Powley Case
News - Articles I I
Mar. 18, 2003. 01:00 AM
The Toronto Star
Métis fill courtroom to hear rights challenge Supreme Court to rule on rights not 'distinct society,' Ontario says Historic case in Supreme Court
TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU
(also read: MNO President Tony Belcourt has written a letter
to the editors of the Toronto Star regarding this article
located at the end of this article)
OTTAWA—As the Supreme Court of Canada grappled yesterday
with whether to breathe life into the Canadian constitutional
guarantee of rights for "Métis peoples,"
dozens of Métis filled the austere courtroom, overflowing
into the marble halls.
Court staff set up a closed-circuit TV set in an overflow
room downstairs so supporters of Steve Powley's bid to gain
constitutional recognition for Métis hunting rights
could watch the historic arguments unfold.
The Sault Ste. Marie man was charged with his son Roddy in
1993 with hunting moose without a license.
Powley has been acquitted at three lower court levels. But
the Ontario government has appealed the case to the country's
highest court.The Powley case, along with a similar Manitoba
case to be heard today, is the first time the Supreme Court
deals squarely with the question of what Section 35 of the
1982 Constitution Act means for the Métis — people
of mixed native and European blood.
It says "the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of
the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and
affirmed" and goes on to define aboriginal peoples of
Canada as including "the Indian, Inuit and Métis
peoples of Canada."
A ruling is not expected for several months.
The Ontario government yesterday urged the nine judges not
to find any broad-based "aboriginal rights" for
the Métis such as those that have been recognized for
Indian or Inuit first nations.
"No other country in the entire world provides for constitutional
rights for persons of mixed ancestry," argued Ontario's
lawyer, Lori Sterling.
Sterling said the Constitution was intended only to protect
those indigenous native practices and traditions that existed
before European contact.
At the very least, Ontario, backed by seven provinces and
Canada's attorney-general, said the Charter should only protect
those native customs that were integral to indigenous cultures
and practiced for centuries before the assertion of the British
Crown's sovereignty, and Métis moose-hunting should
not be seen as such a core activity.
The federal government in 1982 never intended to recognize
the Métis as a "distinct society," Sterling
said.
Ottawa's lawyer, Ivan Whitehall, went on to say the constitutional
guarantee of aboriginal rights was never meant to "create
new rights" for the Métis.
The Métis were included in the heat of constitutional
negotiations in the early 1980s, he suggested, to allow them
to participate in future treaties and in a series of constitutional
conferences that sought, but ultimately failed, to define
aboriginal self-government.
Several judges appeared to reject suggestions they interpret
the constitutional guarantee narrowly.
"Is not the inclusion of the Métis people (in
the Constitution) a decision we wanted to move that yardstick?"
asked Justice Ian Binnie. But Justice Louis Lebel said the
judges were "still struggling" with the questions
of who qualifies as a Métis person, how to define a
Métis community, and how to grant rights to a community
that remains ill defined, without strong political structures.
Dear Editor,
I have two "bones to pick" with this one-sided article.
First, why only
report the arguments by the raft of Federal and Provincial
Attorney's
General stacked up against Métis hunter, Steve Powley?
And why feature the
fallacious argument put forward by Ontario that "No other
country in the
entire world provides for constitutional rights for persons
of mixed
ancestry." Why the fixation on pushing Ontario's despicable
"pure blood"
requirement in order to have the protection of constitutional
rights, a
throwback to the decrees of Nazi Germany? For the record,
First Nations are
not required to be, nor are they for the most part, "full
blooded Indians".
Even though mixed blood is commonplace among them, there is
no quarrel to
recognition of their constitutional rights. Why did the Star
not report one
word by Powley lawyer, Jean Teillet, who provided counter
arguments to those
of the 8 "Crowns"? Where's the balance in your reporting?
Tony Belcourt
President
Métis Nation of Ontario
|
