Parliamentary Hypocrisy That Proves

Economic Genocide in Canada 

© 2007 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor


Evidence of economic genocide against Canada’s second largest minority is proven in part because of the blatant hypocrisy of politicians; who when in opposition criticize the government of the day for its utter failure to help First Nations, Métis and Inuit get out of their Third World living conditions and then when elected do absolutely nothing about the trans-generational problem.   



The potency of the evidence was even more profound than what was expected when fine-tooth combing through thousands upon thousands of pages of parliamentary and legislative Hansard transcripts going back to the early 1970s.  There was undeniable proof of a massive and systemic dereliction of governmental duty federally and provincially to help the country’s aboriginals out of poverty and help them prosper in one of the richest nations in the world.  



There it was: the smoking gun of culpability for economic genocide; serial depraved indifference murder (i.e., knowingly and intentionally creating circumstances in which death would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of one’s actions).  Gone was circumstantial evidence and in its place incontrovertible direct proof of a trans-generational, systemic attempt to annihilate an entire ethnic group because of an addiction to absolute power and a sociopathic greed that aggressively sought to eliminate ‘the competition’. 


It was observed in the Hansard record there never was any intention whatsoever on the federal or provincial levels of government to alleviate the pain, suffering and mounting opportunity loss of what used to be the country’s largest minority until immigration policy was modified over the last thirty-five years to let a million Chinese  into the country.  Instead the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth for the first three-quarters of the 20th century and then sovereignty-sharing Chinese during the last quarter intentionally and maliciously turned a blind eye to all the disease, suicide, crime, substance abuse, education deficiencies, unsanitary conditions, health care failings and excruciating despair – all in the name of protecting the consolidation of power over two centuries and economy monopolization and wealth plundering. 



Starting a hundred years ago and continuing through to the 1970s and then throughout the first decade of the 21st century, there was a total failure to protect and accommodate aboriginal interests and needs.  While the historical record indicates aboriginal issues were in the political discourse nationally and regionally during the last three decades of the 20th century, what was really going on in Cabinet was a continuation of what by then was generations of intentional neglect.



With an ear to the ground: The CCF/NDP and aboriginal policy in Canada, 1926-1993

by Frank James Tester,  Paule McNicoll and  Jessie Forsyth

Journal of Canadian Studies,  Spring 1999  

Despite numerous attempts to implement the provisions of the white paper [outlining the government's intention to eliminate the Department of Indian Affairs within five years], by the spring of 1971 it was clear that the government was backing away from it. The federal election of 1972 returned a Liberal minority government dependent on the support of the NDP. Their influence on policy-making between 1972 and 1974 when they held the balance of power was obvious. By 1973 the white paper had been abandoned and the Trudeau government introduced a policy for settling comprehensive and specific claims…



Had there been a genuine desire to advance aboriginal issues there would have been statistically measurable progress.  Instead, to this day everything important to them remains almost totally unresolved to the point that it cannot but be concluded that policy by a succession of federal and provincial governments was a sham, a public relations exercise  .The results speak for themselves.  All strategies were an abysmal failure.  


The Liberal-Conservative legacy can be summed up as follows:  


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. 


From both policy and results-oriented perspectives the country’s leaders actively participated in this crime against humanity.   


British Columbia Hansard

February 10, 1970

Mr. Frank Calder:   


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. 


Mr. Speaker, why, we ask ourselves, did the Federal Government now propose to issue full changes with respect to the following: the repeal of the Indian Act, the phase-out of the Indian Affairs Branch, the transfer of full legal control of the Indian lands to the Indian people, the Provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs, the procedures for the adjudication of Indian land claims, the provision of funds for the economic development of Indian reserves? 


Mr. Speaker, is it because of the Federal Government's absolute failure to cope with the Indian problem? Is it because of its current lack of funds for general Government administration, including that of the Indian Department? Is it because of its embarrassment in the United Nations for not being able to contribute constructively in planning to rehabilitate the under-developed countries when it has not been able to clean up its own backyard? Is it because it plans to evade further constitutional responsibilities, existing obligations, and commitments? Is it because it plans to avoid the settlement of the Indian land claims? Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions is yes, yes, yes.


[italics added] 


Ontario Hansard

May 7, 1984 

Mr. Breaugh: 

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. 



While the 1991 Erasmus-Dussault Commission was initiated by PM Mulroney – a publicly laudable initiative – the secret agendas of power consolidation, economy monopolization, wealth plundering and Chinese de facto governance are the appropriate context to interpret its objective and it cannot but be concluded there were no bona fides in the minds of political leaders and their cabinet colleagues: 



The report … recommended providing the governments of the First Nations with up to $2 billion every year until 2010, in order to reduce the socioeconomic gap between the First Nations and the rest of the Canadian citizenry. The money would represent an increase of at least 50% to the budget of Indian and Northern Affairs. Finally, the report insisted on the importance of First Nations leaders to actively think of ways to cope with the challenging issues their people were facing, so the First Nations could take their destiny into their own hands.  

The federal government, then headed by Jean Chrétien, responded to the report a year later by officially presenting its apologies for the forced acculturation the federal government had imposed on the First Nations, and by offering an "initial" provision of $350 million. 



The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

October 4, 1999

The Royal Commission report [RCAP] was generally welcomed by Aboriginal groups, although not without some disagreement, and generated expectations for a government response. It received significant media attention upon its release, but faded from the public agenda in the ensuing months. In December 1996, the Prime Minister said that the government needed time to study the recommendations and would not issue a response prior to a general election. The then Minister of Indian Affairs stated that it would be difficult to increase spending to the level proposed by the Commission. In April 1997, the Assembly of First Nations held a national day of protest to express its anger over perceived government inaction and the refusal of the Prime Minister to meet with First Nations leaders to discuss the report.  





The government’s general approach to the RCAP report has been the subject of critical observations by national and international human rights bodies. In December 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights "[viewed] with concern the direct connection between Aboriginal economic marginalization and the ongoing dispossession of Aboriginal people from their lands, as recognized by RCAP," and expressed its "[great] concern that the recommendations of RCAP have not yet been implemented, in spite of the urgency of the situation." In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee also expressed concern that Canada had "not yet implemented the recommendations of the [RCAP]," and recommended "that decisive and urgent action be taken towards the full implementation of the RCAP recommendations on land and resource allocation."


Ontario Hansard

      November 25, 1987 

Mr. Wildman:  

I do not understand why the federal government, which is responsible for the Indian rights and aboriginal rights in this country, did not fulfil its responsibility to stand up for the aboriginal peoples in the conference of the first ministers. I do not understand it, and I do not understand how this government or this assembly could accept an accord which ignores the fundamental rights of the first citizens of this country.  

November 2, 1989

Native Post-Secondary Education 

Mr. Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River, NDP)

It is only in the last 20 years that first nations people have had the encouragement, both socially and financially, to enter post-secondary institutions. 


It is only in the last 15 years that we have seen a number of graduates, graduates in law, in business, in social services, in education. Indeed, it is only probably within the last 10 to 15 years that we have seen parole officers of native ancestry, police officers, nurses, lawyers, public administrators, financial managers, all of the things that are necessary to enable first nations people to assume the proper control over their own lives and over their own social and economic development. That kind of development, educational development, social development, economic development, was provided for and encouraged by the kinds of financial incentives that were there for first nations young people. 

What the policies that were enunciated in the spring of 1989 do, however, is to severely limit the funding that is available and at the same time, they limit the circumstances in which it is available 


I do not think I need to repeat in this House that if you do an economic profile of Ontario society and Canadian society, you will find that native people are among the poorest, if not the poorest.   


Mr. Miclash (Kenora, Lib.): 

First of all, I do believe, as the member has stated, that the federal government in some way is maybe sloughing off a little bit of its responsibility, and that is to allow for an adequate education for native people, an adequate education that will allow them to compete on an equal footing with their non-native counterparts throughout the country. […] I cannot tell members how important it is to those native people that they get the proper funding to continue on with what they want to do in life.  


As we know, unemployment, as the member stated earlier, is a very high statistic on our local native reserves and in some of my reserves, we are looking at unemployment rates of 80 to 90 per cent. It is something that we want to combat and I feel through post-secondary education we can take a look at combating some of these figures.  

As the member has stated, before the March 1989 changes were introduced all native people from high school who were accepted into post-secondary institutions were allowed to go ahead with their plans, and now we put it on a priority system, a priority system that is not allowing all of these people a right to gain that post-secondary education. 


The other cycle that I have seen on the reserve is the welfare cycle, which is a cycle that goes from generation to generation and is a very difficult one to break. I feel, as a former educator, that often the cycle is broken through education. It gives a person a goal, something to reach for and, again, I feel this is very important to our native people.  

I just might quote Chief George Watts who stated that, "the real changes are happening because our people are going to university and taking their skills and using them, with the knowledge of our old people, to start to make meaningful changes in our community." I must emphasize that real changes are happening because his people are being educated. How can the federal government not see this, not realize this among our native people? 


I talked about the paternalistic attitude of the federal government. When you talk to native people, you find out that they were presented with this concept, this idea, as a fait accompli. They were just told; they were not consulted. They were told, "This is the way it is going to be." I do not think that is fair to our native people…


Mr. Pouliot (Lake Nipigon, NDP): 

If ever there was a human rights problem in Canada, it is with the native peoples. This is what the Canadian human rights commissioner had to say following the most recent decision of Pierre Cadieux, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to limit the federal subsidies for native post-secondary education. He calls it an example of the litany of misunderstanding. That is what he refers to the decision as.  

The Canadian government has chosen to deny, to cap, to put a ceiling on, to limit spending on native education, more specifically on post-secondary native education, while being fully cognizant, very much aware, that the traditional economies can no longer fulfil the daily needs of the first nations.


Mr. Kozyra (Port Arthur, Lib.):  

These cutbacks by the federal government to the post-secondary program only make that matter worse. 

There is a critical need for more education. Less education or a slowdown contributes tremendously to problems like illiteracy, unemployment, welfare, hopelessness and destruction.  

I would like to read from a letter. This letter is an open letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada. These social conditions were described for the native population of Canada: 

The proportion of Indian children in institutional care is five times the national average. Education: 20 per cent of aboriginal students complete grade 12 compared to 75 per cent for other Canadians. The income of native Canadians is 50 per cent of the national average or less. Unemployment runs between 35 to 90 per cent, depending on the size and location of the community. Violent deaths are three times the national average and infant mortality runs at 60 per cent higher than the national rate. 

The irony of the cutbacks to this program is that what the federal government saw as the need for cutbacks was based on the success of the program. It is a strange reaction to a successful program.


[italics added]



Canada’s wealthy perceived the aboriginal community as a competitive threat and used their de facto control of the federal and provincial governments to inhibit their rise to become equal partners in Canada.  In Ontario’s Hansard is proof that under the Mulroney government the progress that was being observed was halted by restricting money for post-secondary education.


Treaty law was indisputably on the side of the First Nations:  

November 2, 1989

Mr. Wildman (Algoma, NDP): 


I think it is important to recognize that the first nations signed treaties with the white government, the crown, and that under those treaties a number of things were guaranteed. One thing that was guaranteed was education sufficient to allow the members of the first nations to prosper and to compete 

[italics and underscore added]  


The statistics describing the strength of the Canadian economy further inculpate the country’s political and corporate leadership: 


Growth rates averaging 4-5 percent during the mid-to-late 1980s…  

Business America, Toni E. Dick, April 22, 1991   


The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated:  



This brief review highlights how entrenched the economic disparities between Aboriginal people and Canadians generally are and how they increased during the 1980s.  



It is no coincidence that the same repudiation of aboriginal benefits recommended by the Erasmus-Dussault Commission occurred during the Mulroney-Chrétien transition as during the Martin-Harper transition (i.e., the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord).  Behind both were government and the complicitous invisibly wealthy aggressively and perpetually keeping Canada’s aboriginals out of the national, regional and local marketplace; ensuring they would remain in Third World conditions in hopes they’d die out as a race. 



The Hansard record proves that throughout the 1980s, 1990s and all of this decade politicians on both sides of the isle in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Victoria talked constantly about addressing aboriginals’ Third World conditions and resolving land claims.  And as conditions got progressively worse big business took advantage and essentially expropriated what it wanted from the land – forestry, mining and industry – walking over them without so much as a scintilla of empathy with the full complicity of the courts, police, media and Chinese.  



Another opportunity to pass genocidal judgment on Canada’s politically powerful and super wealthy came with the 2007 federal budget on March 19, 2007.  The Liberals, now in opposition, revealed their trans-generational hypocrisy because when Conservative Finance Minister Flaherty made no accommodation in the budget they screamed to the Parliamentary rafters.  Doing so became another smoking gun of fiduciary-enhanced culpability; for during their almost decade and a half in power they did nothing to help and everything to eliminate what would unquestionably be a significant competitor in the Canadian marketplace – continuing what their nepotistic predecessors had done throughout the 20th century. 



The Hansard record is direct evidence and supports a charge of unmitigated and unapologetic economic genocide by Canada’s federal and provincial governments, the country’s super wealthy and the Chinese government. 


Review the Hansard research:


(i)      Parliament


(a)   The Chrétien Era – January 18, 1994 to November 28, 1995

(b)   The Martin Era – February 2, 2004 to September 29, 2005

(c)   The Harper Era - February 6, 2006 to June 19, 2009


(ii)    Ontario - April 24, 1984 to December 14, 2006


(iii)   British Columbia - January 27, 1970 to February 26, 2007




Make a Free Website with Yola.