Article Origin
Volume
Issue
Year
TWO MEN IN NEW BRUNSWICK
failed to convince a court in Moncton that they had an Aboriginal right to harvest clams in Kouchibouguac National Park because they are Métis. Jackie Vautour, 82, was convicted Dec. 17 of violating Canada National Parks fishing regulations and the Canada National Parks Act by fishing clams illegally in September 1998. His son Roy Vautour, 53, was convicted on four counts of harvesting clams illegally between October 2001 and August 2005. To meet the Supreme Court of Canada requirements to prove a Métis right, the defense lawyer had to prove the Vautours’ were descended from Métis, that there was an historic Métis community in the area with a distinct culture, traditions and practices, and that the Vautours were recognized as being part of that community. The judge said defence arguments not only didn’t meet the test, the evidence would “overwhelmingly” suggest that a historic Métis community never existed in the area of Kouchibouguac. The court gave Jackie Vautour an absolute discharge, given the exceptional circumstances of the case. The judge fined the younger Vautour $800 because he had other similar convictions on his record.
NUNAVUT TUNNGAVIK INC. (NTI)
is considering its legal options after the department of Fisheries and Oceans decided to ban the trade of narwhal tusks from 17 Nunavut communities. NTI President Cathy Towtongie has called on the department to immediately reverse their decision as the organization was not made aware of the restriction prior to it being imposed, and Inuit were not consulted. This violates Inuit harvesting rights as set out in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. She says the narwhal population is thriving and the harvest numbers do not threaten the species. Scientific surveys estimate the population to be 80,000 strong in Canada. Inuit harvest about 500 per year. The ban effects tusks harvested from Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, Resolute Bay, Clyde River, Qikiqtarjuaq, Pangnirtung, Iqaluit, Kimmirut, Cape Dorset, Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, Hall Beach, Chesterfield Inlet, Rankin Inlet, Whale Cove, Arviat and Sanikiluaq. Communities permitted to continue to export narwhal tusks are Kugaaruk, Taloyoak, Gjoa Haven, Igloolik and Pond Inlet.
IN A SURVEY RELEASE BY THE
First Nations Fisheries Council, 87 per cent of those surveyed support First Nations rights to the use of fish and aquatic resources within their traditional territories for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Sixty-nine per cent of those surveyed who support First Nations rights to use fish and aquatic resources within their traditional territories, believe First Nations should be able to use the resources for economic benefit. “The results of this survey demonstrate overwhelming public support for First Nations’ fisheries rights,” said Ken Malloway, co-chair of the First Nations Fisheries Council. Said Steve Carpenter, First Nations Fisheries Council member “Canadian courts recognize First Nations fisheries rights, the Canadian Constitution protects those rights, the general public supports these rights, but government and politicians are not moving forward on these issues. Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy funding has not increased for the last 20 years, treaty negotiations are stalled because of a lack of movement from DFO, and Canada cannot meet its basic consultation obligations with First Nations on fisheries issues.”
THE MÉTIS NATIONAL COUNCIL
and Métis Nation of Alberta went before the Supreme Court of Canada Dec. 16 to intervene in Cunningham v. Alberta. At issue is whether sections 75 and 90 of The Métis Settlements Act (MSA) breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in prohibiting individuals, who voluntarily register under the Indian Act, from maintaining or obtaining status as members on the Métis settlements. The respondents (Cunningham et al.) had been removed from the Métis settlements registry pursuant to Section 90. They were granted a ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal that sections 75 and 90 of the MSA were constitutionally invalid. MNC lawyer Jason Madden argued that the Métis settlements are the only legislatively recognized Métis self-government arrangement and collectively-held Métis land base in Canada. They represent the only concrete step the government of Canada has taken in the 20th century to recognize and protect a Métis land base and to provide a framework for the implementation of Métis self-government as a part of the reconciliation process between the Métis Nation and Canada. He also argued that the membership scheme in the MSA reflects a negotiated agreement that provided for the Métis community to decide issues of membership on the settlements. Madden cautioned that removal of this authority from the Métis community could result in individual choice over-riding the collective will of the people. MNA lawyer Jean Teillet argued that the statutory appeal process ought to have been engaged prior to a review of sections 75 and 90 by the courts. This circumvented the internal self-government process provided for in the legislation. Teillet also argued that a “one-enrolment” policy (where a person cannot be registered under two Aboriginal registries at one time) also forms the basis of historic treaties, the Indian Act, Métis Nation registries and modern land claim and self-government agreements. The central issue, she said, is whether Aboriginal peoples and/or government can legislate or negotiate schemes that include a policy prohibiting multiple concurrent enrolments. The MNA had urged the court to grant a declaration, which prohibits removal from membership for improper purposes under section 90.
- 2322 views