Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement Null and Void!

Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement Null and Void!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Edmonton January 26, 2007)… Alberta’s largest conservation group, the Alberta Fish &
Game Association (AFGA), is encouraged to hear that the recent Court of Queen’s
Bench of Alberta decision in the Kipp Kelley appeal has deemed the Interim Métis
Harvesting Agreement (IMHA) “unenforceable” indicating that it has no authority and
thus is in fact not legitimate.
The interim agreement, which was struck behind closed doors without public or
stakeholder input in 2004, came under severe criticism from the beginning by the AFGA
and other conservation groups. Little or no consideration had been given to the
province wide impact on fish and wildlife by creating an open season year-round.
The IMHA had given unlimited rights to members of the Métis Nation of Alberta to “hunt,
trap or fish at all seasons of the year.” Though it states the purpose is for “subsistence
purposes,” the agreement does not define the term nor does it impose any limits on the
quantities of fish or game harvested.
“Simply put when something is “not legally enforceable” as stated by Justice Gerald A.
Verville in making the decision, it just doesn’t exist,” said AFGA President Randy
Collins.
“We have concerns when any single group is given the right to harvest unlimited
quantities of fish or game, or to disregard seasonal restrictions. Fishing and hunting
seasons are in place to give fish and game sanctuary to conceive, birth and raise their
young, and limits are there to protect the long term survival of all species,” he continued.
The Alberta Fish and Game Association is a not-for-profit volunteer organization proud
to serve Albertans in the promotion of the wise use of our fish and wildlife resources and
the conservation of their habitats. Celebrating its 98th anniversary the AFGA has been
active since 1908 in working towards these goals. It has a province-wide membership of
more than 14,000 individuals spread among 100+ Clubs.
-30-
CONTACT: Randy Collins, President, (780) 459-5878 (after 6:00 pm)
Martin Sharren, Executive Vice President, (780) 437-2342

Here is the press release

Great news. Hope the metis all took great advantage of that opportunity. Kleins wife should be shot with a ball of her week old sh_t imo. Feel free to delete...just felt good to at least say it.:lol

Don't get to excited, this is Randy Collins interpretation, Not real life.

It does sound a little too good to be true...and if its not...no big surprise on this end.

B:rolleyes

I think this Collins Clown is on crack, it was clearly a victory "FOR" the IMHA. I think he's confused about the outcome.

Check out www.albertametis.com for the real facts!!

It is still in effect as an IHMA.

Yesterday, Justice Verville, of the Alberta Queen’s Bench, released his decision in the Kipp Kelley appeal. Without question, it is a win for Mr. Kelley and a win for the Métis Nation of Alberta.

The win is simple and straightforward. Alberta Métis, who are eligible and are harvesting within the terms of the Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement can rely on it as a defence if the Crown lays charges against them. The courts are willing to hold the Alberta Government to its commitments within the IMHA and they are willing to throw out charges if the Crown proceeds with charges against eligible Métis who are harvesting within the terms of the IMHA.

Since there have been some media reports that have mistakenly accepted the spin of the Alberta Fish and Game Association, I want to set out the facts of the case so everyone understands why this is a win.

At trial, Judge Norheim, of the Alberta Provincial Court, found Mr. Kelley guilty of trapping without a license even though Mr. Kelley was eligible and was harvesting within the terms of the IMHA. Judge Norheim found that Mr. Kelley had not established he had a Métis right to hunt and could not rely on the IMHA as a defence.

Yesterday, Justice Verville overturned Judge Norheim’s decision. The Alberta Court of Queen’s bench held that Mr. Kelley could rely on the IMHA as a defence to the charge against him. The court set aside Mr. Kelley’s conviction and Mr. Kelley as well as the IMHA were vindicated by the courts.

The appeal court was very clear: Métis harvesters in Alberta can rely on the IMHA as a defence if the Crown decides to lay unwarranted charges against them. Justice Verville said it would offend the conscience of the community and bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the courts allowed the Alberta Crown to proceed with charges against a Métis harvester who was harvesting within the terms of the IMHA. This is very strong language from the court and Métis can take comfort in the fact that the judiciary is willing to uphold the deal the Métis Nation made with the Alberta Government.

Now some people have seized on the part of the judgment where the court finds that the IMHA is not a “legally enforceable” part of Alberta regulatory regime. This is true. The Alberta Government has not done a technical legal step of making the IMHA a part of its regulatory regime.

However, the court also points out to the Alberta Government that this could be easily accomplished. All they have to do is deem the IMHA to be a regulation under the legislation. I will be writing to the Alberta Government to request that this be done in order to overcome this technical issue.

I am going to let Mr. Kelley’s legal counsel explain this issue in more detail, but I want to be clear this does not diminish the fact that the court, in fact, upheld the IMHA and recognized it as a reasonable accommodation of Métis harvesting in Alberta. Even if this technical legal issue is not resolved right away by the Alberta Government, the court has clearly said our members can rely on the IMHA for ensuring they will not be subject to prosecution.

If any of our Métis harvesters are issued a summons or charged, they should contact the MNA Head Office right away so we can engage the Alberta Government on these issues pursuant to the processes set out in the IMHA.

I also want to highlight a few other important points in the decision.

First, we are pleased that the court recognized that the Alberta Government and the MNA did the right thing following the Powley decision. The court found that following the release of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Powley, the Alberta Government was under a “constitutional imperative” to consult, negotiate and accommodate Métis harvesting practices. Alberta fulfilled this constitutional imperative by negotiating the IMHA with the MNA.
At the time, entering into the IMHA was a bold step, but the court has now validated that it was the right step.

Second, Justice Verville, throughout his decision, emphasized that negotiations and accommodations, like the IMHA, are the preferred route to resolve rights issues. He noted that the IMHA not only benefits the Métis, but it benefits Alberta too since we are able to avoid the expenses related to time consuming and costly litigation.

Third, the court has now confirmed that the principles for consultation and accommodation set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decisions in Haifa Nation and Take River apply equally to the Métis people. This means that when Alberta consults with First Nations, it should also be consulting with Métis. We look forward to working with the Alberta Government to implement a Métis Consultation Policy in order to ensure Métis are being adequately consulted throughout the province.


Finally, I think an important point in the decision - for all Aboriginal peoples - is that the courts are willing to ensure the Crown upholds its commitments to Aboriginal peoples that are arrived at through negotiations and included within accommodation agreements.

For years, the Supreme Court has been urging the Crown and Aboriginal peoples to negotiate and reconcile their interests, rather than just resorting to litigation. However, for this reconciliation to be achieved, Aboriginal peoples need to be secure that the Crown will fulfill and implement its commitments that are arrived at through negotiations and agreements.

With this judgment, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has confirmed that the courts are willing to uphold these agreements and ensure they are honorably implemented. For Alberta Métis, this means they can rely on the IMHA to exercise their harvesting practices without fear or prosecution.

The MNA is now engaged in renewed negotiations with the Alberta Government on a Longer Term Métis Harvesting Agreement. We believe this decision will be helpful to inform these negotiations and demonstrates that the Alberta Government and the MNA are on the right track. The IMHA has now been in place for over two years and the MNA and the Alberta Government have a good working relationship. We believe this decision will only strengthen that relationship and we remain committed to working with Alberta to ensure Métis harvesting rights are respected.

Doesnt matter much eathier way.

Fact is the NEW aggrement will be a much different one than is currently in play. Hopefully it will be one more in line with what the Supereme court had to say.
Ted will make sure of that.

Jamie

It's going down!:hat
They better get use to Powley, thats all they're going to get.

Ralph, Colleen and Pearl rein no more!!!!

Tucumseh this will not go away but might end up being finalized maybe with some concessions if any because the Constitution gives the rights of the Metis as the same as First Nations and Inuit nothing more nothing less.

The agreement was signed by both parties but it was the Alberta Government that dropped the ball on their end of the agreement.
Now some people have seized on the part of the judgment where the court finds that the IMHA is not a “legally enforceable” part of Alberta regulatory regime. This is true. The Alberta Government has not done a technical legal step of making the IMHA a part of its regulatory regime.

However, the court also points out to the Alberta Government that this could be easily accomplished. All they have to do is deem the IMHA to be a regulation under the legislation. I will be writing to the Alberta Government to request that this be done in order to overcome this technical issue.

The natives or Indians were/are the first nation. The immigrants came. They are the second nation. They had sex with the Indians. The Metis were Born. They are the third nation. The first and third nations have the right to hunt year round. Where the hell are the second nations right to hunt for subsistence?





*It's better to do something and regret it than to regret never doing it in the first place.*

"Tucumseh this will not go away but might end up being finalized maybe with some concessions if any because the Constitution gives the rights of the Metis as the same as First Nations and Inuit nothing more nothing less."

bruceba, no offence, but that statement is quite incorrect... factually.

I suggest you read the "R. v Blais (1998) " decision for clarification. There are some major and important differences and they will have a great bearing on any "agreement" on a go-forward basis. Regards, Mike

mike the R vs Blais looks to be an interesting read. I should have said the Constitution recognizes the First Nations,Inuit and Metis as distinct. I'll have to finish reading the R vs Blais.
scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en...scc44.html