Metis Updates?

[bruceba]

Published: Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A Metis lawyer is claiming victory for traditional land users after the Alberta government today withdrew a charge against a Saskatchewan Metis man for hunting in a closed season.

Alfred Janvier, 68, shot a moose in March 2005 while on his way to visit his sister-in-law in Chard, Alberta. He was traveling on the winter road from La Loche. A conservation officer patrolling the area laid the charge. La Loche is 618 kilometres northwest of Saskatoon.

The Crown presented its case in Fort McMurray court in January 2007. The defence was scheduled to present its case, claiming Constitutional rights, in May 2008, said lawyer Clem Chartier.

The Metis argued their traditional right to harvest game for food extends throughout their traditional hunting areas, regardless of provincial boundaries that were later created by governments.

Chartier intended to provide evidence of kinship ties between the Metis of northwest Saskatchewan and northeast Alberta and about their historical and contemporary interactions and harvesting practices, he said in an interview.

The defence also intended to bring expert witnesses to support it case, Chartier said.

He called the withdrawal of charges, "a significant victory," for Metis.

"This decision not to proceed confirms our long stated assertions that the artificially created provincial boundaries do not cut off or contain our harvesting rights over our traditional harvesting territories, which do, in fact, cross provincial boundaries," Chartier said. "The mere fact that the Crown has dropped this case is confirmation of what we have always said. We, as one of the aboriginal peoples of this region have aboriginal harvesting rights in this, our traditional territory, which are protected by Canada's Constitution," said Bill Loutitt, president of the Fort McMurray Metis local 1935 in a news release

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by brewski

so what do you guys figure though, is the metis harvesting rights going to come back or not?

Here is the way I believe it will unfold:

Provincial Court In May 2009 Crown will win

Court of Queens Bench Appeal May 2010? 50/50 Chance for either side

Supreme Court Of Canada May 2013? Win for the Metis.

Total Cost to Tax Payer $ 10,000,000.00

I do not know why an agreement can not be made. The Metis are only allowed to hunt for food for their table. They are not allowed to trophy hunt or commercial hunt. They have a harvesting policy that is enforced. The harvesting policy can be downloaded off of the Metis Nation of Alberta website if any one is interested.

I believe that the annual Metis Harvest is less than 1% of the annual kill in Alberta. I just can not see the justification for spending $10,000,000.00 when the outcome is certain.

I also believe a negotiated agreement now is better for all Albertans rather than having the Supreme Court enforcing Alberta to accomodate the Metis. The Metis have a policy in place now that seems fair to all Albertans that was negotiated by the Klein Government. Will that policy still be in effect when the Metis win in court? Probably not!!!

[CANADIANWOMAN]

Originally Posted by tuc

Just, the oringinal imha wasn't negotiated in good faith at all. It was negotiated behind closed doors. It was a free for all given to the metis people by pearl calhassen who was the minister at the time under ralph klein, also a very close friend of colleen klein's, ironic eh??

I think an interpretation of good faith would have been an invitation to all stakeholder groups to attend those meetings. Groups who have contributed enormous time and money for the well being of alberta's fish and wildlife. Now all of a sudden we have new found metis popping up all over the province ready to go subsistence hunting. (poaching) defeats the purpose of the cause, when we talk about conservation as the metis so often do.

I can't see where you think 'good faith' enters the equation when doors were closed shut and 3 out of 5 politicians who signed the agreement were of metis or native decent.

I'd call that a conspiracy against wildlife and all albertans.

here her~!~!~!

[MikeSpike]

Originally Posted by Rafter

I do not know why an agreement can not be made. The Metis are only allowed to hunt for food for their table. They are not allowed to trophy hunt or commercial hunt. They have a harvesting policy that is enforced. The harvesting policy can be downloaded off of the Metis Nation of Alberta website if any one is interested.

I believe that the annual Metis Harvest is less than 1% of the annual kill in Alberta. I just can not see the justification for spending $10,000,000.00 when the outcome is certain.

I also believe a negotiated agreement now is better for all Albertans rather than having the Supreme Court enforcing Alberta to accomodate the Metis. The Metis have a policy in place now that seems fair to all Albertans that was negotiated by the Klein Government. Will that policy still be in effect when the Metis win in court? Probably not!!!

Lookup your POLICY-below are a few of the main relevant snips from it:
Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) President Audrey Poitras is proud to announce Alberta Métis can now exercise their constitutionally protected right to harvest year-round

The onus is on the Métis harvester to harvest in a safe manner and be
knowledgeable in traditional Métis harvesting practices and values.

So how the f333 do you enforce a POLICY. The main effect for not following this policy is that you can't get a sticker renewed or don't get legal help. That is when you do not report or fill out surveys. There is no legal laws, no penalties, no enforcement of any kind mentioned other than your on your own if you don't stick with the reporting, there is no limits just vague concepts of working with conservation,nothing concrete, all of it is just as the last quote - the ONUS is on the Metis harverter. Now I feel better!!!!

[MikeSpike]

Originally Posted by Rafter

Here is the way I believe it will unfold:

Provincial Court In May 2009 Crown will win

Court of Queens Bench Appeal May 2010? 50/50 Chance for either side

Supreme Court Of Canada May 2013? Win for the Metis.

Total Cost to Tax Payer $ 10,000,000.00

I believe that the annual Metis Harvest is less than 1% of the annual kill in Alberta. I just can not see the justification for spending $10,000,000.00 when the outcome is certain.

I also believe a negotiated agreement now is better for all Albertans rather than having the Supreme Court enforcing Alberta to accomodate the Metis. The Metis have a policy in place now that seems fair to all Albertans that was negotiated by the Klein Government. Will that policy still be in effect when the Metis win in court? Probably not!!!

If you really want to know how it going to unfold (if we stay on the current aboriginal hunting rights course) look ahead more than few years.

The year 2070. The only people allowed to hunt and fish are native or metis which based on intermixing and is now generally 35%or more of the population of canada. Legal challenges based on a single aboriginal decendant have succeeded on the concept that blood is blood and no law or parent can take away your ancestry and that you have a right to follow which every ancestral/cultural tradition line you can prove and choose.

Due to hunting pressures -prior harvesting without control to season or amount, new technology and transport, population growth, economic expansion, etc - there is not enough game for all and barely enough to satisfy aboriginal rights. The court imposed elimination of non native harvesting and the implementation of a system (legally enforced) of seasons, limits and draws for aboriginals is to be implemented.

Or it can go along another view - F894 It - two much I am special because my great great great grandmother was native - can't operate a system where half the people have special privileges and the other half don't. You are all Canadian and you praticipate in the privileges and benefits(healthcare, schools, laws, social programs) of the societal system you live within. By claim special privileges over and above other Canadians while still taking the benefits of the society at large you are try to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot expect have a society eliminate the negative effects of racism when it is used to attain seperate and unique privileges/rights/benefits/etc.

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by MikeSpike

If you really want to know how it going to unfold (if we stay on the current aboriginal hunting rights course) look ahead more than few years.

The year 2070. The only people allowed to hunt and fish are native or metis which based on intermixing and is now generally 35%or more of the population of canada. Legal challenges based on a single aboriginal decendant have succeeded on the concept that blood is blood and no law or parent can take away your ancestry and that you have a right to follow which every ancestral/cultural tradition line you can prove and choose.

Due to hunting pressures -prior harvesting without control to season or amount, new technology and transport, population growth, economic expansion, etc - there is not enough game for all and barely enough to satisfy aboriginal rights. The court imposed elimination of non native harvesting and the implementation of a system (legally enforced) of seasons, limits and draws for aboriginals is to be implemented.

Or it can go along another view - F894 It - two much I am special because my great great great grandmother was native - can't operate a system where half the people have special privileges and the other half don't. You are all Canadian and you praticipate in the privileges and benefits(healthcare, schools, laws, social programs) of the societal system you live within. By claim special privileges over and above other Canadians while still taking the benefits of the society at large you are try to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot expect have a society eliminate the negative effects of racism when it is used to attain seperate and unique privileges/rights/benefits/etc.

I believe your first scenario for the year 2070 that depicts Aboriginal hunting as the last hunting will be reality.

[MikeSpike]

Originally Posted by Rafter

I believe your first scenario for the year 2070 that depicts Aboriginal hunting as the last hunting will be reality.

Depends where. In Ontario definitely-most of the urban population does not understand the desire by non-natives to hunt and combined with the liberal/peta brainwashing they are receiving in schools and universities, they would not see how great a loss it would be.

In Alberta-probably will go the "All equal" way, unless the Supreme Court Jesters from Ontario impose the above senario.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by MikeSpike

Depends where. In Ontario definitely-most of the urban population does not understand the desire by non-natives to hunt and combined with the liberal/peta brainwashing they are receiving in schools and universities, they would not see how great a loss it would be.

In Alberta-probably will go the "All equal" way, unless the Supreme Court Jesters from Ontario impose the above senario.

I wonder if the Not withstanding clause applies here?

Jamie

[MikeSpike]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I wonder if the Not withstanding clause applies here?

Jamie

It would have to be pretty serious and lot of public support behind it before they use that one.

[Jamie]

With the right guy in charge it could happen. I find this whole thing very serrious.

Jamie