benefits and payments that were available when the child
became of age, and if the foster or adoptive parents had shared
this information with the aboriginal child that was under their
care,23 it follows in my view that it would have been far less
likely that the children of the Sixties Scoop would have suffered
a complete loss of their aboriginal identity.
 Canada says things were different back then. Canada
argues that in 1965 and in the years immediately following, it
was not foreseeable, given the state of social science knowledge
at the time, that trans-racial adoptions or placements in non-aboriginal foster homes would have caused the great harm
 Canada’s submission misses the point.
 The issue is not what was known in the 1960s about the
harm of trans-racial adoption or the risk of abuse in the foster
home. The issue is what was known in the 1960s about the existential importance to the First Nations peoples of protecting and
preserving their distinctive cultures and traditions, including
their concept of the extended family. There can be no doubt that
this was well understood by Canada at the time. For example,
focusing on adoption alone, Canada knew or should have known
that the adoption of aboriginal children by non-aboriginal
parents constituted “a serious intrusion into the Indian family
relationship” that could “obliterate the [Indian] family and . . .
destroy [Indian] status”.24
 Recall as well that the Indian Affairs Branch was of the
view that “it would be a serious breach of faith with the Indian
people if any provincial services were forced on a Band against
its wishes”. Indeed, as I have already noted, it was this very
understanding, namely, the importance to the First Nations
peoples of protecting and preserving their distinctive cultures
and traditions, that best explains why s. 2(2) and the obligation
to consult was added to the 1965 agreement in the first place.
 In sum, information about the aboriginal child’s heritage
and his or her entitlement to various federal benefits was in
and of itself important to both the Indian band and the removed
23 One does not know how many of the foster and adoptive parents, having
received this information, would have shared the information with the
aboriginal child that had been placed in their home. Probably most, but
this is an issue that will have to be determined on evidence that will be
presented at the damages stage.
24 As Laskin C.J.C. noted in Natural Parents v. British Columbia (
Superintendent of Child Welfare),  2 S.C.R. 751,  S.C.J. No. 101, at
pp. 756-61 S.C.R.