Attorney general asks for dismissal of injunction filed over Métis treaty

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/01/2025 (227 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BRANDON — The federal attorney general has asked a Winnipeg judge to dismiss an injunction filed by two Dakota First Nations that seeks to have the treaty signed by Ottawa and the Manitoba Métis Federation declared invalid.

A statement of defence demands the Dakota “put to proof all assertions contained in the statement of claim” made by the Dakota Tipi First Nation and the Canupawakpa Dakota Nation in western Manitoba.

Canada denies that — in the circumstances of this case — Canada owes or owed any fiduciary duties, constitutional or otherwise, to the Dakota Nations.

In addition, if Ottawa does owe fiduciary duties to the two nations, it denies the treaty with the Métis is a breach, the filing says.

The Dec. 2 motion claims the federal attorney general, the Manitoba government and the Métis federation breached their constitutional duties by failing to consult with First Nations, and that they “unjustifiably infringed” on the Dakota’s rights to the land by the signing of the Red River Métis Self Government Treaty. The treaty, which was signed on Nov. 30 at a ceremony in Winnipeg with much fanfare, recognizes the federation as the official government of the Red River Métis people.

A government statement issued in December said the treaty doesn’t include land or address harvesting or land rights.

The Dakota claim the government had a duty to consult with them and other First Nations before taking the step to enter into a treaty with the Métis.

“We never had a chance to really review the treaty and what the implications are,” Dakota Tipi Chief Dennis Pashe said in December. “The federal government refused to give us the resources to do that.”

The injunction claims the Dakota are the “original inhabitants of the lands both south and north of the 49th parallel, within the province of Manitoba, as well as land extending to cover large areas of present-day southern Manitoba, eastern Saskatchewan, and western Ontario.”

The federal government’s statement of defence challenges the Dakota’s claim to the land and title, which is already the subject of treaties with Indigenous communities in the region, specifically Treaty 1 and Treaty 2.

“Canada states that the Dakota Nations have not provided evidence to meet the criteria for Aboriginal title, and the claim for Aboriginal title to the land must fail,” the statement reads.

It further asserts that as of 1818, the Dakota Nations “did not have sufficient or exclusive occupation of the land,” did not have the “intention and capacity to retain exclusive control over the land,” and “have not held continuity of occupation or a contemporary and substantial connection with the land.”

The government further argues that there has been no breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no conspiracy to cause harm to the Dakota Nations, and no abrogation of the Dakota Nations’ rights within Canada.

“Canada denies any conduct, which could be construed as abrogation of the Dakota Nations’ rights or an intention to negotiate with a given Indigenous group, to the exclusion of the Dakota Nations,” reads the statement of defence.

It seeks to have the claim dismissed and “reserves the right to seek costs.”

On Tuesday, Canupawakpa Chief Raymond Brown rejected the government’s argument.

“That’s just their opinion,” he said. “That means that under section 35 of (The Constitution Act), they should come make a treaty with the Dakota then. … They can go make a treaty with everybody else, but they don’t want to make treaty with the Dakota.”

Pashe couldn’t be reached for comment.

Last July, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Gary Anandasangaree delivered a formal statement of recognition and apology on behalf of the federal government to the nine Dakota and Lakota First Nations in Canada that were treated as refugees in Canada. That statement acknowledged that for more than 150 years, the Dakota were denied recognition of their rights.

Since then, both Dakota Tipi and Canupawakpa have claimed the federal government has been slow to discuss their Aboriginal title and specific claims.