“Ho, ho, ho, it’s Santa Canada
I’m here to gollop up Indian kids
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
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
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