was left to Vowell to determine the specific content of the instructions.⁵⁹ It was not until 1907 that Indian Affairs instructed all principals to establish a system for fire drills.⁶⁰ The following year, Indian Affairs issued an instruction to principals in schools on the Prairies that required that “all dormitory, school-room, interior hall, and exterior doors should open outwards” to ensure that “the building may be emptied quickly and without danger of blockade in case of fire.”61

It took another twenty years and a major fire disaster before this became a national expectation. In October 1927, weeks after a fire claimed twenty lives at the school at Beauval, Duncan Campbell Scott issued a national instruction that fire-escape doors should open outward. If they were sealed, “it should be possible for even a young pupil to break through with a chair or boot.” In dormitories for young students, there was to be either “an older trusted pupil or a member of the staff” assigned to a bed near the fire-escape exit. There were to be monthly fire drills and sufficient fire extinguishers located throughout the school. Schools that did not employ a night watchman were to assign a staff member to “make a thorough inspection of the building at ten o’clock and again at midnight.” There was also to be a patrol in the morning.⁶²

Another instruction issued in 1932 improved upon these measures by requiring that fire escapes were to be “efficient, kept in repair, free from snow or ice and unlocked exits to them must open out.”⁶³ Despite these instructions, there were continual reports during this period of schools with insufficient fire escapes and of principals keeping the doors to these fire escapes locked.

An effective fire-escape system was one that allowed students to leave a school quickly and safely. From the point of view of a residential school principal, such a system had two potential drawbacks. First, a fire escape that allowed students to leave the school quickly during a fire could also be used by students who simply wished to run away from the school. Second, an exterior staircase from a dormitory to the ground ran both ways. Boys could climb up such a staircase to gain access to the girls’ dormitory. As a result, principals resisted the installation of outside fire escapes. When they were finally obliged to install them, they often chose dangerous and frightening pole-style escapes that students were expected to slide down in the event of fire. And, to prevent students from using them in ways deemed improper, they locked the doors and windows leading to the escapes. The federal government tended to support the use of pole-type escapes, on the grounds of cost, but, after 1932, locking access to fire escapes was contrary to repeated federal instructions. The fact that the government was unable to achieve compliance on this matter is a sign of the failure of responsibility that characterized the administration of the residential school system.

One of the first signs of resistance to fire escapes came from Mount Elgin principal W. W. Shepherd, who informed Indian Affairs in 1890, “We have not any out side [sic] fire escapes, and cannot well have as the pupils would be likely to escape when we did not want them to. We have experience in that line.”⁶⁴ (It is not clear if the sentence was underlined by Shepherd or the letter’s recipient.) Two decades would pass before Indian Affairs instructed a new Mount Elgin principal, S. R. McVitty, to install outside fire escapes on the student dormitories.65 When he inspected the work in 1912, architect Robert Ogilivie reported that although the fire escapes had been installed, they should not have “finished at the lower story.” While Ogilivie’s note provides no additional information, it is likely that this means that the escapes did not go down to the ground.⁶⁶ Improvement at Mount Elgin—one of the oldest residential schools in Canada—was slow. A 1924 inspection report pointed to the “very inadequate provision for preventing loss of life in case of fire. Suitable arrangements for fire escape should be made at once to insure the safety of the residents of the main building.”⁶⁷

Using much the same language, a 1927 report commented on the “very inadequate provision for the safety of the children in case of fire” at Mount Elgin.⁶⁸ In August 1929, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs A. F. MacKenzie concluded that “fire protection is not at all satisfactory” at the school. He instructed Principal McVitty to install two steel-stair fire escapes and to remove flammable material from the school attic.⁶⁹ The risk of fire at Mount Elgin was far from hypothetical: from 1906 to 1922, there had been at least five fires at the school.

Throughout this period, many schools lacked adequate fire escapes. A 1923 inspection of the Squamish school in North Vancouver reported that the fire alarm gongs were in very poor condition, the fire extinguishers needed recharging, the fire hose needed replacement, and there were no outside fire escapes.⁷⁰ In 1926, Indian agent A. O’N. Daunt called for “some system of fire escapes” at the school at Mission, British Columbia.⁷¹ At the Roman Catholic school in Kenora, Ontario, in 1926, Inspector Bennett noted, “One of the doors leading to the fire escape is ‘Frozen’ solid,” and recommended that the ice be cut away.⁷² The following year, Indian agent Frank Edwards recommended that a chute-type escape be installed at the school.⁷³ When one more year had passed, another inspector concluded that the school had insufficient fire escapes.⁷⁴ Ten years later, an inspection report on the same school noted that the fire escape was unsafe because it was too close to the school windows. According to the report, “if a fire should break out on the first or second story the escape would be cut off by the fire going out of these windows.”⁷⁵

In September 1929, Indian Affairs inspector A. G. Hamilton reported that at the Round Lake, Saskatchewan, school:

The fire escape from the girls’ dormitory on the west side of the building is so situated that a child in sliding down the pole can hardly avoid coming in contact with the railing along the steps leading into the boys’ playroom. This railing is about six or eight feet off the ground, and a child striking it coming down as swiftly as they do is liable to meet with an accident. I would suggest that this fire escape be North to the next window which would then give plenty of clearance to anyone coming down the escape. The pole of this fire escape is secured at the top by a brace against the school. This brace I found to be detached and the pole was swinging free. I pointed this out to Mr. Ross, who was aware of it, but as this fire escape has not been used for fire drill he has neglected fixing it. Since the return of the children, the Principal has had no fire drill. Upon my request this was carried out, but, as a number of the staff were unaccustomed to the proceedings, it was necessary that they be told and consequently I did not consider the drill was a real test.76

In 1934, G. H. Barry wrote that although, in his previous report on the Christie school on Meares Island, British Columbia, he had noted that the only fire escape at the school was a set of “wooden stairs and wooden ladder attached to the back wall of the school,” he now reported that “EVEN THIS POOR ESCAPE HAS BEEN DONE AWAY WITH.” In case of fire, he did not see how the children could be saved.⁷⁷

Not all principals were opposed to fire escapes. The principal at the school at Lac La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Charles Hives, wrote in 1923 that he was “not at all satisfied about our fire escape system.”⁷⁸ He had good reason to be dissatisfied: the three-storey building was only two years old and had no fire escapes.⁷⁹ In 1927, at Birtle, Principal H. B. Currie reported that the junior girls’ dormitory would be a fire trap, since the school had no ladder long enough to reach the dormitory windows.⁸⁰ That same year, at Portage la Prairie, Principal W. A. Hendry asked the federal government for support in making improvements to the existing fire escapes. In some cases, the fire escapes did not go all the way to the ground; in others, they were built over the furnace room, which was often where residential school fires originated.⁸¹ Similar problems existed on the west coast. In 1928, L. Choinel, the newly appointed principal of the Cranbrook school, wrote to Ottawa to confirm his predecessor’s opinion that the school fire escapes were “absolutely inadequate.”⁸²

In other cases, however, it was Indian Affairs staff members who drew attention to the need for improved fire escapes. In 1929, when Indian Affairs identified the problem of a lack of fire escapes at the Anglican school at Whitefish Lake, Alberta, T. B. R. Westgate, the field secretary of the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada, responded that “the height from the dormitory window to the ground is not so great that a child would receive much injury if it jumped from the window to a mattress on the ground.” Despite this, he agreed to add fire escapes to the school.⁸³ In 1930, W. M. Graham described the Hobbema, Alberta, school as “nothing but a fire trap,” and recommended that until it was replaced, it be supplied with two new fire escapes.⁸⁴

There was no unanimity on the type of fire escape to be installed at residential schools. In 1923, P. Bousquet, the principal of the Fort Alexander, Manitoba, school, opposed Ottawa’s proposal for a wooden ladder fire escape for the girls’ dormitory. It would, he said, “give an easy way to climb up to visit the girls.” Instead, he proposed the installation of an iron pipe, three inches (7.6 centimetres) in diameter, down which girls could slide in the case of a fire.⁸⁵ Two years later, Indian Affairs informed C. Perrault, school principal at McIntosh, Ontario, that it wanted him to install an inexpensive, pole-type fire escape, rather than the more expensive type he had proposed.86 The pole-type escapes could be quite primitive. Lac La Ronge, Saskatchewan, principal C. F. Hives said that “if we had the proper sliding brass poles, it would be almost perfect. We have just the spruce pole now, which is alright until it becomes polished by constant usage. Then it becomes dangerous for the small children, on account of their not being able to control their descent.”⁸⁷

The Beauval and Cross Lake fires

The dangers inherent in poorly built schools with insufficient and inaccessible fire escapes were realized in two tragic fires. On the evening of September 19, 1927, a fire broke out at the Beauval school in northern Saskatchewan. The blaze originated in the basement furnace room and moved quickly up two separate stairways to the boys’ dormitory on the third floor. The boys, along with the nun who was supervising them, were trapped by the two fires and could not get access to the exterior fire exits. Although the flames had soon engulfed the entire building, the girls had more time to leave the building, “many of the older ones carrying their small companions in their arms, thus saving their lives.”⁸⁸ Nineteen boys, aged seven to twelve, and the supervising nun died in the blaze.⁸⁹ An inquest absolved the school of blame. However, an editorial in a local paper (The Standard) reached a harsher verdict, arguing that “the Department showed gross negligence according to the implication contained in the verdict of the jury.”⁹⁰

The second disastrous fire took place at the Cross Lake, Manitoba, school on February 25, 1930. Principal G. E. Trudeau had inspected the basement at 11:00 p.m. and midnight. Another staff member inspected the basement at 2:00 a.m. At 3:00 a.m., “the basement and ground floor of the old part of the building was found to be all in flames with flames coming up stairways to the second floor.” The fire was detected by Sister Angus, who had been awakened by the smell of smoke. She woke the five other nuns who were sleeping with her on the second floor. Sister Superior Marguerite Marie instructed Sister Angus to fetch the male staff members, who lived in a separate wing of the school. Marguerite Marie then mounted the staircase to the third floor to awaken the children. She was never seen alive again.

When the fire prevented Sister Angus from reaching the wing of the school housing the male staff, she returned to the sister superior’s room and gathered up a four-year-old girl who had been sleeping in that room. She took the child to the front balcony, threw a comforter to the ground, and then threw the child from the balcony in hopes that she would land on the comforter. The girl missed the comforter, but landed safely in a snowbank. Sister Angus later jumped from the balcony into a blanket being held by two of the school staff. The four sisters whom she had awoken could not get through the flames to the room on the second floor that had access to the fire escape. Instead, they had to jump from their windows; one suffered a fractured back as a result.

Evelyn Jebb, a former Cross Lake student, provided the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada with the following description of the fire.

It was, it was on a cold winter night in 1930 when the fire broke out. It must have been about 40 below at that time. At around 3:00 after midnight we heard big noises; the supervisor came yelling. She said, “Fire! Fire!” So we all got up and I just put my socks on and I ran to the fire escape.

The fire escape door was frozen and one of the girls kicked it and it opened wide. Then we ran, I remember the door was frozen. After that they took us to the barn.⁹²

Bella Quekeapow, another former Cross Lake student, provided this description of the fire.

Well, it was there while we slept, while we slept that we were called “get up the school is burning.” Right away I woke, and right away I ran to the metal poles to slide down, there were two? [Yeah.] But I reached the metal poles and I slid down as much as I could. And when I made it down, we then went and stood at the side. We stood in the snow, there were no socks. Only what we had, our bare feet. While we stood there I felt my feet start to freeze. So we stood there not knowing what was going to be done to us. Then we were told if we could run to the barn if we could. And truly I ran there following others; the barn—it was further away. I don’t know how I felt but my feet were freezing, and after I ran I got to the barn. So I went there, where the cows were. And there until morning, until they came and gave us clothes to wear. It was only then that I knew when I was given clothes to wear sitting there. That’s what I remember until morning when parents came to look for their children, many were not found.⁹³

Ineffective fire escapes

Concerns over the effectiveness of existing fire escapes, particularly the pole type, continued into the 1930s. An inspection of the File Hills school in 1932 noted that although the young children could use the pole fire escape during fire drills, “they might let go of the pole and suffer a serious fall under excitement.” The inspector also noted that flames could come out of nearby windows, making use of the pole impossible. He recommended the installation of the type of spiral staircases used in public schools, even though they were expensive.⁹⁷ The principal opposed such a measure, saying the pupils would “use it for getting away from the dormitory and other undesirable purposes, at night.” Indian agent George Dodds said that the improper use of fire escapes was a problem at all schools, but did not think “it is a good way to solve this by limiting the means of escape.”⁹⁸

Dr. J. J. Wall, who visited the schools on behalf of Indian Affairs, vividly depicted the limitations of the existing fire escapes. Wall wrote in 1938 that whenever he stayed overnight at the Sandy Bay, Round Lake, Cowessess, or Hobbema schools, he always had his “flash-light, overcoat, socks and gloves available and prepared for a sudden dive into the winter night.” All four schools were vulnerable to fire and, in his opinion, needed improved fire escapes. The existing “iced poles of iron, narrow snow or ice filled metal stairs on the outside possibly open to a wall of flames from some window it passes will only add to the panic at night.”⁹⁹

These four schools were far from being the only ones with ineffective fire escapes. A 1935 inspection of the Cluny, Alberta, school reported the fire escapes were “no good: in fact, dangerous if ever used.”¹⁰⁰ In March 1938, John Marshall, the principal of the Sioux Lookout, Ontario, school, reported that the school fire escapes “have always been nothing less than a death trap owing to the fact that this building has no eaves trough and that there is a continual drip from the roof onto the centre of the stairway of the fire escapes, making them very dangerous.” He said it was impossible to keep the escapes free of snow and ice.¹⁰¹ There was a similar, long-standing problem at the school at Fraser Lake, British Columbia. In February 1932, Indian agent Moore reported that the fire escapes at the school were covered by ice in the winter. As a result, the steps were slippery and the pulleys to lower the escapes were difficult to operate.¹⁰² According to an inspection report from six years later, “the dripping of melting snow from the roof not only covers the fire escapes with a sheet of ice but also completely seals the windows leading to the fire escapes, prevents the lowering of the bottom landing and on the North side of the building covers the ground at the bottom of the fire escape with sheer ice.” These conditions made it almost impossible to have fire drills during the winter, and, in the opinion of the principal, W. Byrne-Grant, in the event of fire, “would almost certainly lead to serious injury.”103 In the following year, an inspector recommended that wooden rails be placed on top of the iron hand-rails on the fire escapes at the Lytton, Fraser Lake, and Cranbrook schools in British Columbia: “It is impossible for small children to make their way down such escapes at night in sub zero weather as their hands would stick to the iron rails and the skin would be torn off each time they tried to catch hold of the guiding rails.”¹⁰⁴

By the end of the 1930s, there were still reports of schools that did not have enough fire escapes. A 1937 inspection of the Thunderchild school in Delmas, Saskatchewan, concluded that while most of the school was well provided with fire protection, there were no fire escapes for a recent addition, which included a second-storey dormitory and staff quarters on the third floor. Permission was granted to remedy the problem.¹⁰⁵

Locked doors

Even if a school had a safe, working fire escape, another barrier existed to students’ being able to exit a burning building quickly: principals across the country had taken to locking the doors leading to those escapes. An inspector found in 1908 that the boys’ dormitory at the Regina school was locked on the outside. Since the person with the key slept a distance away from the dormitory, it was thought this represented a hazard in case of fire. The principal was instructed to have someone sleep next to the door if the practice of locking it was to continue.¹⁰⁶

The Indian commissioner for the Prairies, W. M. Graham, was one of the harshest critics of the practice of restricting access to fire escapes. In 1925, he was in a fury over the habit of the principal of the Anglican school at Brocket, Alberta, of nailing windows shut to prevent escape. “It is almost criminal,” he wrote, “and it shows the class of man we have in charge of that institution.”¹⁰⁷

In 1930, Graham discovered that at the school at Fort Alexander, Manitoba, the “floors the fire escape poles run through [were] surrounded by a trap door with a hasp, staple and padlock on, and the key in the possession of the Brother, which means if the Brother was away from the building and the fire alarm rang, everyone would rush to the fire escape and pile up and it would be a very serious situation.” In response to his instruction to remove the lock, he received “the usual argument that the boys can escape, or that someone can come into the dormitories.”¹⁰⁸ After learning the following year that the exits to the boys’ dormitories at the Sandy Bay school were locked at night, Graham informed Ottawa, “The practice of locking these exit doors is common in many of our residential schools.”¹⁰⁹ Seven months later, an inspection by A. G. Hamilton of the Anglican school in The Pas revealed, “All doors leading to the fire escapes are locked. The Principal and the Matron claim they can do nothing else as the children run away at every opportunity.” For the same reason, the bedroom windows were kept closed to prevent the students from getting “out by the use of bed sheets.”110 Graham called this a “terrible thing,” recommending that the principal be ordered to remove the locks.¹¹¹ Three months later, the doors were still locked. The principal explained that without this measure, “several boys and girls would go out during the night, and boys from the Reserve would come into the girls’ dormitory.” The key to the door was kept in a glass case next to the lock.¹¹² Graham did not comment on this report; he had been forced into retirement at the end of March 1932.¹¹³

Despite the fact that in 1932, Indian Affairs had sent out instructions that fire escapes were to be kept unlocked, in 1935, Indian Affairs inspector M. Christianson noted that the fire escapes at the Morley, Alberta, school were padlocked. The principal, Edgar Staley, defended the practice, saying that several staff members had keys to the doors and that there was an axe on the wall by the door that would allow students to break down the door. Christianson was not satisfied. He recommended that if Staley wished to prevent students from using the fire exit to run away or to facilitate visits between the boys and girls, he should install an alarm on the door that would go off whenever it was opened.¹¹⁴ An inspection of the Elkhorn, Manitoba, school in 1937 found that although the fire escapes were in good condition, the “doors leading to the escapes were locked and there was considerable delay in securing a key to fit.”¹¹⁵

Even though Indian Affairs issued instructions in 1907 that there be a system of fire drills and, in 1927, required that they be held monthly, the department was having difficulty gaining full compliance with this policy. In 1937, Inspector G. H. Barry reported on the “great trouble” he was having in getting the principal of the Port Crosby, British Columbia, school “to train the children in Fire Drill.”¹¹⁶ In a follow-up report, the inspector wrote that although the principal said that fire drills were being held regularly, he found the news “difficult to believe.” He discovered that the reason why such drills had not been held in the past was that fine wire-mesh screens had been “nailed outside the windows leading from the dormitories to the escapes.” Furthermore, the water supply was not sufficient to fight “even a small fire.”¹¹⁷ By the following year, the windows had been set on hinges that opened outwards and students in each dormitory had been given training on how to care for younger students in case of a fire.¹¹⁸

Even when the doors or windows leading to fire escapes were not locked, students might face other barriers to getting out of a burning residence. As late as 1927, according to W. M. Graham, in many schools, the fire exits were “reached through a small private room where access to them might be rendered extremely difficult by the carelessness, fright, or timidity of the occupant.” He also noted his concern that the plans for the school in Kamsack, Saskatchewan, which had not yet opened, called for the exit doors to open inwards.¹¹⁹

Deliberately set

Deliberately setting fire to a public building with the intention to damage or destroy it can be seen as an act of wanton vandalism or the symptom of a psychiatric disorder. It also can be a very dangerous and risky form of protest. The record indicates that at least twenty-five fires were either suspected or proven to have been deliberately set by students. It is impossible to put an exact figure on the number of fires that were deliberately set or to know why they were set. Some suspicions probably were unjustified; some other attempts to set fire to a building probably were never detected. When they were, the consequences for students could be significant. In some cases, individuals were tried and convicted for their involvement in these fires. In others, they were not charged, but were punished by school officials. Often, the students had admitted to their involvement and were not represented by legal counsel. Although the evidence is limited, it does not appear likely that the students who made these admissions did so in the presence of their parents or a responsible adult.

Deliberately set fires could have tragic results. The students who set fire to the Anglican school at Onion Lake in 1928 gave warning to other students, ensuring that they were able to escape safely.¹²¹ However, at Saint-Paul-des-Métis, Alberta, and Cross Lake, Manitoba, students died attempting to escape from student-set fires.

Government officials recognized that the deliberate burning down of school property was a form of protest. In April 1903, the three-storey, brick Mohawk Institute was destroyed by fire. Although the fire broke out at night, all the children escaped safely.¹²² A fire in May of that year destroyed the school barns.¹²³ The following month, another fire destroyed the building in which the boys had been housed after the first fire.¹²⁴ The rash of deliberately set fires led Indian Affairs official Martin Benson to conclude that the government faced two problems. The first and most pressing was to find and punish “the perpetrators of the crime.” But he also believed that the second problem was that the fires were evidence of an underlying failure. In a reflection of the department’s attitudes towards Aboriginal people, he wrote, “Even an Indian will not set fire to buildings, destroy valuable property and endanger life from pure cussedness. There must have been some real or imaginary grievance which led some of the boys to commit incendiarism.”¹²⁵

In some cases, it appears students set fires to protest their treatment at the school. According to Principal E. F. Wilson, in 1889, a boy who had been confined to the Shingwauk Home “lockup” for theft “set fire to his prison, and we thought the whole place would be burned down.”126 Nelson Hughes said that he took part in setting the 1930 Cross Lake, Manitoba, fire because the principal was always punishing him.¹²⁷ After Nelson’s conviction for conspiracy (he was acquitted of the charge of arson) in setting the fire, his lawyer, John L. Ross, called upon the federal solicitor general to hold “a full and complete investigation … as to why two school boys should set a school on fire.” He said the evidence presented in court showed that “every boy in that school had a hatred of the officers in charge there. Such a condition is not right, nor is it moral in an Indian school.” He suggested that, had the trial been held in northern Manitoba, “perhaps the Court and jury would have agreed with my contention that the State had failed in its duty to the Indian and half-breed of the North Country.”¹²⁸

In other cases, the students were responding to school policies. When asked why they had tried to burn down the Kuper Island school in 1895, three boys said, “We have done so because we were informed that henceforth the holidays would be abolished.”¹²⁹

In writing about a series of fires at the Pine Creek school in 1930, an Oblate observed, “It is a known fact that some Indian children will not hesitate to set a fire in the hope of going home.”¹³⁰ That is clearly the motivation in several cases. The two girls who attempted to burn down the Alert Bay school said they hoped they “would have a good holiday before a new one could be built.”¹³¹ The boy who instigated the 1905 fire at the school at Saint-Paul-des-Métis referred to the school as a “prison.”¹³² The boy who attempted to burn down the St. Albert school in 1917 had been advised by a relative, who had attended Saint-Paul-des-Métis when that school was destroyed by fire, that if he “wanted to get out of the school all he had to do was burn it down.”¹³³

In the spring of 1901, relations between the principal and members of local First Nations at the Mount Elgin school had deteriorated to the point that the principal feared some community members might attempt to set the school on fire. As a result, the federal government agreed to pay for the employment of a night watchman at the school.¹³⁴ Principal W. W. Shepherd wished to see charges laid against one member of the local reserve for attempted arson, but Martin Benson thought the charges were too “indefinite,” and the matter was dropped.¹³⁵

Punishment for setting fire to schools varied. If the damage was limited, discipline usually was left to the principal and the local Indian agent. Cases that involved the loss of life or the destruction of buildings usually were turned over to the police. The local Indian agent suggested that the principal give the girls who attempted to burn down the Alert Bay school in 1918 “a good thrashing,” but not prosecute or discharge them.¹³⁶ Chief Inspector W. E. Ditchburn disagreed. He pointed out that this was the fifth fire at a school on the west coast in nine months and the third arson. (The Ahousaht, Alberni, and Sechelt schools had been destroyed by fire, and the fire at the Clayoquot school had done little damage. The record is not clear as to whether the Clayoquot fire was at the Clayoquot day school or the Christie school, which was also located on Clayoquot Sound.)137 Departmental secretary J. D. McLean disagreed with Ditchburn and recommended against prosecution.¹³⁸ Six years later, in 1924, when three girls attempted to burn down the Alert Bay school, McLean once more recommended against prosecution, informing the Indian agent that it was sufficient that “they were whipped in the presence of yourself.”¹³⁹

Indian Affairs thought it would be difficult to convict the boy who had attempted to set fire to the St. Albert school in 1917. Instead, as a form of punishment, the Indian agent recommended that the boy be sent to the residential school at Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan.¹⁴⁰ In a similar fashion, the boy who had attempted to set fire to the Morley, Alberta, school in 1927 was transferred to the United Church school in Edmonton.¹⁴¹ When several boys tried to burn down the Morley school in 1935, the principal requested that, instead of sending the boys to reform school, he be allowed to administer “a severe strapping” and keep them at the school. Indian Affairs approved the request, suggesting that the punishment be administered in the presence of the Indian agent, by either the parents or the principal.¹⁴²

Indian Affairs recognized that stories about students burning down schools amounted to bad press. Indian agent A. O’N. Daunt tried to have Mission principal E. Maillard fired after he turned the two girls who attempted to set fire to the school in 1928 over to the provincial police without first consulting with him. The girls, aged twelve and thirteen, spent short periods of time in the Oakalla, British Columbia, jail and the British Columbia Industrial School for Girls before Daunt was able to arrange their transfer to the Roman Catholic school in Kamloops. Daunt was irritated that by involving the police, Maillard had attracted “undesirable publicity to the institution.”¹⁴³

In many cases, students were sent to correctional facilities. The boy who attempted to burn down the Shingwauk Home in 1889 was sentenced to a year at the reformatory at Penetanguishene, Ontario.¹⁴⁴ Three of the boys involved in setting the fires at the Mohawk Institute in 1903 were sent to the Mimico, Ontario, industrial school for between three and five years. A fourth boy was sentenced to the Kingston, Ontario, penitentiary for three years.¹⁴⁵ An Indian Affairs official informed the father of one of the boys sent to the Mimico industrial school that his son would be sent back to him after his release. When the boy didn’t return home, an inquiry to the superintendent of the Mimico school revealed that the boy had found a job locally. The Mimico superintendent thought it best if the father not be allowed to “interfere at all with the boy.”¹⁴⁶

According to a report written three decades after the fact, the boys who had been charged with burning down the Saint-Paul-des-Métis school in 1905 were pardoned.¹⁴⁷ The boy who set fire to the Mount Elgin school barn in 1908 was turned over to the authorities for prosecution.¹⁴⁸ Two students who admitted to setting fire twice to the Crowstand, Saskatchewan, school were sent in 1913 to the Manitoba Industrial School for Boys (a home for delinquent boys operated by the Manitoba government).¹⁴⁹ One of the students who attempted to burn down the Duck Lake school in 1917 was sent to a reformatory school.150 The two boys who set fire to the Anglican school in Onion Lake, Saskatchewan, were sentenced to five months in jail.¹⁵¹

In 1930, the Roman Catholic church at Pine Creek, Manitoba, was destroyed by fire, and four attempts were made to burn down the nearby Pine Creek school. Two boys confessed to setting the fires, although one of them did not do so until he had been promised that, aside from being expelled from the school, he would not be punished. Thomas Baird, the Indian Affairs official investigating the case, decided that “no good purpose could be gained by laying a charge of arson” and recommended the matter be left to “church authorities to deal with the boys as they may see fit.”¹⁵² Despite the promise that no action would be taken, the Oblates requested that one of the boys be prosecuted.¹⁵³ In the end, both were charged. The principal arranged for the release of one boy, but the other boy, who had been told he would not be prosecuted, was convicted and given a two-year suspended sentence. The principal thought the sentence was too lenient and inquired if he could be prosecuted a second time.¹⁵⁴

Two students were convicted for their roles in the 1930 fire at Cross Lake, Manitoba, that left thirteen people dead. One student was convicted of conspiracy and given what was described as a “short term of imprisonment.”¹⁵⁵ The other student was a minor at the time the Cross Lake fire was set. His case was transferred from juvenile to adult court. He pleaded guilty to the charge of arson and was given a life sentence. Indian Affairs declined to appoint a lawyer to represent him, saying this was done only in “charges of murder.”¹⁵⁶ In 1939, eight years after his conviction, Indian Affairs also declined to support his application for parole, saying he had served only “a comparatively short” portion of his sentence.¹⁵⁷

In 1933, two girls attempted to set the Roman Catholic school at Cluny, Alberta, on fire. As a result, they were transferred to the Home of the Good Shepherd in Edmonton.¹⁵⁸

With regard to fire safety, the government failed in both policy and implementation. It was slow in developing fire-safety policies and incapable of enforcing them. Low levels of funding meant that many of the buildings were poorly built and poorly maintained, and were potential fire traps. The harsh discipline and jail-like nature of life in the schools meant that many students sought to run away. To prevent this, many schools deliberately ignored government instructions in relation to fire drills and fire escapes. In other cases, the system bred such hostility that some students were driven to attempt to destroy the schools by fire.

CHAPTER 18

Fire, a deadly hazard: 1867–1939

The fire risk in public buildings

Inadequate firefighting equipment

Fire protection

The Beauval and Cross Lake fires

Ineffective fire escapes

Locked doors

Deliberately set