CANADA’S CHRISTMAS GIFT TO FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN

“Ho, ho, ho, it’s Santa Canada
I’m here to gollop up Indian kids
Best-interests-of-the-child-genocide,
Ha ha ha, little ones born on the wrong side”

CANADA’S DUTY TO FIRST NATIONS DOES NOT INCLUDE PROTECTION OF THEIR IDENTITY

Attorney General and Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybold, through her counsel, appears to assert that  when Canada entered into treaties with its First Nations peoples, those treaties had – and continue to have- nothing to do with the protection of indigenous cultures, religion, traditions, customs or language. As her lawyers argued in Court on December 2, 2016 – Courtroom #4 at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Canada has no common law duty to protect its First Nations peoples’ unique cultural identity.

At least, Brown v Canada clarifies what we have suspected from the beginning of our nation to nation relationship. Go figure: a First Nations Minister of Justice and Attorney General is the bearer of the news.

If you have any doubt about our reporting what was said on December 2, 2016 by our Attorney General Wilson-Raybold, through her counsel, consider reading the excerpt, set out below, taken from the transcript of the November 17, 2016 cross-examination in Brown v Canada, the case about the alleged 16,000 survivors of an attempted cultural genocide. The person asking the questions is Owen Young, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, the Defendant in the case. The person being questioned is Dr. Janet Armstrong, who prepared a report that the representative Plaintiff, Marcia Brown, filed as expert evidence.

Here is the excerpt (Also found at page 56 questions 187-189):


Q.    But I would suggest to

you that from the Crown’s perspective or the

Commissioners’s perspective at the time, the

ability to continue to support themselves, to have

the signatories support themselves through

hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering was

really largely an economic consideration?  That

is, they didn’t want to have the signatories

dependent on the public purse for support, they

wanted to ensure that they could continue to

support themselves from the land through their

traditional means?

A.    I believe there is more

to it.  I believe the Treaty Commissioners

understood the significance of that assurance to

the Aboriginal people.  They knew that that was

critical for the Aboriginal people.

Q.    Yes.  But in terms —

A.    It wasn’t just economic

consideration.

Q.    But in terms of their own

purposes, we are talking a different perspective

here.  Their own purposes were largely economic,

isn’t that fair?  That’s, in fact, the treaty is

an economic treaty from the Crown’s perspective?

A.    I’d have to really think

about that.  I can’t say yes or no at the moment.

I think there is a lot more to it.  It’s not an

economic agreement.  It’s an agreement of

reliance, of peace and friendship, it’s part of a

long tradition of treaty making stemming from –

If you would like a copy of the entire transcript, click here.

If you agree with us, click here to join the petition to the Honourable Prime Minister to do right by the survivors of Canada’s attempted cultural genocide in the Sixties Scoop.

More than a tattoo, Honourable Prime Minister. How about coming clean with your agenda?

– Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

The white privilege that Brown v Canada reveals

The CBC link below is about one of the lawyers representing Canada in the case. We are more inclined to see all of the lawyers and the judges as part of white privilege working to create the illusion of justice for all when the survivors of the Sixties Scoop are reminded time and time again that there is no fairness. Do you not remember when we were before the Ontario Divisional Court, as part of the appeals, and the Associate Chief Justice Cunningham asked our lawyer this question after the argument was completed:

What is the big deal about this case? You’re not complaining about sexual or physical abuse, so what is this about, really!

We wrote it down, what the Associate Chief Justice said. We wonder how Associate Chief Justice Cunningham would feel, if as a child, he was severed from his immediate family, his extended family, his community, his language, his religion, his customs, traditions and heritage, and his community was torn apart as some plan of assimilation, if not annihilation.

We are looking forward to the Court decision after 7 years of litigating with Owen Young and his colleagues, but we are not fooled by the tattoo adorned by the Prime Minister. No, we’re not anybody’s fools.

Read the full CBC article here: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/thunder-bay/owen-young-sixties-scoop-1.3882638

– Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

Senator Murray Sinclair Speaks Out – Update on Sixties Scoop Journey – W A I T I N G

murray-sinclair

After 7 years of litigating with two different governments of Canada, each saying it has no responsibility for what happened to the survivors of the Sixties Scoop, a decision from a Court is now in the making.

The Honourable Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard final argument in Courtroom #4 at Osgoode Hall in Toronto on December 1st and December 2nd, 2016.

At the conclusion, the Honourable Judge stated that he hoped to have his decision by mid-late January, 2017.

It looks like the judge can find Canada responsible for the liability that the representative Plaintiff Marcia Brown argues has to do with Canada’s historic failure to consult with Ontario’s 111 Bands at the time of the 1965 Canada-Ontario Agreement. Or, the judge can order a “mini-hearing” on some particular aspect where the Judge is looking for further evidence, or the Plaintiff’s motion can be dismissed, in which case the matter will proceed to trial. (Canada is asking again of the Court to dismiss the entire action, not just the motion for a summary judgment on liability).

We have asked some legal authorities as to how long it will take for this issue of liability to be finally determined if there are appeals from the judge’s decision, and if those appeals end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. The legal authorities we asked tell us the additional time may be anywhere from 2-5 years of further court proceedings.

If it turns out to be 5 years, that will mean 15 years that Marcia Brown and her lawyer, Jeffery Wilson have been at this case, and that includes 12 years in litigation.

If you haven’t signed the petition to the Honourable Prime Minister, please consider doing so now by clicking here.

WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. We will post the news of the decision and its contents as soon as we hear.

Meegwetch

Steering Committee, Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim