Honouring the Truth Reconciling for the Future

The challenge of reconciliation • 269finds its application in concrete practices.” In other words, the honour of the Crown isnot merely an abstract principle, but one that must be applied with diligence. 61In Manitoba Métis Nation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), the MétisNation argued that when the Métis peoples negotiated an agreement with the federalgovernment that would enable Manitoba to enter Confederation, “they trustedCanada to act in their best interests … [and] to treat them fairly.” 62 The Supreme Courtsaid that in 1870, thebroad purpose of S. 31 of the Manitoba Act was to reconcile the Métiscommunity with the sovereignty of the Crown and to permit the creation of theprovince of Manitoba. This reconciliation was to be accomplished by a moreconcrete measure—the prompt and equitable transfer of the allotted publiclands to the Métis children. [para. 98]Ruling in favour of the Manitoba Métis Nation, the court observed that their “submissionswent beyond the argument that the honour of the Crown gave rise to a fiduciaryduty, raising the broader issue of whether the government’s conduct generallycomported with the honour of the Crown” (para. 87). The court found that althoughSection 31 promised that land grants to Métis peoples would be implemented “in themost effectual and equitable manner,” this did not happen. “Instead, the implementationwas ineffectual and inequitable. This was not a matter of occasional negligence,but of repeated mistakes and inaction that persisted for more than a decade. A governmentsincerely intent on fulfilling the duty that its honour demanded could andshould have done better” (para. 128).For Treaty peoples or First Nations, the unilateral imposition of the Indian Act,including the residential school system, represents a fundamental breach of theCrown’s Treaty obligations and fiduciary duty to deal with them honourably in bothprinciple and practice.The Crown’s position as a fiduciary with regard to Aboriginal peoples is clearly acomplicated and potentially conflicting area of legal obligation. As a fiduciary, theCrown, through the Government of Canada, has a legal obligation to act in the bestinterests of Aboriginal people to whom it owes a fiduciary obligation. This is the samecase for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the United States, which is commonly referredto as a “Trustee.” As a trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has a similar obligation toact in the best interests of Native Americans, and to ensure that other governmentdepartments do not act in a manner that contravenes tribal rights and interests or thegovernment’s lawful obligations. In the United States, the Solicitor’s Opinions issuedfrom time to time by the Department of the Interior, which has authority over theBureau of Indian Affairs, are used to give direction to government generally as wellas to explain and justify government action. In Canada, it must be recognized that