Experts in repatriation are advocating for Indigenous communities to have a voice regarding the fate of cultural objects associated with a debt-laden investment company in Atlantic Canada. This company, CFFI Ventures, controlled by seafood mogul John Risley, is facing creditor pressure following its decline under approximately US$1 billion in debt. Among nearly 670 items in the company’s collection, about 30 are identified as Indigenous cultural objects, prompting discussion about their rightful ownership and care.
The cultural items in question comprise baskets, bone carvings, textiles, and moccasins, with origins linked to Indigenous groups such as the Inuit, Mi’kmaq, and Cree. Many items lack concrete attribution, described only as “Indigenous,” alongside other pieces labeled “unidentified artist, Inuit.” As discussions unfold in a Nova Scotia court that recently approved the sale of CFFI’s assets to a New York-based private equity firm, the fate of these cultural artifacts grows increasingly urgent.
Cody Groat, an assistant professor at Western University and a Kanyen’kehaka citizen of Six Nations of the Grand River, expressed that the pertinent issue goes beyond the objects themselves. He emphasized the need for Indigenous nations to engage in the repatriation process, arguing for the ethical return of items to their rightful communities. Groat articulated that “the most ethical situation” is for these cultural items to be directly returned to their originating nations.
In response to the complexities surrounding the repatriation, Risley acknowledged the principle of returning items but claimed that his collection does not encompass culturally significant pieces, suggesting they were acquired from reputable dealers aware of the cultural importance of Indigenous artifacts. However, Canadian Museum Association’s Indigenous Council countered that the identification of culturally significant objects must involve Indigenous peoples, as external dealers and collectors may lack the necessary insights.
The Council highlighted that without transparent records showing consultation with the cultural object’s community of origin, the likelihood of misunderstanding the significance of these items remains high. Risley, known for co-founding Clearwater Seafoods in 1976, stated the collection did not include questionable items, a claim challenged by Indigenous leaders who seek greater involvement in clarifying the objects' cultural significance.
Recent court proceedings revealed details of 669 disputed items, with Risley asserting ownership separate from CFFI. The collection includes over 1,200 artworks, valued at approximately $8.1 million, featuring notable artists like Nova Scotia’s Maude Lewis and members of the Group of Seven. A lawyer from New Tide Capital, the firm acquiring the assets, indicated plans to negotiate privately with Risley regarding these disputed works.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, representing Inuit interests in Canada, asserted that items of Inuit cultural importance require thorough examination by Inuit themselves, offering assistance in returning culturally significant pieces to their rightful communities. Groat noted the historical context of acquisition of Indigenous items, often through means reflecting colonial practices that fail to honor Indigenous voices, further complicating the repatriation landscape.
Lauren Wheeler, executive director of the Canadian Museum Association, reiterated the challenges in understanding the scope of Indigenous cultural objects circulating in private collections. Public museums across Canada hold over six million Indigenous belongings, and the association created guidelines to aid institutions in returning culturally significant items to their respective communities. The document emphasizes a commitment to engaging Indigenous voices in identifying origins and facilitating the return of belongings.
This situation underscores a broader narrative around the need for ethical considerations and collaborative processes when dealing with Indigenous cultural heritage, particularly in contexts involving bankruptcy and ownership disputes. The shifting landscape of cultural ownership signals a critical moment for reassessing the historical and contemporary treatment of Indigenous artifacts in Canada.
