Powley Case
Voyageur Articles
“Powley is a part of fulfilling Canada’s promise.”
Law panel discusses implications of the Powley decision
by Cherie Dimaline
Once again the Law Society of Upper Canada hosted a discussion
in honour of Louis Riel Day at Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto.
This year, the panel consisted of MNO President, Tony Belcourt,
Legal Counsel for the Powley family, Jean Teillet, Assembly
of First Nations National Chief, Phil Fontaine and, Legal
Counsel for the Métis National Council, Jason Madden.
The discussion, titled, ‘Métis Victory at the
Supreme Court of Canada: What Does R. v Powley Mean?’
was chaired by Law Society Bencher, Todd Ducharme.
Jean Teillet began by talking about the history behind the
issue of Métis hunting rights in Ontario, with details
on the Huron/Robinson area. She brought up the treaty adhesions
and lack of consistency with regard to the Crown’s dealings
with Métis communities across the Homeland. She questioned
the general attitude of the Crown in dealing with ongoing
Aboriginal rights’ cases especially in light of the
fact that a resolution was passed in the House of Commons
in 1992 which set out the protection of Métis as a
people as a priority. “Why did we have to go to the
Supreme Court and an almost 10 year battle for the recognition
of Métis Rights?”
Teillet admitted that, although Powley was a powerful decision,
it was not going to answer every concern, though she did state
that it would provide a solid foundation from which to move
forward.
National Chief, Phil Fontaine, began by recognizing Louis
Riel as an Aboriginal warrior and acknowledging the importance
of November 16 as a reminder of his contributions. He noted
that litigation and negotiation are common in the relationship
between First Nations people and the Crown and that it was
no different in this case. He compared the Sparrow case and
its significant ramifications to the Powley case and its importance
for the Métis people.
Fontaine went on to say that the notion and treatment of Aboriginal
people are not based on equality, and that in court the Crown
position is treated as the ‘default position’,
leaving Aboriginal groups fighting for every step they take.
“We need to present the Aboriginal legal perspective
consistently and aggressively. It is a counter strategy and
we know it works.”
He also referred to the changing of the guard on the Canadian
political landscape. “Governments come and go, but the
real question is where does this leave us and where do we
go?” Fontaine closed by saying that we are able to ‘keep
the vision of Louis Riel alive’ and to ‘resume
our roles as the original partners in Confederation.’
MNO President, Tony Belcourt spoke candidly about the process
that the nation went through with the Powley case. “We
began the history that brought us here on September 19th,
(1995) quite naively (with regards to cost, time and organization).”
He detailed the steps the MNO took: meticulously following
traditional hunting methods; the issuing of Harvester’s
Certificates; and the regulation of harvesting procedures.
Belcourt expressed his disappointment with the lack of communication
and progress on the part of the government since the historic
Powley decision. “We don’t sense that there is
recognition in the Ontario Government (or with the Ministry
of Natural Resources officials) or that anything has changed.”
In fact, he said that the MNO collectively feels that things
are going backwards.
Belcourt talked about the MNR’s new policy, released
on October 31 without warning or discussion with the MNO.
A one page document was drafted asking potential harvesters
to prove their community, history, genealogy, ancestry and
access to Aboriginal rights. They based this document on an
incorrect interpretation of the judgment which states that
the Courts, not outside organizations, must continue to decide
who Métis rights’ holders are, on a case by case
basis. Belcourt was outraged: “Now the MNR is saying
that the COs (Conservation Officers) are going to decide who
the Métis rights’ holders are.” Fortunately,
the MNO won a short term stay on the release and activation
of the complex and offensive document.
Tony spoke about his hopes for the outcome of the Powleys’
long journey that began with a hunt for food bringing down
a moose. (Teillet confided that this whole case began after
the Powley family gathered together in the backyard to butcher
the moose for their winter meat and a neighbour called Crime
Stoppers on them.) “The courts have determined quite
clearly that our Métis rights are not extinguished.”
Belcourt addressed the issue of court-recognized identity.
“There’s no mystery as to who the Métis
people are. There are many unknowns about the extent of the
Métis communities because our history has been suppressed.”
He concluded by affirming that the Métis Nation has
already received verbal agreement from Liberal leader, Paul
Martin, to build relationships with Métis people and
to implement the Powley decision.
Métis National Council, legal counsel, Jason Madden,
closed the first part of the discussion by acknowledging past
struggles. “We’ve been through some dark stages
and some of our communities have been on life support.”
Nevertheless, he stated that we are also alive and well today.
Madden spoke about the government’s repeated mistake
of appealing the case over and over again each time it went
through court, pushing the issue all the way to the Supreme
Court, only to have Métis rights affirmed at that impressive
level. He called it, ‘one of the only presents the Mike
Harris government gave to Métis people.’
Jason spoke about the reality that Sir John A. Macdonald’s
vision of a Métis-free Canada did not materialize and
that instead, it was Riel’s vision of the unified Dominion
with Aboriginal and French speaking citizens that stuck instead.
He spoke about the promises that were made to the Métis people
from confederation up until the 1992 resolution. “Powley
is a part of fulfilling Canada’s promise, and we hope
that the government will start fulfilling that promise.” |
