A historic court case beginning Tuesday will look into a long-running disagreement between the federal government and Manitoba's Metis, who believe promises made to their forefather Louis Riel were never fulfilled.
The tensions go all the way back to 1869-70, when Sir John A. Macdonald's federal government promised to set aside land for 7,000 Metis children from the Red River Settlement, which was led by Riel.
The land deal was part of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which was the agreement that convinced rebels under Riel to lay down their arms -- a move that ended the Red River Rebellion and paved the way for Manitoba to enter into Confederation and become part of Canada.
"The argument is that Ottawa failed altogether to fulfill the constitutional obligations to the Metis it assumed in 1870 when Canada and the Metis negotiated the entry of Manitoba into Confederation," stated a backgrounder released by the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF).
The Metis are not seeking damages, according to the document, but are instead asking the Supreme Court to "declare that Canada failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to the Metis and their children."
Such a declaration, they admit, would likely lead to land-claim negotiations similar to those that have been held with other aboriginal groups.
"This case represents the unfinished business of Confederation. The Metis' strong sense of community shaped the west. Now is the time to tell the Metis story," David Chartrand, president of the MMF, said in a statement.
Tom Berger, the aboriginal rights lawyer who will represent the MMF in its fight, said the case represents an opportunity to correct a historic wrong.
"It's important for us to get right with our history," Berger told The Canadian Press.
"We have to remember our history and we have to remember that the Metis didn't go away. They're still here."
The Metis, who first launched their lawsuit 30 years ago, argue that Macdonald's government assumed responsibility to appropriate 1.4 million acres of farmland, and then distribute it to the 7,000 children living at the settlement.
That distribution, they say, was delayed for more than a decade and about 1,000 of those children never received any land at all.
And in many cases the land that was eventually handed out was chosen by lottery, and was often far from their traditional family land along the Red or Assiniboine Rivers.
Meantime, non-Metis settlers were pouring into Manitoba, lured by the promise of free land for homesteaders, and the Metis were becoming marginalized in their ancestral lands. As many as half the Metis population actually left Manitoba as a result, the MMF suggests.
"A lot of our people went into hiding," Chartrand said. "Some of them, if they were white enough and spoke French, they said they were French-Canadian so they could protect their children."
According to the Metis legal team -- which spent the last two years doing archival research -- statements by Macdonald and his Quebec lieutenant George-Etienne Cartier prove the Metis' claim is legitimate.
On May 2, 1870, Macdonald told the House of Commons that the grant was "for purposes of settlement by their children."
Two days later, he reiterated that "No land would be reserved for the benefit of white speculators, the land being only given for the actual purpose of settlement."
And one year after that, Cartier said "Until the children came of age the government were the guardians of the land, and no speculators would be suffered to get hold of it."
That sentiment was echoed by the government of Alexander Mackenzie, who succeeded Mackenzie.
Crown lawyers however, have argued that the Metis were consulted and the land was properly distributed, and that the statute of limitations has long-ago run out.
And Crown documents say it's impossible to dissect the intent of statements and documents from so far in the past.
"Proceeding to consider the claims forces the defendant...to respond to allegations made on the basis of a documentary record alone without witnesses who could explain the facts or fill in the gaps. Assessing this century-old documentary record against modern legal standards compounds the potential for unfairness."
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case earlier this year, after the MMF lost its bid in provincial court, as well as a subsequent attempt in the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
With files from The Associated Press
