The thirty-one 4-track songs on this album were transferred from old reel to reel 1/4 inch tapes, mixed on an old 8-track mixer, and sent on their way to the digital world. From there, they were re-mixed and uploaded. These songs will probably be re-recorded with new arrangements, instrumentation, vocals ad infinitum when stage one of Petrified Wood Recording Studios is completed. They had to be mixed with speed due to the deterioration of the original reel to reel 1/4 inch tapes that were losing pieces on the playback and were becoming stuck in the machine. There was only one opportunity to mix them before digitization and if something were missed for any reason, it would have to wait until these soon to be re-recorded songs reach the new recording facility, which is nearing completion. These recordings were lost and may perhaps have never been found. By chance, they appeared one day while inadvertently searching for something else. Preservation of the elements of the compositions and the recordings was the primary goal. There are instrumentals that may be of interest to film companies and there are vocal harmonies to knock your socks off.I've played with many drummers over the years including some extremely good ones. Though I have not played with Richard Starkey (yet), the best drummer I've worked with is Johnny Leonardis (Geologist, Jeanius & Sticks). “Leo” (as he was called) drums with speed, power, a fast right foot and a distinctive sound. That’s why he was compared with the drumming of the late Led Zeppelin’s John Bonham. Oddly, I had him add drums to many songs, perhaps the first 30 songs on this album. The problem is that I cannot find the tapes with his drumming. I also had made a master copy of his drumming too, but I can't find that either (yet). The reason I made the master copy (aside from John wanting one - yeah he likely didn't keep it either) was because when I recorded his drums, I tested out some buttons on the reel-to-reel tape machine in the spirit of the experimental nature of these songs. Unfortunately as fate would have it, the buttons changed the timing of when the drumming from the performance passed over the record head that was recording his performance and synchronizing it with the other instruments. That meant his playback and his performance were out of sync by the time it took the sound he heard on the playback head to travel at the speed of the motor to the drums he played as recorded on the record head. Thanks to the Master Copy of the drums, I was able to determine the time differential and correct it, adding it back to the Master mix. Because the Master mix tape is still unfound, I need to wait until I find it. I just could not add other drums to these songs. I hear the songs with those drums. So, there are 30 songs on this album that perhaps ought to have John playing those amazingly unique drums of his like nobody else can do but I can't find the tape with his drums. It sort of feels like having the cure for cancer and misplacing it. John did not play on the 31st song here for sure so I had no problem adding drums to that song.Acoustic pianos, electric pianos, electric guitars, 12-string acoustic guitars, bass guitars, lead vocals and harmony vocals were performed by Geologist; however, Gail Savorn performed the harmonies on both versions of, “Home” and she performed a couple of the four harmonies on the bridge of vocal versions of, “Give Me Some Reason” and Marlene Williams added the high vocal on the bridges of those same versions of “Give Me Some Reason”. All songs were composed, published, produced, arranged and mixed by Geologist. Graphic Art by Geologist. For those who conspired to stop this music from ever being released, I hope you’ll forever Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord.If you’ve ever had a great uncle who as a pillar of his community secretly did you harm throughout your lives and who died in a snowstorm while he was doing his dirty deeds, if you’ve ever had a crazy uncle who was a bully, a hunter, held prejudices, who was out for revenge of an imaginary wrong that he himself was responsible for, who was full of greed, jealousy, envy, and who created conditions where his own mother was isolated to die so that he could conspire to obtain her assets, if you’ve ever had a step-aunt who wanted her share, who used threats and intimidation against an old woman and who perhaps left her bruised and battered, then Don’t Turn Away. Those kinds of people in your lives can do irreparable harm to the point where you are unsure if you will survive. They will destroy your homes, destroy your businesses, wreak havoc with your lives. They will injure everyone you care about and it will be a struggle to save some of them, if you can. Such relatives want to leave you destitute and injured so that you can be ground into the dirt. That is the legacy they will leave but yours can be different. Resist with everything you have, even if it is an inch at a time. An inch at a time can move continents around the Earth. You can always change your life at any time. Ban them from your lives forever. Anyone who causes you harm, have no contact with them whatsoever. Set yourselves a reminder that you will never go back. When I decided enough was enough, when I made a conscious effort to stop them, to protect those I care for from harm, even if it meant giving up on my music forever, I became their target. I became their Evil Luck Lord. For them, I will always be the Curse of the Evil Luck Lord. I can live with that. These songs were abandoned back then, at that time when all hope appeared to be lost.I’ve left these songs in the state in which I had abandoned them, still not having determined how they ought to be performed, arranged, produced, mixed. If I had not abandoned these songs to protect my immediate family, their enemies would have completely destroyed their lives. It took time before their enemies revealed themselves. Now that they have and there is a specific enemy to confront and exact restitution from, we can continue with life.When the nearly completed stage one of Petrified Wood Recording Studios is completed, I will try to revive these songs using skills I’ve developed since I was the kid who made these recordings. Despite what was happening when these experimental sound recordings were being made, barring death, maybe not even then, these songs may perhaps develop a life of their own, somewhere, sometime. And the Curse of the Evil Luck Lord will live on...perhaps in life...perhaps in death...perhaps in an inanimate life after death.Disc two contains vocal versions of “The World”, “Love You”, “A Walk-In”, “A Gardener Digging Dirt” and “History” bringing the total length of this double album to 157 minutes and 42 seconds. WOW! With the exception of the last song, the tapes were old and in a deteriorated state, with generation losses from tape transfers to the digital realm. I used technology to rescue them. I had hoped that online distributors would sell this double disc album for the price of a single disc; however, its length appears to be the determining factor in the price they set. Though I initially sold this double album for the price of a single album, I have complied with their selling decisions after 3 months on CD Baby at a discount rate. 3Mar2012In Canada, there is quite a bit of public information about who receives government music grants. Most of the recipients appear to be corporations (numbered or named), businesses or labels (generally on behalf of various artists who mistakenly believe their myspace/facebook/twitter pages are under their control). The corporate/business/label grant recipients have a history of receiving government grants and with that history they are fast tracked at almost any time they request funding. They do not have to submit applications to deadlines. They do not have to wait for arms length juries stacked or comprised of jurors affiliated with their own favoured companies/businesses/labels. They do not have to wait for the self-proclaimed artist jurors they have or will obtain grants for. We only know that perhaps the bias will not be obvious for the deadline they oversee. Thus, juror transparency is for appearance only, not substance over time. For those favoured companies/businesses/labels, every dollar government grants in a recording budget, they grant more than that dollar for marketing and promotion. While independent artists can apply for - for example - up to $1500, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $24,000, they generally receive 10 to 50 percent or some lesser amount of what they apply to receive. They must also match spending for whatever they receive from government. Once the recording produces a product, the applicant must be able to sell it and repay government after sales. It’s not so much a grant as an advantage to favoured artists over other artists.Whereas fast tracked companies/businesses/labels can apply for - for example - stipends of $100,000, receiving $45,000 for recording, $50,000 for marketing and promotion and $5,000 for administrative costs of completing government forms. While grants for recording generally pay somewhere around 50% of a recording budget (with slight variations higher or lower), without the marketing and promotion components, the marketplace is virtually unaware of the existence of the recordings (social media novelties excepted). Government thus uses its unlimited resources to disadvantage independent competitors of the companies/businesses/labels it favours. That market advantage accorded to favoured companies/businesses/labels is based on an alleged historical track record of previous grants. In other words, they were able to repay government after sales. While individuals can apply for a recording grant, either they must follow a web site based marketing and promotion format for an album that is not yet created or they cannot apply for marketing and promotion until they have successfully repaid the recording grant. Most bands lack someone who has unlimited time in life to plan marketing and promotion of a product according to government specifications to obtain the grant or they cannot repay the recording grant without the marketing and promotion. As a result, they are banned from further grants and they are never able to obtain government grants for marketing and promotion. That circular problem is the plague suffered by independents.From talking with working artists here, they are surviving by performing and selling CDs and merchandise between sets. Most have another job or they would not financially survive. Many were surprised a few years back when a hooker obtained a $50,000 government grant for recording but they were not surprised when like most grant recipients in Canada, her career evaporated. It is obvious to Canadian artists that our government grants are controlled by the same companies/businesses/labels who control the arms length juries but there is nothing any of us can do about it.There seem to be all kinds of tour grants but all the grants are based on CD or digital sales minimums which independent artists without recognized distributors cannot even approach by numbers. It is also expensive to sign up for yearly sales reports and costs on average 25 times more than the independents earn from sales, even with discounts as a government grant recipient. If independents are extremely lucky and perform publicly all the time, in roughly 25 years, they could afford sales reports for one year but it would eat up all of their profits. In the meanwhile, social media sites think it is their right to play full length songs of artists for 1/1000th to 4/1000th of cent for streaming of artists' songs. Prior to that new rate, artists received absolutely nothing for as many as a million myspace/facebook plays. Laws need to be put in place to limit clips from 30 seconds for shorter songs to 1 minute 30 seconds for longer songs. Overall, despite the apparent technological levelling of the competitive playing field, government interference in the marketplace is creating a bleak prospect for independents artists.So we can use technology to place our music in the marketplace but we don’t have the resources to record, produce and especially to market and promote it. After being excluded from government grants for not following the proper administrative procedures or not applying via one of the favoured companies/businesses/labels, which of course means our art is dubbed to be of no value, we can now place our low budget recordings of an original song into the digital marketplace. Once we place an original song into the marketplace, that pretty much kills that song’s opportunity to receive a government grant for it to be recorded. Without government support, either artists place songs into the marketplace without meeting industry standards, or the song does not exist and never reaches the marketplace. Either scenario is what the inbred Canadian companies/businesses/labels want. For excluded artists, there is no money to record songs as they ought to be recorded. There is no point in holding onto songs until they can be recorded competitively, using developed professional skills over many years. Anything we place online will earn only pennies anyway, without government support and without funding for marketing and promotion. Few of us are born with the resources to release songs on our own. For independent artists, it is a matter of taking control of our creative endeavours and products. It is a matter of not giving government or those government supported inbred companies/businesses/labels control over what we do. Nor do we want to send them samples of our work because ideas can be applied to products that are released into a marketplace with evidence of dates that have legal implications. We want to release our ideas before allowing the arms length jurors from hearing the work we are creating before we release it into the marketplace with a date stamp of evidence of who created the product.After a lifetime of dealing with Canada Council, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent On Record (FACTOR) and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA), I decided the hell with them and just released Curse The Evil of The Luck Lord as is. Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord is a protest against the governmental Habsburg lip that comprises the inbreeding of Canada’s government supported music royalty.Prior to releasing Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord, my independent label, Archaeology Communications had already decided to build a recording studio, Petrified Wood Recording Studios. Stage one will be completed soon. Sometime in 2012, I will have competitively produced recordings to release into the marketplace. Archaeology Communications will do its best to market and promote them without any contributions from government whatsoever. It will be an uphill battle and the odds will be against us. We’re going up against Canada’s inbred government supported music royalty. At worst, we will have competitive recordings for the first time in our lives. I’d ask you to wish us luck but hey, we’re the Luck Lords. Until then, we’re privileged to release ancient, unfunded, unfinished, experimental reel to reel recordings.Canada Council, FACTOR & the AFA are arms length organizations that we have cursed with a hex. They have the appearance of transparency but in substance, they are manipulated by government favoured numbered and named corporations, businesses and labels. They obtain direct board approval that rubber stamps recording, marketing and promotion grants anytime they want it. In contrast, the rest of us apply to arbitrary deadlines and attempt to comply with nonsensical administrative requirements for insufficient, inaccessible amounts that lack funding for marketing and promotion, without which a recording is a waste of time and effort.The financial disadvantage to Canadian artists is so great, that we would be far better off if government funded nobody whatsoever and those organizations did not exist in Canada. That way, we would have a better opportunity to compete in the Canadian and global marketplace. Government funding injures most of us in order to favour only a few inbred companies/businesses/labels.Without the existence of Canada Council, FACTOR and provincial organizations such as the AFA, we would have a better opportunity to compete in the Canadian and global marketplace. They’ve failed us miserably and harmed us by supporting our competitors. We're injured but we'll dust ourselves off and do our best without them."Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord" is our pinprick of a protest, demonstrating how Canada’s government organizations injure its artists.In 2012, we’ll have industry standard state-of-the-art recordings produced at our new Petrified Wood Recording Studios facility: stage one.GEOLOGIST: Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord - Double Album of 31 songs (iTunes), November 15, 2011. This album is a protest against the way that Canada Council, FACTOR and provincial organizations such as Alberta Foundation For the Arts provide funding that disadvantage most Canadian artists locally, nationally and internationally. The Canada Council’s, FACTOR’s and provincial organizations such as Alberta Foundation For the Arts’ inbred favourites of numbered or named companies, businesses or labels can access unlimited funding for recording, marketing and promotion any time they choose. The rest of us must meet deadlines and impossible sales targets. That prevents us from obtaining equal funding for recording, marketing and promotion. This album is ancient and is being released"as is" in protest. Petrified Wood Recording Studios will be completely functional in 2012 and this album will be re-released using state-of-the-art technology that will compete with the best in the world. We'll do our best at marketing and promotion without any government funding whatsoever thanks to our Canadian disadvantage.GEOLOGIST: I Don’t Say A Word - SingleTo be released as a single, Monday, December 19, 2011, nine days after Human Rights day, one day prior to the usual Tuesday release day, “I Don’t Say A Word” describes the aftermath of a crime against humanity committed under the umbrella of the Canadian government, its laws enforced by the RCMP, its churches, its priests and nuns, its teachers and health workers. It was a cultural genocide to take the Aboriginal out of the Indian, an ethnocide committed under the guise of being an assimilation policy.The underground rock instrumental, “I Don’t Say A Word” comprising piano, electric guitar, 12-string acoustic guitar, bass describes the spiritual consequences when we make our homes on Aboriginal land, silence the drum of the people and ignore voices of pain. The entire Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord double album of 31 songs is dedicated to the public disclosure that the government of Canada was determined to bring about the silencing of the drum. Toward that end, there are no drums on any of the songs, except the last song that offers a spirit of hope.In Canada, the Canadian Government had its Indian Affairs department implement a policy to exterminate the Indian from Aboriginals in a cruel, inhumane, cultural genocide. It was a systemic abuse by the Canadian government committed by Canada’s residential school education system. They took Aboriginal children far away from their families, banned the use of their language and culture, forcing them to assimilate within a non-Aboriginal existence.Far away from their families for 10 months at a time while school was in session, the children were subjected to vicious violence and sexual exploitation by priests and teachers who were pedophiles, sadists and racists. Under the appearance of educating children, the churches and the departments of education used the laws of Canada to harm Aboriginal children so that generations were physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and mentally abused, scarred and injured. Children and grand-children could not speak with their parents and grand-parents because the children and grand-children could only speak English while the parents and grand-parents could only speak an Aboriginal language.When victims reported the atrocities they suffered, they were ignored. When they ran away or ran home from the residential schools or when their families tried to disappear with them and hide from the church operated, government residential schools, the RCMP tracked them down and returned them to the residential schools full of pedophiles, sadists and racists who implemented the government of Canada’s systemic extermination of the Indian in the Aboriginals for the purpose of committing a cultural genocide.Generations lost who they were as Canadian society viewed Aboriginals with stereotypical images, dance, diets from fishing, hunting and bannock, dress tied to ritual dances and head dresses and bead making. Aboriginal languages and culture became endangered. While Aboriginals tried to sweat together, to remind their spirits that material things are not of the spirit, Canadian society pursued more material possessions and sang a national anthem with the words of “our home and native land”. But the words of our national anthem ought to begin with, “Oh Canada, our home on Aboriginal land”, a possession Aboriginals considered to be something that could not be owned, such as the air or the water or the species of the Earth that we take ownership of for the purpose of economy. Many of our Aboriginals never did sign legal land treaties but that has not prevented land from being taken from them, followed by their forced removal to reservations near or far from their homelands. Though our generation of Canadians did not perpetrate these crimes, our parents and grand-parents were either wilfully blind or oblivious to what was being done by our government to an identifiable minority within our society. Aboriginals were an identifiable minority confined by Canada’s Department of Indian Affairs to isolated Indian Reserves with whom Canadian society rarely interacted at the time. The designated Indian Reserves had living conditions equivalent to those found in the third world on a par with the poorest of the poor, rampant tuberculosis, high child mortality rates, high incarceration rates. Indian Affairs was the tip of the sword for the Canadian government’s residential schools program. It was Indian Affairs overseeing education among the residential schools full of pedophiles, sadists and racists who implemented the government of Canada’s systemic extermination of the Indian in the Aboriginals for the purpose of committing a cultural genocide, an ethnocide. It would not be until 1960 that Aboriginals were allowed to vote in Canada. It would not be until the late 1990s that the scope of what was done to Canada’s Aboriginals during the residential schools program would begin to be disclosed and to enlighten a shocked Canadian public.While the Canadian government has now apologized for the means that it used to implement its assimilation policy for the systemic extermination of the Indian in the Aboriginals for the purpose of committing a cultural genocide, the “truth” continues to be revised by branches and arms of government, government departments, churches, priests, nuns, teachers, health workers, police and perpetrators. As a consequence, the reports issued for the Truth and Reconciliation conferences may be doctored to spin a tale that is less horrific, less terrifying, less nightmarish, less inhumane. They revise historical fact in order to mask the cruel and unusual methods employed and implemented under the rule of Canadian laws.When speaking out against abuse fell on deaf ears, over time the Aboriginals began to use silence as a means of voicing their disapproval whenever they were “consulted” by government. When it was too late to make a difference for the lives that were injured, government wanted to know Aboriginal choices before government implemented what it had already decided before any consultation. When the Aboriginals reacted to “consultation” with silence, silence was heard but government became confused by it and did not know how to react to it.Among Aboriginal communities, silence means disapproval. When Aboriginals don’t say a word, they voice their silence with disapproving looks, gestures and by walking quietly out of the room. “I Don’t Say A Word” is what I heard in the silence among our Aboriginals. It is a silence implemented after the voices of victims of residential schools were ignored and fell on deaf ears plugged by visual, identifiable discrimination.Canada’s Aboriginals voiced their opinions during the repatriation of our Constitution and disapproved of the Canadian government’s intent to place their rights within our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to not lose their rights, they chose to leave many of their rights outside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within our Constitution Act 1982. Canada’s Aboriginals have noticed that rights evolve over time and though they recognized new rights, they also value the rights preserved by their ancestors for time immemorial so that they could maintain a way of life and a unique identity among diverse identities in a changing world.The world is richer, kinder, more environmentally friendly with the knowledge that Canada's Aboriginals have to offer all. The failure of the government of Canada's assimilation policy that was enforced by laws, police, teachers, churches, pedophiles, sadists and racists also failed to exterminate the Indian from Aboriginals despite a cruel, inhumane, cultural genocide that was a crime against humanity. That government of Canada failure is a victory to the spirit of Canada's Aboriginals. Those who lived, survived a myriad of injuries far greater than anyone ought to bear. Those who did not, may perhaps have their stories told by others. Our Aboriginals will not perish from Canada or the Earth.Their knowledge will survive. Their new generations of children can hope for a better future than their parents and grand-parents. Their resilient spirit used silence to speak when verbal words remained unheard.The “Curse The Evil Of The Luck Lord” album was not recorded in a professional recording studio. It is being released “as is” without the support of the Canada Council, The Foundation To Assist Canadian Talent On Record (FACTOR) and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, all of whom have chosen not to support the release of this album for decades. In an effort to annoy those government arms that purport to maintain a standard for Canadian artists, I have dug up the oldest, most unpolished recordings of these songs I could find. That allowed me the opportunity to make a statement about the cultural genocide that took place in Canada from 1928. “I Don’t Say A Word” is that statement. Its cover has a spelling error as a mutiny of gov’t standards.There are no words to describe personal humiliation, degradation and loss of dignity. No words describe atrocities committed under the authority of laws enacted by one’s government whose purpose is to harm an identifiable ethnic group of its people. Canadians have seen the stereotypical drunken Indian; however, not many Canadians understand the abuse that innocent Aboriginal children suffered in the residential schools. What coping mechanisms would the adult you use, if it had happened to the child you?There was nobody who could help them, not even their parents who were overpowered by those who enforced the government’s rule of law. It was those unjust, unconstitutional laws that made a crime against humanity possible. There is no compensation, no retribution, no reconciliation that can un-humiliate the humiliated, un-degrade the degraded, dignify those who have had it stripped away, return the innocence of youth, wash away the memories of pain and suffering or forgive what is unforgivable. Even if the truth were not elusive, could it restore hope in the adult former residential school children who survived to contemplate their past from the perspective of time? The courts must be vigilant in preventing politicians from enacting laws that allow opportunities for crimes against humanity. Without shame or remorse, our system of checks and balances failed miserably. It could happen again unless we exercise a duty of care that ought to have prevented past Canadian crimes against humanity. Followed by hollow, insincere apologies to Aboriginal victims of residential schools, more is needed to restore the cultures that were unjustly targeted.I Don’t Say A Word’s Cover has Two Eyes, a Nose, Mouth & A Child’s Spelling Game: As a game for children, the album cover of “I Don’t Say A Word” is designed to contain a face & misspelled word. Find the word with the error. Then determine what the word ought to be and what it is supposed to say. The child’s spelling game is a reminder that it was the Aboriginal children that the government of Canada targeted to remove the Indian from the Aboriginals. By targeting children, time was as much of a weapon as discriminatory laws implementing racist legal authority throughout a multi-generational conspiracy. The conspiracy was designed to be a crime against humanity against all Aboriginals in Canada. At its conclusion, Aboriginal cultures and languages would have been extinct. The residential schools program was eventually discredited and stopped because of victims who spoke out against it for the sake of the children.What Ought To Be Done Is Impeded ByA Constitutional Dilemma:Four Processes Affecting Aboriginal And Treaty RightsAndThe Roles Played By Legislatures And CourtsFour processes/themes can be examined from the government of Canada’s historical actions and by systemic roles expected during the interim requiring judicial activism by Courts, predictable legislative retaliation from federal Parliament and unexpected involvement from Provincial legislatures. During the interim of what? The interim is the time it takes for Canada’s Aboriginal nations to negotiate a consensus with the Government of Canada that defines Treaty rights and the promised third level of government in Canada: Aboriginal Self-Government.Aboriginal Self-Government would allow the original Aboriginal nations to share their North American lands with the European immigrants who arrived to form Canada and United States. Aboriginals did not recognize Canadian-American borders, or provincial/territorial borders within Canada or state borders within the United States. Even among Aboriginal Nations, land was shared among nations. As a result, Treaty documents of Canada require Canadian Courts to recognize Treaty documents from the United States as if they carried the precedential weight of Canadian Treaty documents.Furthermore, in Canada, treaties were made between Aboriginal nations and the British monarchy. Canada’s involvement complicated matters. Mired in fog, Canadian case law had created interim precedents that confused division of powers matters with Treaty matters. The confusion was caused when a historically oral Aboriginal culture’s evidence was disallowed as hearsay and unrecognized by a British legal tradition whose culture required written documentation for legal recognition. Subsequently, the government of Canada Constitutionalized the Courts’ legal errors. But for the Constitutionalization of the Courts’ errors, a long line of precedent setting cases, cited and followed prior to 1931's Statute of Westminster granting Canada control over its international affairs including Treaty powers and prior to the 1960s when Aboriginals were allowed to vote and became legal persons in Canada able to testify, the precedent setting cases and the entire line of cases that relied upon them for decades would have been overturned so that substantive justice could be done. In order for substantive justice to be done, the government of Canada must fulfill its end of the treaties made with Aboriginal nations who share their lands with the offspring of the generations of immigrants. For Canada to fulfill the treaties, it must take the time to negotiate a consensus and finance the creation of Aboriginal Self-Government within Canada. In essence, Aboriginal nations would share their lands with Canada, having jurisdiction over the civil laws within their territories that may cross not only provincial borders, but Canada-U.S. borders, while Canadian and American criminal laws would remain under the jurisdiction of Canadian and American federal governments.Where Aboriginal nations held lands that crossed into the United States, negotiating a consensus with Canada would only be the beginning, and would eventually be followed by negotiating a consensus with the United States. Aboriginal peoples have been patient, waiting centuries until Canada is ready to negotiate a consensus. Likewise, even if Canada fulfilled its end of the treaties, Aboriginals would wait until the United States was ready to fulfill their end of the treaties.On the one hand, a culture that shared land with other nations, the Aboriginal North American nations. On the other hand, a culture that was built on the possession and exclusive ownership of land, the European nations. When Aboriginal cultures shared their lands with European cultures, the European cultures took possession of the lands. Aboriginal cultures shared their lands with European cultures on the condition that Aboriginals could maintain their way of life through a negotiated consensus that would allow them to form a Self-Government within Canada and a Self-Government within the United States.Four Processes/Themes Examined By Roles Expected For Legislatures and CourtsWith regard to Canada, Courts and legislatures have considered four processes/themes: (1) Patriation, (2) Internal Aboriginal Processes RE: Patriation, (3) Future Processes of Rights Protection and (4) Substantive Aboriginal Rights. Patriation: Parliament wanted to bring back or patriate our Constitution from Britain any way possible, to include a Canadian made amending formula and a Charter of Rights. The Courts thus re-interpreted cases from a chain of flawed law originating from pre-1935 (when Ministerial consent was necessary, access was denied to Aboriginals who might otherwise have provided evidence) and pre-1960 legal precedents (when Aboriginals were not legal persons with a right to give evidence in Court or vote in political elections) and the lines of cases that relied upon them.Internal Aboriginal Process RE: Patriation: Executives, Ministers, Members of Parliament and provincial legislatures and the civil service conducted a dialogue with members of Canada’s Aboriginal Nations in order to reach a consensus. They heard the Aboriginal concept of one island sharing many nations/laws. Courts would thus recognize Aboriginal representation, Elder input and Aboriginal jurisdictions.Future Processes of Rights Protection: In order to codify contractual treaties where Aboriginal Nations offered to share their lands accepted by Canada for the consideration of Self-Government that would maintain a way a life for time immemorial for Aboriginal peoples, Parliament has a responsibility to negotiate by consensus political Treaty/Aboriginal rights and define them for its side of the contract. The Courts could thus invite Aboriginal involvement in the Court process, in argument and to present Evidence that includes oral evidence from an oral culture.Substantive Aboriginal Rights: Parliament has a duty to fund/implement Aboriginal Self-Government control of land/resources to be under Aboriginal jurisdiction. The Courts could then define Treaty/Aboriginal Rights, and Constitutionalize historical and modern Aboriginal Rights. What was the role of Courts and legislatures according to the themes? Legislatures create mechanisms for Courts to follow. Are the mechanisms consistent or inconsistent with justice? Justice requires legislatures to plant a healthy seed. Courts must then nurture the growth of that seed. After creating that seed by Treaty with the Imperial Crown, Aboriginals want a say in the Constitutional mechanism of how the seed grows. The seed is Canada.IntroductionLet’s examine the above four processes affecting Aboriginal and Treaty rights, the roles played by legislatures and Courts, and whether those roles are consistent or inconsistent with justice. In part one, the evidence is presented. In part two, I’ll offer general conclusions on these processes, roles and the consistency of the result.PART ONEConstitutional DilemmaIn order to examine the four processes/themes and the expected systemic roles played by Legislatures and Courts, it is necessary to wonder how a chain of Constitutionalized flawed law can be overturned. The flawed law was likewise codified via Supreme Court of Canada decisions creating legal precedent, relied upon by lower Courts for decades in an extensive, long line of cited cases that have created numerous injustices against Aboriginal peoples. The Constitutional dilemma is created by the question, “Acknowledging the Constitutional principle that one part of the Constitution cannot be used to override another part of the Constitution, how can one part of the Constitution override another part of the Constitution? It is an unsolvable problem.Worse than that, much of the case law up to the mid-1930s produced precedents without Aboriginal involvement in the cases. In order to take Court action and to file security for costs, Aboriginals had to first obtain consent from the Minister of Indian Affairs, which was not forthcoming. Until the 1960s when Aboriginals received the right to vote in Canada and became legal persons, Aboriginals did not argue their positions in Court. Dialogue arguing Aboriginal positions from an Aboriginal perspective on their treatment by legislatures and Courts did not occur until the Special Joint Commission on the Constitution of Canada invited briefs and heard testimony from approximately 20 Aboriginal groups between 1980 and 1981.The hearings educated Members of Parliament and the general public on what contributed to the fore mentioned practice where ordinary federal and provincial law overrode treaties. The legal errors were based on questionable, and from an Aboriginal perspective, invalid and illegal precedents. Such a scenario was never supposed to be the case on the wording of mutually negotiated treaties that were to last forever.Perhaps Aboriginal Self-Government within Canada is capable of rectifying the question posed by the dilemma that has developed from Constitutionalized legislation that decided a federal-provincial division of powers matter but has been applied by Courts to decide Aboriginal and Treaty rights matters. If it is, both legislatures and Courts will be required to participate in solving a problem they created not by intent but by ignorance. Once a solution to the unsolvable Constitutional dilemma is decided upon, justice may require that perhaps more than a hundred years of flawed case law must be reviewed by law clerks and government administrators.A Chain Held By Weak LinksFor instance, the Natural Resource Transfer Agreement (NRTA) of 1930 unilaterally altered the Treaty of June 21, 1899, Treaty No. 8 (one of eleven numbered treaties, among others), removing Aboriginal control over their resources on their lands. In particular, commercial hunting and fishing privileges included the Treaty “right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered” [“as if the Treaty had never been entered into”], the decisive point guaranteed by the Treaty Commission to relieve Aboriginal fears (according to the Commission’s filed report.). The word “vocation” is important because it is defined as, “a person’s regular calling or business; one’s occupation or profession”. In 1982, this NRTA containing a unilateral override of a Treaty right was, from an Aboriginal perspective, illegal under the Treaty but it was a legislated precedent misapplied in a line of weak Canadian law on Aboriginal cases. Furthermore, it was Constitutionalized in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 and it is now cited as the Constitution Act, 1930. Our Courts created such NRTA based judgments because Aboriginal peoples were unable to present evidence either because they lacked the consent of the Minister (until approximately 1935) or because they were not legal persons with rights of citizenship and the right to vote in Canada (until 1960).The Supreme Court in R. v. Badger calls the Constitution Act 1930, para. 12 binding law based on its R. v. Horseman decision at para. 60, where it states, “although the Agreement did take away the right to hunt commercially, the nature of the right to hunt for food was substantially enlarged...Both the area of hunting and the way in which the hunting could be conducted was extended and removed from the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Such Judicial reasoning is typical of what Ms. Delia Opekokew called, “disputes between the federal government and the provincial government as to who owned lands after Treaty...and did not really affect Aboriginals but in fact affected provincial governments.”The Supreme Court ought to be wary of law purported to affect Aboriginals from prior to 1960 and especially from prior to 1935. Although the Constitution Act, 1930 is part of the Supreme Law of Canada, it ought to be used to define federal-provincial “official interest in lands” after Treaty, rather than as derogating or abrogating Indian Aboriginal or Treaty rights. The reason to question such law as being supreme for Aboriginal rights and as purporting some consentual benefit as if by agreement is its lack of Aboriginal involvement in the Court process, and its absence of both Aboriginal argument and evidence. It ought to be considered Supreme law only for federal-provincial interests in Treaty lands and not as a mutual amendment to the rights within a Treaty as if the amendment were negotiated for consideration. Badger is based on Horseman, a precedent in defining Aboriginal hunting rights, which is based on the Constitution Act, 1930, the NRTA, which is a federal-provincial dispute over who owns land after Treaty and not involving Aboriginal rights at all.2002 British Columbia ReferendumEqually blatant, in B.C., few treaties were completed, many remain to be negotiated. If the Constitution Act, 1930, the NRTA, settled the scope of Aboriginal hunting rights, then why has B.C. initiated a referendum concerning Treaty land, leases, licenses, commercial interests, hunting and fishing, resource/environmental management, Aboriginal Self-Government, Treaty mechanisms and Aboriginal tax exemptions? The assimilationist referendum contains a confusing mix of individual rights with collective rights and a blatant signal that one type may abrogate or derogate the other. It confuses division of powers matters with Aboriginal and Treaty rights matters. By proposing to alter case law by referendum, it revisits issues purportedly settled by Courts, such as resource management, elevating the order of priorities decided for non-Aboriginal sports fishing. Is a referendum not the opposite of a commitment to negotiate?Whereas the Government of British Columbia is committed to negotiating workable, affordable Treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality, and equality; Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in Treaty negotiations? 1 Private property should not be expropriated for Treaty settlements. Yes or No. 2 The terms and conditions of leases and licenses should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. Yes or No. 3 Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. Yes or No. 4 Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. Yes or No. 5 Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. Yes or No. 6 Aboriginal Self-Government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. Yes or No. 7 Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between Aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments. Yes or No. 8 The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal Peoples should be phased out. Yes or No.From the perspective of post-patriation Constitutional case law, there is a concern that Aboriginal and Treaty rights not be abrogated or derogated unilaterally by federal or provincial governments. Case law exceptions being conservation and resource management purposes. Aboriginal tribes/nations expect amendments to treaties to require consultation at the extreme minimum but consent is the preference. Existing Treaty rights are now Constitutionalized by ss.25, 35 and 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Yet there is a communicational void because Aboriginal understanding is that negotiated Treaty rights providing control over land involves control over resources. Control over resources requires Self-Government on a par with provincial governments.Provincial Intrusion Into Federal-Aboriginal NegotiationsChief Willy Littlechild, Legal Advisor, Indian Association of Alberta requested Aboriginal participation in the Constitutional amending formula after patriation, which was ultimately added in 1983 by s.35.1 rather than prior as he had requested. He was concerned that a provincial agreement requirement adds a second government (the Provinces) to Aboriginal-Federal Treaty/Aboriginal rights recognition and that instead of Aboriginal nations having to negotiate with the federal government, that they would also have to negotiate with the provincial governments. Twenty years later, the 2002 B.C. Referendum is a realization of Chief Littlechild’s fears.Charlottetown AccordAboriginal Self-Government was recognized in part IV of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, but the Accord was connected with non-Aboriginal issues and failed. Professor Peter Hogg has stated that the Charlottetown Accord would have “given meaning to Self-Government in a modern context.”The Accord would have paved a new Canada Clause in s.2 of the Constitution Act 1867 and s.2(1)(b) stated:the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern this land, have the right to promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the integrity of their societies, and their governments constitute one of the three orders of government in Canada.The Accord would have strengthened Aboriginal and Treaty rights in a number of Constitutional and Charter areas. Furthermore, it set a framework whereby “the role of Aboriginal peoples in relation to the Supreme Court should be recorded in a political accord and should be on the agenda of a future First Ministers’ Conference on Aboriginal issues”; however, on the agenda of the political Accord would be Aboriginal consultation for Supreme Court appointments and a proposed “Aboriginal Council of Elders ... entitled to make submissions to the Supreme Court, when the Court considers Aboriginal Issues.” A council of Elders would presumably provide the Supreme Court with information that prevents it from relying on cases linked like a chain to legislation and case law decided without Indian involvement prior to 1935 and prior to 1960. That chain means recent cases, valid on the surface, must be found not to rely on cases that rely on decisions made without Aboriginal argument, evidence and involvement. Nor should division of powers disputes in that chain of cases linked with the NRTA be held to decide or define Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.Capacity To Make Treaties and the Authority Conferred By TreatiesTreaties were international between nations or tribes and the Imperial Crown rather than sui generis. Under Canadian case law, treaties with Aboriginal Nations are not international treaties under International Law. Today, s.88 of the Indian Act, valid under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is “subject to Treaty”, but no Treaty states Aboriginals are to be governed under s.91(24) or the B.N.A. Act, 1867 and many treaties precede the B.N.A. Act. Under treaties, Aboriginal nations were to be self-sufficient entities within the British colonies of an Imperial Majesty, whose power devolved to Canada by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Before that, Canada had no international jurisdiction to make a Treaty. Britain made treaties on behalf of Canada. Did the 1930 NRTA have the power to affect Treaty rights made between Britain and Treaty 8 Aboriginals in 1899? Not according to another Constitutional document, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, also found in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. Canada had no power to make or amend a Treaty until 1931, when the Statute of Westminster became effective.Treaties are political relationships, not land or real estate deals. Canada claimed not to be bound by treaties before the 1840 Act of Union. Canada subsequently claimed not to be bound by treaties made prior to confederation in 1867. Aboriginal nations made treaties with the British Crown and Canada had no capacity to make treaties until 1931, when Britain passed the Statute of Westminster. By the Statute of Westminster, Britain transferred its paternalistic international Treaty making capacity on behalf of Canada to Canada. At that point in 1931, Canada finally had the capacity to make international treaties for itself.Treaties were all made with the Crown of Great Britain, the Imperial Crown, not with Canada. Until the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and the letters patent to the Governor General of 1947, Canada did not have the capacity to enter into treaties with other nations in its own right. Aboriginals point out that political treaties should be recognized under international law, rather than have mere sui generis status provided in the case law.Signing A Treaty Is A Political Act:When Canada Lacked Both Political Existence and Treaty Capacity,Canada’s Capacity To Sign A Treaty Was In Its Aboriginal Negotiations.Who Negotiated Canada’s First Constitutional Document With the British?Unlike the Anishinabek, the Iroquois and Allied Indians sought consent before patriation, which did not occur. They considered the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to be Canada’s first Constitutional document because it set out the “procedures for treaties between our Indian nations and the Imperial Crown.” It was also both the Aboriginal and the British source of negotiation power for making treaties. The Iroquois stated that Canada lacked authorization to negotiate treaties with Aboriginal nations because such jurisdiction was not provided by the British Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada had no power to amend the British Royal Proclamation of 1763, not by s.91(24) of the B.N.A. Act, 1867 and not by the Statute of Westminster of 1931. The Statute of Westminster gave Canada power to negotiate international treaties but not sui generis treaties (case law) with Indian nations. Nor did the 1949 transfer of lands from the Imperial Parliament to the Government of Canada cede to Canada, the power to amend the Constitution of Canada. Canada did not gain that power until patriation of our Constitution in 1982.In its address to the British Parliament, which it repeated for the Special Joint Committee in Canada, the Iroquois nations suggested that in order for Britain to have shifted its Treaty obligations to Canada, it must have had the consent of the Aboriginal nations. Britain did not negotiate such a consent with the Aboriginal nations. The Iroquois nations asserted the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as affirming (1) changes in relations with governments must have Aboriginal consent; and (2) that they have rights to Treaty protection; and (3) Self-Government.By stating that Aboriginal political rights need to be recognized and Self-Government jurisdictions need to be defined, Sol Sanderson, Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indians noted that the obvious “act of signing a Treaty recognizes a degree of governing powers”, that non-renewable resources were not discussed in any treaties, that resource-sharing must be negotiated, that Self-Government would extend off reserves to include urban Indians, that they do not recognize provincial-federal boundaries and that Self-Government includes fiscal relationships with the federal government and the right to make laws governing education of Indian children, the sustenance of Indian cultures, Indian government buildings, Indian Courts, Indian law where provincial law does not operate but where the Criminal Code does operate, representation on the Supreme Court and sovereignty as original nations.Chief Sanderson described some of the injustices inflicted on the Aboriginal peoples. The 1840 Detribalization Plan was designed to take away Indian political and cultural rights. The 1947 Liquidation Plan was a 25 year plan to liquidate the Indian nations. The 1969 White Paper was a 5 year plan to assimilate Indian nations by emptying reserves. He wanted a Protectorate Office entrenched in the Constitution [which Chief Littlechild suggested would be an adjudicator or tribunal to replace federal and provincial Courts on matters touching Indian interests]. Chief Sanderson saw Canada’s judicial system as one that allowed no oral, historical or political evidence from Aboriginal peoples. That meant the law did not protect or recognize Indian rights. Eugene Steinhauer observed that fact as threatening Indian political and cultural survival.By All Signatories To The Constitution Act, 1982,Referendums Were Considered But Rejected As A Constitutional ProcedureEugene Steinhauer, President, Indian Association of Alberta stated that Treaty rights protection proposed in s.24 was superficial, amidst a Charter with no collective rights. A proposed referendum process undermined Indian peoples’ survival. A referendum where majority rule tramples minorities would render consensus unnecessary. After considering and rejecting a Constitutionalized referendum procedure, all signatories of the Constitution Act, 1982 brought it home without a Referendum procedure.Aboriginal PerspectiveAn Aboriginal way of thinking, knowing, seeing and experiencing the world rendered my Constitutional dilemma moot. Moot not only because the 1930 Constitution Act only decides a federal-provincial dispute over who has official jurisdiction over Treaty land but because it ought not to have been applied by the Courts to decide and define Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Yet, cases where the NRTA (1930 Constitution Act) was misapplied such as R. v. Horseman, were subsequently relied on by R. v. Badger, then linked in that chain of questionable law to determine findings for what today ought to be doubted as valid law. Furthermore, doubt that law for its ex parte findings that were determined without Indian involvement to which I have referred. What further renders my Constitutional dilemma moot is trust, the honour of the Crown, not because it has been upheld, but because it has been broken. Yet, Aboriginals still dare to believe that in time justice will be done; that Aboriginal negotiation with parliament and perhaps with legislatures will eventually create just mechanisms for informed Courts to apply through consultation rather than imposition.Aboriginal Nelson Smallegs from Treaty No. 7 area demonstrated the trust that Aboriginals have in Parliament and Legislatures when he addressed the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution in 1981 by saying,“I do not envy what you are sitting through. I would not take your place for anything in the world, but you are put there with your knowledge. You must have a good background, that you are put on this Committee, to decide the Constitution for all the people across Canada. I just want to say very strongly, think, and think about the Indian, his future, because I do not want to talk about what happened 100 years ago. We learned a lot from that 100 years. I want to have my grandchildren and my great grandchildren have a better life than I had and my grandfather had.”Aboriginals perceived unjust case law, based on illegal precedents of now Constitutionalized documents that were themselves based on questionable jurisdiction and substance. In other parts of the world, this would lead to violence and endless cycles of killing and revenge killing. In Canada, we are fortunate that Aboriginal peoples are patient, proud of their Indian nations and of their country Canada, both of whom share one “vast island”. They were pleased with the dialogue that occurred at the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada in 1982.Preference For Legislatively Negotiated Aboriginal And Treaty RightsAboriginal peoples say they are the older brother and they treat the injustice inflicted upon them as the irresponsibility of a foolish younger brother who steadfastly refuses to consult them. They view the patriation of the Constitution as a way to force the younger brother to negotiate a settlement of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Aboriginals consider Court decisions to be inferior to negotiated settlements. They consider Constitutionalization of the requirement to consult them as a means to force negotiation through the Constitution.The Honourable Bryce Mackasey stated, “We cannot redress all the injustices of the past, you have not asked us to do that...the best settlements are the negotiated settlements...lawyers will tell you that...we have got to force negotiation and that is what you are asking us to do somehow through the Constitution, that is why I say: let us not be too elaborate.”Government Procedural PrioritiesThe Liberal Party resolution was “to bring back the Constitution unilaterally” meaning whether the provinces support it or not, and “the patriated Constitution must include an amending formula” and “it will also include...a Charter of Human Rights.” Aboriginals wanted the existence of Aboriginal and Treaty rights entrenched in the Constitution prior to patriation. Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan wanted it to be after patriation. A middle ground was found from the presentation of Kirk Kickingbird, a Washington attorney who had just completed a review of 200 years of Indian legal history in the United States. As legal counsel for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, he proposed including the existence and protection of Aboriginal and Treaty rights without stating what they are, so that they may be negotiated later, in the future. That way, Aboriginals are not locked into a Constitutionalization of diminished rights. Each Treaty and Aboriginal right would have to be negotiated with representatives of legislatures. Then once negotiated, Aboriginal and Treaty rights would be defined by the Courts, who would do so regardless of whether they are Constitutionalized or not.At the time of the patriation hearings, Patrick Madahbee was President of the Union of Ontario Indians and an agent for the Anishinabek who comprise Ojibways or Chippewas, Ottawas, Delawares, Potowatomis and Algonquin nations situated North of the Great Lakes. He spoke of how their grand councils, comprising chiefs or Ogimauks, made treaties with other Indian Nations in every direction, including Madoweg, the Iroquois confederacy, the Abernaki, Mi’kmaq Matronimouw, Micmacs, Mashkegons, Anishnabeg-Aski, Lake of the Woods Cree and subsequently with European nations, the French and later the British. He spoke of the Treaty of Niagara, ratified at Detroit in 1764 as the foundation of all treaties and though Canada does not recognize treaties made [“outside its present borders” ] in the United States, Indian nations do not recognize Canada’s current borders as de-legitimizing cross-border treaties made with the Imperial British Crown, which were to be protected by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada’s Indian nations were thus joined as links on a silver covenant chain of participating nations in the Treaty between the British and Iroquois confederacy that was recorded on a wampum belt for posterity. The linked chain of the two distinct cultures was to continue forever.The plan of the government of Canada was to patriate the Constitution first and then work out Indian rights second. The first part of the plan was accomplished by ss.25 and 35 upon patriation in 1982 and then the second part of the plan was partially addressed by amendment to s.25(b), the addition of ss.35(3) and (4) and the creation of s.35.1, all by Constitutional Amendment Proclamation, 1983, SI/84-102.Yet the legislative assembly in Parliament has not negotiated to define Aboriginal and Treaty rights, leaving that instead for the Courts.Sharing Land and Resources as a Political Chose In Action, Not Physical PropertyOur Aboriginal nations shared land and natural resources. The concept of nation was not tied to exclusive possession over lands, which were considered a common possession to be used by whoever happened to be there at the moment. The same land could be part of many Indian nations. The word, “peoples” has a legal status and legal rights under International Law. The Charter of the United Nations: Article 1(2) codifies a principle of right of peoples to self-determination. Indian “peoples” are nations who were wise enough to self-determine their future by choosing to make peace treaties rather than fighting over land that they traditionally shared with other nations from time immemorial.Collective Political Rights Extinguished by Both Individual Property Rights and BloodWhen Indian nations offered to share their land in return for peace, the British made treaties that were real estate deals, which Patrick Madahbee stated initially “read like any other British real estate conveyancing document.” While the Aboriginal nations were offering collective rights to share the land, the British were taking exclusive possession and presuming they could then dictate how Aboriginal nations were to exercise collective rights to which they needed no instruction or permission. Section 91(24) of the B.N.A. Act was used by the Federal government to legislate paternal control over how Aboriginal nations were to exercise their collective rights in sharing the land now under exclusive possession of the federal government, while provincial governments took exclusive possession of natural resources. The federal government has never allocated funding to implement self-determination of Self-Government of Aboriginal peoples but it allocates transfer payments to “have not” provinces.By 1870, the federal government unilaterally defined who was Indian. Would England unilaterally define who was a citizen of France? In Canada, collective political rights are being confused with race. They are being extinguished by both racism and individual property rights. Collective political rights suffer extinguishment by racism that is based on the percentage of Aboriginal heritage in one’s bloodline, given separate and distinct status of Indian and metis in the Constitution and by sex and marriage in the Indian Act, with financial implications for those differentially designated. Aboriginal societies want to decide their citizenship and that may include non-Aboriginals connected with their communities neither by blood nor marriage.The federal government of Canada made unilateral decisions that gradually reduced the powers of Indian governments and as Indian dependence on federal governments increased, Indian economic structures decreased. A tribal society with individual liberties among a collective is different from individual rights that are protected from state interference by what is now our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 of the Charter is to shield existing Aboriginal rights from abrogation or derogation by the Charter, so that collective rights of tribal languages, cultures and social and vocational traditions of Aboriginal peoples cannot be diminished by individual rights practised by all Canadians.Aboriginal Oral Languages Lost AndUnacknowledged In Untranslated Written Legal DocumentsWhile Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 contains the English version of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Schedule A to the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 contains the French version, and both are equally authoritative, these languages only comprise half the founding heritage of Canada, that being the two languages of the European immigrants who fought for