Powley Decision
The R. v. Powley decision was the first Supreme Court of Canada judgment to address the question of whether Metis communities can possess Aboriginal rights pursuant to subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
While the Supreme Court test applied to the Sault Ste Marie Métis community, it did allow for the possibility that such rights might exist elsewhere in Canada, while setting some parameters around who might exercise these rights.
The question of who is Metis was also discussed before the Supreme Court. Lawyers for various provincial governments, including the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, argued that Métis people did not exist - that there were only individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage. The Court dismissed these arguments.
The Supreme Court did not define who are the Metis people of Canada. It did, however, set out who the Métis are for the purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Here's what the Court said: "The term "Metis" in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, way of life, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears."
In October 2003, just one month after the decision, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Williams, who was the leader of the official Opposition at the time, said: "A PC government I lead will acknowledge that the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Powley case does indeed apply to Metis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will participate with the federal government and the Metis Nation in negotiations to define and enforce the specific rights affirmed in the Powley decision and other rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution."
The commitment by the would-be premier was viewed as an historic one by the LMN. Three months later, Williams reneged on his commitment, and betrayed the more than 6,000 LMN members in Labrador.
While the province refuses to acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision with respect to Powley, or other court cases of similar context, applies to the Inuit-Metis of Labrador, it continues to enforce an interim policy with respect to harvesting for LMN members. In a letter, dated Sept. 24, 2004, the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Tom Rideout notes:
"... with respect to those species under provincial jurisdiction, it is our intent that enforcement officers with the Department of Natural Resources would continue to gather evidence with respect to any perceived infractions of hunting regulations. However, we do not intend to pursue, except in extenuating circumstances in the interests of conservation and safety, any seizures or confiscations of items used by hunters or wildlife taken by hunters who are able to demonstrate they are members of the LMN."
The LMN encourages its members to continue exercising your right to harvest, as they have done so in the past.
While the Supreme Court test applied to the Sault Ste Marie Métis community, it did allow for the possibility that such rights might exist elsewhere in Canada, while setting some parameters around who might exercise these rights.
The question of who is Metis was also discussed before the Supreme Court. Lawyers for various provincial governments, including the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, argued that Métis people did not exist - that there were only individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage. The Court dismissed these arguments.
The Supreme Court did not define who are the Metis people of Canada. It did, however, set out who the Métis are for the purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Here's what the Court said: "The term "Metis" in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, way of life, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears."
In October 2003, just one month after the decision, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Williams, who was the leader of the official Opposition at the time, said: "A PC government I lead will acknowledge that the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Powley case does indeed apply to Metis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will participate with the federal government and the Metis Nation in negotiations to define and enforce the specific rights affirmed in the Powley decision and other rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution."
The commitment by the would-be premier was viewed as an historic one by the LMN. Three months later, Williams reneged on his commitment, and betrayed the more than 6,000 LMN members in Labrador.
While the province refuses to acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision with respect to Powley, or other court cases of similar context, applies to the Inuit-Metis of Labrador, it continues to enforce an interim policy with respect to harvesting for LMN members. In a letter, dated Sept. 24, 2004, the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Tom Rideout notes:
"... with respect to those species under provincial jurisdiction, it is our intent that enforcement officers with the Department of Natural Resources would continue to gather evidence with respect to any perceived infractions of hunting regulations. However, we do not intend to pursue, except in extenuating circumstances in the interests of conservation and safety, any seizures or confiscations of items used by hunters or wildlife taken by hunters who are able to demonstrate they are members of the LMN."
The LMN encourages its members to continue exercising your right to harvest, as they have done so in the past.