This article is more comprehensive and powerful than any I have read before in condemning Canada’s apartheid of special rights for the indigenous and an orgy of government spending to add gloss to Trudeau’s self-glorifying mantle of carrying the outdated White Man’s Burden, solely in his case for votes and saviour status. The white-flag tendency of giving one ethnic group in the country endless money and mafia force in shaking down every taxpayer for money at every turn is our government’s most heinous action as it will eventually foment civil war.
Excellent article. Unfortunately, by a necessity for brevity, this is just part of the "shakedown" that's occurring at the taxpayers' expense. It's a little teensy bit. Money directed towards Canada's indigenous people is a glorious waterfall of the size of Niagara Falls. It's money for EVERYTHING. If you want to set yourself up as a fishing guide in Port Renfrew, 400 grand for your boats, sure. No need to pay that back. If you want to buy a golf course (or two) and make them into farms (in the middle of urban areas and not on reserve) with a cost somewhere around 14 million, have at it. No oversight as to the success of that venture will be forthcoming. The "economic development funds" that pay for these things are nothing more than taxpayer dollars called by another name. We can only hope that Miller is soon booted out of power (along with Trudeau) and that a new government has more fiscal sense, but that might be a vain hope.
I suspect nothing. Unfortunately. This is such a political hot potato I think PP has steered clear of it. considering that he seems unafraid to tackle other political hot potatoes, this one must just be napalm if he won't address it.
I can see how the soon to be voted on in Australia, 'The Voice', which may give unelected aboriginals greater legal jurisdiction and unlimited power be modelled on 'The Directive, entirely without legal justification, states that “Indigenous peoples” are “partners” in Confederation with the federal government- that Canada’s approximately 635 relatively tiny, totally dependent Indian bands, and other unnamed, nebulous- also completely dependent– Aboriginal groups, associations and interests, are, legally, “distinct orders of government”- distinct “nations” or “governments”- and are thus virtual constitutional co-equals with the federal government, the territories and the provinces.'
The aboriginal grievance gravy train in Australia must be looking for precedents for their own self-interest and the Directive, would be that.
The Australian PM still cant give details of how this Voice will function, nor it's legal perimeters BEFORE voting on it.
What is quite shameful is the failure of our national broadcaster to apply a critical lens to any of these settlements. For example the “Sixties Scoop” – when discussed on the CBC, the litigants narrative is presented as indisputable, that is the agencies involved were motivated solely by the intent to erase “native culture”, not any concern over child welfare…
A very informative article that frankly makes my blood boil. It is a cautionary tale about what can happen when irresponsible and reckless people are placed in positions of power and allowed to pursue their unbalanced and injudicious childish ideologies.
This would be a wonderful letter, had it been sent to the Canadian Judicial Council with "respect" to Justice Favel and to Osgood Hall (or whatever they call The Law Society of Ontario), with contempt for all the Bad Boy and Bad Girl lawyers involved at various Courts and at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal --- as complaints against the real grifters --- of which everyone is a lawyer paid by us Canadians.
However, Mr. Best is a lawyer. And since most lawyers represent the cases of mental and moral degenerates at Court, they are entirely loathe to "rat out" their fellow legal buddies to their own disciplinary bodies. And that's the problem. All lawyers do "Omerta", with respect to their buddy lawyers, better than the Sicilian Mafia. But Mr. Best was kind enough to point out that there has been actual collusion between and among all the lawyers involved in what is supposed to be an adversarial system where lawyers OUGHT TO BE adversaries --- but haven't been adversarial at all.
REQUOTE, Lawyer BEST:-
It seems like the whole thing was a FRIENDLY SETUP (That is exactly what collusion is, when COLLUSION is between indirect-party lawyers! KB) from the beginning. Justice Favel too-quickly skated over and away from the government core policy immunity principle. He ignored the limitations law. He misleadingly and inaccurately stated that “uncertainty in the law meant that both parties faced a real and present risk of failure”. In fact, all the legal risks were on the Aboriginal claimants. Especially notable were his unusual remarks- as if he was being self-consciously pre-emptive in this regard- as if COLLUSION was in the air- asserting how the settlement was arrived at only after “arms length…hard-bargaining sessions”, and that “there has been NO COLLUSION in reaching the settlement.” (Paragraphs 96 and 97 of his Reasons.) [end-quote KB]
It wasn't only Justice Favel who "skated away" from the stated principle. It was the government's lawyers who MORE CLEARLY disobeyed that principle as well as Statute Limitations. Best was even more clear about COLLUSION between supposedly adversarial lawyers when he wrote, quote:
BEST: Following the letter and spirit of Prime Minister Trudeau’s surrender Directive [It would be Lawyer Lametti's directive; Trudeau is ignorant of the law and knows it given the number of times he has disobeyed the Ethics Act] , Canada didn’t even file a Statement of Defence in either action. [end-quote KB]
That statement in and of itself PROVES COLLUSION between government lawyers and the suing lawyers. Not only should the government lawyers have filed defences, they should also have filed Counter-Claims, whether the cases were about bad drinking water or the removal of native infants or youngsters from their homes. Who takes 150 years to NOT LEARN water treatment or plumbing? Who sits around on reserves and doesn't do something about neighbors abusing their kids? DUH! That might be the Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and the rest of the colluding scoundrels, including First Nations individuals and their lawyers.
Anybody can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council or the Law Society of Ontario. Anybody can go to their local M.P. or Legislative Assembly "representative" and demand that government lawyers and their colluding buddies representing various indigenous entities quit ripping off us tax payers. I did it, not only with my own M.P. but with the local R.C.M.P. in June of 2021, after seeing Murray Sinclair's performance at the CBC and reading Doctor Scott Hamilton's list of cemeteries and graveyards containing unmarked graves (due to neglect), given to Sinclair and his fellow TRC commissioners, in confidence, in 2015. My M.P. (or his staff) proved himself to be actually illiterate. And Sergeant Tulloch of the R.C.M.P., in Airdrie Alberta would rather eat doughnuts and be called a racist when delivering indigenous folks their 5 dollars of Treaty Money on yearly occasions.
OH CANADA --- with illiterates and Tulloch standing "on guard", we are doomed. As to NGC's question. Canada is the entity doing the grifting. Canadian lawyers, Canadian politicians, Canadian cops like Tulloch and Canadian citizens who do not know the law and who do not complain to the competent disciplinary bodies --- especially Peter Best who knows to whom he should complain.
The "grifting" is arguably because, as "Dad Trudeau" famously said, with regard to Quebec Separation: "If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec divisible. The Crown has treaties with indigenous Quebecers, so Quebec is also divisible." Dad was actually a smart guy unlike his poorly educated drama student son. These guys in Ottawa "thought" that the Reform Party was a complete joke. And they were wrong which led to 10 years of "Liberal Party Hell" under Harper's conservatism. With the West now talking Separation, Pierre's little boy and friends have been paying attention and bribing/grifting First Nations in advance. Treaty 6, 7 and 8 territory pretty well covers most of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
But back to lawyer-Best. He has a daughter, who is also a young lawyer in Sudbury, and he (who is my age) would not want her firm, with which he is associated, to get a bad name for "snitching" about Canada's colluding lawyers. In the end our children are more important than our Country. So I don't blame him a bit. But you anti-woke people should learn for yourselves that everybody in this system has a boss. Judges have bosses. Lawyers have bosses. Politicians have bosses. Find out who those bosses are and "snitch" to them. And if that doesn't work, why not a WOKE class action?
BC signed UNDRIP into legislation. There isn't much doubt that the implications of that will be injurious to BC residents of the non-indigenous persuasion. As part of that legislation a directive was issued last year that the Crown is to avoid litigation and essentially just settle. I've listened to many cases, treaty rights, land claims, fishing rights, all sorts of subjects, and Crown counsel at all levels just can't argue and ask the kinds of questions they should be asking, and would be if the plaintiffs were non-aboriginal, for fear, presumably of offending.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples doesn't give anyone the right to commit fraud in a collusive bogus "law" case. Judges listen to law cases too, as do you. And collusion means to "deceive a court" (Justice) in essence. And since collusion in law cases deceives experienced Court Justices [unless they are colluding with one lawyer or other --- in which cases they'd be deceiving litigants], there is little doubt that you would be unable to distinguish a collusive bogus law case from a correctly done law case.
well, I don't say the word "collusion" once, so your comment isn't entirely accurate as it pertains to what I wrote. I simply said the BC version of UNDRIP mandates settlement, not litigation. Which is not what should happen. Settlements happen behind closed doors and without the public's knowledge.
You said you'd listened to cases and you mentioned Plaintiffs. Of course you never mentioned collusion. But lawyer Best proved collusion in his original post. And the Kamloops people, who are from B.C. have colluded with the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners --- at least with Murray Sinclair --- from the moment of their "discovery" of unmarked graves, when Sinclair was told about such unmarked graves, by Dr. Scott Hamilton, in 2015. When the R.C.M.P. asked the ground penetrating radar specialist about her "discovery of alleged remains" (in 2021), Sinclair received a phone call from Kamloops and recommended that the radar specialist "lawyer up" --- which he proved to a Commons Committee about 2 days after his CBC performance of June 1st, 2021. Frances Widdowson's researcher dug up that information. You can dig it up for yourself. Just go to the TRC website and find Dr. Scott Hamilton's report. The first 3 so-called "discoveries" of unmarked graves [Kamloops, Cowesess and St. Eugenie's at Cranbrook B.C.] are all on page 15 of that Report a full 6 years before they were "discovered". Everyone of them was a supposed [Kamloops} or known graveyard or cemetery [St. Eugenie and St. Mary's graveyard at Cowesess]. The graves are unmarked because of neglect. They were marked at the time when the remains of children went into such graveyards. Hamilton may have "screwed up" in supposing a cemetery on the Kamloops Residential School site. The whole tribe was Roman Catholic from the 1870's forward, so their burials were probably on one of two Church properties, rather than at the School location --- which their Chief Louis and the rest of the band lobbied for and obtained in 1890. And since the Royal Inland Hospital at Kamloops was established in 1895, once again there may have been no burials on Residential School property.
This article is more comprehensive and powerful than any I have read before in condemning Canada’s apartheid of special rights for the indigenous and an orgy of government spending to add gloss to Trudeau’s self-glorifying mantle of carrying the outdated White Man’s Burden, solely in his case for votes and saviour status. The white-flag tendency of giving one ethnic group in the country endless money and mafia force in shaking down every taxpayer for money at every turn is our government’s most heinous action as it will eventually foment civil war.
Excellent article. Unfortunately, by a necessity for brevity, this is just part of the "shakedown" that's occurring at the taxpayers' expense. It's a little teensy bit. Money directed towards Canada's indigenous people is a glorious waterfall of the size of Niagara Falls. It's money for EVERYTHING. If you want to set yourself up as a fishing guide in Port Renfrew, 400 grand for your boats, sure. No need to pay that back. If you want to buy a golf course (or two) and make them into farms (in the middle of urban areas and not on reserve) with a cost somewhere around 14 million, have at it. No oversight as to the success of that venture will be forthcoming. The "economic development funds" that pay for these things are nothing more than taxpayer dollars called by another name. We can only hope that Miller is soon booted out of power (along with Trudeau) and that a new government has more fiscal sense, but that might be a vain hope.
One would hope, but I have never heard the CPC addressing these issues. Have I not been listening closely enough?
Not directly or in public, that's for sure. it's a pretty hot political potato.
Imoressive piece.
Trudeau will never stand up for Canada. He subverts us.
And what a waste of huge sums of taxpayer dollars.
I suspect nothing. Unfortunately. This is such a political hot potato I think PP has steered clear of it. considering that he seems unafraid to tackle other political hot potatoes, this one must just be napalm if he won't address it.
This is nauseating and so upsetting. I'd love to see The Fifth Estate do a show on this but we all know that will ever happen.
But they're happy enough to do a show from the indigenous perspective....
I can see how the soon to be voted on in Australia, 'The Voice', which may give unelected aboriginals greater legal jurisdiction and unlimited power be modelled on 'The Directive, entirely without legal justification, states that “Indigenous peoples” are “partners” in Confederation with the federal government- that Canada’s approximately 635 relatively tiny, totally dependent Indian bands, and other unnamed, nebulous- also completely dependent– Aboriginal groups, associations and interests, are, legally, “distinct orders of government”- distinct “nations” or “governments”- and are thus virtual constitutional co-equals with the federal government, the territories and the provinces.'
The aboriginal grievance gravy train in Australia must be looking for precedents for their own self-interest and the Directive, would be that.
The Australian PM still cant give details of how this Voice will function, nor it's legal perimeters BEFORE voting on it.
What is quite shameful is the failure of our national broadcaster to apply a critical lens to any of these settlements. For example the “Sixties Scoop” – when discussed on the CBC, the litigants narrative is presented as indisputable, that is the agencies involved were motivated solely by the intent to erase “native culture”, not any concern over child welfare…
A very informative article that frankly makes my blood boil. It is a cautionary tale about what can happen when irresponsible and reckless people are placed in positions of power and allowed to pursue their unbalanced and injudicious childish ideologies.
This would be a wonderful letter, had it been sent to the Canadian Judicial Council with "respect" to Justice Favel and to Osgood Hall (or whatever they call The Law Society of Ontario), with contempt for all the Bad Boy and Bad Girl lawyers involved at various Courts and at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal --- as complaints against the real grifters --- of which everyone is a lawyer paid by us Canadians.
However, Mr. Best is a lawyer. And since most lawyers represent the cases of mental and moral degenerates at Court, they are entirely loathe to "rat out" their fellow legal buddies to their own disciplinary bodies. And that's the problem. All lawyers do "Omerta", with respect to their buddy lawyers, better than the Sicilian Mafia. But Mr. Best was kind enough to point out that there has been actual collusion between and among all the lawyers involved in what is supposed to be an adversarial system where lawyers OUGHT TO BE adversaries --- but haven't been adversarial at all.
REQUOTE, Lawyer BEST:-
It seems like the whole thing was a FRIENDLY SETUP (That is exactly what collusion is, when COLLUSION is between indirect-party lawyers! KB) from the beginning. Justice Favel too-quickly skated over and away from the government core policy immunity principle. He ignored the limitations law. He misleadingly and inaccurately stated that “uncertainty in the law meant that both parties faced a real and present risk of failure”. In fact, all the legal risks were on the Aboriginal claimants. Especially notable were his unusual remarks- as if he was being self-consciously pre-emptive in this regard- as if COLLUSION was in the air- asserting how the settlement was arrived at only after “arms length…hard-bargaining sessions”, and that “there has been NO COLLUSION in reaching the settlement.” (Paragraphs 96 and 97 of his Reasons.) [end-quote KB]
It wasn't only Justice Favel who "skated away" from the stated principle. It was the government's lawyers who MORE CLEARLY disobeyed that principle as well as Statute Limitations. Best was even more clear about COLLUSION between supposedly adversarial lawyers when he wrote, quote:
BEST: Following the letter and spirit of Prime Minister Trudeau’s surrender Directive [It would be Lawyer Lametti's directive; Trudeau is ignorant of the law and knows it given the number of times he has disobeyed the Ethics Act] , Canada didn’t even file a Statement of Defence in either action. [end-quote KB]
That statement in and of itself PROVES COLLUSION between government lawyers and the suing lawyers. Not only should the government lawyers have filed defences, they should also have filed Counter-Claims, whether the cases were about bad drinking water or the removal of native infants or youngsters from their homes. Who takes 150 years to NOT LEARN water treatment or plumbing? Who sits around on reserves and doesn't do something about neighbors abusing their kids? DUH! That might be the Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and the rest of the colluding scoundrels, including First Nations individuals and their lawyers.
Anybody can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council or the Law Society of Ontario. Anybody can go to their local M.P. or Legislative Assembly "representative" and demand that government lawyers and their colluding buddies representing various indigenous entities quit ripping off us tax payers. I did it, not only with my own M.P. but with the local R.C.M.P. in June of 2021, after seeing Murray Sinclair's performance at the CBC and reading Doctor Scott Hamilton's list of cemeteries and graveyards containing unmarked graves (due to neglect), given to Sinclair and his fellow TRC commissioners, in confidence, in 2015. My M.P. (or his staff) proved himself to be actually illiterate. And Sergeant Tulloch of the R.C.M.P., in Airdrie Alberta would rather eat doughnuts and be called a racist when delivering indigenous folks their 5 dollars of Treaty Money on yearly occasions.
OH CANADA --- with illiterates and Tulloch standing "on guard", we are doomed. As to NGC's question. Canada is the entity doing the grifting. Canadian lawyers, Canadian politicians, Canadian cops like Tulloch and Canadian citizens who do not know the law and who do not complain to the competent disciplinary bodies --- especially Peter Best who knows to whom he should complain.
The "grifting" is arguably because, as "Dad Trudeau" famously said, with regard to Quebec Separation: "If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec divisible. The Crown has treaties with indigenous Quebecers, so Quebec is also divisible." Dad was actually a smart guy unlike his poorly educated drama student son. These guys in Ottawa "thought" that the Reform Party was a complete joke. And they were wrong which led to 10 years of "Liberal Party Hell" under Harper's conservatism. With the West now talking Separation, Pierre's little boy and friends have been paying attention and bribing/grifting First Nations in advance. Treaty 6, 7 and 8 territory pretty well covers most of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
But back to lawyer-Best. He has a daughter, who is also a young lawyer in Sudbury, and he (who is my age) would not want her firm, with which he is associated, to get a bad name for "snitching" about Canada's colluding lawyers. In the end our children are more important than our Country. So I don't blame him a bit. But you anti-woke people should learn for yourselves that everybody in this system has a boss. Judges have bosses. Lawyers have bosses. Politicians have bosses. Find out who those bosses are and "snitch" to them. And if that doesn't work, why not a WOKE class action?
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne
BC signed UNDRIP into legislation. There isn't much doubt that the implications of that will be injurious to BC residents of the non-indigenous persuasion. As part of that legislation a directive was issued last year that the Crown is to avoid litigation and essentially just settle. I've listened to many cases, treaty rights, land claims, fishing rights, all sorts of subjects, and Crown counsel at all levels just can't argue and ask the kinds of questions they should be asking, and would be if the plaintiffs were non-aboriginal, for fear, presumably of offending.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples doesn't give anyone the right to commit fraud in a collusive bogus "law" case. Judges listen to law cases too, as do you. And collusion means to "deceive a court" (Justice) in essence. And since collusion in law cases deceives experienced Court Justices [unless they are colluding with one lawyer or other --- in which cases they'd be deceiving litigants], there is little doubt that you would be unable to distinguish a collusive bogus law case from a correctly done law case.
well, I don't say the word "collusion" once, so your comment isn't entirely accurate as it pertains to what I wrote. I simply said the BC version of UNDRIP mandates settlement, not litigation. Which is not what should happen. Settlements happen behind closed doors and without the public's knowledge.
You said you'd listened to cases and you mentioned Plaintiffs. Of course you never mentioned collusion. But lawyer Best proved collusion in his original post. And the Kamloops people, who are from B.C. have colluded with the 3 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners --- at least with Murray Sinclair --- from the moment of their "discovery" of unmarked graves, when Sinclair was told about such unmarked graves, by Dr. Scott Hamilton, in 2015. When the R.C.M.P. asked the ground penetrating radar specialist about her "discovery of alleged remains" (in 2021), Sinclair received a phone call from Kamloops and recommended that the radar specialist "lawyer up" --- which he proved to a Commons Committee about 2 days after his CBC performance of June 1st, 2021. Frances Widdowson's researcher dug up that information. You can dig it up for yourself. Just go to the TRC website and find Dr. Scott Hamilton's report. The first 3 so-called "discoveries" of unmarked graves [Kamloops, Cowesess and St. Eugenie's at Cranbrook B.C.] are all on page 15 of that Report a full 6 years before they were "discovered". Everyone of them was a supposed [Kamloops} or known graveyard or cemetery [St. Eugenie and St. Mary's graveyard at Cowesess]. The graves are unmarked because of neglect. They were marked at the time when the remains of children went into such graveyards. Hamilton may have "screwed up" in supposing a cemetery on the Kamloops Residential School site. The whole tribe was Roman Catholic from the 1870's forward, so their burials were probably on one of two Church properties, rather than at the School location --- which their Chief Louis and the rest of the band lobbied for and obtained in 1890. And since the Royal Inland Hospital at Kamloops was established in 1895, once again there may have been no burials on Residential School property.
https://nodifference.ca/