WINNIPEG-The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument and the application for leave of appeal for the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) land claims case was granted this morning in Ottawa by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In a brief statement MMF President David Chartrand said “this case has gone on for decades and has cost the Federation millions of dollars but we are finally at a historic crossroad where our story of injustice will be heard by Canada’s highest court and we are grateful for the opportunity to present our case”
MMF lawyer, Thomas Berger went on to say “This is welcome news. The Metis claim is based on the promise made in 1870 by John A. Macdonald’s government to the Provisional Government at Red River headed by Louis Riel. The promise was that the 7000 children of the Metis (a majority of Red river’s population of 12,000 at the time) would receive 1.4 million acres of land in the new Province of Manitoba. The MMF will argue that the federal government had a fiduciary obligation- a fiduciary obligation entrenched in the Manitoba Act of 1870- to distribute the land promptly and fairly, so that the Metis and their children would constitute a thriving community at the heart of the new province. But the federal government was guilty of delay after delay, so that none of the children received deeds to their land for 10 years, some not for 15 and some never did receive any land. In the meantime a great influx of settlers had entered the province. By this time the Metis had become a marginalized minority. The Manitoba government then passed a series of laws, which the MMF will argue were unconstitutional, designed to ensure the children’s grants were ineffective. The MMF will argue that the federal breach of fiduciary obligation and the province’s series of statutes raise constitutional issues, and the MMF will argue that there is no statute of limitations on unconstitutional action by government”
The Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) is the official democratic and self-governing political representative for the Metis Nation’s Manitoba Metis Community.
For more information, please contact:
Frank Coyle, Director of Communications
Phone: (204) 586-8474 ext. 374
Cell: (204) 232-5737
E-mail: fcoyle@mmf.mb.ca
__________________________________________________________________
Land Claims Case FAQ’s
How long has the MMF pursued this lawsuit?
On April 15th, 1981, the Native Council of Canada joined the Manitoba Métis Federation in a major land claims suit against the federal government and the Government of Manitoba a nine day appeal of the first decision began on Feb. 17th, 2009
What is this case about?
In 1870, Metis residents — nervous about the Dominion of Canada’s plan to acquire the territory and establish the province of Manitoba — agreed to the Manitoba Act. The Act promised that 1.4 million acres of land be set aside for Metis children and that occupied land along the rivers was left alone. The case is based on claims that the province of Manitoba facilitated land transfers between the Metis and prospectors between 1877 and 1885.
The act was created following negotiations between Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald and the provisional government led by Métis leader Louis Riel.
One section called for Ottawa to set aside land for the Métis. The other section said land along the rivers already occupied by the Métis would not be taken away even though the Métis did not have official deeds.
At issue is whether Canada and Manitoba fulfilled their obligations to the Métis with respect to the Manitoba Act’s commitments to establishing a Métis land base, as set out in sections 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act. The MMF is asking the court to make declarations that:
(1) Canada and Manitoba failed to fulfill their obligations to the Métis that are set out in Manitoba Act,
(2) Manitoba’s taxation of Métis lands granted pursuant to s. 31 of the Manitoba Act was unconstitutional, and
(3) in 1870 Canada and the Métis reached a treaty.
What does the MMF hope to achieve?
The case does not ask for specific lands to be returned to Métis or for a specific sum of money. However, if the MMF is successful in obtaining some of these declarations, it is likely that Canada and Manitoba will have to enter into negotiations with the MMF in order to address these issues (i.e. lands, compensation, etc.). This is similar to what governments have already done with First Nation and Inuit peoples through negotiating modern day land claims or treaties in order to address the Crown’s outstanding obligations. If successful, the case will most likely set a new course for Crown-Métis negotiations and settlements for the next generation.
This is the most anticipated decision in 2007. The case is in a league of its own. It has taken over 20 years to get to a trial, involves over 10,000 documents and took over three months of court time to complete. Moreover, all of these scenarios combine to make this an important case for the entire Métis Nation. It is expected that a decision will be rendered in the summer of 2007.
Without question, 2007 will be a pivotal year for the ongoing development of Métis law. The message that has come from the cases decided so far and what will most likely come from the upcoming decisions, is that governments have obligations and duties to the Métis, as a full-fledged rights-bearing Aboriginal people. These obligations and duties, as a part of the reconciliation process that is mandated by s. 35 and the honour of the Crown, require ongoing consultation, negotiations and accommodations between the Crown and the Métis in order to move toward final settlements.
Currently, there are not very many substantive Crown-Métis negotiations taking place from Ontario westward. Hopefully through the upcoming court decisions in 2007, this reality will be very different at the end of this year, and charges against Métis harvesters will be much closer to being a thing of the past.
On June 7, 2010, although the Metis had hoped for a clear win in its land claims case, the Manitoba Court of Appeal had always been anticipated to be another challenge to overcome along the road to the Supreme Court of Canada. Today, Manitoba’s highest court went far in correcting the errors of the earlier trial judge and is a step forward in attaining justice for the longstanding Metis grievances originating in the creation of Manitoba.
Unfortunately the Appeal Court avoided the tough issues. What was unexpected, and inconsistent with an earlier 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision, was questioning MMF’s standing and the ability to address these constitutional issues in court after more than 100 years.
On other fronts the decision has its merits for the Metis Nation. The decision was progressive in overturning many of the judgments and rationale of the earlier trial judge. The Court acknowledged there is a fiduciary relationship between the Crown and the Metis and that the Honour of the Crown is an essential part of this relationship. The Decision also rejected the trial judge’s assertion that Metis did not have Aboriginal title.
On February 10, 2011 the motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument and the application for leave of appeal for the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) land claims case was granted in Ottawa by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The MMF will argue that the federal government had a fiduciary obligation- a fiduciary obligation entrenched in the Manitoba Act of 1870- to distribute the land promptly and fairly, so that the Metis and their children would constitute a thriving community at the heart of the new province. But the federal government was guilty of delay after delay, so that none of the children received deeds to their land for 10 years, some not for 15 and some never did receive any land. In the meantime a great influx of settlers had entered the province. By this time the Metis had become a marginalized minority. The Manitoba government then passed a series of laws, which the MMF will argue were unconstitutional, designed to ensure the children’s grants were ineffective. The MMF will argue that the federal breach of fiduciary obligation and the province’s series of statutes raise constitutional issues, and the MMF will argue that there is no statute of limitations on unconstitutional action by government