Parliamentary Hypocrisy That Proves Economic

Genocide in Canada: Revisited



© 2008 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor


It was argued in the first chapter the research had discovered the smoking gun of economic genocide against Canada’s aboriginals.  Proof emerged that there was a massive intentional dereliction of governmental duty on the federal and provincial level regardless of political stripe to help the country’s indigenous peoples out of poverty and prosper in one of the richest nations in the world. There was incontrovertible direct evidence of a trans-generationally systemic attempt to annihilate them because of absolute power’s “culture of entitlement” concomitant with the wealthy’s sociopathic greed that aggressively sought to eliminate ‘the competition’. 



The research project relied on a plethora of sources to unchallengeably prove the existence of a multitude of skeletons in the closet of backroom federal, provincial and municipal politics going back decades.  One of them involved the underlying rationale for Canada’s indigenous peoples remaining in Third World conditions despite an economy that doubled in the last quarter century, despite being the ninth most economically affluent nation in the world and despite the country-wide understanding opportunity and wealth were equitably distributed throughout the population. 


In early May 2008 a report emerged that substantiated this finding.  It is worth drawing attention to it as much t o provide more corroboration of proof as to high profile it again within the context of recent supplementals dealing with embezzled wealth repatriation and hoarding tens of trillions of dollars locked in the Alberta oil sands. 


The Frontier Centre for Public Policy recently published a report relevant to this analysis:



The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent, Winnipeg-based "think tank". Our mission is to develop and popularize policy choices that will help Canada's prairie region live up to its vast but unrealized economic potential.


The Centre was founded by a group of individuals interested in making the prairie region a good place to live, work and prosper.





What gave more credibility to the study was its findings being reproduced in the west coast’s publication ‘Business in Vancouver’.  Editor Timothy Renshaw writes in the May edition, at pg. 34:



Down on the reserve, anger, not enterprise, remains the coin of the realm. […] A recent Frontier Centre indigenous peoples study [stated] that […] “Canada has a carefully controlled Indian reserve system [which] systematically acts to limit growth and capital accumulation”.  That has to change if aboriginal prospects for economic independence and control over their destiny are to improve.



To rephrase this in treatise terminology: de facto control of government by Canada’s super-wealthy and the Chinese military has led to aboriginals being aggressively kept out of the mainstream economy to subsist in Third World conditions because they want a less competitive marketplace. 


Another ‘Business in Vancouver’ article in the May edition draws attention to what is revelatory of the country’s paradigm of governance    a double standard operating in Canada’s administration of justice.  Being kept in these unimaginable conditions generation after generation, feeling that politicians don’t care, the courts and police maintain a status quo that locks them in poverty and the wealthy are robbing them of their entitlements to what the land provides both as sacred homelands and its revenue-generating resources, indigenous peoples have turned to Gandhi-style civil disobedience to advance their undeniably legitimate agenda for social justice.  



Canada’s Auditor General summed up how dire the circumstances are for our fellow citizens as follows in her May 7, 2008 released report: “Many First Nations face difficult socio-economic conditions; [s]ome communities are in crisis; housing has not kept pace with growth in population and community infrastructure has deteriorated at a faster rate”. 


The research treatise reveals an institutionalized double standard in the country’s courts.  Two of the primary tenets of the principle of the rule of law are ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’.  Neither is present in Canada’s administration of justice. Judges routinely advance the unconstitutional, unethical and international law violating policies, agendas, interests and activities of the rich and Chinese on their quest to perpetuate economy monopolization and wealth plundering – which is fueled by genocidal intentions.  Yet, when aboriginals protest in violation of injunctions, they are incarcerated to squash legitimate dissent. 


In the B.C. Court of Appeal’s April 2008 decision of R. v. Manuel (2008 BCCA 143), Levine J.A., speaking for Donald and Kirkpatrick JJ.A., stated with respect to a three-hour road block by aboriginals:



Such “self-help” remedies are not condoned anywhere in Canadian law, which includes aboriginal, common, and criminal law, and they undermine the rule of law. 




The defendants were convicted.  The case involved the following set of facts:



Nicole Manuel and Beverly Manuel participated in a roadblock on Sun Peaks Road near Kamloops, in August 2001. They were convicted in Provincial Court on September 16, 2002, of unlawfully obstructing a highway and mischief. The convictions were upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia on November 12, 2004.


They took the position that they honestly believed that, in accordance with aboriginal law, they had a legal right to block Sun Peaks Road. Nicole Manuel testified that her understanding of the laws of her people, which she described as "natural laws" and the "laws of the Creator", imposed a duty on her and her people to take care of and preserve the land.


The trial judge accepted the sincerity of Nicole Manuel's beliefs about the ownership of the land in question, but concluded that "she was acting pursuant to a belief in a moral right under the law of the Creator". He took into account, in assessing the reasonableness of Nicole Manuel's belief, an 1862 agreement between Chief Neskonlith and British Governor James Douglas (the Neskonlith Reserve Agreement), and the rejection by the federal and provincial governments, on a "without prejudice" basis, of a claim made by the Secwepemc people in 1996 for recognition and re-establishment of the boundaries and territory set aside for the exclusive use of Indians under the Neskonlith Reserve Agreement.


Source: News and Comment by Tehaliwaskenhas  Bob Kennedy, Oneida, Turtle Island Native Network,



The following commentary was provided by the local news media:



Appeal court upholds conviction for obnoxious blockade

by Ian Mulgrew

Vancouver Sun

April 7, 2008




The women testified the blockade was in response to the sprawling Sun Peaks development that threatened traditional hunting, plant-gathering and sacred sites. Nicole said she believed her people have occupied the land "from time immemorial" and that former B.C. governor James Douglas established a reserve for them in the fall of 1862 that included the area where they disrupted traffic. She insisted the land was later taken away from them and the reserve illegally reduced in size.


"This is our land," Nicole said. "This is Indian land and we have this right to exclude people from coming onto our land."


She acknowledged she knew that the first nation's claim had been rejected by the federal government, but responded: "[It] doesn't really mean anything that it was rejected. It's just another agreement that was broken in a long list of agreements."


Neskonlith band chief Arthur Manuel also testified that he thought his wife and daughter were acting within the first nation's rights.



Justice Levine’s finding of fact relating to the band chief’s evidence is cast in the following terms by the Vancouver Sun: “lame … self-righteous excuses”.


Whose side are parliamentarians and provincial legislative members on? – the super-rich who have been secretly formulating government policy and elevating their own to all accountability offices for decades to perpetuate parochial interests – or indigenous peoples, who remain victim to a sociopathic rule of law that defiantly refuses to reform?


One of the defendants summed up her experience as follows:



I'm disgusted. The sentence sends a clear message if you stand up for your rights, you will be imprisoned. It's all part of a corrupt system that wants to keep us suppressed.



The Vancouver Sun, representing the ‘establishment’, replied:



What utter bunk. … [T]oo many young natives are like her and embrace that view, though this kind of belligerent, wilfully blind attitude does first nations more harm than good.



Not only in the west but also in the east courts are recently observed to be protecting entrenched interests at the expense of justice, human rights, ethnic pluralism and inclusion- and fairness-driven free market capitalism:



Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

February 7, 2008


Smith J.


This case highlights the clash of two very different perspectives and cultures in a struggle over one of Canada’s last remaining frontiers. On the one hand, there is the desire for the economic development of the rich resources located on a vast tract of pristine land in a remote portion of Northwestern Ontario. Resisting this development is an Aboriginal community fighting to safeguard and preserve its traditional land, culture, way of life and core beliefs.



On December 14, 2007 I made an order finding the Respondents, Donny Morris, Jack McKay, Bruce Sakakeep, Darryl Sainnawap, Cecilia Begg, Samuel McKay, Enus McKay and Evelyn Quequish to be in contempt of the order of this court dated October 25, 2007 by impeding or threatening to impede Platinex and or its representatives’ access to exploration property for the purposes of undertaking archeological pre-screening and the subsequent drilling of the 24 drill holes of Phase One of its drilling programme.




In United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901 at p. 931.] Justice McLachlin also stated:


“The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there can be neither peace, nor order nor good government. The rule of law is directly dependent upon the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect. To maintain that process and respect, courts since the twelfth century have exercised the power to punish for contempt of court.”


In Apotex Fermentation Inc. v, Novopharm Ltd. [1977] M.J. No. 466] Oliphant A.C.J.Q.B., commented:


“Respect for the rule of law is essential if we are to have the benefit of living in an orderly, peaceful society. That is why it is so important that the terms imposed by an order of the court be obeyed. If citizens cannot be confident that they can rely upon the protection afforded by an order of the court, the court becomes irrelevant as the vehicle by which disputes between citizens, corporate or otherwise, are resolved in a peaceful manner.”




The rule of law in its most basic form is the principle that no one is above the law. It is an ancient principle that has been recognized for centuries as a fundamental concept required for an orderly and peaceful society.


Plato contrasted the rule of men to the rule of law in his treatise Statesman and Laws. Aristotle referred to the principle is his writings where he described the importance of the rule of law in providing balance against autocratic rulers and magistrates. In England, the Magna Carta is a prime example of the rule of law.


The rule of law is the glue that binds our society together; it is the social contract by which we agree to live and work together.


Our legal system is an integral part of the rule of law. An effective legal system depends upon a number of common understandings or social contracts that are not part of the law itself. One such understanding has been described as the culture of civil obedience. If civil disobedience is allowed to occur the confidence that the public has in the administration of justice will erode and ultimately undermine the social contract and culture of obedience by which our society operates.




The importance of the rule of law to an orderly society “…presupposes that laws will usually be obeyed, that breaches of the law will usually meet with enforcement, that government will be limited in its powers, and that the courts and the legal profession will be independent of government and of powerful private interests. In countries with these characteristics, individual liberty is protected and economic development can take place". [Peter Hogg and Cara Zwibel, “The Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of Canada” (2005) 55 University of Toronto L.J. 715] Without the acceptance of the rule of law by all of the citizens of this country there can be neither peace, order, nor good governance.




It is this public and open defiance of the rule of law and order of this court that is the most disturbing aspect of this case and which comes perilously close to criminal contempt.


I find that incarceration is the only appropriate sanction. All contemnors lack the ability to pay a fine.


Because the conduct of all contemnors is flagrant and defiant and will be repeated. This is not a case where a short term of imprisonment is warranted.No option, other than a significant term of incarceration would properly reflect the principles of denunciation and general and specific deterrence.


While I understand the principles and beliefs that the Respondents hold, the sanctity of the system of justice and of the rule of law are paramount and must be protected at all costs. Simply put, there is a clear line in the sand that no segment of society can be allowed to cross.






Chief Donny Morris, Jack McKay, Bruce Sakakeep, Darryl Sainnawap, Cecilia Begg, Samuel McKay, Enus McKay and Evelyn Quequish you are hereby each sentenced to 6 months in jail.



The passage that clearly goes to the heart of treatise findings involving government protected economy monopolization and wealth plundering and China-loyal courts – is:



The importance of the rule of law to an orderly society “…presupposes […] government will be limited in its powers, and that the courts and the legal profession will be independent of government and of powerful private interests.


[italics added]




Smith J., like Levine J.A. et al. and the Vancouver Sun, is contributing to what the treatise labels democracy façade generation – in this case creating the misleading image judges, government and the wealthy are totally in the right and indigenous peoples are the opposite, when it is now proven beyond all doubt the reverse is true. 


One critical piece of the historical jigsaw puzzle that led to the genocidal picture is this excerpt – unavoidably demonstrating how much in a century absolutely nothing substantive has been done to resolve this unfathomable and inexcusable circumstance:


British Columbia Hansard

February 10, 1970

Mr. Frank Calder (Atlin, CCF-NDP): The Indian voice and full participation in Canadian public affairs are long overdue.  […]  Mr. Speaker, what do these excerpts [from the 1969 White Paper] and others in this statement represent? Exactly what do these statements represent? To me they represent a knowledge of the existence of the Indian problem. After 103 years they have finally admitted they represent a knowledge of existence of the Indian problem. They represent a proof that for over 103 years there have been no real efforts to solve the problem. They represent a glowing admission of failure. They represent a lack of rehabilitative policy. They represent a lack of consultations with the Indian people when consultations were opportune and necessary.



Another critical piece is what was said fourteen years later in Canada’s largest province:



Ontario Hansard


May 7, 1984


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa, NDP): On matters such as native rights, many of us feel very strongly that our native people have not been dealt with in a fair and honourable way for a long time.



And the third thirteen years after that:



Parliamentary Hansard


March 20, 2007


Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):  In a news article in the Toronto Star on November 18, 2006, entitled “Where tragedy falls off Canada's map”, it is stated:


I've come to believe we have driven the original inhabitants of this country into a place where their survival is at risk.





[O]ne million Canadians […] have the highest incidence of infant mortality, the lowest life expectancy, that they should have the highest incidence of AIDS, tuberculosis and diabetes.




Mr. Speaker, first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders want to close the prosperity gap. Instead they get insults. They get nothing in this Conservative budget. I want to read a quote:


I have seen the face of aboriginal poverty. I have seen the face of aboriginal despair, the despondency of fetal alcohol syndrome and of teenage suicide. I am unashamed to say, as a citizen of Canada, that I have wept in the face of the poverty I have seen on first nations.


It is the current Minister of Indian Affairs who said that. Did he weep around the cabinet table when the Prime Minister said ‘no’ to aboriginal funding?






Make a Free Website with Yola.