Introduction

This paper has been contracted by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples to insure that the Commission has acquired information on Metis

from every part of Canada. It is designed to focus attention on the Metis

not usually associated with the prairie provinces. Previously

commissioned material will be referred to frequently in endnotes to guide

readers who may require more detail on some of the issues addressed in

this paper.

The primary purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission of the

existence and aspirations of Metis populations in Canada which both pre-

date and post-date the better-known Metis populations of the prairie

provinces. The historical identity and current reality of those Metis

populations will be described in the first part of the paper. In the second

part of the paper the Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights, and claims of these

distinct Metis populations will be outlined. In the final section of the

paper, mechanisms and processes will be explored, both in terms of

impediments to resolution of existing problems and in terms of proposals

for accommodation of Metis everywhere in Canada.

A Pan-Canadian Metis Perspective

There is a large population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. How large

that population may be is the subject of considerable speculation. How

that population should be identified and what terms should be used to

describe the Metis portion of that population is the very question this

paper is designed to address.

This paper also addresses the need for a pan-Canadian, or national,

perspective on Metis peoples and issues in Canada. Although Metis have

become a subject for much study in the last ten years, too much heat and

very little light has been shed in terms of public understanding of Metis as

an Aboriginal people who are living, and always have lived their lives

everywhere in Canada.

The tunnel-vision on prairie concerns that has been exercised by many

writers on Metis issues has unfortunately led to what has been aptly

called "Red River Myopia." This paper does not challenge or question the

validity of the history, culture, and aspirations of the Metis who are

associated with the western prairies. Circumstances have made it

necessary, however, to emphasize in this paper, those Metis collectivities

in other parts of Canada who have a culture, history, and aspirations of

their own. The legal, political and academic over-emphasis on the prairie

populations has resulted in a lack of recognition and accommodation of

Metis elsewhere in Canada. It is this imbalance which this paper hopes to

address.

A secondary, but no less significant aspect of this paper is to educate

Canadians in general, through the Royal Commission, to the concept of

pan-Canadian Metis populations. It is not well known that there are Metis

individuals, groups, and communities indigenous to almost every part of

Canada. Most of these Metis people have a history, and a culture that is

often parallel to, but distinct from, the development of the Red River

Metis community.

The paper examines the proposition that the recognition of Metis in

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 applies to all Metis wherever

they live in Canada, and whatever their genesis or origin. The paper will

propose that processes and mechanisms must be specifically developed to

accommodate those Metis people who are not directly associated with the

history and culture of Louis Riel. Whatever "new relationship" might be

proposed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada must

apply to all Aboriginal people in Canada, including all Metis people,

whatever their culture and wherever they are located

Fundamental Premises

It is important to understand that this paper is based on a number of

premises or assumptions which have been previously rationalized in great

detail in many books and other research papers, including those recently

contracted by the Commission. Rather than repeat those rationalizations

in this paper, the premises will simply be listed and references supplied

to the corresponding support documents. The premises are as follows:

1. The Aboriginal population of Canada is permanent

This statement may appear self-evident or even redundant, to some

people, but the simple fact is that few non-Aboriginal Canadians would

have believed this statement prior to the 1969 federal White Paper on

Indian Policy. Up to that date the entire thrust of Indian policy in Canada

was based on the simple, but incorrect assumption, that the Aboriginal

population of Canada was to eventually become extinct.

It was in the context of the massive negative reaction to the White Paper

by the Aboriginal community that other Canadians began to learn more

about the Aboriginal population in Canada. It was not until the

constitutional reform process of the 1980's and 1990's that the

perception of the "vanishing race" began to reverse itself in the minds of

significant numbers of Canadians.

For the purposes of this paper, this reversal is essential. The so-called

"Aboriginal problem" cannot be ignored because it is not going to

disappear into some kind of historic sunset with a so-called vanishing

race. The issues are real, the Aboriginal peoples are a permanent element

of Canada's future, and the future relationship between non-Aboriginal and

Aboriginal people must be negotiated on an equitable basis with all of

them.

2. Metis are Aboriginal (Indigenous) Peoples

As self-evident as this statement may seem to be, given the terminology

of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, there is a real resistance or

reluctance on the part of federal and provincial governments to actually

behave as if this statement is true. There is an undercurrent of disbelief

in some legal and academic writing that implies Metis are only partially

Aboriginal because they are only partially Indian. (See page 97) This paper

will demonstrate that this kind of thinking, which might be called the

theory of derivative rights, produces very real and unjust impediments to

access to and the exercise of Aboriginal rights by Metis people.

3. There are many distinct Metis populations

One of the most fundamental premises of this paper is that there are many

distinct Metis population in Canada which, like the various first Nations

of Indian peoples, require flexible forms of accommodation within the

Canadian mosaic. Some of these populations are historically and

hereditarily linked and some are not. Some (Rainy River) have long

historical traditions of self-identification as Metis and some (Labrador)

are more recent. The scope and time constraints of this paper will not

permit a fully detailed description of these populations, but pertinent

historic and current examples will be highlighted.

4. Aboriginal & Treaty Rights and Claims of Metis

There is a corresponding, and equally destructive assumption on the part

of many policy analysts that Metis only require social and economic equity

to resolve their issues. The fundamental issues of the basic human right

of self-determination as a distinct people is set aside in favour of

resolving the more immediate issues of "upgrading" those who

government bureaucrats too often perceive as being economically

deprived. This paper intends to re-assert the basis of Aboriginal and

Treaty rights and claims of Metis other than those of the Manitoba Act and

the Dominion Lands Act.

5. Accommodation of all Aboriginal People

The final premise set out in this paper is that the underlying principle and

active intent of Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 is to provide a

constitutional and legal base from which ALL Aboriginal people in Canada

can be equitably accommodated. This paper assumes the current

governments of Canada will uphold the honour of the Crown. The proposals

in this paper for resolution of the issues presented by the Metis are based

on an assumption that the political will to re-negotiate the relationship

between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada does exist.

That cannot happen, however, until a much more fundamental questions is

directly confronted. That question is:

"Does Aboriginal ancestry really mean anything in Canada in 1994?"

If the answer to this question is negative, then a retreat is necessary to

the pre-patriation era in Canada when official government policy was

concentrated on the extinction of distinctions between Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal Canadians. The concept of "Metis" then becomes just

another euphemism for assimilation, or, at best, a colourful label for a

quaint episode in Canadian history.

If the answer to the question is positive, a much greater challenge

emerges. Canadians, must re-evaluate ancient prejudices and outmoded

categorizations. It then becomes necessary to propose and develop a new

relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians based on

mutual respect and co-operative accommodation.

This paper assumes that Metis people everywhere in Canada have a major

role and responsibility to play in that scenario. They cannot even begin

however, until it becomes clear that ALL people of Aboriginal ancestry --

and the Aboriginal and Treaty rights which pertain to them-- are acted

upon, and that all Metis collectivities are legitimate players in the

process of negotiating that new relationship.

Limitations of Paper

This paper can, at best, only hope to sketch an outline of the issues and

concerns it addresses. In the eight or ten weeks it will take to complete

this paper, virtually no primary research can be undertaken. Many issues

and dozens, if not scores, of Metis communities will go unmentioned. The

time and resources to do more are simply not available and to those who

may feel slighted or left out apologies are offered in advance.

By the same token, this is a valuable and welcome opportunity to at least

begin the process of badly needed public education on Metis peoples in

Canada. The author has been fortunate enough to be able to work full-time

with Aboriginal organizations on these issues for the last 16 years and to

have at his disposal literally hundreds of thousands of pages of books,

position papers, and other letters and documents. If only to open the door

to greater understanding, the attempt is worth the effort.

At the very least, this paper should demonstrate the desperate need for

more research in this area. The outline approach of this paper deserves a

great deal more depth. Metis groups and communities all across Canada

need the resources to explore their own history and articulate their own

vision of themselves both as Aboriginal people and as Canadians.

The reader should be warned that this paper is a journey through a

minefield of confusing semantics, ambiguous questions, contradictory

evidence, conflicting claims, and competing bureaucracies. It is also an

outline of the story of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are

struggling to assert their cultural heritage and identity in face of

overwhelming opposition from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike.

It is to those people and to that struggle that this paper is dedicated.

Note on Appendicies

Given the limitations of this paper, and the significance of many of the

issues it deals with, four appendicies will be attached to this paper to

provide more detail than the scope of the paper itself permits.

Part 1 - Metis Identity and Definition

The inappropriate application of Euro-Canadian terminology to North

American Aboriginal peoples has become a popular subject in recent

years. Still, it cannot be denied that if there is one over-riding issue in

the dialogue between Metis people and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

people, it is the issue of Metis identity and how, or if, or by whom, the

term is defined.

The issue of who is, or is not, an Indian or an Inuit is complex, but in

most cases quickly boils down to a few fundamental issues on which most

people can at least agree to disagree. Somehow, the issue of who

identifies as French, or English, or German, or Chinese, or even Canadian

rarely seems to come up. The issue of Metis identity, however, seems,

like quick silver, to multiply in complexity the more it is touched on.

In order to stay focused on the potential for useful solutions to the issues

raised in this paper, all of the factors in the discussion on identity and

definition will be related to the use of the term "Metis" in the

Constitution Act of 1982 as a fulcrum on which everything else is

balanced.

To understand why this issue is so mercurial, the backdrop against which

terminology related to Metis has developed must be carefully outlined.

The semantic issue has been exhaustively explored elsewhere but this

paper will examine the framework of human interaction in which Metis

identity and definition take place. It will certainly be necessary to refer

to legal and academic issues, but this paper intends to focus more sharply

on the human factors involved in those issues.

Metis have been referred to as a living bridge between Aboriginal and Non-

Aboriginal cultures. At one meeting, the Metis Commissioner, Paul

Chartrand, pointed out that bridges have to expect to be walked on by both

sides. In another context, Metis could also be described as living treaties

between Indian and non-Aboriginal cultures. Both of these images help

to explain why Metis is so hard to define. Like mercury, the concept of

Metis identity is at once fluid and elusive.

In an effort to be helpful, this paper will attempt to clarify the context in

which issues of identity and definition take place. There is no question

that the issue is an emotional minefield and is too often over-heated when

the issues of identity, membership, citizenship, nationality, and

beneficiary are carelessly mixed together. This issue is further

complicated when the factors of identity and factors related to definition

are confused with each other. By examining all of these factors

separately, it may be possible to trace a critical path to a workable

solution to the issues raised by identity and definition.

It will also be necessary to examine a number of factors in terms of their

effect on the context in which Metis identity is formulated. The paper will

demonstrate that the use of terminology significantly, and often

negatively affects Metis identity. There are also effects generated by

cultural, socio-economic, historical and political circumstances.

The paper will describe cultural circumstances which seem to foster

Metis identity and other cultural circumstances in which Metis identity

does not seem to develop at all. Historical factors are more significant

for some Metis groups than for others, but they certainly must be taken

into account. This is particularly necessary where the popular history of

a particular era or area masks, ignores, obscures, or mis-represents the

existence of a Metis population. Metis populations were perceived (and

perceived themselves) differently in different periods of Canadian history.

Finally, the paper will look at the effects of other factors that are often

ignored or avoided. The creation of borders has a marked impact on the

way in which Metis populations were treated. In the modern area the legal

and academic theory has had a major impact on both public and official

perception of how and where Metis people fit in the emerging negotiations

between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians.

All of these factors influence how Metis perceived themselves in Canada

and how they were and are perceived by other Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal populations. Each must be examined in order to understand the

issue of Metis identity and definition.

Criteria for Identity

"I, myself, am a question which is addressed to the world,

and I must communicate my answer, for otherwise I am

dependent on the world's answer." C.G. Jung

The questions "Who am I?" and "Who are you?" are among the most

fundamental in modern human experience. The possible responses to those

questions are as variable as the human condition and the cultures that

produce those conditions. The response from a given individual or

community or nation, can also vary with time, place and circumstance. To

give a valid response, the conditions under which the question is asked --

and answered-- must be fully understood. To avoid misunderstanding it

must be clear what question this section of this paper will attempt to

answer, which is:

"Who are the Metis referred to in Section 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982?"

It is necessary to be equally clear about why the question is being asked.

Although the term "Metis" is used in the Constitution to identify one of

the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, the term itself is not defined. At this

precise point, the issue of identity and the issue of definition are at least

distinct, if not actually different. If only for purposes of clarity, this

paper will maintain that distinction and/or difference for as long as it

will serve to increase understanding of the issues. That means there are

several other questions to answer:

"Can/Should/Must/How will/ Metis be defined?"

and

"Why are the first two questions being asked, at all?"

The last question is the simplest to answer. The first two questions are

being asked because there appears to be differences of opinion in both the

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community as to how those questions might

be answered. There are political, legal, economic, cultural, and social

repercussions which are dependent on the answers to those questions.

And given the basic purposes of this paper, the Commission is asking for

advice and information on how to address these questions so they can

fulfill their mandate.

The first question is more difficult to answer because the answer relies

on the response to still more questions. It is necessary to have some idea

of why anyone wants to call him/herself Metis. It is also necessary to

know why anyone else should care if a person calls him/herself Metis, or

not.

At the risk of backing into the conclusions that might be drawn from this

paper, the paper will begin by establishing a framework for Metis identity

before addressing the separate issue of definition. Research papers

previously contracted by the Commission deal in considerable detail with

how the term "Metis" has been used, and how that usage has changed and

varied in different places and times. There is general agreement that

there are three fundamental factors involved in Metis identity. These are:

1. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry

2. Self-Declaration

3. Community validation or acceptance

As straightforward as that list might seem at first glance, it only takes

us forward a few steps before it begins to generate as many problems as

it solves. Each of these three conditions for Metis identity are

individually capable of generating many fears and anxieties. If narrowly

interpreted, the three conditions taken together could prevent almost any

given individual from being recognized as a Metis within the context of

Section 35. If the list is given the broadest possible interpretation, there

are up to 10 millions of Canadians who can claim to be Metis if they so

choose.

This paper stands at the entrance of a very treacherous maze. In order to

address these issues this paper must, as was pointed out earlier, examine

the backdrop against which these criteria for identity arise.

The Effect of Terminology

Inevitably, the process of developing and asserting identity becomes

intertwined with terminology. Even though we seem, in this paper, to be

dealing with a single term --the term "Metis"-- there is a multiplicity of

terminology that is historically associated with what would, today, be

called Metis populations. In fact, collecting those terms has resulted in a

list of 36 names that have been applied to Metis people which can be found

on page 12. It appears there are as many terms applying to Metis as there

have been Indian, colonial, and immigrant languages on the North American

continent.

Every book or article related to Metis will say that the word Metis means

"mixed" --which is true enough, as far as it goes. The books will also say

that it was applied to people born of mixed Indian and White, usually

French, blood. That is also true, at least at one particular time and in one

particular region --but it does not go far enough to give any real

understanding of even the basic hereditary background of modern Metis

peoples.

Most Metis people today are not so much the direct result of Indian and

White intermixing any more than English Canadians today are the direct

result of intermixing of Saxons and Romans. Most Metis today are the

direct result of Metis intermarrying with Metis, or Metis with Whites, or

Metis with Indians, or with Inuit, or with Blacks, or with Orientals. Most

Metis today are born of one of more parents who are Metis

Terms for Mixed-blood Populations

Acadian

Anglais

Bembenyiik

Boschlopers

Brule and Bois Brule

Canadien, Canayen

Chicot

Country-born

Coureur de Bois

Creole

Englishman

Freemen or Gens de libre

Habitant

Half-caste, Halfbreed or Breed

Home Guard Cree

Home Indian

Huskies

Livyers

Labradorian

Malouidit

Metis

Metis Ecossais

Mixed Bloods

Mustee

Muktum

Natives

Non-Status Indian

Opitow Coosan

Ootip ayim sowak

Pedlars

Pork Eaters

Promyshlennki

Rupertslander

Scots

Voyageurs

Perhaps our Cree brothers have the most accurate description of Metis.

They called us the "Ootip ayim sowak" --"the people that own themselves,

or that nobody owns." In one university class a Cree student said that, in

his community, the phrase would mean "Those who govern themselves."

Before this paper is concluded, it must be noted that neither the term

"Indian" or the term "Metis" originated from within the communities that

those terms are applied to today, "Indian" is no more definitive, or even

descriptive of an indigenous population in North America than is the term

"Metis." There were no "Indians" in North America before 1492.

Certainly there were Hopi, and there were Déne and there were

Anishnawbe, but there was no population who referred to themselves as

Indians. It was an externally imposed terminology and, as we have seen,

involved externally imposed definitions.

In a slightly different context, the same can be said of the term "Metis."

Some might object to this argument on the basis that the term was only

used in the western "homeland." The objection raises the question of how

the term evolved, and whether or not it originated, as most people assume,

with Red River.

An early printed reference to the term is on a map of the St. John's River

in New Brunswick in 1778 as Ile de Mettise (sic). It is not known if the

population of that Island actually applied the term to themselves. A river

near Mont-Joli has been named La Rivière Mitis (sic) since the early

1800s. Where that river meets the St. Lawrence is a community named

Mitis.(sic)

It is clear that the term "Metis," itself, was used outside the Red River

area long before it became commonly used in the west. There is

insufficient research to determine if the populations of the areas where

the term has been used, actually used it to describe themselves.

Most writers apply the term "Metis" to Red River people, but few have

examined when and how people indigenous to Red River used or applied the

term to themselves. Determination is made more difficult by the fact

English documents most often use the term "Halfbreed" while French

translations use the word "Metis." The word Metis" does not appear in the

English versions of the Manitoba and Dominion Lands Acts, but the word

"Halfbreed" does.

As leader of the expedition from Upper Canada to Red River in 1857,

George Gladman, himself a mixed-blood born in Red River, referred often

in his reports to "Indians" and to "natives of the country" but did not use

the terms "Metis" or "Halfbreed." Henry Youle Hind, in his reports on

the same expedition makes references to "Indians" and to "Halfbreeds.

Those in Red River who drafted the Declaration of the People of Rupert's

Land and the Provisional Government's List of Rights did not used the word

"Metis" to describe themselves in the document. In fact the only

terminology used is that of "uncivilized and unsettled Indians," "male

native citizens," and "foreigners being a British subject."

There is no question that Riel, who, it must be remembered, was educated

in Montreal, uses the term "metisse" in his poetry in 1870 and an 1885

article written by him and published in The Globe shortly after his death

contains the often-published quote, "..should we not be proud to say, 'We

are Metis?'

The point is, the external application of terminology does not guarantee

that term accurately communicates the expression of an internal identity.

By the same token, when a particular term, is used by a given community

(such as the Metis constituency of the NCC in 1982)), an external --or

even constitutional-- use of that term cannot legitimately be restricted

later to only a sub-group of that population. If, for example, this

restrictive principle were applied to the term "Canadian," then it would

apply only to the descendants of those Halfbreeds outside Quebec city who

were first called "Canadien" in 1632.

In 1982, if a person of Aboriginal ancestry wanted to publicly declare him

or herself as an Aboriginal person there were only three choices. In terms

of public perception, government policy and, for the first time,

constitutional law, one (or more) of only three boxes had to be checked --

Indian, Inuit, or Metis. In fact, between 1942 and 1985 it was not even

possible to check Metis or Halfbreed on a Canadian census form. In the

1991 Census there are eight different categories of Metis response -- not

including the response of Indian/non-Aboriginal.

Socio-Economic Identifiers

Since, paradoxically, terminology, itself, is not particularly helpful in

consideration of the processes of Metis identity and definition, a more

useful frame of reference for our discussion is needed. From a socio-

economic point of view, there are several basic characteristics which can

be identified as common to all of the mixed blood groups to which this

variety of terminology applied. Those characteristics are:

1. Mixed parentage of Indian and non-Indian sources.

2. Indigenous lifestyle based on local resources.

3. Kinship networks related to both Indian and non-Indian

as primary basis for political and economic life.

4. Distinguished by outsiders (both Indian and non-Indian)

as distinct from both Indian and non-Indian society.

5. Self-identified (although the specific terminology

varied) as distinct from both Indian and non-Indian society.

These identifiers are presented as guideposts to help make the connection,

in terms of identity and definition, between mixed-blood communities at

various places and times in Canadian history.

Historical/Political Identifiers

In the 1977-80 land claims research projects to identify and document

the potential claims of Metis and non-status Indians in Canada, useful

data had to be extracted from literally thousands of pages of primary and

secondary source materials. In the course of that exercise, researchers

became aware of a pattern of events that seem to embroil virtually every

mixed blood community the project examined. The elements of that

pattern are presented here as historical and political guideposts to help

us make the connection, in terms of identity and definition, between

mixed-blood communities at various places and times in Canadian history.

1. The existence of one or more mixed-blood communities.

2. The community exists in advance of and is economically and

politically independent of major white settlement.

3. An outside group attempts a take-over of the area.

4. A negotiation process is begun, usually by the half-breed group,

to establish recognition of possession, or shared jurisdiction of

land with the outside group.

5. The negotiation process fails.

6. One or more armed encounters ensues.

7. The leadership of the half-breed community is recognized.

8. Legal and political techniques are imposed which dispossess

the half-breed community.

As a rule-of-thumb, this paper proposes that any community, whether

historic or current, which experiences a majority of the listed

circumstances and proposes to identify itself as a Metis community,

should seriously be considered as a candidate for that identification.

Examples of the indicators will be noted in historical background section

of the paper.

The Effect of Culture

It is a given, in the context of modern sociology, that the culture into

which an individual is born strongly affects how that individual

experiences him or herself. The relationship between culture and

identity is virtually inseparable, and correspondingly, a crisis in identity

can be experienced when a given culture is under stress. When a given

culture is in some form of major transition, the impact on the identity of

members of that culture is often profound. These factors have played and

still play a major role in the development of Metis identity.

In the context of discussion with the Constitutional Review Commission

of the NCC in 1991, a description was offered to explain the variety of

situations in which Aboriginal people can find themselves.

1. There are Aboriginal people who live in a "traditional" land-

based culture in both a physical and spiritual sense.

2. There are other Aboriginal people who are, for most purposes,

completely assimilated into Euro-Canadian life.

3. There are still other Aboriginal people who are in transition

between those two "states" of being.

4. Some of these people live their lives in a bi-cultural mode or

in a state of dual identity.

This paradigm is particularly useful when comes to understanding shifts

of identity and definition among Metis peoples.

It is important to note that in recent years, even Census Canada has

recognized this transition phase works in both directions. While some

Aboriginal people are assimilating into Euro-Canadian identity, others

who seemed to have been assimilated are reclaiming their Aboriginal

heritage.

One of the factors that makes discussion of "Metis-ness" so confusing to

observers is the bewildering range of human circumstance that the term

seems to cover. Skin and hair colour range from exceptionally dark to

virtually fair and blonde. Lifestyles of different Metis range from

subsistence hunting and gathering peoples to multi-corporate urban

realities. Spiritual orientation ranges from the deeply traditional,

through various Christian models, to the urban pagan and the atheistic.

This diversity is best examined through the Tizya paradigm of a

traditional/transitional/assimilation modality. There are Metis

individuals and communities who reflect each of these modes. In rural,

remote and Northern Canada there are Metis who live a hunting/gathering

subsistence kind of lifestyle which virtually matches the historic

descriptions of 18th Century Metis lifestyle. These individuals and

communities could be described as "traditional" Metis. At the other end

of the scale there are completely urbanized populations of Metis who are

struggling to reclaim their heritage. In between is a population who are

experiencing a fluid, changing, and often bicultural identity process

between Indian, Metis and non-Aboriginal cultures.

In terms of the three basic criteria for Metis identity, the amount of

influence culture may have on an individual has little to do with the

"amount" of Aboriginal ancestry in an individual. There can be no doubt

however, that the mores of any given culture have an enormous effect on

whether or not an individual will self-identify as a Metis -- as opposed to

identifying as an Indian, or a non-Aboriginal. Culture can have an

absolutely determinative impact on the acceptance or rejection of any

given individual as being part of a particular Metis community.

Over a decade of research on Aboriginal issues, it became evident that

some areas of Canada have very few "indigenous" Metis, compared to

others. Specifically, the coastal areas of Canada, British Columbia, and

the Maritimes, had a very low percentage of self-identifying Metis

peoples, compared to Ontario or the prairie provinces. It is rare to meet

an Iroquois or Haida mixed blood individual who identified as a Metis.

One possible explanation springs from the fact that in those societies

where the women determine the membership criteria of the community,

rules that would exclude their own children are rare, regardless of who

the fathers of the children might be. In these cases there would be no

motivation to identify as Metis, simply because the children would be

raised with the identity of their mothers.

In societies where Aboriginal fathers make the rules, or where the

patrilineal bias of the Indian Act was applied, there is a tendency to be

more protective of their own children, even if the mothers were white.

and Membership or participation in the community was more likely to be

denied to the children of white fathers. Those same children would often

be rejected by white communities as well. As a result, over a number of

generations, a population of mixed blood progeny were virtually forced to

create their own communities, in order to be relatively free of both white

and Indian prejudice.

Certainly, there were many other factors at play. The further back you

look in the history of Aboriginal-White contact, the more likely mixed

blood children would be raised in the Indian community. After 1876,

the increasingly restrictive clauses of the Indian Act included the

children of white women who were married to registered Indians as band

members, but excluded the children of Indian women who were married to

white men, or to Metis or even to full-blooded Indians who were not

registered.

The Effect of Location

Another major factor in both the development (or lack of development) of

Metis identity, and in how Metis populations were treated, was the effect

of the temporal and/or physical location of a given half-breed population.

As we shall see, the mixed-blood populations in Acadia and New France

were embroiled in a different set of historical circumstances, than were

those of Sault Ste. Marie, or Red River. All of those communities fit most

of the socio-economic and historical and political identifiers listed

above, but only one of them is commonly identified in Canadian history

today as a Metis community. The policies of British Crown toward mixed

bloods differed from those of the colonial authorities and differed again

among the Federal and Provincial governments after Confederation.

The creation of international, colonial, national, and provincial, and

borders, as we shall see in the historical background in this paper, also

played a major role in how mixed-blood communities were identified and

dealt with in both colonial and modern-day Canada.

Pre & Post-Red River Metis Communities

One final element must be noted before the history of pre-and post Red

River Metis communities can be presented. The history of contact

between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians is not, as most would

presume, a closed book. In fact, the history of that contact is virtually

continuous to the present day.

History notes that Aboriginal people in eastern Canada met their first

whiteman in the 1600's. According to one Inuk northern broadcaster,

there are Inuit in the north today who have rarely see a whiteman. For

those people the history of contact is just beginning. The point to be made

is that the history of contact --and the creation of Metis populations-- is

an unfolding and ongoing process from east to west and from north to

south in Canada. The history of the dispossession of the Acadians in 1755

later happened to the mixed bloods of Sault Ste. Marie in 1850 and still

later to the Metis of Red River in 1870, and is now happening to the Metis

of Territories, or of Labrador.

There are many differences in circumstance and specific events, and the

terminology used, but the interactions and end results are startlingly

similar. What is known of the Metis of yesterday may well help prepare

for dealing with the Metis of tomorrow.

As was indicated earlier, the actual term "Metis" may not have been used

by populations like the Acadians, but their heredity and history are nearly

identical, and in some cases physically related, to later populations who

did use the term. This paper is proposing that they were Metis in fact, if

not in name, and that the descendants of those communities can

legitimately identify today as Metis within the meaning of Section 35(2)

of the Constitution Act.

In any case, a number of identifiers have been established which can be

used to locate Metis communities. A number of factors have been listed

which can be used to determine how a given community was perceived by

others and by itself. At this point, some of the history which served as

the backdrop referred to earlier, against which identity as, and

identification of, Metis took place, can be presented.

This section of the paper will identify and describe the historical

development of mixed blood populations and communities across Canada

and, where applicable in the United States. In particular, the paper will

concentrate on populations other than those of the Red River/Riel period

with an emphasis on how those populations impact on current public

perceptions of Metis identity and culture.

Almost four centuries passed between the proverbial 1492 and the

established dominance of European settlement in North America in the

late 1800's. It is in the later part of this 400-year period that Metis

developed their cultures and indigenous relationship to the land. As

contact occurred on a continental basis in the 15-1600's with increasing

frequency, and since the resulting Halfbreeds married with Whites Indians

and other Metis, the mixed blood populations mushroomed into the 1700's.

Pre-Red River Metis Communities

Most Canadians are not aware that the first attempts to colonize what is

now Canada was based on an attempt to deliberately create a "new race"

in the so-called "new world." That attempt backfired. In fact a "new"

indigenous population was being created in the zone of interaction

between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. The process by which

these population developed is one of a "founding metissage."

In eastern areas in the 1750's only the keenest eyes could discern the

mixed blood from the Indian, and by 1800 in Ontario, many could not be

distinguished from Whites. Still others, in Sault Ste. Marie areas and in

Red River, formed communities totally independent, culturally, of White

and Indian alike, and often generations before White settlement was

established. As often as not, they were perceived as Indians by Whites,

and as Whites by Indians, and as Natives or Metis by their own peers.

As European "discoverers" and explorers landed on the east coast, worked

their way down the St. Lawrence, and slowly spread southward and

westward, the metissage phenomenon became a kind of inevitable side-

effect-- from the colonial point of view. From the point of view of the

groups themselves a new life in a new world was emerging and they were

the core of its development.

The Atlantic Experience

In the middle 1600's it was already clear that most of the Acadian

families, were of mixed blood. They were, even in their own time,

distinguished both from the Micmacs and the immigrating French and later

English settlers. At least 47 families at Belle-Isle-en-Mer, for example,

were identified via detailed genealogies as being mixed blood, not only in

a physical sense, but as evolving a distinctive cultural identity derived

from that fact. It is thought that the Malacites, as an identifiable group,

were descendants of the mixed blood children of Saint-Malo fishermen and

Indian women.

Following the defeat of the French by the English some Acadians, in the

mid 1750's were "deported" back to France, some were assigned to a penal

colony in the Falklands, some to Louisiana where we now have another

pocket of Metis heritage in the United States--the Cajuns. Others fled

north, and west to the St. Lawrence Valley, and to the Upper Great Lakes

around the Sault area. As one of the first "Trail of Tears" the expulsion of

the Acadians is faithfully recorded in history, but the role of "metissage"

in that process is played down by historians on every side of the issue.

Again, the point should be made, that although it is unlikely the term

"Metis" was ever used by the Acadians in 1750, their communities match

all of the indicators listed earlier in this paper. The descendants of

Acadians would appear to match all of the criteria we are considering for

identification as Metis under Section 35(2).

The fact that an island in the St. John River in New Brunswick was named

the Isle de Mettise as early as 1778 is an indicator of the reality of the

metissage phenomenon in the Maritimes, and the fact that the term was

used by the map maker at that time. The New Brunswick Metis and Non-

Status Indian Association, in a report to the Native Council of Canada in

1984 concisely stated the situation of the Metis population of the

Atlantic area.

"There is abundant evidence of the intermingling of white and

Native peoples in the Atlantic region, all during the period of

intensive Treaty negotiations between the British and Eastern

Indian Tribes. There were definitely two sources of the mixed

blood population during those years;

(1) The intermarriage and not-so-formal unions of French

Acadians and Canadians with their Indian neighbours - producing

one of the first "Metis" populations in Canada and,

(2) The intermingling of British captives with their Indian

captors - producing one of the first "half-breed" populations in

Canada.

The British-Indian Treaties relating to the Malecite and MicMac

Tribes between 1713 and 1763 not only failed to exclude "mixed-

blood" Indians from the enjoyment of Aboriginal Rights guaranteed

by those treaties, but those Treaties (ie. the negotiations

surrounding them) occasionally took note of the "French" appearance

and mannerisms of some of the Indian delegates with whom the

British negotiated.

The respect for Indian Tribal governments, and presumably those

Tribes right to determine their own membership, that is shown

both in the Treaties and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 leaves

little doubt that the term "Indian" in those documents meant

"mixed-blood Indians" as well; For mixed-blood Indians were

clearly tribal members and. from the historical evidence available,

must have made up a significant portion of the Native population in

the Maritime region."

The descriptions above might indicate to some that, since mixed bloods

were included in treaty, there is no need to apply Metis identity to the

descendants of such people. However, the later application of the Indian

Act definitions, and the lack of recognition, until recently, of pre-

Confederation Treaties in the Maritimes, did create a large

disenfranchised population, some whom later identified as Metis. We will

return to the Atlantic experience in the section on post-Red River Metis

communities to examine to evolution of the Metis people of Labrador.

The St. Lawrence Experience

As the Acadians were developing their culture, their community and, from

my point of view, their nation --a similar process was developing further

up the St. Lawrence. In fact here we see the short-lived, but self-

conscious attempt on the part of the French to create a new race.

Intermarriage between young Frenchmen and Indian women are not only

accepted, they are financially encouraged with special dowries or grants

of land, a technique later adopted by the English as well. The original

plan was to "Frenchify" the Indians. In fact, the reverse happened and

French officials became alarmed at the rate (up to 40 percent in 1680)

their young men were disappearing into the woods with their Indian

lovers.

It was also during this period that the earliest use of the word "Canayen"

or "Canadien" showed up. It was applied to the mixed blood Indians around

the settlement of Quebec City in 1632.

In what is now Quebec, the process of metissage certainly produces a

distinct population, but the cultural identity of that population becomes

coloured by a francophone ideology, particularly after the military

domination of Canada by the English. Although the local community life of

the Québecois is still very much in the tradition of metissage, the public

expression of that life on a regional --and later provincial-- level is

masked by the necessity to use the more obvious, and palatable, French

genealogy as a defense against Angloization.

Thanks to the reports of the Jesuit fathers in the new world, we can

certainly pinpoint one of the earliest sources of metissage in what is now

Ontario. Etienne Brule, who traveled with Champlain to the new world at

the age of 16 and was sent to live with the "savages," found his new life

very much to his liking. As the thousands who followed him also

discovered, the so-called "savage" life had many charms, including female

companionship. Whether the term "bois brule" evolved from reference to

dark skin or from reference to "brule of the woods" may be of interest only

to academics, but the reality of a distinct cohesive mixed blood population

was fast becoming a major factor in colonial life.

The Upper Country Experience

Fueled by an expanding fur market and rumours of copper, exploration

pushes its way into to the upper great lakes area in the 1620's and by

1654 a meeting of Halfbreeds of the area is recorded. Even European

historians make it pretty clear that Mackinac and Sault Ste Marie have

large populations of Halfbreeds. Given that the French and English and

later the Americans take turns "occupying" the area in the name of their

Kings, Queens and Republics in the early and middle 1700's, it's not

surprising that neither side pays much attention to the fact, until 1763,

that the only permanent population in the area are the Indians and the

mixed bloods.

History does identify one dominant family in the area, the Langlades and,

in particular Charles Langlade, referred to in one article as the Riel of

the Sault. Born in 1724, the son of a fur trader, Agustin Langlade and,

Domitaille, a sister of an Ottawa Chief, not only played what can only be

called a nation building role in the Sault area, but a major role in the

colonial wars of the day, leading a victorious mixed blood corps which

proved to be the balance of victory in several crucial battles. During

those many years when neither the English or the French succeeded in

dominating the Upper Lakes area, it was this mixed blood family that

provided the same kind of leadership that the Riel's were to later provide

in Red River in the next century.

In fact, the formal surrender of the Sault area to the English was

conducted between English officials and Charles Langlade, not the French

military. Shortly afterward Langlade's political dominance in the area

was confirmed, even by the English who found it politically and militarily

expedient to confirm his leadership role in the area. For a century the

Metis of the Sault built their nation on the economy of the fur trade, and

their military alliances with both Indian and colonial forces, when it

became necessary to defend their homeland against the English and later

the Americans. It was not because he was French that Langlade was given

an Indian name which meant "he who is fierce for the land." Langlade's son,

Charles Jr. was to play an equally prominent role on the military front in

the 1800's.

The Changing Status of Metis

During the 1700's the extended kinship network of the mixed-blood

community held the balance of power both economically and militarily

across the whole northwestern frontier. At that time the term Northwest

Territory referred to any territory north and west of the Ohio valley--

quite literally all of Canada but the Maritimes and St. Lawrence valley. It

is in 1775 and in 1791 that we see the first use of the term Halfbreed in

print in North America.

The phenomena of a maturing generation of mixed bloods on the continent

was creating an increasingly significant factor in White/Native

relationships. Reaping the harvest of an expanding fur trade, Halfbreeds

spread outward from settlements and trade depots into the upper Great

Lakes and the northwestern hinterland of western Lake Superior and Red

River country. Only occasionally interrupted by futile licensing

regulations and periodic calls to battle against the Sioux, the French, the

Iroquois, or the English --depending on the time and circumstance-- the

mixed bloods harvested their livelihood from their homeland.

Identified as Indians by most non-Indians and as Whites by many non-

Whites, they took their place at the crossroads of frontier society.

Many who lived with their Indian brothers became spokesmen and chiefs of

their tribes. Others, raised in the shadow of their fathers, became

traders, clerks, farmers and small businessmen, with another handful

receiving full education and leading their communities as missionaries or

military commanders. Wherever Whites and Indians met, each naturally

turned to the mixed bloods in their communities to conduct the trade,

negotiation, or alliance.

The growth of a new mixed blood population was paralleled by a

maturation of smaller native-born White population . The growing body of

permanent settlers generated a steadily increasing conflict between

themselves and their respective European Crowns. That conflict centered

around the acquisition and ownership of land and the issue of sovereignty

of new and old world peoples. At the heart of the conflict were the

sovereignty and property rights of Native Indian people and their mixed

blood relatives.

In almost direct proportion to the demise of the military and political

significance of Indians in colonial life, there was a corresponding rise in

the influence and significance of mixed blood populations on every level

of frontier society. The political and economic survival of growing

settlements was, in reality if not officially, dependent on a thoroughly

entrenched kinship network of mixed bloods. Trade, military security,

Indian relations and exploration were simply impossible without mixed

blood or Halfbreed co-operation.

The Indian Department, see-sawing between civil and military control,

relied on a network of "beloved men" --most of them mixed bloods-- to

develop and maintain workable relations with Indians. The Johnson and

Claus families practically controlled the Department and were,

themselves, responsible for several hundred mixed blood children.

Many department officials were half or quarter bloods and played major

roles in executing policy.

On paper at least, the Hudson's Bay Company controlled the vast area of

Rupert's Land. Most of its employees were mixed bloods by 1800 and as

events at Red River were to prove, the company was entirely dependent on

mixed blood co-operation. Trade and transportation of goods were, in

practice, the domain of the Bois Brule and the Voyageur, most of whom

were mixed bloods. The families of these hardy men were the majority in

all but the largest settlements. Those the Bay couldn't or refused to

employ became the core of the competing companies or established

independent businesses processing food stuffs for the trade.

The Balance of Power

Although often snobbishly belittled by aristocratic commissioned officers

and European army regulars, mixed bloods held the balance of military

power for decades in colonial conflicts. They fought Sioux and Iroquois to

a standstill. Allied with the French, they defeated the English; allied

with the English, they defeated the French and Americans; and allied with

the Indians, they scored victories over the English and Americans. Often

fighting in coherent units, or as leaders of Indian units, they were a

decisive factor in every major military engagement of the century.

A proud and powerful, resourceful and skillful people, they had every

expectation of taking their rightful place in the new nations that were

forming in the "new" world. As the lifeblood of the frontier economy, the

muscle of the colonial military, and the diplomats of White/Indian

statesmanship, they played a critical role in the evolution of North

America up to 1800. The result of two centuries of adaptation, a new

race verged on the formation of a new people and a new nation in a new

world. However, as the events of the previous half-century had victimized

the Indian people, the following fifty years were to do the same to the

Metis.

Since the twin focus of this paper is to emphasize the development of

pre- and post-Red River Metis communities in Canada, the detail of the

well-known stories of Cuthbert Grant and Louis Riel in the Red River area

will be left to other papers. We will however, refer to Red River events

when it is necessary to demonstrate parallels with activity in other parts

of Canada.

The Metis and Halfbreeds of the Red River area had, as we shall see briefly

in the next section, succeeded in establishing a social, political and

military presence in their homeland, but their brothers in other parts of

the country were not faring as well. While the flag of the new Metis

Nation flew proudly in Red River, two major developments were unfolding

in the east which were to jeopardize the position of mixed blood peoples

there. The first was the decline of the fur trade and the second was the

end of the Johnson era in the Indian Department. Just as dealing with

Indians on an equal basis had deteriorated with their decline as a military

factor, the decline of mixed bloods as middlemen had a similar effect.

Decline of the Middlemen

With the decline of the fur trade and the amalgamation of the Northwest

and Hudson's Bay companies in 1821, came a re-organization of the fur

trade. George Simpson, the newly appointed head of the Company had

twice the men he needed to operate half the number of trading posts

formerly operated by the two separate companies. Having a low opinion

of Halfbreeds to begin with, he cheerfully began cutting mixed bloods from

the Company rolls. Apart from terminating, in some cases generations

of employment, this also had the effect of depriving the former employees

of retirement homes and lands --which the company technically owned.

With the death of Claus in 1826 and the retirement of Johnson in 1828,

the Indian Department underwent a similar re-organization. As the

emphasis in the Department shifted from the alliance and pacification of

Indians to their civilizing and Christianization, the "beloved men" of

former days were no longer necessary. By the time the Department came

under permanent civil control, it was more concerned with keeping costs

down than with keeping promises. Economic criteria had all but

replaced military concerns in White/Native relationships and the position

of the mixed bloods became increasingly ambiguous.

Fearful of the effects of the new policies, a rash of Indian Grand Councils

were held during the period to defend land rights and maintain their

traditional relationship with the Imperial Crown. Supported by pro-

aboriginal White organizations and often led by educated mixed bloods,

these councils --the forerunners of today's Native organizations--

petitioned governors and the Crown itself to counteract the new policies

and assert their own rights. For the first time the specific issue of

mixed blood was formally recorded from an Aboriginal perspective.

A general Indian "Council in 1836 raised the question of Halfbreed

membership in the tribes and decided that:

"...if any man or woman, being a half-Indian, wished to

become part of, or attached to any tribe, he or she

shall be claimed, and in every respect considered as

belonging to that tribe..."

The Indian Department attitude toward Halfbreeds was epitomized by its

Chief Superintendent, Head:

"...the breed of Half-Castes would give a great deal of

trouble to the Government if they had anything to

claim under strict Treasury Regulations."

The 1840's saw a decade of commissions and investigations into Indian

Affairs in general and the Indian Department in particular. Policies were

floundering, costs were rising, and the very existence of the Department

was seriously threatened, as evidenced by the fact that no provisions

were made for the Department in the union of Upper and Lower Canada into

the Province of Canada. The Department, however, pressed on with an

investigation into the half-breed population.

The commissions variously recommended re-organization and accounting

systems for the Department, the exclusion of American Indians from

annual presents, and the ultimate phasing out of the present-giving

tradition. Although little specific information about Halfbreeds was

included in the Commission's reports, it was recommended that Halfbreeds

not living as Indians should be excluded from presents. Considerable

attention was given to "squatters" on Indian lands and ways of removing

them and paying compensation for improvements. The fact that most of

these so-called squatters would, in fact, be mixed bloods was not

mentioned --but the effect of this policy on mixed blood dwellers on

Indian land was soon to become only too evident.

The Metis Resist

By the end of the decade the administrative and logistic problems of the

Department were eclipsed by a Halfbreed "uprising" in the Sault area.

Reports of boulders of solid copper in the Upper Great Lakes had triggered

a rash of speculative prospecting and mining on unsurrendered Indian

lands. Indian and Halfbreed complaints and petitions around the issue

were repeatedly ignored and a few mines began extraction.

Determined to assert their rights and with some expectation of exploiting

the resource themselves, the local Natives organized a token resistance.

With cannon stolen from a Hudson's Bay Company post, the expedition

"captured" the Quebec Mining Company's mine at Mica Bay in a bloodless

coup. The Montreal Gazette of November 27, 1849 reported 150 persons

killed and 80 prisoners taken. Shocked into action and disconcerted by the

realization the "culprits" could not be convicted, as the courts had no

jurisdiction on unsurrendered land, authorities hastily began

negotiations for a treaty in the area.

In an unconnected, but simultaneous event in Red River, the Metis had once

more taken up arms. Angered by increasingly severe restrictions on fur

trading, several hundred armed Metis surrounded a courthouse where

three of them had been charged with smuggling furs. Although the judges

--including Cuthbert Grant-- registered a conviction, no sentences were

ordered and the jubilant Metis knew they had successfully challenged the

Hudson's Bay monopoly in the West.

Although troops were hastily dispatched to both areas, no shots were

fired at anyone. It was obvious now, to all sides, that the mixed bloods

were a factor that had to be dealt with. The effect, if not the intent, of

subsequent policy was to drive a legislated wedge between so-called full-

blooded Indians and so-called half-breeds. The fact that this was, in

biological terms often impossible, only briefly daunted legislators of the

time. The trick was to define Indians in terms of Indian relationship to

Indian lands. The following year colonial governments began legislating

definitions of Indians and their relationship to land. The rest, as

history was to prove, would take care of itself.

There is at least one Metis community which developed at roughly the

same time as the Red River community, but experienced a very different

set of relationships with Canadian governments. This was the Metis

community of the Northwest Angle, more commonly known as Rainy River

in northwestern Ontario. This was the only group of Metis people to sign a

formal post-confederation Treaty with the federal government. The

Halfbreed Adhesion to Treaty Three of 1873 is much too complex a process

to be dealt with here in any detail, but it is particularly significant in the

context of this paper.

It is significant because it is an "officially" recognized Metis community

which existed outside Red River. The term Metis is actually used in the

French version of the Treaty. It also demonstrates that scrip was not the

only mechanism by which the federal government tried to deal with the

Aboriginal title of Metis people in the 1870s.

The fact that government reneged on the terms of the treaty after the

execution of Louis Riel should surprise no one. The treaty beneficiaries

were later forced to identify as Indians to maintain their relationship to

Treaty Three, and those who refused were forced off the reserves set

aside for them. This thread will be picked up again, in the section on

Metis claims.

The Western Experience

As he had earlier in Prince Edward Island in 1803, and in Ontario in

Baldoon, the Earl of Selkirk manipulated a large grant of land and

established a colony in Red River in 1811. Following a traditional

format, his colonial governor unilaterally legislated hunting and trade

restrictions on the local population to support the struggling colony.

The resistance of the population, who considered themselves the masters

--if not the owners-- of the area was predictable and in 1816 Governor

Semple and twenty of his officers and men fell under the guns of a breed

of men variously called Halfbreeds, Bois Brule, or Metis.

The Battle of Seven Oaks, (described as a massacre from the White

perspective), was a clear demonstration that indigenous, mixed blood

populations were prepared to fight for their rights. The subsequent

actions of their leader, Cuthbert Grant, clearly indicated that they were

prepared to, and capable of, participating in and contributing to the

progressive development of their communities.

It is important to note that the establishment of the border between

British North America and the newly formed United States of America was

a considerable inconvenience to the major settlement of Metis in the area

-- which happened, in 1780, to be Pembina. To the consternation of

Hudson's Bay Company and Catholic Church officials, it was discovered, in

1823, that Pembina was, in fact, south of the new American border.

Anxious to preserve both souls and furs from Americanization, Pembina's

church and school were moved north of the border to White Horse Plain to

a new community being formed by Cuthbert Grant called --to no one's

surprise -- Grantown.

The Metis resistances led by Louis Riel in 1870 and 1885, are well known

to the Commission and will not be dealt with here. It is only necessary to

point that these action were not isolated or unique. In fact, they are but

two of many attempts on the part of Metis populations in Canada to assert

their rights as distinct, indigenous, Aboriginal peoples.

Given the socio-economic, historical and political identifiers listed

above, it evident that there were scores, if not hundreds of historic

communities which --by whatever names they were called at the time--

would be called Metis today. Maps in various publications give some

indication of scores of these communities and where they existed. In

fact it was to one of these communities in Montana that Riel fled after

the troops entered Fort Garry in 1870.

American Metis Communities

For the purposes of the Royal Commission, it might be said that Aboriginal

communities in the United States --Metis or otherwise-- are of secondary

importance to their deliberations. Those communities are, however,

significant challenges to Red River myopia in that they clearly

demonstrate that such communities existed prior to and survived the

demise of the Metis community in what is now Winnipeg. Even a casual

examination of maps of Metis communities shows how prevalent such

communities were before and after the creation of the American border.

The limitations of time and resources once again prevents a more detailed

exploration of these communities and the historic role they played in

the development of Metis identity and definition. We should, however,

sketch a brief outline of this development, if only to show that attempts

to establish what is today called the new Metis Nation, were not confined

just to Canada, much less to Red River. Fortunately there has been an

increased interest in recent years in these communities on the part of

American scholars, and more detailed information is available.

Given that, at the time of its creation, the American border was

considered to be temporary by the Aboriginal peoples who lived on either

side of the imaginary line, it took considerable time for its effect to

become obvious in Metis communities. In fact, many communities were

already well developed at the time the border was created.

American researchers have clearly established that literally dozens of

today's American cities in a dozen different states began as Metis

settlements. Included among them are Green Bay, Detroit, Milwaukee,

Chicago, Peoria, St. Louis, St. Paul and Walla Walla. American Metis and

their contributions to the development of these cities, or their role on the

American frontier are rarely recognized. When they are, it most often the

"noble French" ancestry that is emphasized, over their often more

predominant Aboriginal ancestry.

Although considerable research still needs to be done in the area of "Metis

uprisings" in the United States, there is at least two episodes in which

attempts were made by allied groups of Indians and half-breeds to form a

"native" state. The first, in 1826-27 involved the formation of a United

Nations of Indians and the establishment of the Republic of Fredonia at

Nacogdoches between the Canadian River and the Red River (U.S.A.) near

the Mexican border in what is now Texas. The movement included

remnants of the Tecumseth Confederacy, and dissatisfied Cherokee (who

were predominantly mixed blood). The leadership of the movement was

assassinated in a plot launched by the founder of Texas, Stephen Austin.

The second episode, in 1836, apparently died in the planning stages but

included an even more widespread plot. A well-financed half-breed named

James Dickson traveled between Montreal, Buffalo, Sault Ste. Marie and

Red River (Canada) recruiting half-breeds for an Indian Liberation Army.

The plan was to join up with a larger group of Cherokees and form an

expedition to California where an independent state would be established.

Hudson's Bay Company officials interfered with Dickson's finances and the

plan ground to a halt. In a final meeting before he left the Red River area,

Dickson presented Cuthbert Grant with his sword and epaulets.

These episodes are highlighted here, both to indicate the need for research

on an continental basis on Metis issues, and to at least indicate that the

concept of nationhood is not exclusive to the Red River area.

Legislated Identity

In the previous pages, the historical genesis of Metis communities which

existed and, in many cases still exist, independently of the Red River

Metis population have been demonstrated. In order to fully understand the

context of Metis identity and definition in a contemporary context, a good

grasp of the impact of legislation on existing Metis populations is

necessary..

Although much of the legislation in this section has in fact been explored

in the context of recognition of Metis under Section 91(24), it will be

necessary to repeat some of it here. The emphasis in the other papers has

been to relate legislation which affected Metis to its impact and

implications for federal policy, responsibility and fiduciary obligation.

The intent of this paper is show, on the one hand the impact of the same

legislation on the process of Metis identity and identification. On the

other hand, this section will also lay the basis for some of the issues

raised in both the claims, and accommodation sections.

It would appear, at first glance that the bulk of this legislation --since it

is focused primarily around the Indian Act-- would have little

significance to Metis as a distinct Aboriginal people. It becomes quickly

evident, however, that the Indian Act was frequently amended with the

specific intent of forcing the mixed-blood segment of the Aboriginal

population to become extinct via assimilation into the general population.

It is in reaction to the imposition of Federal policy and legislation that

we see people struggling to maintain their identity as Metis, on the one

hand, and seeking to reclaim that identity, on the other. We will also find

ourselves dealing with situations in which a mixed-blood indigenous

population of am given area begin to use the term "Metis" for the first

time, as a way of relating to the imposition of federal legislation and

policy.

This situation becomes more evident when we examine the first attempts

of colonial authorities to define "Indian" for purposes of government

policy. The first legislative attempt to define Indians surfaced in Lower

Canada in 1850 and, if taken literally and applied liberally today would

include literally every person of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

ancestry in Canada. It included:

1. All persons of Indian blood and their descendants,

2. All persons inter-married with such Indians and

residing among them their descendants

3. All persons residing among such Indians, whose

parents on either side were or are Indians

4. All persons adopted in infancy by any such Indians

...and their descendants.

In fairness, it should be admitted that most mixed bloods who wanted to

be identified as Indians under the 1850 Act could probably qualify.

Considering the bigotry of the day against Indians and Halfbreeds, who

would want to identify themselves that way, if they had other options.

Since inter-marriage was more frequent between French and Indians and

since the resulting offspring were often likely to separate themselves

from Indians, the only recourse many had to attain a land base, was to

identify themselves as French. This unilaterally imposed "Indian or White"

definition arbitrarily forced many to avoid identification as Metis.

This Act, however, did not apply in Upper Canada and was, in fact,

modified a year later to exclude adopted persons and confine the inter-

marriage clause to women marrying Indian men. The pattern for a

shrinking definition of Indian was set, since relatively few white women,

at the time, married Indians and Indian women marrying Whites or

unregistered Indians under the Act would lose their "status", or rights to

tribal lands.

The closing years of the 1850's saw another spate of investigations and

corresponding legislation. Although existing legislation did not, in so

many words, deal with the Halfbreed issues, the reports and commissions

were adamant that the Halfbreeds should not be recognized as Indians.

In 1857, "An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes in

this Province" (of Canada) laid the formal groundwork for the creation of a

non-Status Indian population. Now that Indians had been, more or less,

defined, legislators proceeded with mechanisms for excluding people from

that definition. Although the express intent was the "the gradual removal

of all legal distinction" between Indian and other "Canadian subjects",

the fact that the Department's budget had been cut in half had its

inevitable influence.

The heart of this Act was its "enfranchisement" clauses which

stipulated conditions under which an Indian could "achieve" the same

status as other Canadians --but neglected to point out that it would also

involve the loss of all aboriginal rights. Aboriginal response to the

enfranchisement clause was adamantly negative and few were actually

enfranchised under its provisions.

The Act also established a new definition of Indian which excluded all

Aboriginal people who did not live on a reserve or, as yet, unsurrendered

lands. This Act appeared to repatriate those excluded in 1851, but that

oversight was corrected following Confederation.

When authority to manage Indian affairs was formally transferred from

Imperial to Colonial authorities in 1860, legislators responded

immediately --and predictably. After creating a Department of Crown

Land under a Commissioner a second Act made that Commissioner the

Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs. With the fox securely locked in

the chicken coop, (See page 75), colonial authorities could now turn to the

more pressing issues of expanding boundaries of the province in Canada in

preparation for the creation of the Kingdom of Canada.

It is important to understand that, from a Metis perspective, the story of

Confederation looks more like a vicious scheme designed to deprive the

first "true Canadians" of their birthright of self-determination and

nationhood, than it looks like the achievement of a national dream.

A Matter of Scrip

The story of the entry of Manitoba into Confederation has been

exhaustively dealt with elsewhere. But in the context of legislated

identity and the impact of that legislation on present-day government

policy toward current Metis populations, that effect of that process must

be briefly examined.

The maladministration and exploitation of the 1,400,000 acres assigned

to the Metis under the Manitoba Act has also been detailed elsewhere.

But land scrip --the mechanism by which Metis lands were to be

distributed to those entitled to receive them-- was also to have its

impact on other Metis in Canada.

The first negative effect of the arbitrary creation of Ontario's borders

was experienced by the Halfbreeds of Ontario. For generations they had

lived a lifestyle and maintained a relationship to the land comparable, if

not identical, to that of their brothers in what is now Manitoba. At first

it appeared the federal government had, at last, created a mechanism --

scrip- - for the extinguishment of non-Indian Aboriginal title which could

be applied to all mixed bloods. Instead, it became the first major

Aboriginal issue on which the Dominion and provincial policy was to

diverge and, once again, leave mixed bloods in a legislative no-man's land

in their own country.

The federal application of scrip as a means of extinguishing mixed blood

title was expanded to the Northwest Territories and the District of

Keewatin -- much of which is inside the present-day borders of Ontario. It

was, however, refused within the borders of Ontario, itself, and delayed

for years if the border could not be accurately determined. Although

scrip was assigned only outside Ontario, that did not prevent future treaty

negotiators from dangling the scrip carrot to keep mixed bloods out of

treaty. On at least one occasion, in Moose Factory, a written promise of

scrip by a provincial authority has been identified and is the basis for a

potential claim.

The Halfbreed Adhesion to Treaty Three was highlighted earlier as the

only example of Metis taking formal numbered treaty as Metis. It is

flagged here, again in terms of its impact on government policy which, in

turn affects the modern-day climate for identity and definition of Metis.

In 1967, fully 92 years after the Adhesion, the Half breed Reserves were

officially amalgamated into the Couchiching Reserve. The intricacies

of the events of those 92 years defy simple description, or even

explanation, but the results of those events from the perspective of

historical hindsight are only too clear. The Halfbreeds of Rainy River had

achieved formal recognition, as Halfbreeds and as Metis, of their status as

an Aboriginal and indigenous people who possessed aboriginal title and

rights that could only be surrendered by a negotiated treaty process with

the Government of the Dominion, in a parallel process with Indian peoples.

That recognition was clearly reversed by subsequent policy, and subverted

by administrative fiat, resulting a significant basis for potential claim

by Metis in Ontario.

There were three major factors evolving in the last decades of the 19th

century that were to crush Metis hopes of recognition of their Aboriginal

birthright. The first was the defeat of the Metis in Manitoba and

Saskatchewan; the second was the passage of the first Indian Act in 1876;

and the third was the growing power struggle between the Dominion and

Ontario for control of western lands. These events were to create a

federal mindset focused on the destruction of even the idea of recognizing

Metis.

With the beachhead of Manitoba established, the Hudson's Bay Company

dispossessed of Rupert's Land, and at least a "communication" to the

northwest guaranteed by Treaty Three, the Dominion turned its attention

to consolidating its control of Aboriginal populations and their lands. Two

sporadic attempts to legislate Indian affairs following Confederation had

accomplished several things: the transfer of the Department of Indian

Affairs to the Secretary of State --thus changing the title of the fox in

the chicken coop; established patrilineality as an exclusive determinant

for Indian status; fixed a blood quantum rule for status eligibility; and

provided conditions for enfranchisement.

The Indian Act Takes Over

The Indian Act of 1876 basically consolidated and "nationalized" previous

Indian legislation. Although the Act did make allowances for "special

circumstances" in the application of the Halfbreed clauses, the express

policy of the Indian Affairs Branch was only too clear. In his report of

Superintendencies in 1876, J.A.N. Provencher, who had already tasted

Metis militancy, concisely stated government policy in relation to

Metis and Halfbreed claims.

"If the new claims I now mention were entertained, the result

would be the springing up a new class of inhabitants, placed

between the whites and the Indians -- having, in a legal and

political point of view, special and separate rights: or at

least that is the interpretation which will certainly be given

to that measure: and this acceptance of their rights, far from

being considered as a final decision, will only be a starting

point for them to prefer claims as issue of the first White

Settlers of this country."

This statement, which precisely circumscribes the claims of Metis people,

even today --(if the words White Settlers were changed to First Nations)-

- makes it perfectly evident the government was fully aware of the

implications of its action and was deliberately avoiding the recognition

of separate recognition Metis while appearing to compensate some with

scrip or by accepting others into treaty as Indians.

These evasive policies eroded the climate for establishing Metis identity

even further. The Act was amended in 1879 to permit the withdrawl of

Halfbreeds from Treaty upon repayment of any annuities they might have

received, When response was slow, the Act was again amended in 1884

to permit discharge from Treaty without repayment. When more than

1400 responded --chiefly in the northwest where scrip was being

issued to Halfbreeds-- an 1888 amendment added that the permission of

the Department was required for withdrawal. Not only Halfbreeds, but

"full-blooded" Indians responded to the carrot of scrip, although many

applied to return to treaty when the scrip program failed.

The problem of extinguishing Halfbreed title in the northwest was a major

factor, both in Indian Act amendments, and in a flood of Orders-in-Council

of the period, but a potentially more serious pressure had developed.

Ontario was demanding confirmation of its western and northern borders,

and was claiming more territory than the Dominion was prepared to

allow. A major rift was developing between the Dominion and Province

of Ontario as to which government held title to Indian lands once they

were surrendered. The disputes were submitted to a series of court cases

and arbitrations which were to have disastrous effects on Aboriginal

rights.

A Federal/Provincial Squeeze

The intricate maze of legalities created by the machinations of the

Dominion and Provincial governments between 1874 and 1924 can not be

dealt with in this paper. The basic issue, was to determine who owned

surrendered Indian lands in right of the Crown. When the Privy council

finally settled the St. Catherine's Milling case by determining that Ontario

owned surrendered Indian lands, they also stated that Ontario should pay

treaty annuities to Indians involved in those lands, and re-pay the

Dominion for expenses incurred from the Treaty Three and Robinson

Treaties since 1867.

Ontario, predictably, disagreed and, fearful of having to pay the annuities,

hired a magistrate, E.B. Borron, to investigate and propose a position for

the province. It was this investigation that was to virtually

eliminate, for almost a century, identification as Metis as a viable vehicle

for accessing Aboriginal rights outside the prairie provinces. By

excluding Halfbreeds from annuity lists, the Ontario government made it

clear that Halfbreeds and/or Metis had no Aboriginal rights to claim as far

as Ontario was concerned.

Having confirmed that most of the Treaty Three area (and therefore the

Halfbreed Adhesion) was within the boundaries of Ontario, and having

demanded, and got, the right to concur in the establishing and confirming

of reservation boundaries unless "good reason" to do otherwise was

discovered, Ontario simply withheld its approval for reserves. This

not only jeopardized Indian "title" to reserve territory, but successfully

prevented the Dominion government from issuing coveted licenses to

timber and mining companies.

Borron had no trouble, from Ontario's perspective, in establishing the

"good reason" he needed. He reported that Treaty Three was premature and

not in the interests of the province; that its terms were too generous;

that the Dominion lists included American Indians; and, most

significantly, that there were a large number of Halfbreeds living on the

reserves and drawing annuities. Despite his admission that:

'The greatest difficulty in purging the lists is how to

deal with the Halfbreeds."

Borron went on to insist that:

"They have no good claim under any circumstances and

I am, in accordance with this view, leaving all half-

breeds out of my list."

Having successfully rationalized striking 1040 Halfbreeds and American

Indians from the Treaty Three lists, alone, he then turned his attention to

the Robinson Treaties. Lacking the rationale of prematurity and

generosity, he concentrated his attack on the Halfbreeds and American

Indians. He proposed the striking 2894 persons from the Robinson lists,

including 1710 Halfbreeds.

Since the annuities dispute was finally settled in favour of Ontario in both

Treaty Three and Robinson Treaties, Borron's work was not translated

directly into specific policy. It is however, indicative of the impact of

those disputes on the attitudes of government toward the Aboriginal

rights and entitlements of Indians and Metis. Parallel and subsequent

Dominion policy and legislation was, intentionally or not, to accomplish

the ends Borron proposed. Hindsight makes it evident these policies were

intentionally destructive of the aboriginal birthright of Metis in the

province and created a climate which sharply discouraged identification

as Metis.

With minor variations, there was little change in this negative

atmosphere until the recognition of Metis in the Constitution Act of 1982,

and the introduction of the Bill C-31 process. We will deal with this

legislation in the context of contemporary Metis realities.

Pan-Canadian Metis (Contemporary Cultural Realities)

This section of the paper will identify and describe contemporary Metis

populations and cultures outside the membership of the Metis National

Council and their relationship to current Metis issues and concerns.

Although a number of Metis communities in this section will be discussed

under a post-Red River heading, it should be noted many had their genesis

in the pre-Confederation era. There are dealt with here because the

assertion of Metis identity in these communities surfaced in the context

of post-confederation government policy.

Apart from the constitutional reform process, which is a phenomenon in

its own right, the were two factors which had a major impact on the

climate in which identification and definition of Metis evolved in the

1970s. The first of these was the development of Aboriginal

representative organizations, and the second was a land claims research

process undertaken by those organization in the mid to late 1970s.

Aboriginal Representative Organizations

Once again this paper addresses a topic which must be dealt with much

more briefly than it deserves. The evolution of today's Aboriginal

representative organizations from government program delivery

agencies in the late 1960s to full-blown political entities capable of

negotiating on an equal basis at a constitutional table in 1993 is a story

that must be told another day. In terms of the focus of this paper, the

development of those organization generated a major re-drawing of the

backdrop against which the struggle for Metis identity was taking place.

Following the massive negative reaction to the federal White Paper on

Indian Policy in 1969, there was a recognition of a need for more

effective national representation on Aboriginal issues. The initial

attempts to form a single national organization failed. Once

unregistered Indian and Metis participation had been rejected by Status

Indian organizations, government founders insisted that, Metis and

unregistered Indians should form one national organization. The result

was the creation of the Native Council of Canada (NCC).

A founder of one of the original representative organizations in Ontario,

Paddy McGuire, made the following statement in an article published in

1980:

"It was back in 1965, when we founded the first Metis

Association of Ontario. The government began to recognize

the Metis people in the Native movement. ... Since all Metis up

to that time were kind of classified as Indians, we joined that

Union of Ontario Indians. Our Metis did. And some of the Indians

that were enfranchised also joined us.

So Chief Najowan from Cape Croker Reserve was the president of

that Union of Ontario Indians at that time. ...Anyway, when we got

to a special meeting he called and said:

"Look fellows, I got some bad news for you. We've decided here that

we're not going to accept you Metis or Halfbreeds in our Union." ...So

he kicked us out in a nice way but he did say one thing, "look you

guys, you go back and form your own Ontario Metis movement," and

he said, "we'll even help you start it. We'll fund you or help you to

get your money." So 1971 was when we formed that Ontario Metis

and Non-Status Indian Association.

When I founded the Ontario Provincial Association, I instructed

the delegates to make sure that both the French name for the

people with mixed blood, and the English name for people with

mixed blood, be included in the name of our association. So all

Halfbreeds of French and English would be protected. At the

founding of OMNSIA, people thought you had to be part French to

be a Metis. Some people still do. This is the reason why we named

our association the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian

Association, in order to cover all Natives with mixed blood as

long as they didn't have legal status."

That statement clearly expresses a situation that was developing in many

regions across Canada. Decades of exclusion by federal policy and

legislation combined with rejection or indifference from both white and

Indian communities had generated a very mixed population that had at

least two things in common. -- Aboriginal ancestry and rejection. As of

1971, the NCC was mandated by their constituency and by government to

represent a very diverse set of people. That very mixed group included

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who shared one or more of the

characteristics found in the list on page 47.

The members of the provincial and territorial organizations that

comprised the NCC shared in these characteristics in proportions that

varied from region to region. Indian orientation was predominant on both

coasts, Metis issues tended to predominate in the prairies and Ontario and

Quebec showed a mixture of Metis, Halfbreed, and Indian sliding from west

to east. At the time the term "Native" seemed to conveniently cover

everybody.

Each of the situations in the above list produced an individual with an

agenda specific to that situation. At the outset the priority issues of the

affiliate organizations were related to what is now described as bread-

and-butter issues. Housing, employment and education were at the top of

everyone's list. It was not until the middle 1970s that these

organizations began to focus on Aboriginal rights as a vehicle for

achieving social and economic equity.

As these people began to interact on a local, regional, provincial and

national basis, they came to recognize at least two important elements in

their relationship. They had common problems and, they required a

diversity of solutions to those problems.

Encouraged by a series of court decisions which at least leaned toward

recognition of the continued existence of Aboriginal rights, the leadership

began to demand the completion of unfinished business in the area of

Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Anxious to exploit the resources of the north, where Aboriginal people

were still a majority, and to establish an international reputation for the

promotion of human rights and fair treatment of indigenous peoples, the

federal government responded to Aboriginal demands for resources to

research and identify the potential claims of their respective

constituencies.

List of NCC Constituency Characteristics

1. Indian ancestry from Indian community

2. Indian ancestry from non-Aboriginal community

3. Indian ancestry from Metis community

4. Indian ancestry from Halfbreed community

5. Indian excluded from the Indian Act

6. Indian expelled from the Indian Act

7. Indian separated from community of origin

8. Metis from Metis community

9. Metis from Indian community

10. Metis from Halfbreed community

11. Metis from non-Aboriginal community

10. Metis excluded from the Indian Act

11. Metis expelled from the Indian Act

12. Metis separated from community of origin

13. Halfbreed from Halfbreed community

14. Halfbreed from Indian community

15. Halfbreed from Metis community

16. Halfbreed from non-Aboriginal community

17. Halfbreed excluded from Indian Act

18. Halfbreed expelled from Indian Act

19. Halfbreed separated from community of origin

20. Any of the above included in Treaty

21. Any of the above excluded from Treaty

22. Any of the above expelled from Treaty

23. Non-Aboriginal person married to any of the above

24. Children of any of the abov

The results of the research projects launched across the country are best

dealt with in the upcoming claims section of this paper. However, the

information gathered and analyzed by the organizations also had profound

effect on the ways in which individual constituents began to think of

themselves. People who had been brought up to think of themselves as

socially or economically disadvantaged began to realize they had, in fact,

been unjustly and illegally stripped of a birthright that was their own to

claim.

Although the government summarily dismissed the claims of most NCC

constituents south of the 60th parallel as being covered by treaty or

superseded by law, the constituents themselves had developed very

different convictions. They had come to the conclusion that there were

two priority issues to be dealt with between Aboriginal peoples and Euro-

Canadians.

These issues were:

1 The lack of legal recognition of the majority Aboriginal

people in Canada as an Aboriginal and indigenous

population; and

2. The lack of specific legal recognition of Aboriginal title and

rights to their home and native land in Canadian law.

This conclusion was based on a growing sense of conviction about

themselves and their identity. The Indian constituency of the NCC, rather

than asking to be accepted by the federal government as Indians, began to

demand the federal government stop interfering with Indian identity and

definition. The mixed-blood, Halfbreed or Metis constituency began to

assert their fundamental human right to be recognized and treated as a

distinct people --regardless of what labels had been assigned to them in

the past.

Before we deal with the considerable impact of the constitutional reform

process, and Bill C-31 on the formation of Metis identity within the NCC

constituency, it might be helpful to sketch a profile of some of the NCC

Metis communities that existed just prior to those events. This will put

us in a better position to evaluate the subsequent impact of constitutional

recognition and legislative accommodation on Metis identity and

definition.

It should be kept in mind that, chronologically speaking, the western Metis

organizations were still affiliated with the NCC and affecting the

development of its Metis positions.

Contemporary Metis Communities

For the purpose of this paper a few Metis communities which evolved and

exist today independently of the Red River Metis can now be examined.

Some of these communities have already made submissions to the Royal

Commission, and others have not. Paradoxically what they all have in

common, is their differences. That is, they have different origins, have

experienced different forms of development, and are seeking various

forms of accommodation. As a result they have also all experienced

difficulty in being recognized as valid and viable communities of

Aboriginal people who call themselves Metis.

It should also be made clear that not all of these communities are

represented by the NCC, or by the Confederacy of Metis Peoples. Some, like

the Alberta Metis settlements, are very ably representing themselves and

have already presented their case to the Commission. Others are still

seeking viable modes of representation and, to date, do not consider

themselves to be represented by any national organization.

The thumbnail sketches which follow are by no means exhaustive of the

data available to support the expressions of Metis identity in these

communities. At best, they are an indication of a how badly resources are

needed in these communities to research and document their history and

heritage as Metis peoples.

New Brunswick Metis Community

The New Brunswick Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians

(NBAMNSI), as it was known at the time, was among the most vocal of

those Maritime organizations who were asserting a distinct Metis identity

among their constituency. Although their membership may have included

some Metis transplanted from the prairies, the majority of those who

called themselves Metis were indigenous to New Brunswick and pre-dated

the Red River Metis by as much as a century. As we have already pointed

out, one of the earliest appearances of the word "Metis" in print was on a

map of the St. John River area drawn in 1778.

During the 1977-80 research on potential claims NBAMNSI identified the

fact that "a great deal of material on the Metis of New Brunswick is

contained in archival stocks at the Center for Acadian Studies, University

of Moncton, Moncton, N.B." To this date resources to explore these

archives have not been available, but in spite of that limitation, the

association produced considerable evidence in support of its Metis

constituency.

Citing considerable historical evidence of the historical development of a

mixed-blood population in the province, the association in its 1984 report

to the NCC stated their case as follows:

"The Metis of Acadia and 'Old Nova Scotia', the Metis of

New Brunswick enumerated in the 1901 Census of Canada,

and the present Metis population of this Province share a

common heritage. They always took pride and still take

pride in their mixed blood heritage. Aboriginal Rights have

been championed by those Metis as their Birth Rights.

...Like their Metis brothers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan,

the Maritime Metis have the distinction of having fought

in battle beside their Indian relations in defense of Native

Rights upon their Indigenous soil."

The report asserts an indigenous Metis heritage:

"There is abundant evidence of the intermingling of white

and Native peoples in the Atlantic region, all during the

period of intensive Treaty negotiations between the British

and Eastern Indian Tribes. There were definitely two sources

of the mixed blood population during those years;

(1) The intermarriage and not-so-formal unions of French

Acadians and Canadians with their Indian neighbours -

producing one of the first "Metis" populations in Canada and,

(2) The intermingling of British captives with their Indian

captors - producing one of the first "half-breed" populations

in Canada. Just as in Western Canada the "Metis" of the Prairie

provinces were off-spring of both French and British fur

traders and settlers, the "Metis" of the Maritimes were

originally the offspring of the two European Peoples that

competed so long for the North American continent."

And, on the basis of that assertion, the report claims recognition of its

indigenous Metis population.

Labrador Metis Community

The Metis community of Labrador was overlooked by history until the early

1980s. As has been pointed out in a brief to the Commission in September

1993, by the Labrador Metis Association (LMA), the fact of metissage is an

integral part of Labrador's history. The use of the term "Metis" to

describe that population is relatively recent, and not unchallenged. The

LMA made the following submission to the Commission.

"For many generations, before Newfoundland and Labrador joined

with Canada and long before Canada itself existed as a nation, the

Labrador Metis, who then commonly referred to as "livyers" or

"settlers" lived on the Coast, both North and South -- in complete

harmony with the land and the sea, much the same as their Inuit and

Innu neighbors. The same can be said for those who ultimately

settled in the Lake Melville region and became the celebrated

trappers of central Labrador.

...The people in such places as Paradise River, Black Tickle, and

Pincent's Arm on the South Coast, (who are now calling themselves

Metis), are essentially no different than the Inuit of Rigolet,

Postville, or Makkovik on the North Cost. ... It is only geography and

the attitude of outsiders that separates these two native groups.

...We say to you that we are not "Livyers." We are not "settlers."

We are the Metis - the progeny of Indian and/or Inuit and European

settlers who, long ago, settled this harsh and beautiful land when

other considered Labrador to be "the land God gave Cain."

(Italics added by author)

In its earliest association with the NCC the Labrador Metis were

represented through the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. As Metis, the

Labradorians pressed for more direct representation of their interests and

were admitted to the NCC as a distinct delegation in 1991.

As we shall see in the claims section the Metis claim of LMA has been

submitted to the federal government and is currently under active

negotiation.

Quebec Metis Community

Given a sane and orderly world, one might expect Quebec to be the focal

point of Metis identity in Canada. It is certainly the largest single mixed-

blood population in the country. And given the world we do have, the

simple fact is that the issue of Metis and metissage is such a volatile

issue in Quebec that it actually inhibits the expression of Metis

identity.

For much of its early association with the NCC, the Native Alliance of

Quebec (NAQ) preferred to emphasize the commonalities among its

constituents in terms of Aboriginal ancestry and access to Aboriginal

rights. The specific issue of the differences between Indian and Metis did

not surface often in the public presentations of the Alliance in the pre-

constitutional period.

In recent years, however, expression related to being Metis in Quebec have

become both vocal and assertive. There has been considerable recognition

of the Metis roots of Quebec in the writings of Jean Morisset of the

University of Quebec in Montreal.

"Between the 17th and 19th centuries, a Canadian nation

was formed that originated exclusively with the creoles of

French America. This nation seems to have relinquished its

original name, and in this last quarter of the 20th century, it

now refers to itself as the Québécois people."

The Metis constituency within the Alliance is calling on the governments

of Canada and the province to recognize Metis in Quebec as a distinct

nation. In a paper tabled at the consultation forum of the NAQ on the

Charlottetown Accord in Campbell's Bay in 1992, the Metis participants

said:

"We the Metis People of the province of Québec are

distinct Aboriginal People in the province of Québec

and in Canada. We will no longer remain in the back

seat of First Nation's dreams, hoping for their good will.

We the Metis people have a right to the front seat and we

are taking it."

There is another organization in Quebec, the Association des Metis et

indiens hor réserves due Québec, which has a rather unique approach to

defining Metis:

"The situation of Metis living in Quebec is relatively

different from the situation of Metis as that term is

generally understood in the large organizations such as

the Metis National Council or the Conseil national des

autochtone du Canada. Here we are using it in the sense

of describing the mixed descent of a person, one of whose

parents is Indian. This word is also used as a synonym for

the expression "non-status Indian" to refer to an aboriginal

person who does not have status under the Indian Act."

It is evident that the Metis population of Québec is, like most other Metis

communities in Canada is developing an expanding population in the

"transitional" mode we spoke of earlier.

Ontario Metis Communities

If only because of its sheer size, Ontario, of all of the provinces, has the

most diverse Aboriginal population in Canada. In the south and east, the

population more closely resembles the Maritimes or southern Quebec in

terms of the potential for the mixed-blood populations to identify as

Indian. Northern Ontario peoples have more in common with the peoples of

Northern Quebec or the Territories and in the western part of the

provinces the tendency for mixed-bloods to identify as Metis is similar to

the people of the prairie provinces.

Ontario Aboriginal communities also have correspondingly diverse

histories from east to west and north to south. The result is a broad

range of identity patterns related to their respective histories. The

following thumbnail sketches reflect those differences.

Burleigh Falls

At the time the community of Burleigh Falls, near Peterborough, Ontario,

became actively involved in asserting its identity as a Metis community in

1975, it consisted of some 100 families. Most of them were descendants

of Indians and Halfbreeds who signed treaties in the area in 1818 and

1856, but who did not receive a reserve and, in many cases were later

enfranchised or "married out" of the Indian Act.

In all of its correspondence with OMNSIA and the NCC community leaders

insisted that at the time the ancestors of the present community signed

treaty, no distinction was made between Indian and Halfbreeds and both

were included in the process. They assert continuous use and occupancy

of lands in the area and, in the context of the 1977-80 lands claims

research process asserted their right as Metis indigenous to the Burleigh

Falls area. The community staged an annual Metis Days festival for

several years, and became actively involved in a demographic study of

their community and in renewing their indigenous heritage.

Moose Factory

The Metis community of Moose Factory has the distinction of being the

only Metis community in Ontario in which scrip still plays and active role

in their claims process, a fact that will be dealt with in the next section.

When Treaty 9 Commissioners visited the Moose Factory area in 1905, a

well established mixed blood population already existed in the community.

The work of John. S. Long in this area makes it clear there were two

distinct population of mixed bloods in the area. The first groups was

readily included in the Treaty by Commissioners, the other group was not,

although both sets of families spoke Cree fluently and were proud of their

Aboriginal heritage. From his point of view:

"The Treaty 9 Commissioners in fact created the legally-

defined status of Metis when they excluded certain Native

people from the provisions of the Treaty in 1905. When I

speak of Metis (in the Moose area) I speak of this legally-defined

group."

The excluded groups were then offered 160 acres of land by a provincial

official in compensation for having been excluded from the Treaty. Such

an offer, considering the scrip system prevalent in the west, would again

reinforce the identification of these families as Metis, although the term

"half-breeds" was used in communication with both federal and provincial

governments.

There is at least some indication that some family members preferred

scrip to Treaty as away of avoiding what Long calls the "stigma" of being

a status Indian in 1905.

Moose factory is as good example of how identity as "native" or

"indigenous" people in an area can become linked with the term Metis as a

result of renewed awareness on the part of descendants of an historical

event --like exclusion from Treaty.

Alberta Metis Settlements

Although the Alberta Metis Settlements have not been part of the Metis

Circle process, and although they have most ably represented themselves

to the Commission on a number of occasions, they are briefly highlighted

here for precisely that reason. As an historically recognized Metis

population with many connections to the Red River Metis, the eight

remaining communities of the Settlements have chosen to negotiate their

own form of accommodation. In that sense they are a valuable example to

our later exploration of available alternatives for the accommodation of a

variety of Metis communities across Canada.

There are differences of opinion as to whether the original intent in the

creation of the Settlements was a soci-economic response to poverty or a

political response to Metis Aboriginal rights, the fact is that a viable

Metis population has established a large land base for itself.

The original 1,000 families who moved into the initial grant of 70

townships faced years of struggle and disagreement, but their

descendants today are re-negotiating their position on the basis of the

Aboriginal rights of the Metis. Whatever the outcome, the Settlements

have established a standard, and developed a process that other Metis can

look to with hope.

The process that created the original Settlements has also created one of

two legislated definition of Metis in Canada today. Those definitions are

discussed in some detail in other papers contracted by the Commission,

but we will note the Settlement definition here for the sake of discussion:

"a person of mixed white and Indian blood having not less

than one-quarter Indian blood, but does not include either

an Indian or a non-Treaty Indian as defined in the Indian Act."

It is interesting to note that, following the re-instatement of a number of

Metis on the Settlements as registered Indians under Bill C-31, the

definition was amended in 1990 to read:

...a person of Aboriginal ancestry who identifies with

Metis history and culture"

Again we have an indication of a situation in which changes external to

the community can alter the context in which identity and definition take

place within a given community. We will explore the implication of this

and other factor impacting on the Alberta Settlements in the section on

the future of Metis.

Louis Riel Metis Council (B.C.)

The Louis Riel Metis Council (LRMC) in Surrey British Columbia is a good

example of an urban Metis community struggling both for recognition and

for the means to provide services to its Metis constituents. Like its

predecessor organizations in the 1970s, the LRMC was conceived a few

years ago out of a need to provide services to Metis people in the

Vancouver area. Although many of its core members have strong ancestral

ties to prairie Metis groups, the organization itself soon found itself

called on to serve the interests of Metis across the province.

Discouraged