Thank you Mr. Penner!
Dear Webmaster:
Thank you for sending me "Anonymous's" recollection of the events of some 23 years ago. I certainly did ask Eugene Szach to begin to research what was, clearly and still is, a very complex issue. I doubt very much that I ever advised anyone in the MMF that it (or they/the individual claimants) did "not have a leg to stand on." If there is a letter to the MMF from me to that effect I would certainly want to see it since, as I quite distinctly recollect, it was then as it is now that:
a) the intended beneficiaries of Sub Sections 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act did not (with the possibility of a few exceptions) receive the land they should have
and
b) it was entirely likely that this failure was at least in part the consequence of Federal (Dominion) and Manitoba legislation which might then (and now) be as constitutionally invalid vis-a-vis the Manitoba Act (our Province's Constitution) as e.g. the Official Language Act of 1890 was found to be the Manitoba Language Reference.
The difficulties I perceived then (on the basis of legal opinions) were essentially who could claim, what could be claimed and whether there was any operative statute of limitations? I can't recall with any precision what my view (or, more precisely the view of my legal advisors) was then, but I am presently of the opinion that there is a sound basis for a constitutional challenge as the first step in the process and that, as is the case, the MMF can plead that issue.
The MMF cannot claim land or damages, only the descendants of the originally intended beneficiaries can do that. And, importantly, I do not think a constitutional challenge is subject to any statute of limitations. If there is a decision favourable to the MMF's constitutional challenge then in my view, the proven descendants can claim likely not land but at least damages and can do so free from any time limitation challenge.
As I said this morning, AT THAT STAGE a Land Claims Commission would be the only sensible way to go.
ROLAND PENNER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Penner:
Thank you very much for taking the time from your busy teaching schedule to respond to one of our reader's comments. As a former Manitoba Attorney General, we have all benefited from your knowledge, informed perspective and unique position at the time the original land claim was filed.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Thank you for sending me "Anonymous's" recollection of the events of some 23 years ago. I certainly did ask Eugene Szach to begin to research what was, clearly and still is, a very complex issue. I doubt very much that I ever advised anyone in the MMF that it (or they/the individual claimants) did "not have a leg to stand on." If there is a letter to the MMF from me to that effect I would certainly want to see it since, as I quite distinctly recollect, it was then as it is now that:
a) the intended beneficiaries of Sub Sections 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act did not (with the possibility of a few exceptions) receive the land they should have
and
b) it was entirely likely that this failure was at least in part the consequence of Federal (Dominion) and Manitoba legislation which might then (and now) be as constitutionally invalid vis-a-vis the Manitoba Act (our Province's Constitution) as e.g. the Official Language Act of 1890 was found to be the Manitoba Language Reference.
The difficulties I perceived then (on the basis of legal opinions) were essentially who could claim, what could be claimed and whether there was any operative statute of limitations? I can't recall with any precision what my view (or, more precisely the view of my legal advisors) was then, but I am presently of the opinion that there is a sound basis for a constitutional challenge as the first step in the process and that, as is the case, the MMF can plead that issue.
The MMF cannot claim land or damages, only the descendants of the originally intended beneficiaries can do that. And, importantly, I do not think a constitutional challenge is subject to any statute of limitations. If there is a decision favourable to the MMF's constitutional challenge then in my view, the proven descendants can claim likely not land but at least damages and can do so free from any time limitation challenge.
As I said this morning, AT THAT STAGE a Land Claims Commission would be the only sensible way to go.
ROLAND PENNER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Penner:
Thank you very much for taking the time from your busy teaching schedule to respond to one of our reader's comments. As a former Manitoba Attorney General, we have all benefited from your knowledge, informed perspective and unique position at the time the original land claim was filed.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home