by PAUL RAYNER

It may have taken more than four years, but Will Goodon feels the Metis people have won an important victory in court.

On January 8, in Brandon court, Judge John Combs dismissed the Wildlife Act charge against Goodon for illegally possessing captured or killed wildlife as it infringed on his Aboriginal right to hunt for food under the Canadian Constitution. Not surprisingly, Goodon was not at all unhappy with the result.

“That’s a very good way to put it,” Goodon said, “I am very pleased with the result personally, and I think it is something very important to achieve for all of the Metis people of Manitoba.”

The legal battle for recognition of Metis hunting rights in Manitoba, or for that matter in other jurisdictions, has been a long one, but for Goodon personally, it began on October 19, 2004, when he shot and killed a ringneck duck in the Turtle Mountain area. He admitted he had done so to a Manitoba Conservation officer in Boissevain, standing on the principle that as a Metis, with a Manitoba Metis Federation Harvester Card, he had the right to hunt without a provincial license. He was charged under the Wildlife Act, and his trial was held off and on since the spring of 2006.

As Goodon stated, the Metis claims to hunt for food are based on many proofs, including their recognition as an Aboriginal people, and the protection of those rights for Aboriginal people in the Canadian Constitution. One major move was the Powley decision in Sault St. Marie in Ontario in 2003, where the Supreme Court upheld a Metis family’s right to hunt. Although the decision occurred in Ontario, Goodon said its influence was not limited there.

“Not at all,” Goodon said, replying to the question whether he was afraid the previous decision would not apply to a Manitoba court, "The Supreme Court decision, the Powley decision, set a precedent across Canada. In my opinion, wherever a Metis person lives in Canada, it gives that citizen full rights.”

Goodon said he was surprised the case took so long to move forward. Part of the reason, he feels, is that the government used three or four different attorneys to prosecute the case, who kept asking for more time to get a handle on it. He said it was frustrating, as they were ready to go. The government, he said, did not have to worry as much about legal fees as the Manitoba Metis Federation, who he said had to do a bit of scrounging.

He added he was as confident about the result as anyone could be under the circumstances, saying he felt they presented strong arguments regarding Metis traditions, including their traditional presence in the area, which was important to establishing Aboriginal hunting rights.

“I was confident in that we presented a lot and good quality evidence to the judge.”

Goodon said the government’s case was based on the Manitoba Act of 1870 extinguishing Metis hunting rights. He said he could not read that into the act, and added that the Turtle Mountain area where he grew up and the duck shooting occurred, was not even a part of the province at that time, and so was not part of the deal. As well, the Crown argued that Metis rights must be negotiated on a community to community basis.

Combs decision established that a Metis community did exist prior to European control of the area, and the area covered included the Turtle Mountains, and Goodon is a contemporary member of that community. Hunting is a traditional part of that distinctive culture, and that was not extinguished by the Manitoba Act.

The judge specifically named an area with a rights-bearing community including Winnipeg itself and stretching south to the US border and west to Saskatchewan. Some have argued this is the only area where Metis can hunt for food under the constitution. Goodon disagrees; saying the judge only named one area.

“He did not say it was limited,” Goodon state. “If you look back at Powley, the Supreme Court talked of Metis communities. One of our focuses was to show there was a large regional community, not a community limited around towns. Experts were brought in and the judge found there was a regional community, which went from the US border to Russell, including Winnipeg. He said it was a large regional community, but he did not say it was the only place to hunt. There are other communities, and to me the practical application is in all communities.”

What is the next move? Conservation Minister Stan Struthers indicated after the decision that the province will likely not appeal the case. Goodon said the judge indicated that it would be a good idea for the government to enter into talks with the MMF to solve the issue, as there is no need to go through the process again. The chair of the Cherry Creek Metis Council added that MMF President David Chartrand and Premier Gary Doer have already spoken, but no formal negotiations have begun.

He said that the Metis are planning to go ahead with using the Harvester Cards, which include their own bag limits for game, but there is still room for they and the province to sit down and discuss specifics.

“Maybe at this point, we won and they should come to the Metis,” He stated, “and see how to utilize our system in theirs. There are things we can negotiate. We didn’t want to go and waste taxpayers' money. We can find some way to work with them.”

In any case, after four years, Goodon is happy with the result and feels it was worth experiencing.

“Absolutely (it was worth doing). We wish we didn’t have to do it, but if we were forced to, we achieved all we hoped to."