- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
Alberta to Restrict Métis Hunting and Fishing Rights
Alberta to Restrict Métis Hunting and Fishing Rights
The province of Alberta plans to negotiate a new Métis hunting and fishing rights agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta. It’s about time.
On September 19, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recognized that Métis have an aboriginal right to hunt that is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Specifically, the SCC decision declared that Métis people who can show a direct link to a historic Métis community and its practices have the same aboriginal rights as status Indians to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Fortunately, in their decision the SCC defined the term Métis as it pertains to the Constitution Act, 1982. The SCC declared, “Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 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, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears.” In other words, this decision would only apply to a portion of the estimated 300,000 Canadians who meet the criteria: self-identification, ancestral connection and community acceptance.
In response to the SCC decision, Alberta Aboriginal Affairs Minister Pearl Calahassen brokered an interim agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta that took the SCC decision and placed it on steroids. The interim agreement was far broader than what the SCC likely intended. In fact, the agreement granted almost unlimited year-round hunting and fishing rights to Métis.
Last week, Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens stated in his government report, “The interim agreement, as it’s currently structured, is too broad and needs to more accurately reflect the parameters relative to who is Métis and where the Métis can harvest food.” Stevens went on to indicate a revised deal would still recognize the constitutional right of Métis to harvest fish and wildlife for food, social and ceremonial purposes, but would have tighter restrictions. Further, a provincial court judge ruled in March 2006, the interim agreement ignored the 2003 Supreme Court decision when it extended hunting rights to all Métis.
To add insult to injury, Minister Calahassen admitted the interim agreement negotiated within her department was done so in haste, and never fully reviewed by government caucus. As a result of this knee-jerk reaction the government now appears to be “taking away” rights. Regardless, the rights of all Albertans must be considered.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes Canadians – all Canadians – are fundamentally alike; therefore, all legislation and government policy must be based on fairness and equality. Regrettably, the SCC decision further entrenched Canada’s ongoing practice – to value one Canadian over another based on ethnic lines.
That said, issues of equality, due diligence and the obvious conservation implications of year-round hunting and fishing must be taken into account in formulating a final agreement; what is certain is that the interim agreement does not work.
--30--
For further information contact:
Tanis Fiss, Director, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change
Ph: 1-403-263-1202
Alberta to Restrict Métis Hunting and Fishing Rights
The province of Alberta plans to negotiate a new Métis hunting and fishing rights agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta. It’s about time.
On September 19, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recognized that Métis have an aboriginal right to hunt that is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Specifically, the SCC decision declared that Métis people who can show a direct link to a historic Métis community and its practices have the same aboriginal rights as status Indians to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Fortunately, in their decision the SCC defined the term Métis as it pertains to the Constitution Act, 1982. The SCC declared, “Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 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, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears.” In other words, this decision would only apply to a portion of the estimated 300,000 Canadians who meet the criteria: self-identification, ancestral connection and community acceptance.
In response to the SCC decision, Alberta Aboriginal Affairs Minister Pearl Calahassen brokered an interim agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta that took the SCC decision and placed it on steroids. The interim agreement was far broader than what the SCC likely intended. In fact, the agreement granted almost unlimited year-round hunting and fishing rights to Métis.
Last week, Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens stated in his government report, “The interim agreement, as it’s currently structured, is too broad and needs to more accurately reflect the parameters relative to who is Métis and where the Métis can harvest food.” Stevens went on to indicate a revised deal would still recognize the constitutional right of Métis to harvest fish and wildlife for food, social and ceremonial purposes, but would have tighter restrictions. Further, a provincial court judge ruled in March 2006, the interim agreement ignored the 2003 Supreme Court decision when it extended hunting rights to all Métis.
To add insult to injury, Minister Calahassen admitted the interim agreement negotiated within her department was done so in haste, and never fully reviewed by government caucus. As a result of this knee-jerk reaction the government now appears to be “taking away” rights. Regardless, the rights of all Albertans must be considered.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes Canadians – all Canadians – are fundamentally alike; therefore, all legislation and government policy must be based on fairness and equality. Regrettably, the SCC decision further entrenched Canada’s ongoing practice – to value one Canadian over another based on ethnic lines.
That said, issues of equality, due diligence and the obvious conservation implications of year-round hunting and fishing must be taken into account in formulating a final agreement; what is certain is that the interim agreement does not work.
--30--
For further information contact:
Tanis Fiss, Director, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change
Ph: 1-403-263-1202
