Métis seek to modify hunting rights

Ten years to the month after the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision on Métis harvesting rights in R. v. Powley, Alberta Métis are asking the high court to once again turn its attention to the issue of Métis harvesting rights.
This time the test case R. v. Hirsekorn is about how to apply the Supreme Court’s test in Powley to the descendants of the well-known Métis buffalo hunters of the plains.
The Powley case dealt with the Sault Ste Marie Métis community on the Upper Great Lakes, who largely lived at the same settlement and hunted in the environs of that location. The Hirsekorn case deals with the Métis buffalo hunters who maintained a nomadic lifestyle following a migratory herd across the prairies and who rarely or never returning to an established settlement. The key question in the case is: does the Powley test need to be modified or is it flexible enough to fulfill the promise of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to the prairie Métis?
Since 2003, courts of the prairies have struggled to apply the Powley test to the prairie Métis. Notably, in Mr. Hirsekorn’s case, each level of court in Alberta re-interpreted and re-applied the Powley test differently than the court below.
This legal uncertainty is compounded by conflicting court decisions in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that cannot be reconciled. In one situation, a Métis fishing right is recognized by the Manitoba courts and the Manitoba Government on one side of a lake, with a Saskatchewan court denying any Métis fishing right on the west side of the same lake.
Métis Nation of Alberta President Audrey Poitras said, “Our people do not believe that the recognition of our harvesting rights should be dependent on political whim or whether we are before a judge that decides to apply the Powley test in a flexible manner.”
“Constitutional rights should not be dealt with in such an arbitrary manner. The current situation results in the promise of s. 35 to the prairie Métis being incomprehensible and inaccessible to our people on-the-ground.”