Dakota, MMF rights must be clarified

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/12/2024 (328 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

For more than a century, the question of the rights and entitlements of the Dakota people has been a festering, unsettled controversy. It has caused needless pain and despair for residents of our region. It’s well beyond time that it be finally resolved, once and for all.

In July of this year, Canada’s Crown-Indigenous relations minister, Gary Anandasangaree, apologized to nine First Nations in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the Dakota and Lakota having been classified as refugees for more than a century.

In a ceremony at Whitecap Dakota First Nation, near Saskatoon, the minister admitted that those nine First Nations should have been formally recognized as First Nations in Canada, and should have benefitted from the rights contained in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

“On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians,” he said, “we acknowledge you have been treated as second-class First Nations, as strangers here on your homeland in Canada, a Canada you helped defend, build and develop.”

The long-overdue acknowledgement and apology reflects ample historical evidence, going back millenia, of the presence of the Dakota and Lakota peoples throughout much of what is now Western Canada. That same historical record also reflects the longtime presence of the Métis people on portions of those same lands, however. That reality has given rise to competing, overlapping claims regarding the rights each group possesses with respect to those lands.

In August, Dakota Tipi First Nation filed a legal claim seeking unceded rights to the territory where The Forks sits in Winnipeg. The lawsuit calls for reinstatement of the First Nation’s ownership of that land as a partner, and consultation on all further development.

In October, Dakota Tipi and Canupawakpa Dakota First Nations commenced legal action against the Manitoba Métis Federation and the governments of Canada and Manitoba, claiming that the three defendants conspired to exclude them from economic and social development on what they assert is their land.

The statement of claim says that “In failing to take any steps to consult with the Dakota Nations regarding the land, and further, actively negotiating and consulting with MMF to the exclusion of the Dakota Nations, the defendants participated in conspiracy to intentionally engage in unlawful conduct to infringe on the Dakota Nations’ rights to the land, when the defendants knew or ought to have known that the conduct would likely cause harm to the Dakota Nations.”

Earlier this week, the same two first nations filed a notice of motion in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench, seeking to have the recently signed treaty between the Government of Canada and the MMF declared invalid. In their legal documents, they argue that the Attorney General of Canada, the Government of Manitoba and the MMF breached their constitutional duties in failing to consult with the First Nations and that, by signing the treaty, they have “unjustifiably infringed” the Dakotas’ rights to the land.

Also this week, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs urged the federal government and minister Anandasangaree to address “the lack of a complete consultation process with the Manitoba First Nations regarding the MMF Self-Government Treaty Implementation Agreement.”

In response to all that, MMF President David Chartrand told this newspaper that if the Dakota want a fight in court, he’ll give them one. He says that “we have a treaty we’ve been waiting for, for 154 years…I guarantee you with every ounce of power I have, I will defend my people and defend our rights.”

This is not the time for overheated rhetoric. To the contrary, it is well past time for the competing claims and interests of the MMF and Manitoba’s First Nations — the Dakota First Nations in particular — to be resolved and reconciled through an objective process that gives all parties a genuine, unfettered opportunity to make their respective cases.

It is the role of the courts to conduct that process, but the federal government also has a critical leadership role to play in this situation. It has a constitutional duty to act in a manner that reflects and preserves the “honour of the Crown.” In this case, that means treating all parties to the dispute in a fair and even-handed manner.

It also means postponing ratification of the MMF treaty until a comprehensive consultation process is completed and the claims of the Dakota people, along with those of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, are fully litigated and resolved.

The long-term economic and social interests of Manitoba, as well as the success of our reconciliation efforts, depend upon a productive, respectful relationship with our province’s Indigenous peoples. That requires an unambiguous understanding of the rights and responsibilities of our first nations and the MMF.

Viewed from that perspective, it is in the interests of all Canadians that those rights be conclusively clarified as soon, and as fairly, as possible. This cloud of conflict and confusion cannot continue any longer.