The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) – will be intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in a significant and potentially transformational hearing to argue that First Nation constitutional orders are distinct but equal to Euro-Canadian laws. On the surface, the case is about the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the federal government’s carbon tax, and whether it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction.

However, neither the federal nor provincial governments acknowledge the existence of First Nations laws. The AMC, represented by the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), will argue that the Supreme Court has a unique opportunity to address a much deeper reality. The Court will address the most fundamental constitutional question of our time – the means of addressing climate change. The AMC will propose an analysis, which must recognize the existence of First Nations constitutional orders. The AMC cautions against the incorporation of First Nations laws within the existing Euro-Canadian federalism analysis to address the constitutional question. Instead, the AMC proposes a return to the relationship as it was originally intended by Treaties – one between equal nations with distinct legal traditions.

MC Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said, “First Nations people and laws have always been here. These laws continue to govern First Nations’ relationships with the Creator, Mother Earth and all living beings. They are grounded in mutual respect and underpin the Treaty relationship. Our First Nations laws constitute Canada’s first constitutional order, alongside the French Civil Law and English Common Law. This is a constitutional debate that must acknowledge our nation-to-nation relationships and help frame reconciliation.”

The AMC contends that this court case exposes an outdated, inaccurate and destructive narrative about Canada. First Nations laws have been recognized by the Supreme Court, however recent lower court decisions have sent contradictory signals about the relationship between Euro-Canadian laws and First Nations laws. This lack of clarity has led to a patchwork of inconsistent decisions.

“This court case offers an opportunity for a fundamental paradigm shift in the relationship between First Nations and non-First Nations people,” says Joëlle Pastora Sala, PILC attorney, who will argue at the Supreme Court via Zoom from Winnipeg. “We can create a more meaningful implementation of reconciliation – grounded in the spirit and intentions of treaties. Reconciliation, as outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, requires respect for First Nations laws as equal and distinct from Euro-Canadian laws. The Supreme Court has a key role to play in shaping the path forward.”