Welcome to AMMSA.COM, the news archive website for our family of Indigenous news publications.

Document omission stalls Rupert's Land case

Author

D.B. Smith, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Hobbema Alberta

Volume

11

Issue

20

Year

1993

Page 3

A court case that could set an important land claim settlement precedent for First Nations across Canada is on hold while the four plaintiff bands in Alberta find a new lawyer.

The Ermineskin, Montana, Louis Bull and Samson Bands dismissed their council, B.C. lawyer Thomas Berger, because he refused to rewrite the statement of claim the way the bands wanted, Ermineskin executive director of external affairs Jim Minde said.

"Historical facts were incorrect pertaining to the four bands."

The chiefs of the Ermineskin and Samson bands were both recognized as chiefs by the Crown before treaties were signed, Minde said. But the statement of claim makes no mention of that fact.

"We felt it was a very important fact if you're recognized as chief prior to signing a treaty. That's where your strength comes from in declaring sovereignty."

The bands did not want their history incorrectly documented, especially if the court ruled in their favor and the decision became law, Minde said.

Berger declined comment except to say he has withdrawn from the case.

The four central Alberta bands are seeking a declaration from Ottawa to the effect that, under the 1870 Rupert's Land Order, the federal government honor a promise to protect "the interests and well-being of Natives. A resolution of that statement could mean compensation for lost resources and lands that span almost the entire region of Canada.

Rupert's land comprises all the land in Canada whose rivers drain into Hudson's Bay. Jurisdiction of the land was transferred from the Hudson's Bay Company to the federal government in 1870.

The Rupert's Land Order returned the control of the region to Ottawa and specified that the federal government was responsible for the Indians living there.

"The case is a good case," Minde said. "The concern we had was putting forward this historical information and making sure it was correct."

The case was to proceed Dec. 14 in federal court in Calgary but has been adjourned for six months.