Métis  Rights  Update  

For:    Métis  National  Council  General  Assembly                                                                                                                                  March  23  &  24,  2013  

By:        Jason  Madden,  Partner  Pape  Salter  Teillet  LLP  www.pstlaw.ca    

Harvesting  Rights  

The  “Old  North  West”  (End  of  the  18th  Century)  

The Old North West

3  

East  of  Ontario  

•There  have  been  a  few  more  court  cases  that  have  found  no  historic  Métis  communities  or  Métis  harvesting  rights  in  the  East  Coast.    In  total,  there  are  over  a  dozen  losses  now.  

•The  group  that  used  to  call  themselves  the  “Labrador  Métis”  are  now  calling  themselves  “NunatuKavut”  and  pursuing  their  claims  in  the  courts  as  a  southern  Inuit  group  –  not  “Métis”.    

•There  is  a  “test  case”  in  western  Quebec  that  has  an  advanced  cost  order  for  the  litigation,  but  the  case  appears  to  have  stalled  and  has  weak  evidence  showing  a  distinct  Métis  community.  

 

 5  

R.  v.  Valtour,  [2010]  N.B.J.  No.  392  “It  is  to  this  shadow  community  that  the  Vautours  point  as  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  historic  Métis  community  and  upon  which  their  claim  under  s.  35  is  partly  rooted.  One  of  the  difficulties  the  concept  of  a  shadow  community  brings  to  the  fore  is  that,  if  one  is  to  identify  it,  the  community  must  of  necessity  have  had  some  visibility  at  some  point  in  time.  It  cannot  always  have  remained  invisible,  and  I  can  find  no  solid  historical  indicators  in  Chief  Augustine's  report  or  in  his  testimony  that  point  to  its  existence.  There  are  remarks  in  the  above  excerpt  of  his  testimony  about  Métis  people  in  a  biological  sense  living  either  among  the  Acadian  and  Mi'kmaq  people  but  that  hardly  signifies  the  formation  of  a  separate  community.  …  I  would  agree  with  Dr.  von  Gernet  that  "...  there  must  be  a  visible  ethnicity  at  both  ends  of  the  period  of  invisibility".”  -­‐  R.  v.  Vautour,  par.  46.    

6  

ONTARIO In 2004, the Métis Nation of Ontario (“MNO”) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources reached a Harvesting Agreement that remain in place today. Joint research, as a part of the commitments in the Harvesting Agreement, is ongoing in Mattawa/Nipissing region. As well, a MNO-Assistant Deputy Minister Working Group to arrive at common understandings on Métis rights in Ontario has been established.

8  

MANITOBA First Métis “rights recognition” agreement achieved between Manitoba and Manitoba Métis Federation (“MMF”) in September 2012. Key aspects of agreement include: 1. recognizes a harvesting area that

encompasses close to 800,000 km², 2. includes hunting, fishing, trapping,

gathering for food and domestic use, 3. relies on MMF system for identification of

eligible Métis harvesters and Métis Laws of the Hunt for management and conservation,

4. eligibility for MMF Harvester Card based on national definition of Métis in MMF Constitution (i.e., Métis Nation ancestry)

5. no “cap” on number of MMF Harvesters cards that can be issued,

6. commits to 2 year joint research in areas outside of recognized harvesting area and potential reference to Manitoba Court of Appeal if parties still disagree at the end,

7. commits to adoption of provincial regulations consistent with agreement and Métis Laws of Hunt.

9  

SASKATCHEWAN Successive cases since 1995 recognizing Métis harvesting rights in the province – Morin & Daigneault, Laviolette, Belhumeur. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan (“MNS”) and the Saskatchewan Government signed a MOU in 2009 agreeing to negotiate a harvesting agreement based on the existing cases and jointly agreed to principles. Negotiations between MNS and the provincial government are ongoing with the hopes to have an agreement in place for 2014.

10  

ALBERTA Recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision (R. v. L’Hirondelle, 2013 ABCA 12) that confirms the Alberta Government was not required to issue a Métis Settlement member a fishing license without that individual providing documentary proof that they met Alberta Government’s Métis Harvesting Policy. Métis Nation of Alberta (“MNA”) harvesting rights test case (R. v. Hirsekorn) argued before Alberta Court of Appeal in February 2013. Currently awaiting decision. Regardless of outcome, it is likely that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

11  

12  

BRITISH COLUMBIA Several cases that have found insufficient evidence to establish a rights-bearing Métis community in the province (i.e., Howse, Nunn, Willison cases) Métis Nation British Columbia (“MNBC”) continues to undertake work on identifying a “test case” to bring forward in the province. Province tacitly acknowledges Métis harvesting rights in north-eastern BC (i.e., Kelly Lake area).

13  

The  “Old  North  West”  (End  of  the  18th  Century)  

The Old North West

14  

The  Daniels  Case  

Daniels  v.  Canada,  [2013]  F.C.J.  No.  4  

•When  Canada  was  created  in  1867,  the  Constitution  set  out  what  level  of  government  (federal  or  provincial)  has  “exclusive  legislative  authority”  for  various  matters.  

•Sections  91  (federal)  and  92  (provincial)  list  these  various  government  jurisdictions  or  responsibilities,  but  these  lists  are  not  exhaustive.  

•The  courts  continue  to  interpret  these  “heads  of  power”  in  a  purposive  and  progressive  manner  because  Canada’s  Constitution  is  a  “living  tree”.  

 

 

16  

What  is  the  Case  About?  

•Section  91(24)  states  the  federal  government  has  “exclusive  Legislative  Authority”  for  “Indians,  and  Lands  reserved  for  the  Indians.”  

•The  Daniels  case  is  about  whether  Métis  and  non-­‐status  Indians  are  included  in  s.  91(24)  of  the  Constitution  Act,  1867.    This  inclusion  in  s.  91(24)  does  not  mean  Métis  are  culturally  “Indians”.    It  only  means  the  federal  government  has  legislative  responsibility  for  the  Métis  in  the  same  way  it  does  for  Indian  peoples  and  the  Inuit  (who  are  culturally  distinct  from  Indians,  but  are  “Indians”  for  the  purposes  of  s.  91(24)  too).    

 

 

17  

Why  Does  Section  91(24)  Matter?  

•The  practical  result  of  jurisdictional  avoidance  was  to  leave  Métis  and  non-­‐status  Indians  vulnerable  and  marginalized.  The  federal  government’s  internal  documents  concluded  that  “in  absence  of  Federal  initiative  in  this  field  they  are  the  most  disadvantaged  of  all  Canada  citizens.”  

•The  Federal  Court  held  that  “the  resolution  of  the  constitutional  issue  will  facilitate  resolution  on  other  matters”  and  “[t]o  the  extent  that  the  issue  of  the  constitutional  status  of  MNSI  was  something  of  a  barrier  to  consultation,  the  declaration  granted  should  remove  such  impediments.”  

18  

The  Problems  with  the  Daniels  Case  

•For  the  purposes  of  s.  91(24),  the  Federal  Court  defines  the  Métis  “as  a  group  of  native  people  who  maintained  a  strong  affinity  for  their  Indian  heritage  without  possessing  Indian  status.”    

•This  definition  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  history  of  the  Métis  Nation,  the  law  (i.e.,  Supreme  Court  cases  for  last  40  years,  Powley,  the  MMF  case)  or  the  practical  implications  of  this  overly  broad  definition  (i.e.,  anyone  with  some  mixed  aboriginal  ancestry  would  fall  within  s.  91(24)).  

19  

The  Crown’s  Obligations  Are  Owed  To  Aboriginal  Collectives  –  Not  Individuals    

20  

Royal  Proclamation,  1763  

The  Royal  Proclamation  

acknowledges  the  Crown’s  obligations  owing  to  “several  Nations  or  Tribes  of  Indians  with  whom  We  are  connected,  and  who  live  under  our  Protection  …”    

Constitution  Act,  1867  

For  the  purposes  of  inclusion  in  s.  91(24)  Métis  and  Non-­‐Status  Indians  are  “a  group  of  native  people  who  maintained  a  strong  affinity  for  their  Indian  heritage  without  possessing  Indian  status”  

Constitution  Act,  1982  

35(1)  The  existing  aboriginal  and  treaty  rights  of  the  aboriginal  peoples  of  Canada  are  hereby  recognized  and  affirmed.  35(2)  In  this  Act,  "aboriginal  peoples  of  Canada"  includes  the  Indian,  Inuit  and  Métis  peoples  of  Canada.  

R.  v.  Powley,  2003  

“[t]he  Métis  developed  separate  and  distinct  identities,  not  reducible  to  the  mere  fact  of  their  mixed  ancestry”  and  “[t]he  Métis  of  Canada  share  the  common  experience  of  having  forged  a  new  culture  and  a  distinctive  group  identity  from  their  Indian  or  Inuit  and  European  roots.  

What  Next?  

•The  federal  government  appealed  the  case  on  February  6,  2013  to  the  Federal  Court  of  Appeal.  

•The  “saga”  on  this  issue  is  far  from  over  and  likely  many  parties  will  get  involved  in  appeal.  No  appeal  dates  set  yet.  

•This  case  is  very  important  to  the  Métis  Nation  because  it  is  defining  who  the  Métis  are  in  a  part  of  Canada’s  Constitution.  

21  

The  MMF  Case  

McLachlin  J.  in  R.  v.  Vanderpeet  “These  arrangements  bear  testimony  to  the  acceptance  by  the  colonizers  of  the  principle  that  the  aboriginal  peoples  who  occupied  what  is  now  Canada  were  regarded  as  possessing  the  aboriginal  right  to  live  off  their  lands  and  the  resources  found  in  their  forests  and  streams  to  the  extent  they  had  traditionally  done  so.    The  fundamental  understanding  -­‐-­‐  the  Grundnorm  of  settlement  in  Canada  -­‐-­‐    was  that  the  aboriginal  people  could  only  be  deprived  of  the  sustenance  they  traditionally  drew  from  the  land  and  adjacent  waters  by  solemn  treaty  with  the  Crown,  on  terms  that  would  ensure  to  them  and  to  their  successors  a  replacement  for  the  livelihood  that  their  lands,  forests  and  streams  had  since  ancestral  times  provided  them.  ”  

23  

24  

25  

Haida  Nation  v.  British  Columbia  

“Put  simply,  Canada's  Aboriginal  peoples  were  here  when  Europeans  came,  and  were  never  conquered.  Many  bands  reconciled  their  claims  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  Crown  through  negotiated  treaties.  Others,  notably  in  British  Columbia,  have  yet  to  do  so.  The  potential  rights  embedded  in  these  claims  are  protected  by  s.  35  of  the  Constitution  Act,  1982.  The  honour  of  the  Crown  requires  that  these  rights  be  determined,  recognized  and  respected.  This,  in  turn,  requires  the  Crown,  acting  honourably,  to  participate  in  processes  of  negotiation.  While  this  process  continues,  the  honour  of  the  Crown  may  require  it  to  consult  and,  where  indicated,  accommodate  Aboriginal  interests.”  

26  

The  MMF  Case  –  The  Broader  Impact  

•The  Supreme  Court  of  Canada  connects  the  Métis  in  the  unsettled  “western  territories”,  which  ultimately  become  a  part  of  Canada,  to  the  same  well-­‐trodden  path  towards  reconciliation  it  has  fleshed  out  for  Indian  and  Inuit  peoples  over  the  last  forty  years.  

•This  path  to  reconciliation,  which  the  Métis  have  largely  been  excluded  from,  includes  negotiations,  accommodations  and  ultimately  “just  and  lasting  settlements”  with  the  Crown.  

27  

The  MMF  Case  –  An  “Indigenous  People”  on  the  Land  

[1]   Canada  is  a  young  nation  with  ancient  roots.  The  country  was  born  in  1867,  by  the  consensual  union  of  three  colonies  -­‐-­‐  United  Canada  (now  Ontario  and  Quebec),  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick.  Left  unsettled  was  whether  the  new  nation  would  be  expanded  to  include  the  vast  territories  to  the  west,  stretching  from  modern  Manitoba  to  British  Columbia.  The  Canadian  government,  led  by  Prime  Minister  John  A.  Macdonald,  embarked  on  a  policy  aimed  at  bringing  the  western  territories  within  the  boundaries  of  Canada,  and  opening  them  up  to  settlement.    [2]   This  meant  dealing  with  the  indigenous  peoples  who  were  living  in  the  western  territories.  On  the  prairies,  these  consisted  mainly  of  two  groups  -­‐-­‐  the  First  Nations,  and  the  descendants  of  unions  between  white  traders  and  explorers  and  Aboriginal  women,  now  known  as  Métis.    

28  

29  

1867

The  MMF  Case  –  Nation  Building  Westward  [3]          The  government  policy  regarding  the  First  Nations  was  to  enter  into  treaties  with  the  various  bands,  whereby  they  agreed  to  settlement  of  their  lands  in  exchange  for  reservations  of  land  and  other  promises.    [4]          The  government  policy  with  respect  to  the  Métis  population  -­‐-­‐  which,  in  1870,  comprised  85  percent  of  the  population  of  what  is  now  Manitoba  -­‐-­‐  was  less  clear.  Settlers  began  pouring  into  the  region,  displacing  the  Métis'  social  and  political  control.  This  led  to  resistance  and  conflict.  To  resolve  the  conflict  and  assure  peaceful  annexation  of  the  territory,  the  Canadian  government  entered  into  negotiations  with  representatives  of  the  Métis-­‐led  provisional  government  of  the  territory.  The  result  was  the  Manitoba  Act,  1870,  S.C.  1870,  c.  3  ("Manitoba  Act")  which  made  Manitoba  a  province  of  Canada.    

30  

31  

1870

The  MMF  Case  –  Reconciliation  and  the  Métis  [66]  The  honour  of  the  Crown  arises  "from  the  Crown's  assertion  of  sovereignty  over  an  Aboriginal  people  and  de  facto  control  of  land  and  resources  that  were  formerly  in  the  control  of  that  people":  Haida  Nation,  at  para.  32.  In  Aboriginal  law,  the  honour  of  the  Crown  goes  back  to  the  Royal  Proclamation  of  1763,  which  made  reference  to  "the  several  Nations  or  Tribes  of  Indians,  with  whom  We  are  connected,  and  who  live  under  our  Protection“  …  [71]  An  analogy  may  be  drawn  between  such  a  constitutional  obligation  and  a  treaty  promise.  An  "intention  to  create  obligations"  and  a  "certain  measure  of  solemnity"  should  attach  to  both  …  Moreover,  both  types  of  promises  are  made  for  the  overarching  purpose  of  reconciling  Aboriginal  interests  with  the  Crown's  sovereignty.  Constitutional  obligations  may  even  be  arrived  at  after  a  course  of  consultation  similar  to  treaty  negotiation.    

  32  

The  MMF  Case  –  Standing  

[44]     As  discussed  below,  the  action  advanced  is  not  a  series  of  claims  for  individual  relief.  It  is  rather  a  collective  claim  for  declaratory  relief  for  the  purposes  of  reconciliation  between  the  descendants  of  the  Métis  people  of  the  Red  River  Valley  and  Canada.  The  Manitoba  Act  provided  for  individual  entitlements,  to  be  sure.  But  that  does  not  negate  the  fact  that  the  appellants  advance  a  collective  claim  of  the  Métis  people,  based  on  a  promise  made  to  them  in  return  for  their  agreement  to  recognize  Canada's  sovereignty  over  them.  This  collective  claim  merits  allowing  the  body  representing  the  collective  Métis  interest  to  come  before  the  court.  We  would  grant  the  MMF  standing.    

33  

The  MMF  Case  –  More  Than  Compensation  

[5]   This  appeal  is  about  obligations  to  the  Métis  people  enshrined  in  the  Manitoba  Act,  a  constitutional  document.  These  promises  represent  the  terms  under  which  the  Métis  people  agreed  to  surrender  their  claims  to  govern  themselves  and  their  territory,  and  become  part  of  the  new  nation  of  Canada.  These  promises  were  directed  at  enabling  the  Métis  people  and  their  descendants  to  obtain  a  lasting  place  in  the  new  province.  Sadly,  the  expectations  of  the  Métis  were  not  fulfilled,  and  they  scattered  in  the  face  of  the  settlement  that  marked  the  ensuing  decades.  

.   34  

The  MMF  Case  –  Fiduciary  Relationship  

•While  the  Supreme  Court  does  not  find  that  the  promises  in  s.  31  gave  rise  to  a  specific  “fiduciary  duty”,  it  did  acknowledge  that  the  Crown  and  the  Métis  are  in  a  “fiduciary  relationship”.  

•Specifically,  at  [48],  the  Supreme  Court  states  that  “[t]he  relationship  between  the  Métis  and  the  Crown,  viewed  generally,  is  fiduciary  in  nature.  However,  not  all  dealings  between  parties  in  a  fiduciary  relationship  are  governed  by  fiduciary  obligations.”  

35  

The  MMF  Case  –  A  Collective  Claim  

[137]  Furthermore,  the  Métis  seek  no  personal  relief  and  make  no  claim  for  damages  or  for  land.  Nor  do  they  seek  restoration  of  the  title  their  descendants  might  have  inherited  had  the  Crown  acted  honourably.  Rather,  they  seek  a  declaration  that  a  specific  obligation  set  out  in  the  Constitution  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  manner  demanded  by  the  Crown's  honour.  They  seek  this  declaratory  relief  in  order  to  assist  them  in  extra-­‐judicial  negotiations  with  the  Crown  in  pursuit  of  the  overarching  constitutional  goal  of  reconciliation  that  is  reflected  in  s.  35  of  the  Constitution.  

 36  

The  MMF  Case  –  Reconciliation  Required  

[140]          What  is  at  issue  is  a  constitutional  grievance  going  back  almost  a  century  and  a  half.  So  long  as  the  issue  remains  outstanding,  the  goal  of  reconciliation  and  constitutional  harmony,  recognized  in  s.  35  of  the  Charter  and  underlying  s.  31  of  the  Manitoba  Act,  remains  unachieved.  The  ongoing  rift  in  the  national  fabric  that  s.  31  was  adopted  to  cure  remains  unremedied.  The  unfinished  business  of  reconciliation  of  the  Métis  people  with  Canadian  sovereignty  is  a  matter  of  national  and  constitutional  import.  The  courts  are  the  guardians  of  the  Constitution  and,  as  in  Ravndahl  and  Kingstreet,  cannot  be  barred  by  mere  statutes  from  issuing  a  declaration  on  a  fundamental  constitutional  matter.  The  principles  of  legality,  constitutionality  and  the  rule  of  law  demand  no  less:  see  Reference  re  Secession  of  Quebec,  [1998]  2  S.C.R.  217.  

37  

What’s  Next?  •A  mandated  and  funded  negotiation  process  or  “table”  between  the  MMF,  Canada  and  Manitoba  needs  to  be  put  into  place  to  work  towards  resolving  the  “ongoing  rift  in  the  national  fabric”.    

•The  Métis  Nation  needs  to  assess  and  strategize  on  how  the  framework  set  out  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  MMF  case  can  be  used  to  address  other  “unfinished  business”  between  Canada  and  the  Métis  (i.e.,  the  Dominion  Lands  Act  and  the  Métis  scrip  system  in  the  Prairies,  promises  made  to  Métis  in  treaties  or  treaty  negotiations,  etc.)        

 

 

38