CAP makes clear its postion

Page 5

Dear Editor:

In the October 2003 edition of Windspeaker, comments were attributed to lawyer Jean Teillet about the effect of the Powley decision on non-status Indians, and specifically on the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP). These comments are inaccurate.

Ms. Teillet reportedly said that the Powley decision is "going to be very difficult for organizations like CAP," because CAP claims "that anybody who had any Aboriginal ancestry could claim to be Metis and could claim rights."

CAP makes no such claim. CAP's position was clearly advanced in the Powley case when it was before the Ontario Court of Appeal and when Ms. Teillet was present. As Ms. Teillet then heard, CAP's position is in line with the three-part test subsequently indicated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Powley. Ms. Teillet's comments that "anybody who had Aboriginal ancestry could claim to be Metis and could claim rights" is inconsistent with CAP's stated position.

Not only did CAP not advance the position Ms. Teillet reportedly attributed to it, but along with its member organizations CAP urged the courts to establish a Metis definition that would allow for recognition of other Metis communities beyond Red River, of which Sault Ste. Marie is one. This position is in line with what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had to say about Metis. The results of the Powley case demonstrates that CAP was successful in sensitizing the Supreme Court to the rights of these forgotten people.

Yours sincerely,

Chief Dwight Dorey, M.A.,

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples