Yellowknife (Mar 24/03) - Northern Metis watched a Supreme Court of Canada hearing closely last week, wondering whether their rights would finally be clarified.

The court looked at whether Metis people should have the same rights as other aboriginals under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The national Metis organization called it the most important Metis court case since the trial of Louis Riel.

Robert Tordiff, president of the NWT Metis Nation, noted that it was the first case dealing with Metis rights to come before the Supreme Court of Canada.

"It's a landmark case just on that fact alone," he said. "It is an important day, I know there are a lot of people, particularly in the North, that are watching this closely."

The case is led by an Ontario man, Steve Powley, who was charged in 1993 after killing a moose.

He successfully argued, in a 14-day trial in 1998, that Metis have the constitutional right to hunt for food outside of provincial hunting seasons. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2001.

The Supreme Court also heard from Ernest Blais, a Metis man convicted of hunting deer on protected land in Manitoba.

He appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling that Metis don't fall under the term "Indian" as defined in law. A ruling is expected some time next fall.

Metis activist Ken Hudson said the case will force territorial, provincial and federal governments to set out Metis rights.

Metis activist wants justice

"Whoever coined the phrase 'justice delayed is justice denied' must have been dealing with our government," he said. "We need more Metis cases to go through the courts to reach some clarification on our rights.

"The Powley case has been ongoing since 1993. That's 10 years. That's outrageous."

Hudson won his own legal battle in 2001 when he was charged with killing a moose in Wood Buffalo Park. The Crown later stayed the charge before it reached the courts.

"They knew they would lose and that would mean they would have to allow Metis hunting in all the parks." Hudson said this case was be the first to deal specifically with Metis harvesting rights.

"There have been a lot of cases, especially in B.C. looking at Metis treaty rights," he said. "This one will finally clarify our harvesting rights, and everybody is watching it."

Expected victory

Tordiff was unwilling to predict a specific outcome of the case, but he guessed it would fall in favour of the Metis.

"I'd hate to predict what the courts will have to say, but the trend has been in the favour of aboriginal people in the country recently," he said. "Looking at the rulings of the lower courts it would be really interesting to see how the Supreme Court would not rule in favour of the case."

Tordiff said he wasn't surprised by the Crown's argument that Metis people did not exist before European contact and therefore should not be granted aboriginal hunting rights.

"It's a classic position for the Crown when discussing aboriginal rights to deny the right," said Tordiff.

Tordiff said lower court rulings suggest that the Supreme Court may rule in favour of the Metis.

"Essentially they've said the Crown can't sit on its hands and deny the right.