By the late nineteenth century, Canadian health officials were well aware of the close link between diet and health. As noted in a previous chapter, officials believed that children who were at risk of developing tuberculosis should have access to a good supply of whole milk. A key element in sanatorium treatment, in addition to rest and fresh air, was the provision of nutritious meals—including large servings of milk.1 Despite this knowledge, from the time of Confederation to 1939, there is no record of the federal government’s issuing a clear, detailed statement setting out expectations of nutritional standards to be followed in all residential schools. Instead, as with other aspects of the operation of the schools, there was a series of vague and partial instructions and recommendations.
In 1883, Indian Affairs prepared a dietary list for the Battleford and Qu’Appelle schools that were being established at that time. It proposed a daily student ration of a pound of flour, a quarter-pound of bacon, a half-pound of beef, a half-ounce of tea, two ounces of sugar, a half-ounce of rice, one ounce of dried apples, three ounces of oatmeal, a half-ounce of pepper, as well as three gallons of syrup a month.2 Indian Commissioner Edgar Dewdney’s 1883 instruction to Battleford school principal Thomas Clarke, that “the strictest economy must be practised in all particulars,” certainly had implications for school food policy.3 As in virtually every aspect of residential school life, this overriding concern with controlling costs usually meant that residential school diets would be substandard. Although many Indian Affairs officials would report on the inadequacy of the diet, the government was never prepared to provide the detailed direction needed to improve the diet—in large measure because officials were aware of the fact that few improvements could be made without a corresponding improvement in funding.
This chapter discusses the lack of policy, the clearly identified problems with diet, particularly in the case of milk, and reports on student experiences with diet, and concludes with an examination of the ways in which students and parents responded to the poor diets at the schools.
In his 1889 letter to Bishop Paul Durieu, outlining his expectations for the operation of the new Roman Catholic industrial school in Cranbrook, British Columbia, Indian Affairs Deputy Minister Lawrence Vankoughnet wrote, “The food should be plain, good, and well cooked.” He specified the meal times (which he thought should be 7:00 a.m., noon, and 6:00 p.m.) and the language the students should be allowed to speak at the dinner table (English only). A “plain dietary” chart was also included. Breakfast was milk, porridge, bread, lard, and tea (with no milk on Sunday).4 An 1892 Order-in-Council had established per capita rates for existing industrial schools. It stated nothing more than, in exchange for the grants, “the management shall agree to conform to the rules of the Indian Department, as laid down from time to time, and to keep the schools at a certain standard of instruction, dietary and domestic comfort.”5 The 1910 contract that set out the responsibilities of the government and churches for the operation of boarding schools obliged the churches to provide students with “subsistence … necessary to their personal comfort and safety.”6
When each industrial school was established, Indian Affairs would develop a dietary table or scale. This scale would set out the expected annual consumption of specific foods. According to Indian Affairs official Martin Benson, these were used to prepare the initial estimates for the cost of operating the schools, and were “never intended to apply to schools on the per capita basis and it is not now, and never was, enforced in such schools.”7
It does appear, however, that some schools attempted to operate in keeping with the scales. In the process, they used them as maximums not to be surpassed, rather than as goals to meet.8 In some cases, consumption of some food items at schools exceeded what was allowed in the scale; in other cases, consumption did not meet the scale provisions. At the Regina, Saskatchewan, school, beef consumption in 1900 was 13,866 pounds, while the dietary scale had assumed an annual consumption of 21,580 pounds. Flour consumption in that year was 43,286 pounds, somewhat more than the 39,420 pounds that the scale had assumed.9
Qu’Appelle principal Joseph Hugonnard wrote in 1891 that
the present ration scale may be good for children but is not suitable for the majority of our pupils, one third of whom eat more than men and women and another third eat fully as much. I have seen them at the end of a meal come to complain that they had not enough to eat and upon inquiry have found that it was never without good reason.10
Student complaints about food hurt recruitment. Kuper Island school principal J. N. Lemmens pointed out in 1891 that it was very important to provide the students with good food and clothing at his school on the British Columbia coast. He said that, unlike First Nations in other parts of the country, coastal First Nations “did not suffer for want of food.” Their children were “used to being well fed at home.” If the quality of food provided at the school was poor, the school might fall into disrepute.11 The following year, the principal, at the advice of a doctor, sent three pupils home because “the diet of the school did not agree with their former way of living; they were used to live [sic] almost exclusively on fish and oil.”12
After an 1894 cut in funding, Kuper Island principal G. Donckele wrote that the food situation at the school was so dire that he had been forced to slaughter the school’s lone remaining pig. The practice had been to feed the pig with table and kitchen scraps. However, rations were so short that there were no scraps. If there was a further cut, he said, the parents would all withdraw their children from the school.13
In 1910, Kamloops, British Columbia, principal A. M. Carion wrote that “the scale of rations allows 12 ozs. of raw meat daily for each pupil.” However, due to inadequacies in the per capita grant at the school, “this quantity has been reduced to 8 ozs., thus making a saving of 17 lbs. of meat a day and, at the present high price of meat, more than $300 a year.”14
Dependence on school farms was risky. In 1917, Indian agent John F. Smith reported that at the Kamloops school, the yield from the school vegetable crops “is very nearly a complete failure,” and “they have practically no hay with which to winter the few animals on the place.”15
This combination of vague instruction and piecemeal application characterized the government’s policy on student diet throughout this period. After receiving reports in 1921 that students at the Anglican school in Onion Lake, Saskatchewan, were being served poor-quality bread and only water to drink, Duncan Campbell Scott instructed the Anglican Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada that “the children be provided with good, substantial and well cooked food.”16 The following year, Russell Ferrier, the superintendent of Indian Education, sent out a circular asking principals to send him copies of their school’s dietary scale, outlining what students were being fed and the quantity of food each student was receiving.17 He planned to have the responses analyzed by the health department. The results would be used to assess the school ‘diet sheets.’ Apparently, they were to be the basis for a revised dietary scale.18 One of the few responses on file did not provide enough information to allow for analysis.19 There is no record of any analysis being carried out, or of any ongoing assessment of school menus or attempts to ensure compliance with Scott’s directive.
In 1929, when the federal government was establishing its first and only residential school in the Maritimes, Dr. E. L. Stone, the director of medical services for Indian Affairs, was asked to provide medical advice to Father J. P. Mackey, the Shubenacadie school’s newly appointed principal. It was as vague and permissive as the instructions issued by Indian Affairs Deputy Minister Vankoughnet forty years earlier. Stone advised Mackey that
you will have to feed your pupils better than you would think necessary. The healthiest schools are those in which the feeding is best. I suppose you are getting cows. If you can give the children plenty of clean, whole milk you will be going far to keep them healthy. I do not believe in making butter at schools. The pupils ought to have the milk fat and butter too. A diet high in protein—fish, meat, beans, cheese, etc., seems best for Indians. Give them brown bread if possible. Your cows, of course, ought to be free from tuberculosis.20
This was good advice, and in keeping with contemporary dietary thinking. But it was presented as advice only, not as policy direction. The government set no standards. When it found that children were being underfed, it rarely looked for the underlying cause, but instead told the principals to do better. This lack of firm direction, coupled with the never-ending need to control costs, created ongoing problems.
The Indian Affairs annual report for 1893 contained school menus for the schools at Qu’Appelle, Gordon’s Reserve (both schools were located in what is now Saskatchewan), and Middlechurch, Manitoba (see tables 19.1 to 19.3). The phrase ad libitum used in these menus (sometimes abbreviated as ad lib.) means “at one’s pleasure,” implying that student consumption of a particular food item was not regulated. Bread was the only food item available on this basis. “Dinner” was the name usually given to the noon meal and was often the most substantial meal served at the schools. Usually, the evening meal was referred to as “supper,” but in some cases, it was termed “tea.”
The appearance of an item on the menu is no guarantee that it was actually served. The menus do not provide any information about the quantity of food students were served. They are, however, useful indicators of what the government thought was appropriate.
The menus present a highly monotonous food plan. The Qu’Appelle school rotated two breakfasts, and at the Gordon’s Reserve school, there were only two breakfasts and two dinners. Three of the suppers were offered twice a week. The fact that the Qu’Appelle menu does not provide as much detail as the other menus suggests that all the dinners and suppers were, in essence, interchangeable. The menus are more than monotonous. They appear to be insufficient. At the Middlechurch school, for example, nine meals per week consisted solely of bread, butter, and tea, and two more consisted of only bread, butter, fruit, and tea. Protein was never served at the evening meal at that school. At the Gordon’s school, rice or suet (meat fat) pudding was the main protein source at the evening meals, with fish being served on occasion.
The Gordon’s Reserve school appears to have done the best job of providing students with milk. Milk is on the menu thirteen times a week (plus “tea or milk” on two additional occasions). It is difficult to tell how often milk was served at the Qu’Appelle school. At breakfast, cereal was served “with either milk or syrup”; at dinner, “bread and milk” rotated with two other desserts, but the daily dinner beverage was water, and tea was the supper beverage. Milk was served only once a week at the Middlechurch school during the winter, but butter was served twelve times a week. The principal provided an additional note: “Fish in season has been given three times a week instead of meat. Cured meat is seldom used, as the children do not care for it. In summer time vegetables are used in great variety, also a great deal of milk.”21
Table 19.1. Menu for the Qu’Appelle, North-West Territories, Industrial School, 1893.
| Meal | Menu |
| Breakfast | Four days in the week porridge of oatmeal or cornmeal with either milk or syrup, this is served with hot tea and bread; the working pupils, and those not in robust health, receive butter in addition. On three days all the pupils receive butter and cheese with their bread instead of porridge, this is served with hot tea. |
| Dinner | Soup, meat or fish, vegetables and bread ad libitum. For dessert, rice or stewed apples, or stewed rhubarb or syrup, or bread and milk, with cold water to drink, excepting to the weak children, and those working outside, who get hot tea. |
| Supper | Meat for the working pupils, hashed meat and vegetables for the rest, bread ad libitum and dessert similar to that named for dinner, hot tea. |
Source: Canada, Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, 1893, 174.
Table 19.2. Menu for the Gordon’s Reserve, North-West Territories, Boarding School, 1893.
Source: Canada, Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, 1893, 258.
Table 19.3. Menu for the Middlechurch, Manitoba, Industrial School, 1893 (Winter diet).
| Breakfast | Dinner | Tea | |
| Sunday | Bread and butter, tea. | Cold beef pudding or pie, vegetables. | Bread and butter, fruit, tea. |
| Monday | Porridge and milk, bread and butter. | Meat stew, vegetables. | Bread and butter, tea. |
| Tuesday | Bread and butter, tea. | Boiled beef and gravy, vegetables, bread. | Bread, syrup, tea. |
| Wednesday | Porridge and syrup, bread and butter. | Cold beef, vegetables, pudding or pie. | Bread and butter, tea. |
| Thursday | Bread and butter, tea. | Meat stew, vegetables, bread. | Bread and butter, fruit, tea. |
| Friday | Porridge and syrup, bread, butter, tea. | Soup, bread, boiled beef and gravy, vegetables. | Bread and butter, tea. |
| Saturday | Bread and butter, tea. | Meat stew, vegetables, bread. | Bread and butter, tea. |
Source: Canada, Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, 1893, 256.
In 1893, when these menus were in force, Indian Affairs inspector T. P. Wadsworth reported on meals at the Qu’Appelle school. “I was present during several of the meals, the food was plentiful, well cooked, and well served, and each pupil appeared to have the opportunity to eat all that he or she wanted.”22 An 1895 report on an inspection of the Middlechurch school came to a more sombre conclusion: “The ‘bill of fare’ is plain. I believed it to be barely sufficient for the older pupils, who have now, at fifteen to eighteen years of age, larger apetites [sic] than they will have when older.”23
In 1918, Indian agent John Smith inspected the Kamloops school and reported his “suspicion that the vitality of the children is not sufficiently sustained from a lack of nutritious food, or enough of the same for vigorous growing children.”24 A local doctor concurred that “for some months past the food supplied has been inadequate for the needs of the children.”25
There were, however, numerous positive reports on school food. In 1905, A. E. Green stated that at the Williams Lake, British Columbia, school, “during my stay of six days at the institution I took my meals in the same dining-room as the boys, where I could see that the food was plentiful and good. Meat is served twice a day, a beef being killed every ten days.”26
In 1908, Green reported that at the Coqualeetza Institute in Chilliwack, British Columbia, the “children have plenty of good wholesome food and are well and warmly clothed”; at the Mission school, “the food is wholesome and abundant, while the clothing is neat, clean and suitable”; at the All Hallows school in Yale, the “food is plain, but good and abundant”; at the Lytton school, “food and clothing were good and sufficient”; back at Williams Lake, “the food was good and sufficient”; at the Cranbrook school, “the food is plain, but well prepared, suitable and sufficient”; and at Port Simpson, the “food though plain, was good and sufficient.”27
Martin Benson was suspicious of such positive assessments. In 1897, he wrote, “In almost every instance when meals are mentioned by Inspectors they are said to be well cooked. I doubt very much whether they ever took a full regulation school meal of bread and dripping, or boiled beef and potatoes.” In Benson’s opinion, “The bill of fare is decidedly monotonous and makes no allowance for peculiarities of taste or constitution. What is one man’s meat is said to be another man’s poison, but at our schools it is die dog or eat the hatchet.”28 (The colourful phrase means to fully commit oneself; in this case, to eating the unpalatable.29)
Students thought the schools put on a show for inspectors. According to Dorothy Day, when she attended the Mount Elgin school in Muncey, Ontario, the only time she “had a good meal was when guys came from Ottawa to visit the school, and then we’d have a good meal. We’d have juice and a boiled egg—we’d have a wonderful meal.”30
On occasion, teachers also raised concerns about the quality of food at the schools. In a letter of complaint to the United Church, Lucy Affleck, a teacher at Round Lake, Saskatchewan, wrote in 1929 that while the food at the school was of a good variety and sufficient quantity, “it is not very well chosen and is very unattractively served. As there are a great number of pigs raised on the farm, much of the milk must go to them so only one table of girls (about 12) get milk at meal-time. None of the children ever get butter. It is always lard, that they must use on their bread (bought in barrels).”31
A 1929 report on the Roman Catholic school on the Blood Reserve in Alberta concluded that the “pupils do not get a sufficient supply of butter and milk.”32
Inspectors admitted they felt constrained. Indian agent F. J. C. Ball wrote in 1931, “It is difficult to keep a close check on the food supply as officials are courteously but none the less effectually prevented from any close investigation and one is naturally desirous of avoiding any unpleasantness with the reverend principal who has been in charge so long.”33
However, many inspectors did file negative reports that reveal ongoing difficulties in providing students with adequate supplies of food staples. This was a problem not only in the nineteenth century, but one that also continued into the 1920s and 1930s.
The basics often were hard to obtain at the schools, a fact that was well known in Ottawa. Milk, in particular, was frequently in short supply. Although milk was not part of a traditional Aboriginal diet, North American medical experts viewed it as an essential part of a child’s diet and a key component of the diet of anyone with, or at risk of developing, tuberculosis.34 Government officials of the day had no knowledge of the high degree to which Aboriginal people experienced lactose intolerance, a condition that can lead to a variety of digestive disorders. This is just one example of the belief that all Western practices were inherently superior.35 In 1914, W. M. Graham, the Indian commissioner for the Prairies, complained that the students at the High River school in Alberta “get very little milk.” There were only three cows at the school, where, he felt, there should be ten. The principal laid blame for the problem on the sisters, who, he said, “were strongly opposed to the girls milking.”36
Nurse Margaret Jean Ramage visited the Cluny, Alberta, school in the fall of 1921 to investigate complaints over poor diet.37 The Indian agent reported that Ramage had concluded that the “children got very little milk, no pudding nor butter. I have since gone into this matter and submitted a tentative diet sheet, with quantities which a child should get daily and have had the assurance that everything will be entirely satisfactory in the future.”38
Russell T. Ferrier, the superintendent of Indian Education, was alarmed to discover in 1922 that all the milk provided to the fifty-nine students at Delmas, Saskatchewan, came from two cows, who were producing only 7.5 litres a day.39 The principal was able to increase the number of cows being milked.40 A similar problem existed at the Qu’Appelle school in that year. Inspector M. Christianson reported that “the condition of the stable is the worst feature at the Qu’Appelle Industrial School.” Buildings were in bad shape and manure was piled up behind the stable. The cattle were poorly fed and tubercular, and the milk supply was inadequate. He believed that the entire herd should be disposed of and a new one acquired.41
In his inspection report on the brand-new school at Fraser Lake, British Columbia, in 1923, R. H. Cairns noted, “There is really not enough milk for the children. This school should have more cows than it has at present.”42 Principal Nicolas Coccola responded that he could not purchase more cows without first constructing additional stables and barns.43 In 1923, travelling nurse I. M. Lucas provided a negative report on the nutrition at the Lestock, Saskatchewan, school. According to Indian Affairs official A. F. MacKenzie, Lucas felt “the children at this school do not get the proper nourishing food, or enough. They get no milk and no vegetables, except potatoes, and very small portions.” MacKenzie instructed the local Indian agent to inform the principal that “it is expected that the children will receive a sufficient quantity of nourishing food, also that an ample supply of milk will be furnished for the use of the younger children.”44 Again, the message was indirect and lacking in detail.
A 1926 report on the Roman Catholic school in Onion Lake reported that “they keep ten milch cows [dairy cows], seven of which were giving milk at the time. The Sister in charge informed me that they were poor milkers and they should have at least four more cows to provide for their requirements.”45 In his report on the Birtle, Manitoba, school in 1927, A. G. Hamilton noted that the available farmland was distant from the school and, since the cows were “of very poor type,” the milk supply at the school was not sufficient.46 An inspection later that year found that the number and quality of the stock had improved and the “food was ample and wholesome.”47
A nurse’s report on the Anglican school in The Pas, Manitoba, in 1927 concluded that the students were not getting enough milk.48 Indian agent J. Waddy’s investigation reported that the cows “do not appear to thrive on the rough forage in that place.” Increasing the herd was not an option, since the principal had “no room for more.”49 The situation was slow to improve. In 1928, Waddy noted that the cows still were not producing and, as a result, the “pupils are not receiving much milk.”50 A 1929 inspection report observed: “The school is very short of milk and now receives about 1 gal. twice a day. At present there are about 75 pupils in residence. I understand 4 of the cows are of little use as their udders are partly destroyed, so that this leaves only 5 good milk cows and at present they are practically dry.” The inspector thought the problem could not be remedied without the appointment of a good farm instructor.51
Inspector A. G. Hamilton concluded that the school herd at the Roman Catholic school in Sturgeon Landing, Saskatchewan, was in such poor shape that it was “impossible for the cows to provide milk sufficient for 108 children, as well as a staff of 12 or 14.”52 Indian Commissioner W. M. Graham identified the need for additional cows at the school as “a very important matter,” and added that “if there is no way of producing feed for these cows it is another matter, but I have no doubt there is a means of supplying the necessary feed or the Department would never have built a school at this point.”53
Milk supply problems continued into the 1930s. In 1931, it was reported that at the Squamish, British Columbia, school, “the children who have been ill and a few others get two cups of milk daily, while other children do not get milk to drink.”54 Two years later, a visiting nurse wrote that at the Anglican school in The Pas, Manitoba, the students’ “diet consists mostly of tea, bread and meat, milk supply is low, butter and eggs also.”55 As late as 1937, disease among the cows at the Kamloops school had cut milk production by 50%. To the principal’s frustration, Ottawa refused to fund the construction of an additional barn, which would increase milk production and allow for the isolation of sick animals.56
Even when the dairy herds were producing satisfactorily, the students did not always get the full benefit of the milk the school produced, since often the milk was separated, and the skimmed milk was served to the children. In 1922, Inspector R. Cairns wrote of the Kuper Island school:
I do not think these pupils are well fed. I have gone into this matter with the Principal very thoroughly. All the milk is separated. That means that all the butter fat is taken out of the milk and the pupils receive skim milk. I went into the boys’ dining room at supper time. Here is what each boy had: soup, bread and apple sauce, and tea with milk. If I had my way I would banish every separator from these Industrial and Boarding Schools. The pupils need the butter fat so much.57
Cairns also reported that at Alert Bay, British Columbia, the school had sold 26 of the 170 litres of milk produced in one month, along with two of the four kilograms of butter that had been produced. Ferrier believed this left the school with “quite an inadequate supply of milk.” After saying that none of the milk or butter should be sold, he instructed the local Indian agent to “consult the Principal regarding the obtaining of more milch cows, and inform the Department as to what he proposed to do in this matter.” There was no direct instruction to tell the principal to stop selling milk and butter.58 In 1924, Cairns reported on an “insufficient milk” supply at the Cranbrook, British Columbia, school.59 Two years later, he wrote that at Alert Bay, “the food given these growing boys is too meagre,” and the senior teacher, Miss Long, who was also a nurse, thought “more fats were needed to obtain the best results.”60 Inspector W. Murison noted in 1925 that at Elkhorn, Manitoba, the school’s cows were producing enough milk for the school, but the students were not getting “the full benefit of this milk as I found that they were making about 30 lbs. of butter a week, and a great deal of the milk given the children is separated milk, which has not much food value.”61 Throughout the 1920s, most of the milk and eggs produced at the Cranbrook school were sold to help cover school costs.62
Separating the milk was not necessarily a problem if the milk fat was returned to the children as either cream or butter. But, in many cases, these products were either sold by cash-starved schools or served to staff. Students were well aware of this practice. In her memoir of attending the Qu’Appelle school in the early twentieth century, Louise Moine wrote,
Although the boys milked cows, we never ate butter or drank whole milk. It was common knowledge that the butter was being sold to the villagers. Why was it sold when the children went without? The priests and nuns ate butter. Even though the children complained among themselves, it didn’t change matters any.63
Former Mount Elgin student Lila Ireland recalled that in the 1930s, the milk “was so skimmed it was blue,” and the cream was sold to a local dairy.64 According to Emmert General, who attended the Mohawk Institute in the mid-1930s, “They sold the cream, and gave us the skim milk. Not very often we got whole milk—never, that I can remember.”65 Simon Baker recalled how at the school at Lytton, British Columbia, butter from the creamery was sold, along with the vegetables and fruit the school farm produced, to help the school cover its costs.66 When C. M. Turnell took over as principal of the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario, in 1915, one of the first things he did was to double the students’ butter ration, since he believed “children such as he has require more butter fat in their food.”67
Complaints about the quality of the bread were not uncommon. When children at the Spanish, Ontario, school complained in 1920 that the bread was sour, Duncan Campbell Scott asked for an analysis of some sample loafs. The chief government analyst of the Department of Trade and Commerce concluded that the nutritive value of the bread was “about average,” but the taste was “slightly sour.”68 Scott advised the Spanish principal that since “bread is one of the staple articles of diet” at the school, care should be taken to make sure “that only that of the best quality is furnished the children.” The record gives no indication that either the children or their parents were informed that their concerns had been largely justified. Also, Scott did not inquire deeply into why the bread at the Spanish school was substandard.69 Two years later, on the basis of a visiting nurse’s report, departmental secretary J. D. McLean instructed the Qu’Appelle school principal, “Kindly arrange for a little more variety in the diet offer, and insist upon a more careful preparation of the bread.”70 The implication was that the problems were not a result of federal underfunding and that the central responsibility for solving them lay with the principals.
Indian agent H. Graham noted in 1922 that at the Lytton school, it was “impossible to bake sufficient bread” in the school ovens.71 In 1925, when parents protested that the Anglican school on the Peigan Reserve was “feeding the children sour bread” and insufficient amounts of “milk and butter,” Commissioner W. M. Graham concluded that the parents “have good grounds for complaint.”72
Since the students and the staff lived together in the same quarters, students were also aware of what the school staff was being fed. Students often recalled that staff members were better fed than they were. Sarah Soonias attended the Battleford school from 1900 to 1914. She recalled that a common beverage at the school was “tea without sugar,” and porridge was served with skimmed milk, which the students did not like. She assumed that “the staff must have had all the cream.”73 Former File Hills, Saskatchewan, student Ivy Koochicum chafed at the inequality she saw: “They got the cream and we got skim milk.”74 Former Mount Elgin student Melva George recalled, “The staff—they got the best of everything and the butter, we just got dry bread. We had skim milk—they had to have the butter for the staff.”75
The dietary scales used when the industrial schools were established assumed that teachers would eat better than students. Table 19.4 sets out some elements of the scale that was used to calculate the per capita grant for the Regina school.76 It indicates that the staff beef ration was more than double the student ration, while the student flour ration was two-thirds of the teacher ration.
Table 19.4. Dietary scale used in the establishment of the Regina Industrial (partial).
| Item | Annual allowance per pupil | Annual allowance per staff member |
| Beef | 182 pounds | 400 pounds |
| Cheese | 5 pounds | 5 pounds |
| Currants | 2 pounds | 2 pounds |
| Beans | 12 pounds | 12 pounds |
| Flour | 360 pounds | 540 pounds |
| Raisins | 1 pound | 1 pound |
Source: Library and Archives, RG10, volume 3927, file 116836-1A. J. McKenna, J. Menzies, and J. MacKay to Superintendent General Indian Affairs, 11 March 1904. [RIS-000077]
The following table sets out the monthly dietary scale for industrial schools in Manitoba and the North-West Territories in 1894.
Table 19.5. Scale of rations for industrial schools in Manitoba and North-West Territories, 1894.
| Article | Per month | |
| Employees | Pupils | |
| Apples evaporated | 1 lb | 1 lb |
| Bacon | 4 7/12 lbs | 1 lb 4 oz |
| Beans | 1 lb | 1 lb |
| Beef | 33 1/3 lbs | 15 lb 2 2/3 oz |
| Cheese | 6 2/3 oz | 6 2/3 oz |
| Cornmeal | 13 1/3 oz | 13 1/3 oz |
| Currants | 2 2/3 oz | 2 2/3 oz |
| Fish | 2 3/4 lbs | 2 3/4 lbs |
| Flour | 45 lbs | 30 lbs |
| Lard | 3 1/3 oz | 3 1/3 oz |
| Oatmeal | 13 1/3 oz | 1 1/4 lbs |
| Oil Coal | 1 pint | 1 pint |
| Peas, split | 8 2/3 oz | 8 2/3 oz |
| Raisins | 1 1/3 oz | 1 1/3 oz |
| Rice | 1 lb | 1 lb |
| Soap | 1 1/2 lbs | 1 1/2 lbs |
| Suet | 1/2 lb | 1/2 lb |
| Sugar | white 3 5/6 lbs | yellow 1 lb 12 oz |
| Syrup | 1 pint | 1 pint |
| Tea | 1 lb 8 oz | 9 1/3 oz |
Source: Library and Archives Canada, RG10, volume 6455, file 885-1, part 1.
Again, beef, bacon, flour, sugar, and tea rations were all considerably higher for the staff than for the students. The only item on which the students’ ration surpassed the teachers’ was oatmeal, presumably because it made up such a large portion of their diet. The inclusion of coal oil and soap in a dietary listing is somewhat unusual. At many of the schools, coal oil was brushed into students’ hair to kill lice.77
The students were not the only ones with opinions about how some staff members were being fed. Martin Benson believed that the Presbyterian Church had failed in its proper financial control over the principal of its school in Regina, Saskatchewan. In 1904, he pointed out that Principal Sinclair had ordered the following items from a wholesale grocer: “syruped strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, peaches, plums, red cherries, pears, pineapples, apricots, raisins, figs, tomatoes, corn, macaroni, kippered herring, dates, honey and toothpicks, by the case monthly.” A Regina grocer supplied “gelatine, marmalade, sardines, lemons, oranges, shelled walnuts, icing sugar, lunch tongue, canned salmon, toilet cream, bananas, Fry’s chocolates, olives, candies, tobacco, jelly powder, canned peas (French?) [sic].” In addition to these food items, “two Stetson hats,” along with “razors, collars, ties, braces and other wearing apparel were purchased singly and the highest prices paid.” Benson declared himself astonished that the “Principal of an Indian school conducted on a fixed per-capita grant, with any conception of the fitness of things, can justify himself in the purchasing of such luxurious and superfluous articles as are charged in these accounts.”78
It is possible to make one comparison between the actual food consumption of students and staff. Tables 19.6 and 19.7 present the staff and student meal plans for the Gordon’s Reserve, Saskatchewan, school for May 1931. Reviewing the menus leads to three conclusions: 1) the staff menu is far superior to the student menu; 2) the student menu appears inadequate to the students’ needs; and 3) the student menu of 1931 appears to be even skimpier than the student menu for the same school of 1893 (see Table 19.2 above).
Table 19.6. Staff Meals for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School.
| Breakfast | Dinner | Supper | |
| Sunday | Orange, Cereal, Milk & Sugar, Bacon & Eggs, Bread & Butter, Tea or Coffee. | Cold Meat, Pickles or Salad, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Cheese, Bread & Butter, Tea. | Fish or Cold Meat, Potatoe [sic] Salad, Cheese, Fruit, Cake, Bread and Butter, Jam, Tea. |
| Monday | Cream of Wheat, Milk, Sugar, Scrambled Eggs, Bread & Butter, Marmalade, Tea or Coffee. | Roast Beef, Carrot or Turnip, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Boiled Eggs, Cheese, Bread & Butter, Fruit, Cake, Tea. |
| Tuesday | Rolled Oats, Milk & Sugar, Bacon, Potatoes, Marmalade, Bread and Butter, Tea. | Roast Pork, Turnip, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Cheese, Bread and Butter, Tea. | Cold Meat, Salad, Cheese, Fruit, Cake, Bread & Butter, Tea. |
| Wednesday | Cornflakes, Poached Eggs, Milk & Sugar, Marmalade, Bread and Butter, Tea or Coffee. | Stewed Beef, Vegetables, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Bread and Butter, Tea. | Macaroni & Cheese, Fried Potatoes, Marmalade, Cheese, Bread & Butter, Tea. |
| Thursday | Rolled Oats, Milk & Sugar, Bacon & Eggs, Marmalade, Break & Butter, Tea or Coffee. | Roast Beef, Carrot, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Cheese, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Boiled Eggs, Cheese, Fruit, Cake, Bread & Butter, Tea. |
| Friday | Cream of Wheat, Milk, Sugar, Poached Eggs, Marmalade, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Fish, Potatoes, Turnip, Pie or Pudding, Cheese, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Omelet, Fried Potatoes, Fruit, Cake, Jam, Bread, Butter, Tea. |
| Saturday | Rolled Oats, Milk, Sugar, Fried Bacon & Eggs, Marmalade, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Meat Stew, Vegetables, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Cheese, Bread, Butter, Tea. | Beef Steak & Onions, Fried Potatoes, Cheese, Fruit, Cake, Bread and Butter, Tea. |
Source: TRC, NRA, Library and Archives Canada, RG10, volume 9137, file 312-11, “Staff Meals for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School.” [GDC-011803]
Table 19.7. Children’s Daily Menu for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School.
| Breakfast | Dinner | Supper | |
| Sunday | Cornflakes, Sugar & Milk, Bread, Butter, Stewed Prunes, Tea, Cocoa. | Cold Beef or Pork, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Bread. | Bread, Butter, Fruit, Cake, Tea. |
| Monday | Boiled Eggs, Rolled Oats, Sugar & Milk, Bread, Butter, Tea, Cocoa. | Soup, Cold Roast Beef, Vegetables, Potatoes, Bread, Rice Pudding. | Beef Stew, Bread, Butter, Jam, Tea. |
| Tuesday | Cornmeal, Sugar & Milk, Bread, Butter, Jam, Tea, Cocoa. | Roast Beef, Carrots, Potatoes, Pie or Pudding, Bread. | Scrambled Eggs, Bread, Butter, Jam, Tea. |
| Wednesday | Boiled Eggs, Rolled Oats, Sugar & Milk, Bread, Butter, Tea, Cocoa. | Soup, Meat Pie, Turnips, Potatoes, Pie, Bread. | Bannock, Jam, Bread, Butter, Tea. |
| Thursday | Cornmeal, Sugar & Milk, Bread, Butter, Jam, Tea, Cocoa. | Boiled Beef, Carrots, Potatoes, Pudding, Bread. | Boiled Eggs, Bread, Butter, Cake, Tea. |
| Friday | Rolled Oats, Sugar & Milk, Fried Potatoes, Bread, Butter, Jam, Tea. | Soup, Fish, Beans, Potatoes, Milk Pudding, Bread. | Eggs, Bread, Butter, Bannock, Jam, Tea. |
| Saturday | Cornmeal, Sugar & Milk, Eggs, Bread, Butter, Tea or Cocoa. | Soup, Beef Stew, Vegetables, Potatoes, Pie, Bread. | Bread & Butter, Jam, Tea. |
Source: TRC, NRA, Library and Archives Canada, RG10, volume 9137, file 312-11, “Children’s Daily Menu for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School.” [GDC-011802]
For breakfast, the teachers had eggs six times a week and bacon four times a week, while the students had eggs three times a week and never had bacon. For dinner, in addition to the main meat dish, the teachers were served potatoes and an additional vegetable every day, cheese six times a week, and butter with every meal. The students had two dinners at which potatoes were the only vegetable. They were never served either butter or cheese at dinner. The teachers were served tea with every dinner; no mention is made of any beverage being provided to the students, which suggests they were not being served milk at dinner.
It is in the supper menu that one finds the starkest difference between student and staff. At supper, the staff was served a protein with every meal; the students had three suppers a week with no protein (other than the buttered bread). In addition to the main protein, the teachers were served cheese on six occasions; the students were never offered cheese at supper. The teachers were served potatoes at four suppers; the students were never served potatoes at supper. The teachers were served salad twice at supper; the students were never served salad. The teachers were served fruit at six suppers; the students were served fruit at one supper. The teachers were served cake at six suppers; the students, at two. Since the menus indicate that the students were served tea at supper, it would appear that they were not served milk with their supper, either.79 This assumption is probably valid, since two other menus from this period (Elkhorn 1934 and Brandon 1936) list water as the dinner beverage at both schools. For supper, the Brandon school served tea; the Elkhorn school served milk on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and water the rest of the week.80
Table 19.8 sets out the key differences between the dinners served to staff and to students at the Gordon’s Reserve school in 1931. Not only are the meals limited, but it also appears that in terms of the availability of milk, conditions at the Gordon’s Reserve school were worse in 1931 than they were in 1893. In 1893, milk was supposed to be served at between thirteen and fifteen meals; in 1931, it was available at fewer than half as many meals.81
Table 19.8. Key differences between the dinners served to the staff and students at the Gordon’s Reserve school in 1931.
| Teachers (Number of servings per week at supper) | Students (Number of servings per week at supper) | |
| A main protein | 7 | 4 |
| Side serving of cheese | 6 | 0 |
| Potatoes | 4 | 0 |
| Salad | 2 | 0 |
| Fruit | 6 | 1 |
| Cake | 6 | 2 |
Source: TRC, NRA, Library and Archives Canada, RG10, volume 9137, file 312-11, “Staff Meals for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School”; [GDC-011802] “Children’s Daily Menu for the Month of May, 1931, Gordon’s Indian Residential School.” [GDC-011803]
Many of the examples of food consumption cited are from the 1920s, a period of relative economic prosperity in Canada—and after the signing of the 1910 contract, which had significantly increased funding for boarding schools. So the problems that schools already seemed to have in properly feeding their students in such relatively good times would only intensify with the funding cuts that were instituted at the onset of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In 1931, Indian agent F. J. C. Ball informed Ottawa that the pupils at the Squamish school were being “insufficiently fed.” Ball said, “The only meal I have actually seen was one at mid-day which consisted of a piece of bread and a raw carrot. It may have been a fast day, and I have not since been successful in actually seeing a meal on the table.” Agent Ball noted that Chief William of Squamish had informed him that his son lost ten pounds (4.5 kilograms) in one month at the school, adding, “The chief is quite reliable.”82
Complaints about the quality of the food at the Anglican school in The Pas in 1931 were investigated by A. G. Hamilton. He reported that there were staff tensions at the school that affected the management of the institution, and concluded that “plenty of good food is provided, but lacks proper cooking and serving.”83
In the spring of 1936, Inspector G. H. Barry reported to Ottawa that he did not think the food at the Kuper Island school—which had suffered from a poor milk supply in the 1920s—was “satisfactory in either quantity or variety.”84 In 1937, a parent wrote to his daughter at the Kuper Island school, “I am really lonesome for you, my dear daughter in school far from here. O yes Mr Graham [the local Indian agent] told some one here that the childrens [sic] at Kuper Island school do not get enough food nowadays.” The school principal, J. Geurts, intercepted the letter and asked Graham to “clear this up—and to give the guilty one his desert.”85 Whether or not Graham had made the claim, the following year, Inspector Barry still felt that, despite some improvement, the students at Kuper Island “should have more to eat here. Breakfasts are too light and could be greatly improved by the addition of a little stewed fruit and more bread.” He added that, in light of a number of recent deaths due to tuberculosis, “the food should immediately be very greatly improved.”86
Indian agent N. P. L’Heureux reported in 1935 that at the Wabasca school in Alberta, all the school’s vegetables had frozen during the winter, and, as a result, “the children appear dull and sickly.”87 In his report, L’Heureux noted that the children “did not look very healthy.”88
Basil Johnston, who was enrolled in the Spanish, Ontario, school in 1939, had distinct memories of being served “mush, mush, mush, sometimes lumpy, sometimes watery, with monotonous regularity every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.”89
In this, he was not alone. Of his time at the Mohawk Institute in the 1870s, First Nations political organizer F. O. Loft wrote, “I recall the times when working in the fields I was actually too hungry to be able to walk, let alone work. When parents visited the child, invariably the first question was, ‘Did you bring anything to eat?’”90 Both Isabelle Knockwood at the Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, school, and George Manuel at the Kamloops, British Columbia, school had similar recollections of how they looked forward to the food that family members brought from home when they visited.91
Students at Mount Elgin and the Mohawk Institute in southern Ontario came to refer to their schools as the “Mush Hole” because of the porridge that was a breakfast staple.92 Doris King, who attended Mount Elgin in the 1930s, said, “I was always hungry—we didn’t seem to have enough food. For breakfast we would get a glass of milk, a slice of bread and porridge. That’s why they gave it the name ‘Mush Hole.’”93
Another former Mount Elgin student, Dorothy Day, recalled the food as being
terrible. In the mornings we would get oatmeal and it would be half-cooked, no sugar, skim milk to put on that—just like water—white water—after they took the cream off it they gave it to the children. You had a glass of milk to drink—that same stuff, but I never drank it. One slice of bread—no butter, nothing else on there.94
Of his time at the Mohawk Institute in the 1930s, Raymond Hill said, “The boys were always hungry—that’s for sure.”95 Mary Englund, who attended the Mission, British Columbia, school in the early twentieth century, had similar memories: “And we had a fork and a spoon. There was no, never much of knives because you didn’t get no butter and you didn’t get no meat to cut up, everything was grounded up. And green tea. We never got no milk except skim milk to put in your tea.”96
Edward Groat, a former Mohawk Institute student, was less critical. He recalled that during the 1930s, his family had little to eat at home. “I can remember my grandmother going out into the back shanty and grinding the corn, bringing it in and making cornmeal mush out of it, going down the cellar and getting a jar of fruit, putting fruit on the mush to make it palatable. We had no milk, we had no butter.” By comparison, the food at the Mohawk Institute “wasn’t the best, but you got three meals a day—kids you know, they’ve got hollow legs when it comes to eating—you can eat all day. We got enough to sustain us—probably not enough to satisfy us, but there was enough.”97
Food was also a currency at the schools. Students could trade it for favours or protection. Ron Deleary recalled that at Mount Elgin, “we did have a bun every Sunday, but when I first went there I never got my bun, because I had traded it away and always owed it to someone. We had whole milk once a year and we never got any meat.”98
When Mary John first went to the Stuart Lake, British Columbia, boarding school, she desperately missed the meals her mother used to prepare. There was no more “roast moose, the dried beaver meat, the fish fresh from a frying pan, the warm bread and bannock and berries.”99 Some principals sought to provide meals that were more familiar. At the Kitamaat school in British Columbia in 1913, “Native food, such as dry fish and grease, is used when procurable.”100 Far more common were the contests of will as supervisors attempted to force children to eat food that was unfamiliar and—all too often—poorly prepared. Harrison Burning recalled that at the Mohawk Institute in the 1920s, “the food—the whole supper or three meals anyway—you couldn’t eat it—don’t care how hungry you were.”101 Former Mount Elgin student Clyde Peters said he was told that if he did not eat his serving of boiled onions, he would be strapped. He was saved from either fate by his older sister, who knocked the onions to the floor and told the teacher, “He’s not gonna eat those onions.”102 Another Mount Elgin student, Melva George, recalled, “One time we were having cornmeal for breakfast, and my cornmeal wasn’t cooked.” She said the principal stood over her shoulder and insisted she finish it all.103
Not surprisingly, students often chose to fend for themselves. The Kuper Island school had a conduct book in which student misbehaviours and punishments were recorded. The entries for the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century list numerous examples of students being punished for taking food. For “pulling carrots,” three boys were required to kneel during the supper hour—a form of public humiliation. At least eight boys were punished with “confinement” for “stealing apples.” Another boy was given the same punishment for stealing fruit. On the second occasion that one boy stole apples, he and his two accomplices were punished with both “whipping & confinement.” Two boys were punished with “kneeling” for stealing apples. For stealing plums, at least five boys were put on bread-and-water diets (the conduct book does not state for how long). One boy was confined for two hours for stealing plums. Another boy was put in confinement for up to three hours for stealing plums on two occasions and for stealing fruit on another; he was also given a reprimand for stealing bread. Two other boys were also reprimanded for stealing bread. Another boy was put in confinement for stealing turnips, a food most students professed to hate.104
On one occasion, the students at the File Hills school came across barrels of apples that were meant for the staff. Over time, the students worked their way through the apples. When the deed was discovered, they were strapped and sent to bed without a meal.105 In fair weather, the boys at the school would trap gophers and roast them over open fires to supplement their diets.106
At some schools, the principals encouraged students to hunt. Gilbert Wuttunee recalled being allowed to hunt at the Battleford school:
There would be a bunch of us and we would go out together. One would have a gun and the others would have bows and arrows. Bows and arrows that we made ourselves, oh boy, we could handle them too. There were rabbits racing back and forth and we would pull back on the bow and let the arrow go. Sometimes we would provide supper with rabbits.107
Red Deer, Alberta, principal J. P. Price reported in 1905, “The bigger boys are sometimes allowed to hunt, in which they are quite expert, providing wild fowl for the whole school a number of times. There is also good fishing right at our doors, the river being full of fine fish including magnificent mountain trout.”108
When Doris King worked in the Mount Elgin kitchen, she and other girls would slip extra food into their long bloomers. One girl would “keep look out,” and alert the rest of the group to the presence of a staff member by saying “Jiggers on track.” Once, King stuffed what she thought were two hard-boiled eggs into her bloomers, only to discover when she sat down on them that they were raw.109 Lila Ireland said, “We’d steal food—that was part of being at Mount Elgin! We didn’t steal it out of the kitchen—they used to have the carrots piled for the winter in a big pile of earth and we’d dig them out.”110
Pauline Creeley, a former File Hills student, “used to steal bread for the boys; put them in the milk cans. I would watch them eating the bread as they made their way to the barns. I didn’t care if I got caught but I never got caught.”111
In 1935, a parent from Thicket Portage, Manitoba, complained to Ottawa that the students at the Brandon, Manitoba, school “don’t get enough to eat.” As a result, some of them were obliged to steal food from local stores, landing them in trouble with the law.112
Runaways often said they had been motivated to leave by the poor quality of the food they received at the schools. The inquiry into the death of Duncan Sticks, a boy who froze to death after running away from the Williams Lake, British Columbia, school, heard several complaints about rotten food and students being punished for refusing to eat food they found unpalatable.113 Ruth Miller and her sister ran away from the Mohawk Institute in 1913 because they did not like the food there. The punishment they received was so severe that their parents were able to launch a successful court action against the principal.114
Parents often took up their children’s complaints. In 1915, parents did not send their children back to the Norway House school because they were unhappy about the poor quality and quantity of the food and clothing at the school. According to Methodist church official T. Ferrier, the decision to operate the school for that year, which was located in northern Manitoba, was not made until just before the close of navigation. Once the rivers and lakes froze, it had been impossible to send in additional supplies. As a result, “the supply of food and clothing sent in ran out in some lines before navigation opened up.” The problem was compounded by the fact that the school lacked a proper facility for storing food.115 An Indian Affairs official also investigated the parents’ concerns, and, after overcoming his initial belief that such parental “complaints often lack proper and sufficient cause,” he concluded “there have been some grounds for the Indians to complain as they have done.” There was, he wrote, an “absence of a sufficient quantity of fatty foods and such food as would put the children in good physical condition.” The bread was “not readily digestible.” According to the local doctor, several students who had been hospitalized began to recover “when they received proper nourishing food in the hospital.” The principal agreed that the school had but a limited supply of vegetables, but he hoped the coming crop of potatoes would amount to 200 bushels. He intended to also grow turnips, carrots, beets, and cabbage. This was to be supplemented by imported food. Inspector George Bunn wrote that “this however is not very satisfactory. The school should certainly bend every effort to raise all the vegetables they require. After next spring there should not be any lack of this essential in the dietary of this institution, I intimated this to the Principal.” Bunn also recommended that the principal increase the proportion of beans in the school’s Boston Baked Beans, and not serve the children “sucker” fish, since they were “poor food.”116
Four parents with children at the Coqualeetza Institute in Chilliwack wrote to Indian Superintendent A. M. Tyson in 1915 with their concerns that “the food is not sufficient and that some children’s shoes are worn out.” The parents noted that because the school was so distant from their communities, they could not inspect it themselves.117 Tyson inspected the school three months later, determined the food to be plentiful and of good quality, the children in good health, and their clothing—with exceptions—“clean and substantial,” and concluded the parents had “no cause for complaint.”118
After the death of a student at the Elizabeth Long Home in Kitamaat in 1922, parents withdrew their children from the school, which was operated by the Methodist Church. According to a Mounted Police investigation, virtually every member of the community signed a petition demanding the dismissal of the entire school staff. The petition claimed that the children “had been compelled to eat rotten fish and oat meal with worms in it.” The principal, Ida Clarke, acknowledged “it was often impossible to obtain fresh meat or fish; but the children always have sufficient food to eat.” At a public meeting held on the issue, an Indian Affairs official said that the parents had no right to withdraw their children, having signed a contract “for them to remain there.” The First Nations people responded that “the contract with the school was to the effect that the children would be well cared for, provided with sufficient clothing, food etc.” At the end of the meeting, the parents agreed to return their children to the school on the condition that the principal “sign her name to a paper before us that she would see that the children got all the food they wanted, that they would be well cared for, and be supplied with sufficient clothing.” She signed the paper and the conflict was defused. In this instance, resistance came at a price: John Adams, who had protested, was convicted, in the words of the Indian agent, of “having used insulting language” to one of the school staff. His sentence was stiff: two months in jail or a fine of $20. He paid the fine.119
In 1923, the parents of Edward B., a student at the Anglican school at Onion Lake, Saskatchewan, received the following letter:
We are going to tell you how we are treated. I am always hungry. We only get two slice of bread and one plate porridge. Seven children ran away because there [sic] are hungry, two from Saddle and one from Frog Lake, and two from Snake Plain, 3 girls and 4 boys because are always hungry too. I sold all my clothes away because I am hungry too. Try and send me some money, $2.50, please to buy something to eat and send me pictures those I left in the wagon.120
The letter ended up in the hands of F. C. Mears, a parliamentary press gallery reporter, who forwarded it to Deputy Minister Duncan Campbell Scott. He brushed off the complaint and said the student had “no cause for complaint.” He also wrote, “Ninety-nine per cent of the Indian children at these schools are too fat.”121 Indian Affairs eventually identified the boy and informed his father that “your boy is being well fed and clothed.”122 In reality, there had been ongoing concerns about the quality of food at the school, and Scott knew that. Just two years earlier, school inspector Sibbald had reported negatively on the quality of the bread and the fact that the children had no milk to drink. A follow-up report by Indian agent L. Turner had concluded that, although the food was adequate, “there was nothing to drink upon the tables.” He recommended that the principal be instructed that “these conditions must be improved.”123 Scott himself had issued instructions that the food at the school be improved.124 It does not appear that a news story on the issue was ever published, despite the fact that the parents, or their acquaintances, had taken the issue to the press.
Instructions such as Scott’s to improve food were of little benefit to students. The root problem was Ottawa’s underfunding of the system, an underfunding that was at least initially based on a belief that children’s labour would be able to produce enough food to make the schools largely self-supporting. For some schools, economic self-sufficiency could be achieved only by cutting the students’ diet, and selling food or food products that might otherwise have gone to them. This was apparent to F. O. Loft when he was a student at the Mohawk Institute in the 1870s. He later wrote, “I can frankly say that another serious evil is the false economy that is practised in denying the children a satisfactory measure of diet, and that in the midst of plenty produced on the farm and garden by the labor of the boys.”125
By the turn of the century, the fallacy of this expectation had been exposed. Officials such as Martin Benson were well aware that the dietary problem could not be resolved without more money. In 1903, when supporting a request for an increase for the Qu’Appelle school per capita, he wrote that “there is almost too much economy exercised at this school as regards the clothing and diet of the pupils,—this having been rendered necessary by the increased cost of supplies, fuel and labor and the difficulty of recruiting pupils.”126
The principals also stressed the link between inadequate grants and poor diet. Kamloops principal A. M. Carion justified a 1909 request for an increase in the school pupilage by pointing out that “the cost of flour, meat and cord wood is a great deal higher than it was formerly.”127 The struggle to feed students properly even led to a rare moment of Catholic–Protestant unity. In 1920, John T. Ross, the principal of the Presbyterian school in northwestern Ontario, agreed with his counterpart at the local Catholic school, C. Brouillet, that the per capita grant was “not sufficient to meet our needs in buying food for the children.” It was, he said, “absurd to imagine that an Indian child can be fed on 40 cents per day, leaving clothing out of the question.” He suggested that the two of them work together to lobby the local business community for support for an increase in funding.128
In the early 1930s, the federal government cut the school per capita grant by 15%. In 1938, the Anglican Indian and Eskimo Residential School Commission pointed out that from 1935 to 1938, the cost of flour had gone up 43%; rolled oats, 8%; tea, 24%; and sugar, 6%.129 As funding declined and food costs went up, it was the students who paid the price—in more ways than one. By the end of the 1930s, it was discovered that the cook at the Presbyterian school at Kenora was actually selling bread to the students, at the rate of ten cents a loaf. When asked if the children got enough to eat at meals, she responded, “Yes, but they were always hungry.” The agent ordered an end to the practice.130 The fact that hungry students would be reduced to buying bread to supplement their meals in 1939 underscores the government’s failure to provide schools with the resources needed to feed students adequately throughout this period.