Navigate thru topics
Latest :
Genocide in Canada | Reposted August 25 2011
on 2011/8/25 7:11:58 (5193 reads)

Genocide in Canada
by Veronica Marten on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 16:21

"The respresentative Plaintiffs state that it was stated government intention 2 assimilate Indigenous people into the newcomers society & 2 eradicate the traditional Indigenous ways through education, religion, new economic & political systems, & a new concept of property. All of this was designed 2 eventually eradicate the Indigenous ppl & culture & the instrument chosen was the Indian Act. Indigenous ppl had imposed on them a completely new existence, which amounts 2 the impostion of mental harm which is an act of GENOCIDE. A thorough review of legislative undertaking in this regard will reveal the intention 2 deprive the Indigenous people of their own culture, spirituality, self-government & ultimately their human dignity."

Still to this day in a more silient way, we'll hold govn't accountable.

300)this.width=300"/>

Photo courtesy of Red Power United (Native Rights Movement)

http://www.7algonquinhunters.com/imag ... _Statement_of_Claim_FINAL[1].pdf

Court File No.: MC027010
NEW BRUNSWICK
COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH
BETWEEN:
KEP’TIN STEPHEN J. AUGUSTINE,
hereditary Chief Sigenigtog,
EAST COAST FIRST PEOPLES ALLIANCE,
JACKIE VAUTOUR and ROY VAUTOUR
Plaintiffs
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ELIZABETH II
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Notice of Action issued on April 21, 2010)
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Plaintiffs:
1. Kep’tin Stephen J. Augustine is a hereditary chief of Sigenigtog district (North
Shore New Brunswick), a direct descendant of Kep’tin Michael Augustine, a signatory to
the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of March 10, 1760 and is a member of the traditional
government, Santi Mawio’mi or Mi’kmaq Grand Council.
2. East Coast First Peoples Alliance acts as an official body for the preservation
and advancement of the Métis Indigenous peoples of the territory known as New
Brunswick and acts in a representative capacity to seek recognition, redress,
compensation and reconciliation between the Crown and Indigenous Métis people of the
territory.

2
3. Jackie Vautour and Roy Vautour are Métis people of the territory known as New
Brunswick and both are representative of the dispossession, discrimination, and
destruction of Métis people by Crown policy since 1710 to the present.
Defendants:
4. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II is the Executive Government and Authority
of and over Canada as expressed in Article 9 of the British North America Act of 1867
and the Constitution Act of 1982. Queen Elizabeth II has moral, fiduciary and legal
responsibilities expressed in various treaties with the Indigenous peoples herein and has
legal duties to redress wrongdoings implemented by British colonial policy in the
territory known as New Brunswick.
5. The Crown in the Right of Canada, through the Attorney General of Canada has
moral, legal and fiduciary duties toward the Indigenous peoples of the territory known as
New Brunswick, particularly as it applies to land, resources, self-determination impacting
on the cultural, social and economic base of the Indigenous peoples of the territory
known as New Brunswick.
6. The representative Plaintiffs intend to file an amendment to this Statement of
Claim in order to add the Queen in the Right of New Brunswick as a defendant to
advance a claim for a declaration of trust as set out in Section 109 of the Constitution Act
1982 and to seek a moratorium on prosecutions for fishing, hunting and forestry
violations.
PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF PLAINTIFFS
7. Plaintiff Kep’tin Stephen J. Augustine’s address is 22 Ballpark St., Elsipogtog,
N.B., E4W 2R9.


3
8. Plaintiff East Coast First Peoples Alliance’s address is Box 2143 Lameque,
N.B., E8T 3N7.
9. Plaintiff Jackie Vautour and Roy Vautour’s address is 1494 Route 117,
Kouchibougouac, N.B., E4X 2P2.
DEFINITIONS
10. The following terms shall be applicable to this Statement of Claim and so
defined as follows:
(a) Aboriginal peoples of Canada: includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis
peoples of Canada;
(b) Acadie: derives from a Mi’kmaq word a’kati and a’katikewak, meaning
“the people who derived their life from the land”, in French, les Acadiens;
(c) Crown: Queen Elizabeth II and her predecessors and includes the Queen
in the Right of Canada and the Queen in the Right of New Brunswick;
(d) Diaspora: the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from
an established or ancestral homeland;
(e) Genocide: as per Article 2 of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
i. Killing members of the group;
ii. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
iii. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
iv. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
v. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

4
(f) Métis: aboriginal peoples of Canada in particular those Métis in the
province of New Brunswick;
(g) Mi’kmaq Grand Council or Santi Mawio’mi: means traditional
government of seven clans, seven fires of seven territories, Onamakik
(Cape Breton), Eskekiak (Canso), Epekuitk ag Piktuk (P.E.I. and Pictou),
Sukapenakadik (Shubenacadie), Kespukwitk (southern Nova Scotia),
Sigenigtog (North Shore of new Brunswick and Kespekewakik (Gaspe).
The Mi’kmaq Nation are one of several aboriginal cultural groups in
Atlantic Canada, the others being the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in
New Brunswick;
(h) Sigentigog: our area of land encompasses half of the Acadian peninsula in
New Brunswick, all the coast line along Northumberland Strait to Oxford,
Nova Scotia and down into the isthmus of Chignecto and inland including
all the watersheds to the Grand Lake and the mouth of the Saint John
River, including the Kouchibougouac Clair Fontaine area.
MATERIAL FACTS
11. The representative Plaintiffs have a shared history of historic injustices as a
result of their colonization and the dispossession of their lands, territories and resources.
These historic injustices caused by the imposition of British Colonial law have prevented
the representative Plaintiffs from exercising, in particular, their right to develop their
political, economic and social structures in accordance with their own needs and interests.
As a result, the representative Plaintiffs claim an entitlement to the recognition of

5
Indigenous laws, traditions and customs in the evaluation of the right to compensation
and reconciliation for the harms caused by the imposition of British Colonial law.
12. The representative Plaintiffs have experienced discrimination by the imposition
of British Colonial law, continued then by the federal and provincial Crowns, in
adjudicating and developing public policy which is an anathema to the selfdetermination
and inherent integrity of the Mi’kmaq and Métis people as regards to lands,
territories and resources in the Province of New Brunswick and elsewhere.
13. The representative Plaintiffs will state their claim through the historical
experience of the territory known as Sigenigtog, which includes Kouchibougouac
territory (now known as Kouchibougouac National Park), which illustrates the story of
the Mi’kmaq Nation in New Brunswick and the Métis peoples of New Brunswick.
14. The representative Plaintiffs claim the right to belong to an Indigenous
community or nation, based on the traditions and customs of the community or nation,
without discrimination. As a direct result of British colonial rule, inherited by the Crown
in the Right of Canada and New Brunswick, Indigenous peoples were deprived of their
means of subsistence and development and therefore are entitled to just and fair redress.
15. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to an evaluation of the
wrongdoings of the past by an impartial tribunal which gives due recognition to
Indigenous laws, traditions, customs and oral traditions, which pertain to the loss of their
lands, territories and resources.
16. The consciousness of genocide (United Nations Treaty definition) has permeated
the relationship between the Indigenous peoples of New Brunswick and the various forms
of the Crown, from the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 to the present day, which has destroyed

6
normative values of Indigenous structures, imposing one which was designed to bring
dominion and deprivation of Indigenous societal structures, culture, land and resources.
17. The representative Plaintiffs will rely on historical evidence to outline the
dysfunctional relationship between the Indigenous peoples and the colonial newcomers.
As a means to ensure successful colonization, the newcomers imposed a system on the
Indigenous people designed to destroy traditional Indigenous political, social and cultural
structures in order to fulfill an agenda of dominion over land, resources and territories.
18. The representative Mi’kmaq hereditary chief, Kep'tin Stephen J. Augustine,
herein expresses solidarity with the representative Métis Plaintiffs and in the tradition of
the Mi’kmaq law, offers protection and sharing with his Métis brothers and sisters in the
pursuit of this claim. Mi’kmaq tradition includes the understanding that Indigenous
people are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be
different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such.
19. The representative Plaintiffs rely on Peace and Friendship Treaties concluded
with the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq Nation such as those entered into in 1725/26,
1749, 1752, 1760, 1761, 1778 and 1788 evidencing the sovereignty of the Mi’kmaq
Nation and the continuity of traditional Mawio’mi governance.
20. The representative Plaintiffs can establish the commencement of the Métis
nation in the territory known as Canada, as beginning in 1610 in and around the province
of New Brunswick. They can demonstrate that the word ‘Acadie’ is derived from the
Mi’kmaq word “a’kati” and “a’katikewak”- “the people who derived their life from the
land,” thus entitling the Métis of New Brunswick to a declaration of their existence and
the establishment of their Indigenous rights.

7
21. The diaspora of 1755 involved the British Crown physically displacing upwards
of 15,000 thousand Métis from the territory of Acadie part of which is now known as
New Brunswick. This event stands as a historical marker for the template of the
consciousness of genocide which has faced the Métis people and continues to do so
presently as was illustrated with the displacement of Métis people in Kouchibougouac,
traditional Mi’kmaq and Métis territory, known also as Kouchibougouac National Park.
22. British Colonial policy and subsequent federal and provincial policy, has clearly
discriminated against the Métis people in these major displacements leading to public
policy which denies their existence and exposes them to endless prosecutions for hunting,
fishing and forestry offences.
23. The representative Plaintiffs rely on the Mi’kmaq Creation Story which stands
as a pre-contact (Europeans) Indigenous legal system, informing the representative
Plaintiffs in a legitimate traditional form of government equal to the British legal system
and of equal weight in the evaluation of recognition, declaration of Indigenous title and
the right to compensation and redress for land, territories and resources.
24. The representative Plaintiffs assert that the core treaty of Peace and Friendship
was in 1725/26, with the other treaties ratifying or renewing this treaty. These treaties
apply to all Mi’kmaq according to Mi’kmaq law. This demonstrates a continuity of
relationship which must be evaluated in favour of the representative Plaintiffs as they
were never intended to dispossess the Indigenous peoples of their lands, territories,
resources, customs, or political and legal structures.
25. The representative Plaintiffs assert that constitutional Indigenous principles can
be proven which need to be evaluated with British/Canadian constitutional principles. As

8
a result, a constitutional crisis exists between Indigenous peoples and the Crown (in its
various forms) which needs to be resolved in order to provide proper compensation,
redress and reconciliation in keeping with the Honour of the Crown.
26. The representative Plaintiffs assert the doctrine of the Honour of the Crown and
principles of constitutional sui generis fiduciary obligations as examples of the
recognition of obligations on the part of the Crown which, if properly fulfilled, would
provide the recognition, redress, compensation and reconciliation required for the loss of
lands, territories, resources, rights, political structures and culture.
27. The representative Plaintiffs assert that the use of oral traditions and languages
assist in affirming and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples in New Brunswick,
derived from Mi’kmaq knowledge, language and legal traditions. It is asserted that this
distinct philosophy of justice and legal traditions based on spiritual and ecological
understanding can assist in the declared constitutional crisis which exists between
Indigenous peoples and the Crown.
28. The representative Plaintiffs assert that the Indian Act of 1876, onward to this
day, was the model for the policy of apartheid in South Africa and has had the continued
effect of attempting to destroy traditional forms of government which amounts to the
imposition of conditions of life designed to bring mental or physical harm to a group,
contrary to the United Nations convention on genocide.
29. The representative Plaintiffs state that the imposition of the Indian Act since
1876 is a reflection of the consciousness of genocide which is embodied in the statement
in the House of Commons by Sir John A. MacDonald when he said, “The great aim of
our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian

9
people in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit for
change.”
30. Crown policy has historically and systematically been designed to subjugate the
Indigenous people by usurping the lands and imposing a governance foreign to
Indigenous culture and legal tradition. The Indigenous peoples of the territory began a
relationship of alliance and sharing with the newcomers which was replaced by one of
subjugation in the imposition of British colonial policy.
31. Despite much advancement in the articulation of Indigenous peoples’
constitutional rights, the delayed constitutional implementation of those advancements
operates to further alienate the constitutional relationship between the Indigenous peoples
and the Crown, in its various forms.
32. The representative Plaintiffs of the Mi’kmaq Nation and the representative
Plaintiffs of the Métis people of the territory known as New Brunswick seek to act on
behalf of their people to bring redress, compensation, and reconciliation for the
wrongdoings brought about by the imposition of the British colonial system.
33. The representative Plaintiffs state that the Crown has continued to discriminate
systematically against treaty rights of the Mi’kmaq people relying on non-binding
negotiations based on policy with its federally funded band and organizations. The Métis
people are marginalized to such an extent that the Crown is consistently relying on
discriminatory government funded reports to deny their very existence in the territory
known as New Brunswick.
Declaration of Indigenous Title

10
34. The representative Plaintiffs state that the proper holder of rights, whether for
Indigenous title or Indigenous rights, is the community of Mi’kmaq people, sharing with
the Métis people of the territory known as New Brunswick. Mi’kmaq people are the
historic community of people sharing language, customs, traditions, historical experience,
legal traditions and resources at the time of first contact with the newcomers.
35. The Indigenous rights of individual Mi’kmaq people and the Métis people
within the Mi’kmaq Nation are derived from the collective actions, shared language, legal
traditions and shared historical experience of the members of the Mi’kmaq Nation and
the Métis of the territory known as New Brunswick.
36. Indigenous title confers a sui generis interest in land, which is a right to the land
itself. The representative Plaintiffs state that the interest in the land can compete on an
equal footing with other proprietary interests.
37. The representative Plaintiffs state that Indigenous title confers a right to
exclusive use, occupation and possession to use the land for the general welfare and
present day needs of the Indigenous communities. Indigenous title also includes a
proprietary-type right to choose what uses Indigenous title holders can make of
Indigenous title lands.
38. The representative Plaintiffs state that Indigenous title brings with it a right to
the exclusive use and possession of land, including the natural resources. As a result of
crown action and policy, this Indigenous title has been infringed, entitling the Indigenous
rights holder to compensation and redress.
39. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, enshrined as article 25 of the Constitution Act
1982, protects Indigenous title as against frauds, abuses and pretences and continues as

11
the seminal document in an evaluation of the existence of Indigenous title throughout the
traditional Mi'kmaq territory of Sigenitog. This traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq
Nation was shared with the Métis people before the diaspora of 1755 and after the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 to the present day.
40. The representative Plaintiffs state that there has never been a proper surrender of
Indigenous title in the traditional Mi'kmaq territory of Sigenitog, either through treaty nor
other instrument which would disturb the on-going existence of Indigenous title. All of
the treaties between the Mi'kmaq Nation and the Crown were treaties of Peace and
Friendship and did not operate as a surrender of Indigenous title.
41. The representative Plaintiffs state that the combined effect of the Royal
Proclamation of 1763, Article 25 and Article 35(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 confirm
that the Indigenous title in the outlined territory is recognized and affirmed.
42. Since the imposition of British Colonial rule, from the Treaty of Utrecht of
1713, in the territory of Acadie and now known as New Brunswick, there have occurred
many frauds, abuses and pretences which were designed to dispossess and displace the
Indigenous right holders and adversely impact the Indigenous title. The representative
Plaintiffs claim on behalf of all Mi'Kmaq and Métis peoples in the territory of New
Brunswick a right to a declaration of Indigenous title in the territory known as
Sigenitgog.
43. The representative Plaintiffs state that many infringements of Indigenous title
have occurred since 1713 to the present day and the parties claim entitlement to
compensation for these infringements. The infringements will be more particularly listed
and defined at the trial of this matter.

12
44. The representative Plaintiffs state that the Crown has never obtained a proper
surrender of Indigenous title in the territory known as Sigenitigog thus entitling the
Plaintiffs to a declaration of Indigenous title. Moreover, at Confederation, the British
North America Act, Article 109 gave lands and resources to New Brunswick, subject to
any trusts existing therein and to any interest other than that of the Province.
45. The representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of all Mi'kmaq and Métis peoples in the
territory known as New Brunswick claim entitlement to a declaration of Indigenous title
as contemplated by all of the instruments mentioned above. This declaration of
Indigenous title would then engage the Honour of the Crown to consult and
accommodate the Indigenous title holders on redress, compensation and reconciliation.
46. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to the existing Indigenous right of
Nationhood pursuant to tribal custom and tradition through the prism of s. 35(1) of the
Constitution allowing for redress on the deprivation of land through trespass and damages
for acts of genocide, resulting in the death of the person, the culture, the spirituality and
the eradication of self-government of the people.
47. The numerous outstanding disputes over Indigenous lands and territories reflect
the extensive systemic barriers found by Indigenous peoples in the assertion of these
rights, including the adversarial role the federal and provincial governments play in the
negotiation of treaties and the resolution of land and treaty disputes and the continued
failure of federal and provincial authorities to adequately integrate critical international
standards for the protection of Indigenous rights into domestic law and policy. The
representative Plaintiffs state that there is an obligation on authority to compensate and
redress the wrongdoing experienced by them since the newcomers arrival until the

13
present time and the wrongdoings that continue to be expressed in the trespass on
Indigenous land and the continuation of wrongdoing defined as genocide in the
imposition of the Indian Act, the stealing of resources through the Ministry of Natural
Resources of New Brunswick, and the disconnection of the Indigenous peoples from the
use of the land thereby imposing acts of cultural genocide on the Indigenous peoples.
48. The representative Plaintiffs state that they have been deprived of their human
rights and fundamental freedoms, resulting, inter alia, in their colonization and
disposition of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising,
in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests.
There is an urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights and characteristics of
Indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, which
derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures,
spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies. This deprivation and dispossession is
imposing conditions of life designed to cause mental and physical harm.
49. The representative Plaintiffs state that through trespass and acts of genocide they
have been systematically deprived of the right of nationhood that would have included
the right to self-government and had it not been for the wrongdoings against them, would
have entitled them to a relationship with their land thus preserving their culture, but also
would have promoted the resolution of disputes on a nation to nation basis and not left
them at the mercy of the imposed British colonial system, with its Judeo-Christian ethic,
which writes laws designed to deny the Indigenous peoples of any legal remedy or
redress. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to the Indigenous right of

14
nationhood and self-government which would allow for compensation and redress of
these on-going wrongdoings.
50. The representative Plaintiffs state that the present political system in Canada and
New Brunswick has been designed since inception to deprive them of any representation
in government and this continues today. Accordingly, with a government imposed on
them, in a system that allows them no representation, the representative Plaintiffs are
governed but not represented. Furthermore, when the representative Plaintiffs turn to the
courts for redress they are turned away by legal devices embedded in legislation written
to deny them redress for past wrongdoings and on-going harmful practices. The cycle is
never broken as all the places of redress are rife with discrimination, racial prejudice and
religious intolerance.
51. The Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island throughout the territory of North and
South America are the victims of a consciousness of genocide which began in 1493 with
swords and spears, graduated to guns and bullets through the 1700’s to 1867 and then
developed into the most deadly weapon of mass destruction, the pen and the paper used
to write laws from 1857 to the present which deny the representative Plaintiffs the proper
elements of nationhood placing them in the unenviable position of wards of the Crown
having no forum to address the wrongdoings perpetrated upon them.
52. The representative Plaintiffs state that the Indian reserves were created between
1783 and 1838 in New Brunswick culminating in an Act for the Sale and Management of
Indian Lands in 1841. Impositions of federal legislation after the British North America
Act of 1867 resulted in the imposition of conditions designed to cause mental or physical
harm to members of a group. This is defined as an act of genocide in the United Nations

15
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and in the
Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, C 24. as well as the Criminal
Code of Canada.
53. The representative Plaintiffs state that it was stated government intention to
assimilate Indigenous people into the newcomers society and to eradicate the traditional
Indigenous ways through education, religion, new economic and political systems, and a
new concept of property. All of this was designed to eventually eradicate the Indigenous
people and culture and the instrument chosen was the Indian Act. Indigenous people had
imposed on them a completely new existence, which amounts to the imposition of mental
harm which is an act of genocide. A thorough review of legislative undertaking in this
regard will reveal the intention to deprive the Indigenous people of their own culture,
spirituality, self-government and ultimately their human dignity.
54. The representative Plaintiffs state that the Indian Act of Canada was the model
for the creation of the apartheid system in South Africa. Accordingly, since 1867 the
Indigenous peoples have been condemned to a place called “reserves” and initially not
allowed to leave without permission. Although this form of imprisonment was relaxed
over time, the placement on specific tracts of land has never stopped and the supervision
by agents of the government continues, initially by the Indian agent and today by chief
and band council who are agents of the Crown under the Indian Act.
55. The representative Plaintiffs intend to prove that there are 633 examples of the
apartheid system throughout the territory known as Canada, all supervised by either
direct agents of the Crown or bureaucrats employed by the Crown. This system began in
1857 in Upper Canada and in 1876 in the Maritimes and although restrictive and

16
repressive rules were relaxed over time, the system remains in place today. The
representative Plaintiffs state that this is the imposition of circumstances designed to
cause mental harm and therefore an act of genocide for which they are entitled to
compensation. This act of genocide is on-going, as chief and band council have been and
are used as federal agents to destroy traditional Indigenous governments.
56. The representative Plaintiffs further state that the mental harm is on-going as the
lack of recognition of traditional self-government, the writing of laws which suppress
redress and remedy for Indigenous people and the plethora of judicial decisions against
Indigenous peoples’ interests are all contributing to the degradation of the Indigenous
people. Political isolation, poverty, highest rates of alcoholism, suicides, physical and
social abuse and imprisonment on a per capita basis and destruction of ceremony, ritual
and spirituality provides the evidentiary basis for the mental harm suffered by the people,
as to past events and which continues unabated today.
57. The representative Plaintiffs state that apartheid is defined in the dictionary as an
official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa
involving political, legal and economic discrimination against non-whites or - a policy or
practice of separating and segregating groups. The representative Plaintiffs plead that the
Indigenous peoples in the territory known as Canada and New Brunswick had this system
imposed on them before the Republic of South Africa and plead that they have in the past
suffered from political, legal and economic discrimination and continue to suffer from
this discrimination not only on the reserves but throughout the territory known as Canada
and New Brunswick.

17
58. The representative Plaintiffs state that the eradication of traditional governments
of the Indigenous peoples had been a government policy embarked upon in direct
contravention of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and amounts to a direct abdication of
responsibility by Her Majesty the Queen, the Chief Executive Officer of the territory
known as Canada. The policy implemented pursuant to the Indian Act contravenes
Article 2(b) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide - “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and is
contrary to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, C 24.
59. The representative Plaintiffs claim an entitlement to the Indigenous right of
nationhood and compensation for the on-going tort of genocide as defined in the above
international and domestic instruments. The representative Plaintiffs plead and rely upon
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal People [1996], the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the principle of “jus cogens” defined as “a peremptory norm of
general international law [which] is a norm accepted and recognized by the international
community of states as a whole as a norm for which no derogation is permitted and which
can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same
character.”
60. The representative Plaintiffs state that the imposition of the Indian Act without
their consent has deprived them of their human rights and fundamental freedoms,
resulting, inter alia, in their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and
resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development
in accordance with their own needs and interests. The representative Plaintiffs state that

18
there is an urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights and characteristics of
Indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, which
derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures,
spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies.
61. As a consequence of the negligence and/or breach of duty and/or fiduciary duty
and/or intentional infliction of harm by Her Majesty the Queen and Her Majesty in the
Right of Canada and/or its agents for whom it is in law responsible, the representative
Plaintiffs suffered injury and damages including:
(a) loss of nationhood and denial of the existence of sovereignty;
(b) loss of traditional territory and connection to the land;
(c) destruction of ceremony and ritual and loss of spirituality;
(d) imposition of a system of apartheid, initially resembling arbitrary
confinement to a place restricting freedom of movement developing into
an economic prison for all inhabitants;
(e) loss of traditional self-government and the imposition of an elected
system promoting nepotism and division of class and clans and family
members;
(f) imposing chief and band councils who act as agents for the federal
government in return for the administration of significant budgets;
(g) imposing chief and band councils who cannot fairly represent the needs of
the people as they are agents of the Queen and the federal government;

19
(h) depriving the people of proper representation in the court system in
Canada and New Brunswick as chief and band councils control the agenda
and instruct the lawyers, thereby harming the people;
(i) infliction of mental harm due to the hopelessness engendered by the
apartheid system;
(j) infliction of mental harm due to the denial that any problems exist
because of the imposition of the Indian Act;
(k) an inability to function in a traditional way of life and doomed to operate
in an environment dictated by the agents of the Queen and the federal
government through a chief and band council;
(l) a theft of identity by making an Indigenous person no more than a ward of
the Crown and inflicting economic penalty as a result;
(m) depriving the representative Plaintiffs of an ability to develop a
meaningful relationship with authority through imposed legislation
reflecting the consciousness of genocide from early encounter and taking
hold in those tasked to administer the imposed legislation resulting in
deep psychological harm and the development of racist policies;
(n) depriving the representative Plaintiffs of the ability to settle disputes on
land and social relationships by imposing legislation designed to address
these issues contrary to the Indigenous way of life;
(o) dividing and conquering the representative Plaintiffs through written laws
and policies forcing family members to separate and break-up to seek

20
opportunity outside of their traditional territory due to the impact of the
Indian Act;
(p) setting family members against other family members due to the effects of
the imposition of legislation which changed the governance system in the
Indigenous communities and destroyed the traditional influence on
governance;
(q) the loss of dignity and self-respect of the representative Plaintiffs forced
to accept the newcomers idea of the proper way of life for human beings;
(r) the imposition of a materialistic way of life to the detriment of the
development of the spiritually informed Indigenous culture
Métis existence in New Brunswick
62. The Defendant the Attorney General of Canada has commissioned reports and
subsequently relied upon them in court of law which stands for the proposition that Métis
people do not exist in the Province of New Brunswick. The official position is not
supported by the material facts demonstrating the existence of 18,000 self-identified
Métis people (census Canada 2006) and having existed since at least 1610 in the territory
known as New Brunswick.
63. Between the years 1610 to 1690, almost 60 years of inter-marriage occurred
between the Mi'kmaq Nation and the newcomers from France. These inter-marriages over
such an extended period of time produced the use of the term “les Acadiens” to identify
its people - les Acadiens derives from the term “Acadie”, a French word for the Mi’Kmaq
term “a'kati” and “a'katikewak” meaning “the people who derived their livelihood from

21
the land”. This historical fact is the beginning of the existence of the Métis people in the
territory known as Acadie which New Brunswick forms a part..
64. The Métis people established communities among the Mi'kmaq communities
and shared in the traditions, customs and ceremony of the Mi'kmaq people. After the
Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the British military exercised influence over the territory and
the seeds of the diaspora of the Métis people were generated by these events.
65. By 1755, the British colonial government introduced a policy of dispossession of
Acadians, of all land, communities and resources by forcible removal and relocation.
This vast displacement of at least 15,000 people greatly contributed to the destruction of
the normative value of community and is a major reason the Métis people were disrupted
in the continuity of their existence.
66. After this vast displacement of 1755, many Métis people returned to the
territory, however their ability to establish permanent communities or to make use of
traditional lands had been compromised by the arrival of vast numbers of newcomers
overwhelming the Métis people. In addition, the British colonial policy was not
conducive to the protection of the Métis people. As evidence by events in Caraquet in
1783.
67. This same dispossession and displacement occurred in the Kouchibouguac
territory on November 5th 1976 with the removal and destruction of homes of the
representative plaintiffs Jackie and Roy Vautour. This was another example of the
consciousness of the diaspora of 1755 and a blatant discrimination of the Métis people in
the territory.

22
68. In addition to this type of discrimination, Métis people are also precluded from
inherent rights of hunting, fishing and forestry activity by virtue of official government
policy that no Métis exist in the Province of New Brunswick. Not only are they denied
the recognition and affirmation of inherent Indigenous rights guaranteed by Section
35(1), the Defendants deny their very existence.
69. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to redress, compensation and
reconciliation for the past wrongdoings of the Crown as against Métis people in the
territory known as New Brunswick and entitlement to a declaration that Métis people
exist in the territory.
70. The representative Plaintiffs state that constant prosecution for violations of
fishing, hunting and forestry activity as against Métis people is an on-going act of
genocide for which they are entitled to compensable damages. The representative
Plaintiffs intend to seek a moratorium on these prosecutions as against Mi'kmaq and
Métis people within the parameters of this litigation.
71. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to damages for the diaspora of
1755 and the subsequent displacement and dispossession of Métis people from their
communities in the Kouchibouguac territory in 1976.
72. The representative Plaintiffs state that the Province of New Brunswick had no
authority to expropriate the Kouchibouguac territory then transfer it to the federal
government, who subsequently made it a national park, as this territory was subject to a
trust, pursuant to Section 109 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and was and still is
Indigenous title subject to the provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

23
73. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to compensation, redress and
reconciliation for all the wrongdoings of the Defendants as against all the Métis people in
the territory known as New Brunswick.
Constitutionality of Section 91 (24) of the B.N.A. Act
74. The representative Plaintiffs plead that Section 91(24) is ultra vires the British
House of Commons. Accordingly, there is no authority to pass the Indian Act of Canada
and it should also be declared ultra vires the federal government. Queen Elizabeth II
should have exercised her constitutional duty in Section 56 of the British North America
Act 1867 and disallowed the first Indian Act passed pursuant to Section 91(24) and
acknowledged her responsibilities under the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
Jus Cogens
75. The representative Plaintiffs plead that any inquiry into the principles of
fundamental justice is informed not only by Canadian experience and jurisprudence, but
also by international law, including “jus cogens.” This takes into account Canada’s
international obligations and values as expressed in the various sources of international
human rights law - declarations, covenants, conventions, judicial and quasi-judicial
decisions of international tribunals and customary norms. The representative Plaintiffs
and state that “jus cogens” is defined as a norm accepted and recognized by the
international community of states as a whole as a norm for which no derogation is
permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international
law having the same character. There is compelling evidence to indicate that genocide is
a peremptory norm, such as:
(a) Nuremberg trials - for Holocaust in Germany;
(b) Convention on Genocide - United Nations;

24
(c) U.N. declaration on Indigenous Peoples;
(d) Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000 c.24; and,
(e) Criminal Code of Canada, Section 317.
Funding
76. The representative Plaintiffs claim entitlement to have funding provided for the
purpose of pursuing legal redress in this matter.
Reconciliation
77. The representative Plaintiffs plead that they are desirous of developing a
mechanism through which healing and reconciliation could be developed between the
parties and would explore any discussions and negotiations which would promote healing
and reconciliation on a long term basis and provide for fair and reasonable compensation
for wrongdoings of the Defendants.
78. In January of 1998, the Crown issued a Statement of Reconciliation
acknowledging and apologizing for the failures of the Residential School system.
Moreover, the Crown admitted that the Residential School system was wrongly and
inappropriately designed to assimilate Indigenous persons. The representative Plaintiffs
plead that the Statement of Reconciliation by the Crown is an admission of the Crown of
the facts and duties set out in the above paragraphs and is relevant to the representative
Plaintiffs’ claim for damages, particularly punitive damages. The Statement of
Reconciliation stated in part, as follows:
Sadly, our history with respect to the treatment of Aboriginal people is
not something to which we can take pride. Attitudes of racial and
cultural superiority led to a suppression of Aboriginal culture and
values. As a country we are burdened by past actions that resulted in
weakening the identity of Aboriginal peoples, suppressing their
languages and cultures, and outlawing spiritual practices. We must
recognize the impact of these actions on the once self-sustaining
nations that were desegregated, disrupted, limited or even destroyed by
the dispossession of traditional territory, by the relocation of

25
Aboriginal people, and by some provisions of the Indian Act. We must
acknowledge that the results of these actions was the erosion of the
political, economic and social systems of Aboriginal people and
nations.
Against the backdrop of these historical legacies, it is a remarkable
tribute to the strength and endurance of Aboriginal people that they
have maintained their historic diversity and identity. The Government
of Canada today formally expresses to all Aboriginal people in Canada
our profound regret for past actions of the Federal Government which
have contributed to these difficult pages in the history of our
relationship together.
One aspect of our relationship with Aboriginal people over this period
that requires particular attention is the Residential School System. This
system separated many children from their families and communities
and prevented them from speaking their own languages and from
learning about their heritage and cultures. In the worst cases, it left
legacies of personal pain and distress that continued to reverberate in
Aboriginal communities to this date. Tragically, some children were
the victims of physical and sexual abuse.
The Government of Canada acknowledges the role it played in the
development and administration of these schools. Particularly to those
individuals who experienced the tragedy of sexual and physical abuse
at Residential Schools, and who have carried this burden believing that
in some way they must be responsible, we wish to emphasize that what
you experienced is not your fault and should never have happened. To
those of you who suffered this tragedy at Residential Schools, we are
deeply sorry. In dealing with the legacies of the Residential School
program, the Government of Canada proposes to work with First
Nations, Inuit, Metis people, the Churches and other interested parties
to resolve the longstanding issues that must be addressed. We need to
work together on a healing strategy to assist individuals and
communities in dealing with the consequences of the sad era of our
history…
Reconciliation is an ongoing process. In renewing out partnership, we
must ensure that the mistakes which marked our past relationship are
not repeated. The Government o Canada recognized that policies that
sought to assimilate Aboriginal people, women and men, were not the
way to build a strong community…”
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM

26
79. The representative Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
(a) DECLARATION of Indigenous title in the Province of New Brunswick in
favour of the Mi’kmaq and Métis people;
(b) DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Mi’Kmaq and Métis
peoples are entitled to compensation for lands and dispossession of lands
required for settlement purposes pursuant to the Royal Proclamation of
1763;
(c) DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs, in their representative capacity, are
entitled to damages in the amount of 13 Billion Dollars for the tort of
genocide committed since 1610 and continuing and on-going to this day,
against Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II and the Federal government;
(d) DECLARATION that Métis people exist in the Province of New
Brunswick;
(e) DECLARATION that the Federal and Provincial governments have no
jurisdiction in unceded, unsurrendered Indigenous territory in the
Province of New Brunswick over Mi’kmaq or Métis people in the
Province of New Brunswick;
(f) DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs in their representative capacities are
entitled to a stay of proceedings for all prosecutions for hunting, fishing
and forestry contraventions, be they Federal or Provincial, in the Province
of New Brunswick until the determination of jurisdictional issues between
the Crown and Mi’kmaq and Métis peoples in the Province of New
Brunswick;

27
(g) An AMENDMENT to these proceedings to permit an action against the
Province of New Brunswick; after the expiry of the notice provision of
Section 15 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, to add the Attorney
General of New Brunswick seeking a DECLARATION of trust pursuant
to Section 109 of the Constitution Act 1982, U.K. C. 11, on “all lands
mines, minerals and resources” in favour of the Mi’kmaq and Métis
people of the Province of New Brunswick;
(h) A REPRESENTATION ORDER pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of
Court appointing the named Plaintiffs as representatives of all unborn
persons, unascertained persons, or persons who cannot readily be
ascertained, found or served, who have a present, future, contingent or
unascertained interest in, or may be affected by, the proceeding.
(i) An ORDER for interim funding based on the principles of Okanagan
premised on a s. 35 right of the Constitution Act, 1982 to self-assertion
that cannot be compromised by an act of genocide;
(j) Costs for the action on a solicitor-and-client basis; and
(k) Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable
Court permit.
STATUTES
80. The representative Plaintiffs plead and rely upon the following:
(a) British North America Act 1867
(b) Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50
(c) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
28
(d) Constitution Act, 1982
(e) Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24
(f) International Treaties
(g) Peace and Friendship Treaties
(h) Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-18
(i) Royal Proclamation of 1763
(j) State Immunity Act
(k) The Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, Preamble
(l) The Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985
81. The representative Plaintiffs plead and rely upon the following United Nations
documents:
(a) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by
General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 entry into
force 12 January 1951, in accordance with Article XIII;
(b) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20
November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with
Article 49;
(c) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened
for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution
2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in
accordance with Article 49; and
29
(d) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Approved on 13 September 2007, after 143 Member States voted in
favour, 11 abstained and four – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the
United States – voted against the text. Australia and New Zealand have
since changed their vote in favour of the Declaration leaving Canada and
the United States voting against.
DATED at Ottawa, Ontario, this 19th day of May, 2010.
________________________________________
Michael Swinwood
Lawyer for the plaintiffs
ELDERS WITHOUT BORDERS
237 Argyle Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 1B8
T: 613-563-7474
F: 613-563-9179




Tags: FIRST   *   CANADA   NATIONS   METIS   NEW   JUSTICE   Court   Brunswick   genocide  
 
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.