My question is specific as well as general in nature.
When I read the decisions of the Supreme Court, I always get the same feeling. It was the same when I was studying for my law degree. I have always felt that first nations were poorly defended by the federal government, despite its fiduciary obligation toward them. This government's priority has been to protect itself, in the interest of the Crown. That has always been the overarching consideration. I don't know if you understand what I'm saying.
When the time comes to defend the interests of first nations, the federal government finds itself in a blatant conflict of interest situation. Rarely have I seen decisions where the federal government sided with aboriginal peoples. We talk about the honour of the Crown. From the decision in Sparrow on down to the Haida decision, it is clear to me when I look at these cases. I have to wonder who has priority consideration, because the rulings always go against first nations.
An upcoming appeal that will be heard by the Supreme Court is one of the best examples of this. I'm referring to the McIvor decision. The federal government is against the appeal. Given that the court will rule on this important legal matter, one would have expected... You might think that this is a little off point, but to my way of thinking, the honour of the Crown is a much broader concept than that.
Do you not think that you are caught in the middle? You represent the Department of Justice. Your colleague, Mr. Prystupa, is from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Do you not find yourself caught in the middle, trying to defend the federal government and the honour of the crown at the same time?
You can use the remaining time to try and convince me.