By Debora Lockyer
Windspeaker Staff Writer
TORONTO
The Metis Nation of Ontario has hired renowned Canadian lawyer Clayton Ruby to defend the test case for an MNO member charged with hunting under the guidelines of its newly declared Metis Hunt.
The organization is urging Metis to hunt moose and deer this fall (1994) in defiance of Natural Resources Minister Howard Hampton and his department. Hunters are being called to support the endeavors of the MNO to have the Metis right to hunt under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution recognized by the province.
Hampton had earlier rejected an MNO proposal outlining the harvest of 245 of the more than 150,000 moose in Ontario, saying he doubted the MNO acted for all the Metis in the province. The minister also said the proposal came too late in the 1994 season and to allocate moose to the Metis "could create a conservation issue."
But the Metis are asking for very little, wrote Ruby in a letter to the minister.
"You have allocated 26,955 moose for recreation and sport hunting this year in Ontario. The Metis Nation of Ontario, their families and their children need 245 moose to sustain them over the winter. Why are there so many for recreational purposes and nothing for food for the Metis?"
Tony Belcourt, president of the MNO, was surprised by the minister's one page letter rejecting the proposal. The plan had been created in cooperation with natural resources officials over a period of eight months, he said.
"Our people will no longer hunt in secret - the right to hunt for food is a constitutional right of the Metis and we will now exercise our right in spite of our best effort to take a reasoned and negotiated approach," said BeIcourt.
Ruby expanded upon the Metis argument saying the minister's reasons for rejecting the proposal were misleading.
The impression the minister seems to wish to create is that the Northwest Metis Hunt Agreement was initially proposed only at the end of September, when the reality is the proposal had been in the works since as early as March, wrote Ruby.
A Sept. 29 meeting with representatives from MNO and the ministry resulted in the negotiated agreement which was then sent to the minister for approval. The Metis believed the government was acting in good faith during the eight months it took to come to the mutually acceptable agreement, said Ruby. It is clear now that was not the case, he concluded.
And the question of representation is not the issue, said Belcourt. The defence of the Aboriginal right to harvest fish and wildlife for food is the issue, he said.
The proposed agreement could only help the government to manage the resource because Metis could hunt without fear of prosecution and MNR officials could have a better understanding of how many moose and deer are actually being harvested, said Ruby.
"Metis have always hunted deer for food and will continue to hunt, but they have been forced by the exclusionary policies of MNR to hunt by stealth and to hide their harvest."
The MNO has pledged to provide legal and financial support to challenge the unconstitutional behavior of the provincial government, said Ruby. To get the judicial wheels in motion, he has invited MNR officers to attend a hunt where he will help them gather evidence. Then a charge can be laid, said Ruby.
EIder sees hunting charge threat to treaty rights
Dear Editor:
For some unknown reason, I do not know why, but I suddenly got this spirit stirred up in me to write about the Dettah treaty Dene Elder who is charged for killing a caribou near the end of the Ingraham Trail. This happened north of Yellowknife when two young game officers issued him the tickets.
After receiving the tickets on Nov. 11, 1994, this treaty Elder, Benoit Noel became very upset and confused. He felt totally lost and helpless. On the way back to town, the charges definitely finally sunk in deep down in his very essence, to his soul, and it really hurt him very badly.
He told me that he cannot read, write or understand English at all because he has no formal educational background whatsoever. Then he went on to explain to me in the Dogrib language that when the treaties were signed, one of the things the Elders had officially stated before the signing of the treaties was that there would not be any game restrictions and regulations imposed on the treaty First Nation peoples. The First Nation peoples would always be allowed to hunt, fish, and trap anytime of the year and anywhere they please.
So now, what he really wants to know is what is happening to the Aboriginal and treaty rights. He strongly believes that the Aboriginal and treaty rights are being undermined very rapidly.
Charlie Beaulieu
Yellowknife, N.W.T.
Editor's note: On Aug. 25, 1995, after hearing the trial of The Queen vs. Benoit Noel, Chief Judge R.W. Halifax decided against the crown and found the Elder not guilty of the charges. He concluded that the government of the Northwest Territories, in this instance, steam-rolled over Aboriginal rights as protected under section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982.
By Debora Lockyer
Windspeaker Staff Writer
Native fisherman Joe LaBobe believes non-Native commercial fishermen in P.E.I. are beginning to forget a simple fact of Canadian life: Non-Natives have the privilege of fishing Canadian waters, and Native fishermen have the right.
LaBobe has watched the tensions rise over the years between the two groups. He was not surprised when the atmosphere on the island turned ugly Sept. 6 (1994).Natives reported to RCMP that men in nine boats, identification numbers on the hulls hidden, smashed and destroyed 275 legal lobster traps in Malpeque Bay. This was done, police believe, in response to Native fishermen publicly selling lobster the day before at prices well below market price.
Commercial fishermen accuse Native fishermen of depleting the stock, said LaBobe. Native fishermen food fish most of the year, except during the months of May and June at the opening of the commercial season. LaBobe said he doesn't understand how they (commercial fishermen) can say that a few hundred traps licensed to Natives would cause such a problem. Not when the commercial fishermen are licensed for 250 to 300 traps per boat and have a flotilla of about 500 boats working in and about the area.
"They are worried all of a sudden about conservation and they are the worst offenders, said LaBobe.
He suggests a five-year moratorium on fishing the stock would solve all problems. He said he'd be willing to take $1,500 a week in compensation for his household for not fishing for commercial reasons. He'd be happy then just to fish for food, as is his right.
Bitter fight over dwindling salmon stocksSusan Lazaruk
Windspeaker Correspondent
VANCOUVER
While B.C. Natives got a head start at catching sockeye salmon last week amid an angry protest from non-Native fishermen, the federal government announced the Aboriginal fishing strategy that allows the Natives first crack at the fish is to be reviewed this fall (1995).
The scene on the Fraser River on the southern fringes of Vancouver was tense as Natives hauled up nets bulging with shiny salmon while they traded angry profanities with about 100 non-Native commercial gillnetters speeding by in boats to try to thwart their catch.
It's the latest storm in a bitter fight over the dwindling stocks in one of the worst years on record because of a disastrous decline in the number of adult salmon returning to spawn in the river.
The Natives argue a constitutional right to catch and sell salmon, while non-Natives say the early Native opening is based on "racial segregation" and is unfair because Native fishermen are getting preferential treatment for a commercial fishery.
Under the 1992 federal strategy, Natives are permitted to catch 100,000 sockeye during a 12-hour opening in the Fraser River on Wednesday (Aug. 16) before non-Native commercial gillnetters were given the goahead to catch another 100,000 salmon over 24 hours, starting Thursday, Aug. 17, at noon.
The department of fisheries and oceans allowed the opening after the estimated sockeye run was upgraded to 4.5 million from 3.3 million the week before.
But non-Natives followed Natives to their fishing spots, occasionally dropping anchor downstream, to try to interfere with the catch.
"Everywhere we went, they would pull up and leave, so there wasn't much anchoring going on," said protest organizer Phil Eidsuik of the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition.Tempers were flaring.
"There were guys swearing back and forth at each on the radio phone," he said.Wayne Sparrow of the Musqueam Nation in Vancouver said some Natives have pictures of non-Natives trying to swamp their boats.
"The big boats went after the smaller boats and ran circles around them," he said. "Somebody could have got hurt."
"I don't see why they're out here protesting; they've got an opening twice as long as ours," said Mike Baird of the Tsawwassen Nation.
The Natives argue they're still not getting a fair shot at their original allocation of 500,000, promised under earlier run estimates which have since been revised. They are asking the courts to stop all commercial fishing until they do.
"There won't be any fish left if there are commercial openings," said Ernie Crey of the Sto:lo Nation's Nation Fishery Program, which runs the largest Aboriginal fishery on the river.
"This hit to our economy could only be described as staggering," he said. "If we don't catch our allocation of 500,000 fish, the larders of our families will very nearly empty this coming winter."
Tony Jacobs, of the Tsawwassen Nation on a reserve in Greater Vancouver that borders the water, and his son, Corbin, were pulling up their catch while the protest swirled around him.
"I remember fishing in this river when I was my son's age -12-with the Elders."
First Nations people argue it's their constitutional right to fill their nets, based on a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, called the Sparrow decision, that found Aboriginals have the right to catch fish for food, ceremonial and social purposes.
The court ruled First Nations' fishing rights cannot be interfered with except for conservation reasons and that they are to be allocated their fish first, before commercial and sports fishermen. (The priority list for catches is: Aboriginal food fishery, Native commercial fishery, commercial fleet and sports fishermen.)
A year later, Ottawa introduced the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, which included provisions for Indians to sell fish. In 1992, a pilot project allowed the Sto:lo, Musqueam and Tsawwassen nations to legally sell their catch.
That right to sell was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal, but it ruled it isn't a constitutional right and that Aboriginals must be subject to the same rules as other Canadians who seek a livelihood from the resource. That decision, which is under appeal, is set to be heard in November (1995) by the Supreme Court.
On the same day of the Native fishery opening, Louis Tousignant, director general of the federal fisheries department's Pacific region, told a news conference the fish-for-sale provisions of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy needs to be reviewed."We will determine over the fall what the future will be for that," he said.
Non-Native fishermen argue the Native commercial fishery should be subject to the same rules as other fisheries.
"We will never accept the racist concept that the commercial fishery should be segregated by race," said Eidsuik. "We just don't think it's fair."