and for the losses of culture and identity to the children and
their families and communities”.9
 All of this, however, is background and is not determinative
of the legal issue that is before the court. The court is not being
asked to point fingers or lay blame. The court is not being asked
to decide whether the Sixties Scoop was the result of a well-intentioned governmental initiative implemented in good faith
and informed by the norms and values of the day, or was, as
some maintain, state-sanctioned “culture/identity genocide“10
that was driven by racial prejudice to “take the savage out of the
Indian children”.11 This is a debate that is best left to historians
and, perhaps, to truth and reconciliation commissions.
 The issue before this court is narrower and more focused.
The question is whether Canada can be found liable in law for
the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity after they were
placed in non-aboriginal foster and adoptive homes.
 The certified common issue that is before the court for
adjudication is this:
When the Federal Crown entered into the Canada-Ontario Welfare
Services Agreement in December 1, 1965 and at any time thereafter up to
December 31, 1984:
(1) Did the Federal Crown have a fiduciary or common law duty of
care to take reasonable steps to prevent on-reserve Indian chil-
dren in Ontario who were placed in the care of non-aboriginal fos-
ter or adoptive parents from losing their aboriginal identity?
(2) If so, did the Federal Crown breach such fiduciary or common law
duty of care?12
 Three observations should be made. First, the Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement entered into on December
1, 1965 (the “1965 agreement” or the “agreement”) is obviously at
the core of the common issue. Second, the focus of the common
9 Manitoba, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard),
40th Parl., 4th Sess., No. 49(b) (June 18, 2015), at p. 1993, Hon. Greg
10 Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 5637, supra, at para. 11.
Also see Chambers, supra, note 4, at 122 and 123.
11 Supra, note 5.
12 The term “Indian” will be used throughout this judgment in its legal sense
only. The court is aware of the derogatory meaning of this term outside of