Manitoba Metis join prairie coalition to pursue land rights

Page 8

Manitoba Metis President David Chartrand said he expects the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench to rule the federal government can have more time to prepare its side of the land claims case that is on the docket for May 13, but he's not worried.

"We'll win," said Chartrand emphatically.

Although the Metis say they have been waiting 130 years to have their day in court over land that was taken from them, he's confident their case is so strong that last minute stalling tactics on the federal side of the table isn't going to change the outcome.

A decision on a motion to adjourn is expected within a week or so, Chartrand said Jan. 28.

Whether the case proceeds in May or later, the Manitoba Metis aim to have Canada admit it permitted, through dubious legislation and otherwise, the Metis to lose possession of 1,4 million acres of land they were promised as a consequence of Manitoba joining Confederation.

Chartrand added that once the government accepts responsibility, not before, will be the time for the Metis, the federal government and other affected parties to negotiate compensation for the land taken.

In the meantime, the Western provincial Metis organizations are finding they have issues in common where the government's alleged duplicitous dealings are concerned.

In the last weekend in January, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Saskatchewan Metis Nation and the Metis Nation of Alberta met and decided to seek legal means to address their outstanding land and harvesting rights issues together. In addition, the three delegates representing their respective nations, Will Goodon, Kathy Hodgson-Smith and Lisa Wendland, agreed to develop a joint political strategy and awareness campaign to highlight the injustices done to Prairie Metis people.

The meeting "should have happened 20 years ago, but it's great that it's happening now, said Chartrand in a telephone interview a day later.

"Our legal cases have somewhat different focuses, but listening to some of the information, for instance, out of Saskatchewan as to the review of how scrip was transferred and how scrip was purchased . . . it had a lot of similarities to Manitoba's land claims, how it was fraudulently taken away from us and what processes they used. . . . It was great to have the opportunity to share amongst each other, and in sharing this information also when research is being done it will make all of our cases much stronger."

Clem Chartier, minister for Metis Nation government in the Metis National Council cabinet, revealed his views in a prepared statement.

"We are working together because these issues affect us all equally, as the governments of the Metis Nation within the Prairies. Our legal and political strategies will focus on getting our people's land back."

The federal Department of Justice's chief general counsel, Ivan Whitehall, said the reason Canada is seeking a delay is because the Metis have figuratively changed horses in mid-stream. They have changed their statement of claim.

"They are trying to file their new statement of claim now. This new statement of claim hasn't been filed yet," he said on Jan. 24. "Our position is that the new statement of claim requires extensive new evidence and certainly we cannot deal with it until the statement of claim is actually filed. And we have an advance copy, but they don't have the permission of the court to file it.

"So there were really two applications before the court a few weeks back. One application was by the plaintiffs, by the Manitoba Metis, to file a new statement of claim, and the second one was our reply, in effect, saying 'yes, you may file the new statement of claim, but we need more time.'"

Whitehall added that he had recommended to the court that no specific date be fixed. Instead, he wants the court to "case manage" or "shepherd" the case through the process. This would involve taking "a number of questions" back to the court for direction from the court.

He said it is "competely untrue" that governments have been stalling hearing Metis grievances in the courts.

"The case was started by the Metis and then they didn't do anything with it for about six years. And then we have a number of interim applications, including we have gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. They won in the trial division; we won in the Court of Appeal; the Supreme Court of Canada reversed that, so it was obviously a very contentious issue.

"Then once we had that, clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada, we went back to the Manitoba courts-again we had to go through the trial (court) and the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the position of Canada, ordered them (the Metis) to provide particulars.

"They took about a year to do so, and then, because of a variety of reasons, they haven't progressed with the case." A change in the management of the Manitoba Metis may have delayed instructions going to counsel, Whitehall suggested.

In the last couple of years the Metis have "pressed on" with the case, he said and "I think the case has moved forward. I think the progress is that they now have a statement of claim that is sufficiently enlightening that we can deal with it."

Whitehall said he is not blaming anyone for the delays.

"This is a very, very difficult law suit. We are dealing with events that occurred over a hundred years ago, so anybody who thinks this is like a motor vehicle case, simply doesn't understand the case."

The biggest problem they face, in Whitehall's view, is that "we need extensive, additional historical research to meet some of the points that they are making." For example, the Metis have argued that federal promises to them have the nature of a treaty "and obviously we are going to have some fairly extensive evidence from that point."

Regarding Whitehall's assertion that more research needs to be done, Chartrand was indignant.

"He tried to convince the government once already that the people that hada right to take this case forward are all dead and gone, so their rights are now no longer in existence.

"Now he's taking the other approach, which is 'well, let's just say their descendants are alive, so let's do research on them for another hundred years. By then maybe they will fade away or disappear.' Ivan Whitehall's philosophy comes from John A. Macdonald and he can't hide under that shell anymore.

"The crux of this case," Chartrand asserted, "is that Canada is going to be put on trial here. And the history of Canada, it's unfortunate, it's not a good one for the Metis."

By example, he said the government amended legislation to allow children to sell land so the government could take it from the Metis. According to Chartrand, it later changed the law to revert back to the constitutional protections that were in place for children. In addition, orphaned Metis children had their rights to property stripped away.

In the weekend forum, delegates heard that the agreements that transferred provincial land and resources to the three Prairie provinces did not address Metis harvesting rights. In addition, the land and scrip grant system effectively bilked Native people of the Northwest out of their land. Finally, there is no mechanism now to redress these wrongs, federally or provincially.

The leaders passed a resolution by consensus that outlines their joint position and action plan.

Their legal team has been asked to come up with litigation and research options that will be presented in a Prairie Metis leaders' forum in six months.