Rights aren’t a gift

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/09/2024 (458 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Columnist Deveryn Ross makes several fundamental and legal interpretive mistakes in his opinion piece “Stayed charge could lead to expanded Métis rights”, Sept. 3.

As the “Métis Manitoban” who shot a duck without a provincial license, I would like to take this opportunity to provide clarity for Mr. Ross, as well as Wayne Ewasko, interim leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, and even the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, who seem to have undertaken a campaign in recent months, giving the appearance of puppet masters pulling the strings of this current friction.

First, s.35 rights are inherent and are “collective rights”. “Inherent” means “existing … as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”

Inherent rights are not “given” by the state.

I was not given the right to shoot a duck in the Turtle Mountains by the state, I always had that right. Yes, the province needed the courts to show them this concept.

But that is not the same as giving us rights, it’s simply affirming to colonial states that they must recognize that which is inherent.

The existence of these rights and the recognition of them are obviously two distinct things. No one is “giving” rights near Cranberry Portage either.

The rights exist. They exist now. They existed before. What is happening is a discussion on the best way to recognize these rights. See the difference?

Second, Mr. Ross states that Métis and First Nations are “exempt” from provincial hunting permits.

Again, it appears as if he is making the case that Indigenous peoples in Manitoba are being given something “extra”. Harvesting rights for Indigenous peoples “existed” before contact and control of colonial power. The word is in s.35 of Canada’s Constitution. We are not “exempt”, our collective rights simply pre-date these laws, but not our own.

Our own laws are stricter than the provincial ones, which can be plainly seen in the Laws of the Métis Harvest on the MMF website.

Third, Mr. Ross parrots the Manitoba Wildlife Federation when he alludes that First Nations harvesting rights are at a higher order than Red River Métis harvesting rights.

Quite literally and legally, there is no hierarchy of rights within s.35, which is plainly visible in our Constitution for anyone seeking to learn.

Further, Mr. Ross seems to be insinuating that because Manitoba Métis Federation President David Chartrand is a strong defender of Métis rights, and has been successful in doing so, he is somehow doing something wrong.

Mr. Ross shouldn’t imply that.

President Chartrand’s work with governments isn’t unethical. This work is about the law. It’s about Constitutional rights, and it’s necessary work.

Overall, Mr. Ross looks like an unwitting ladle in the pot being stirred by the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, as is Mr. Ewasko. Let’s not forget how the member of the wildlife federation executive specifically campaigned against the Red River Métis to gain their positions.

If this were a Scooby Doo episode, when we pull the mask off the villain at the end, it will be the executive of the wildlife federation.

This opinion writer, who has said he writes these pieces to “provoke”, has indeed provoked. But he also should not be surprised when his obvious mistakes are corrected.

Will Goodon writes from Brandon.