Explainer: Manitoba Metis Federation ruling

SIDEBAR – An historic ruling was made today in favour of the Manitoba Métis Federation. So what does it really mean to Canadians? We asked Catherine Bell, a Professor of Law at the University of Alberta specializing in Aboriginal legal issues and Gordon Christie, Associate Professor and Director of the Indigenous Legal Studies Program at the University of British Columbia to weigh in on the issue.

What was the ruling about?

CB: Under Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, the Canadian government agreed to set aside land for the benefit of Métis children. 

However, the Manitoba Métis Federation claimed that federal government improperly distributed the land, much of which was purchased by settling prospectors. The city of Winnipeg now sits on top of most of the land in question.

What did the Supreme Court find?

CB: The Supreme Court of Canada found that the Federal government has a constitutional obligation to Métis, specifically regarding the honour of the crown, which applies to all dealings between federal and provincial governments and the Aboriginal peoples.
In order to determine whether the federal government has failed to live up to its honourable obligations, you a must review crown conduct on a whole: Did they act diligently in pursuit of their obligations?

The supreme court of Canada found a persistent pattern of betrayal and errors on the part of the federal government that demonstrated indifference to the plight of the Metis in Manitoba. They ultimately sided with the Manitoba Métis Federation.

So what does this ruling mean?

GC: This is just a judgment and not a declaration, which appears to be will galvanize discussion between the federal government and the Metis to come to a resolution.

I live in Winnipeg. Is my house at risk of being seized?

GC: No. The land is mostly in private hands now. The stance of the government is that private property isn’t something they’re considering threatening in any form. The courts are also in line with that.

What does this mean for Aboriginal communities in Manitoba, and Canada in general?

CB: One of the biggest takeaways from this trial was The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Statute of Limitations does not apply when talking about matters of constitutional obligation or crown conduct.

Since most incidents involving First Nations treaty and land rights originated over a hundred years ago, the statute of limitations provision was consistently raised against them. This therefore sets precedent not just for Metis but in fact for all Aboriginal people in Canada.

What are the potential outcomes?

GC: At this point, nothing is known for sure. However, since the case revolves around owed property, monetary compensation seems likely.