ALWAYS COMING HOME: METIS LEGAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF COMMUNITY AND TERRITORY

Abstract

Metis ideas of territory are complex, varied and often not well understood. Metis perspectives on intersections of territory and community are likewise not appreciated by Canadian courts. This is evident in the difficulties of Metis rights claimants in British Columbia, where misconceptions about Metis history and traditional use areas have resulted in courts questioning the existence of historic Metis communities in the province. The leading case on Metis rights in Canada, R v Powley, requires claimants to prove there is a historic Metis community in an area where claimed rights are exercised. In BC, courts following Powley in three cases – R v Howse, R v Nunn and R v Willison – have held there are no historic Metis communities in the Kootenays, the south Okanagan, or the Kamloops/Shuswap area. Although these regions comprise only a portion of lands within provincial boundaries, the BC government takes the position there are no Metis communities in the province capable of meeting the Powley test, and thus asserts there can be no Metis Aboriginal rights holders in BC. To challenge this position, and in order to illustrate the multiplicity and richness of Metis legal understandings of territory and community, the author braids family history, narrative, legal analysis and the perspectives of 23 Metis people from the southern BC interior who were involved in or affected by the Howse, Nunn and Willison cases. The author suggests that expansive and nuanced Metis understandings of communities and territories cannot be encompassed by the Powley/Willison definition of a Metis community as “... a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographic area and sharing a common way of life”. While the court’s definition posits history, territory and community as separable, Metis views suggest these concepts are interlinked and mutually constitutive.