The CBC needs to get its legal facts straight when reporting on the recent Mtis and nonstatus

Indian federal court decision. In my reading of the case the court decision did not grant any rights or access to any benefits or programs to Mtis and non-status Indians. Nor did it rule that Mtis and non-status Indians are status Indians under the Indian Act. In fact, the Court decision specifically stated that deeming Mtis and non-status Indians as Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 in no way makes them status Indians under the Indian Act. The decision upheld the plaintiffs assertion that they are Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the 1867 Constitution, thereby recognizing that they are under federal jurisdiction similar to the way Inuit are recognized as 91-24 Indians but not Indian Act Indians. Whether the federal government chooses to exercise this jurisdiction is under its prerogative. Although the Court recognized that a fiduciary relationship exists between the federal government and Mtis and non-status Indians, it rejected the plaintiffs assertion that the federal government owes a fiduciary obligation to them. The Court also rejected their assertion that the federal government has a duty to consult and to negotiate with Mtis and non-status Indians.