I have made my position on the proposed pieces of legislation very clear on a number of other occasions. Some of the reasons for my strong opposition to the suite of legislation are set out in the document, which I have submitted to the Committee this morning.

What I intend to discuss this morning are the fundamental issues that the Committee and the Government as a whole should be considering.

The supposed objectives of the legislation you are reviewing are to facilitate the move towards self-government for First Nations and to provide the foundation for economic prosperity for the First Nations.

The legislation will achieve neither objective. Indeed, I suggest that the legislation is simply the latest manifestation of the government’s real goal of paternalistic assimilation.

Richard Bartlett, writing in the Buffalo Law Review 25 years ago, stated: “The ultimate goal of assimilation received explicit declaration in the Civilization of Indian Tribes Act of 1857.”

The 1969 White Paper, produced under the auspices of Jean Chretien, was very clear on the government’s objectives, and the present suite of legislation, although it does not use the same language as the White Paper, has the same goals. And there is a very good reason for this, as we shall see.

The White Paper presented to Parliament over 30 years ago declared that total assimilation must occur within a short period of time. All legislation specially pertaining to Indians was to be repealed, thereby denying special rights to Indians. All services were to be provided by the provinces. The White Paper rejected treaties and land claims as insignificant in the debate on the future of the Indians. The 1969 Policy did not contain any major positive suggestions regarding the well-being of the Indians. Its essence was the severing of all ties between the Indians and the Federal Government.

Today, Ottawa is attempting to lay the blame for the poor economic conditions of First Nations on the lack of good governance practices – the absence of real democracy and accountability. Yet, Ottawa does not seem to express similar concerns about many of its “colleague” in the UN. Democracy and accountability are not high on Ottawa’s agenda in dealing with these colleagues.

I suggest two reasons for this:

One, Ottawa cannot control other countries, but it believes it has the right to control all the affairs of the First Nations. The Indian Act has been the principal means for exerting control and supposedly for legitimizing the right to control. The proposed legislation would only continue the unilateral and unjustified control.

Two, Ottawa wants the First Nations to be accountable for spending Canada’s money. But why should First Nations be subject to higher standards of accountability than the government itself?

However, the belief that it is Canada’s money is wrong! And herein lies a fundamental problem that you should be examining, and, most likely, the major reason why the “Indian” bureaucracy, and I include Department of Justice lawyers, want the assimilation of “Indians”.

If one reads the English texts of the many historic treaties, within the context of the importance of land to the cultures, economies and societies of the First Nations, and one also learns a little of the history of these peoples, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is that English texts do not at all represent the oral agreements and the verbal promises and commitments made by the Crown.

Professor Slattery stated in one of his Canadian Bar Review articles:

“At times, the English parties recorded some of the treaty terms in a concise written document that the Indian parties would be asked to “sign”. Such a document has sometimes come to be regarded as the “treaty”. However, this conclusion is usually unwarranted. In most cases, the treaty was the oral agreement, and the written document just a memorial of that agreement, similar in status to the belts used by some Indian parties. Many such documents have proven to be unreliable guides to the oral compacts. They often record only matters of particular interest to the English parties and omit certain terms of significance to the Indian parties. Even the recorded terms may not represent an accurate or balanced account of the true oral bargain. The written documents were often translated to the Indian parties in a manner allowing ample opportunity for misunderstanding and distortion.”

In effect, the First Nations, in most cases, did not sell their land:

• they did not extinguish their title,
• they did not give up their sovereignty,
• they did not subjugate themselves to the power and control of the Crown.

The Crown, Canada, cheated the First Nations of their title, their rights, their resources, their wealth, their powers and their sovereignty. And the proposed suite of legislation does not even begin to scratch the surface in addressing the continuing injustice.

The First Nations were extremely generous in being willing to share the lands and resources with the white settlers and to live in peace and friendship, but under their separate governments.

Instead, Canada has committed one of the largest land frauds in history and has stolen the wealth of the First Nations. And Canada unilaterally subjugated free and sovereign First Nations to its control.

However, S. 91(24) and its Indian Act have no legal standing in international law.

What right did Canada have to assert and legislate control over independent and sovereign nations? Where is the logic in this?

Again, to quote Professor Slattery (1992 Canadian Bar Review):

“if First nations were once independent, how did they come to lose this status? To invoke European “discoveries” is to employ ethnocentric criteria that cannot meet neutral standards of justification. Further, to rely simply on conquest or cession ignores the arguments of some Aboriginal groups that they never were conquered by the Crown or voluntarily accepted its authority.”

Professor Borrows has been even blunter (1999 Osgoode Hall Law Journal):


“How can land possessed by Aboriginal peoples for centuries be undermined by another nation’s assertion of sovereignty? It does not make sense that one could secure a legal entitlement to land over another merely through raw assertion. As Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court once observed, it is an “extravagant and absurd idea.” It is even less of a “morally and politically defensible” position when this assertion has not been a neutral and noble statement, but has benefited the Crown to the detriment of the land’s original inhabitants. The contemporary reliance on assertions of sovereignty seems to “perpetuate the historical injustice suffered by aboriginal peoples at the hands of the colonizers who failed to respect the distinctive cultures of pre-existing societies.”

I have done some calculations on what the First Nations have lost from being deprived of their fair share of resource revenues. Depending on the assumptions and time frame, the aggregate loss easily exceeds $250 billion.

To this we can add at least $20 billion for damages arising from the residential schools, another $10-$15 billion for underpayment of annuities under the treaties (by the way, the annual shortfall in the payment of these annuities exceeds the total amount generated from property taxes imposed by the First Nations during the past 13 years) – and quickly we begin to understand the real concerns of the “Indian” bureaucracy.

Assimilate or extinguish by stealth – one way or the other, the potential liability must be destroyed.

So, is it Canada’s money?

Of course not. In fact, the First Nations are receiving collectively a fraction of what is truly owing to them. $15-$25 billion annually would be closer to the mark.

So why should they be held accountable to Ottawa, when Ottawa has not been forthright and accountable to them?

Therefore, the questions before you should be:

• What does Canada stand for?
• What is the legacy you want to create?

Do we finally come clean as a people and admit that we have committed a great injustice?

• That we have not lived up to our promises.
• That we have not honored our commitments.
• That we have allowed racism and greed to govern our dealings with the First Nations.
• That we are not willing to accept responsibility for the harm we have caused.
• That we are not accountable!

Do we make the financial and political sacrifices necessary to partially compensate the First Nations?

Of course, you may ask, can we afford the sacrifices? The real question should be: can we afford not to make them?

Or do we continue the myths, the lies, the injustice and then try to pride ourselves as a role model for other countries and for future generations of Canadians?

If we choose the latter, then we are no better than our ancestors, and we are worse than the corrupt and greedy corporate leaders who plundered companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and many others.

So, I ask you: What is your view of Canada and Canadians?