James C. McCrae, former attorney general of Manitoba and Canadian citizenship judge.(Let it be clear that this writer has always viewed every Canadian as an equal Canadian, including Dakota and Lakota Canadians.)When I was Manitoba’s attorney general (1988-93), I met with many indigenous leaders. At the beginning of one of our meetings, the chief of one of the Manitoba bands declared, “Jim, I am not a Canadian.” My smug, ill-advised response: “Well, then, this meeting is over.” Luckily, I had second thoughts, and the meeting did not end, but my thinking at the time, and the chief’s, are both worth a whole lot of further reflection.On July 15, 2024, the federal government formally apologized to Dakota and Lakota Canadians for their treatment as “refugees” from the United States, including their exclusion from treaties and denial of other indigenous rights.Were the Dakota who came to what is now Manitoba refugees from Minnesota after the Dakota War of 1862? It doesn’t matter, at least not anymore. What does matter is that, having lived here for generations, they should have had all the rights — and the same rights — as every other Canadian..RUBENSTEIN: OneBC leader’s truthful comments drive Métis indigenous delegation from legislature.Land acknowledgements are happening everywhere these days. For example, the Brandon, Manitoba School Division (BSD) begins its meetings with land acknowledgements including the words “unceded territory of the Dakota.” The full statement at every BSD meeting: “The Brandon School Division acknowledges that we are located on Treaty 2 land, the unceded territory of the Dakota, and the homeland of the Red River Métis.”Despite the federal apology to the Dakota and Lakota people in Canada, their status in Canada remains a matter for debate and endless litigation. But we know that they were treated as refugees from the USA in all the years since 1862. Using today’s thinking, it was wrong that they were treated as second-class indigenous people. .Through the numbered treaties (1871-1921), many Indian bands in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a small part of British Columbia gave up — ceded — “forever” all the lands described in the treaties. The Dakota were not allowed to treat with the government because they were regarded as refugees. The 2024 apology changes the discussion for the Dakota. And for everyone else. Manitoba’s Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) and the national Assembly of First Nations (AFN) have welcomed the apology, but there will still be disputes, as the Dakota use their “unceded” situation to claim title to lands currently part of existing treaties. Will treaty Indians now want to claim unceded status for the lands included in their treaties, even though their treaties surrendered those lands “forever”?In this connection, we ought to take notice of the words of former AMC Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, currently Chief of the Pine Creek, Manitoba band: “…I will correct anyone who calls my Treaty a ‘land surrender’ Treaty. We surrendered nothing at Treaty time, just as we surrender nothing in implementation of the Treaty today” (Facebook, October 30, 2025)..ALBERS: Canada is risking its own collapse by sabotaging the West.The 2024 apology has already pitted the Dakotas’ newly acquired non-refugee status against the declared interests of the “treaty Indians” of Manitoba. Since the apology, Dakota bands have filed lawsuits claiming ownership of The Forks Market at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in Winnipeg. The Forks Market is located on Treaty 1 land, land ceded “forever” by the Cree and Chippewa signatories to the treaty.To compound matters, the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) rejects the Dakota claim of ownership of The Forks. Further, the Dakota have challenged a recent self-government treaty between the federal government and the MMF.If you think this situation is chaotic, add in the recent legal development in British Columbia, where the Cowichan tribes have been judicially deemed to have superior title to a large part of the city of Richmond, superior to the fee simple title held by federal and provincial governments, the city, businesses, and private landowners. .Simply put, the 863-page Cowichan decision means that fee simple title in BC, the bedrock of property rights, is under attack. If the Cowichan ruling is upheld by higher court(s), the fee simple property rights Canadians have taken for granted for generations will also, without doubt, come under attack, especially if Chief Nepinak has his way.If you thought indigenous issues were complex before Cowichan and the 2024 apology to the Dakota and Lakota, prepare for your tax dollars to pay for lawsuits from here to eternity. We know for sure that indigenous leadership and the activist, legal, accountancy, and consultant communities will do very well for a very long time.Few of us will live long enough, however, to witness how all this legal chaos will improve the lot of ordinary indigenous Canadians. It will, no doubt, swallow up further billions of dollars, dollars that could otherwise be used to improve the quality of their lives and prepare them for the equality that has been denied them for generations..OLDCORN: Alberta’s ‘Dual Practice Model’ — finally, a healthcare system that works for the people.As for the Brandon school trustees, I don’t think any of them have offered to turn their properties over to the Dakota. Had they done so, they would have given sincere and concrete meaning to their acknowledgement of the “unceded” status of Dakota territory.As television host Bill Maher crudely puts it, “Either give the land back, or shut … up.” James C. McCrae, former attorney general of Manitoba and Canadian citizenship judge.
