Course: PPOL619: Governance, Institutions and Public Policy

Assignment: 700-words memo answering: Should the Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement (2004) be implemented in whole or in part?

Title: Analysis of the 2004 Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement

Final Grade: 90%

To: Rick Wilson, Minister of Indigenous Relations

From: Ahmed Elmeligy, Policy Analyst

Date: December 7, 2023

Subject: Analysis of the 2004 Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement

Introduction

This memo evaluates the 2004 Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement (IMHA), focusing on its impact on inter-Indigenous relations, conservation, and societal equity, and recommends renegotiating and redrafting a new long-term agreement.

Background

Since the 1930s, Métis in Alberta have struggled with the transition of wildlife resource management to provincial control and lack of constitutional recognition for their hunting rights, leading to the criminalization of traditional practices (Devine 2010, 33). The historical context of the Métis, particularly in southern Alberta, is marked by cultural and racial pressures that led to a denial of heritage as a coping mechanism (Devine 2010, 34). This legacy of discrimination and forced assimilation profoundly affects contemporary policymaking. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and protects the distinct community identity of the Métis (Canada 1982).

The IMHA of 2004 was negotiated between the Government of Alberta (GoA) and Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) to recognize Métis harvesting rights following the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada’s R vs. Powley decision (Devine 2010, 36). This decision led to the formulation of the Powley Test, a ten-part framework for defining Métis rights under Section 35, focusing on community identity, historical practices, and continuity of these practices (SCC 2003).

The MNA consists of eight settlements covering 1.25 million acres with ~4,000 residents and a wider Métis population in Alberta of 127,500, with an active membership of 45,000 (Statistics Canada 2021, 6). IMHA of 2004 extended harvesting privileges for active members beyond settlements, onto Crown lands and private lands (with permission) and all water bodies in the province, with appropriate licensure (Alberta 2004).

Analysis

Inter-Indigenous Governance: The IMHA of 2004 granting harvesting rights province-wide raises concerns regarding the sovereignty of First Nations. Evidenced by the Assembly of Chiefs of Treaty 6, 7, and 8's demand to terminate the IMHA of 2004 (Young 2005). The treaties signed between First Nations and the Crown, are foundational to the government’s adherence to Indigenous rights. However, the IMHA of 2004, negotiated solely between the GoA and the MNA, lacks representation and involvement from sovereign First Nations leaders which has led to tensions and perceptions of overstepping treaty rights. Additionally, this underscores the necessity of considering Indigenous peoples' perspectives on territoriality and respecting established borders and agreements among Indigenous communities (Voth and Loyer 2019, 110).

Legal Challenges: The IMHA of 2004 has faced legal hurdles, notably the 2007 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruling deeming the agreement legally ineffective (MNA 2018). A more precise drafting, similar to the Powley ruling where Métis rights were confined to traditional lands instead of the entire province, might have prevented these issues.

Wildlife Management Concerns: The GoA quick response (within a year) to the Powley decision raises sustainability concerns in wildlife management and the extent of analysis that was done to determine the long-term impacts. Granting such extensive harvesting rights to Métis may result in unsustainable hunting and potential negative impacts on the province's wildlife populations.

Cultural and Historical Context: The Métis Trail naming controversy in southern Alberta highlights the persistent debate regarding Métis historical presence and rights, reflecting broader societal challenges in acknowledging and respecting the distinct cultural and historical identity of the Métis people (Devine 2010, 44). Misconceptions about Métis heritage by non-Indigenous hunters, viewing Métis rights as undue privileges, point to a broader societal challenge in recognizing and respecting Métis culture and history (Devine 2010, 54).

Recommendation

Given the historical precedence of Indigenous Peoples in Canada seeking judicial resolution for rights-related issues, and in alignment with the GoA’s commitment to reconciliation, it is recommended that the long-term Métis Harvesting Agreement undergo a thorough renegotiation and redrafting process. This process should actively involve representation and consensus from all relevant Indigenous communities, specifically the MNA and the First Nations of Treaty 6, 7, and 8. This inclusive approach will address potential conflicts, respect sovereignty, and foster mutual understanding among the Indigenous communities. Additionally, it is recommended to conduct a comprehensive wildlife assessment across the regions that might be affected by the harvesting agreement to inform the renegotiation process, providing all parties with data to make informed decisions regarding sustainable wildlife management.

Conclusion

While the IMHA of 2004 is foundational in recognizing Métis harvesting rights, its effectiveness is limited by territorial ambiguities and inter-Indigenous governance challenges. A focused redrafting effort will better serve Métis communities and promote inclusive Indigenous governance.

References

Alberta. 2004. ‘Interim Métis Harvesting Agreement’.

Canada. 1982. The Constitution Act, 1982, c 11. CanLII. https://canlii.ca/t/ldsw.

Devine, Heather. 2010. ‘The Alberta Dis-Advantage: Métis Issues and the Public Discourse in Wild Rose Country’. London Journal of Canadian Studies 26 (November): 22–62. https://iportal.usask.ca/record/68350.

MNA. 2018. ‘Archived Harvesting Updates’. Métis Nation of Alberta (blog). 2018. https://albertametis.com/metis-rights/harvesting-rights/archived-harvesting-updates/.

SCC, Supreme Court of Canada. 2003. R. v. Powley. 2003 SCC 43.

Statistics Canada. 2021. ‘Membership in a Métis Organization or Settlement: Findings from the 2021 Census of Population’. Census in Brief, no. 98: 1–11. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-x/2021006/98-200-x2021006-eng.pdf.

Voth, Daniel, and Jessie Loyer. 2019. ‘Why Calgary Isn’t Métis Territory: Jigging Towards an Ethic of Reciprocal Visiting’. In Visions of the Heart, 5th ed., 107–25. Oxford University Press. https://mru.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/mru:80.

Young, George. 2005. ‘Battle Begins to Brew over Metis Harvesting Rights’. Alberta Sweetgrass, 2005. https://ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/battle-begins-brew-over-metis-harvesting-rights.