This paper was contracted by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples to insure the Commission has acquired information on Metis from every part of Canada. It is designed to complement other research papers which focussed their attention on the Metis of the prairie provinces.

This summary will present a condensation of the major factors and proposals of the original paper. Explanatory details and examples will be referred to, when necessary, but will not be included in the summary itself. Footnotes, footnote indicators, and appendicies have been removed from the summary, but will be provided in the original paper.

Primary Purpose

The primary purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission of the existence of Metis populations in Canada which both predate and post-date the better-known Metis populations of the prairie provinces.

The historical identity and current reality of Metis populations from sea-to-sea-to-sea will be described first. In the second part, the Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights, and claims of these distinct Metis populations will be outlined. In the final section, mechanisms and processes for accommodation of these Metis populations 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

The paper is based on the premise that there is a large population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are Metis. How that population should be identified and what terms should be used to describe one or another segment of that population is the question this paper is designed to address.

The motivation is to address the need for a national perspective on Metis peoples and issues in Canada. Metis collectivities who have a culture, history, and aspirations of their own, outside the prairie Metis, are emphasized.

The basic proposition is 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 proposes that processes and mechanisms must be specifically developed to accommodate those Metis people who are not directly associated with the history of the prairie provinces. 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.

The premises of this paper are as follows:

1. The Aboriginal Population of Canada is Permanent

2. Metis are Aboriginal (Indigenous) Peoples

3. There are many distinct Metis populations

4. Metis have Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Claims

5. All Aboriginal People must be accommodated 

---

The discussion focuses on the issue of Metis identity and how, or if, or by whom, the term is defined. The factors of identity and definition are related to the use of the term "Metis" in the Constitution Act of 1982.

Attempts are made to clarify the context in which issues of identity and definition take place, and to distinguish between the factors of identity, and factors related to definition. A critical path is traced to a workable solution to the issues raised by identity and definition.

Cultural circumstances which seem to foster Metis identity are outlined, as well as those in which Metis identity does not seem to develop at all. Historical factors are said to be significant, particularly where the popular history of a particular era or area masks, ignores, obscures, or misrepresents the existence of a Metis population. Metis populations are said to be perceived (and perceived themselves) differently in different periods of Canadian history.

Criteria for Identity

The question this paper will attempt to answer is: "Who are the Metis referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?"

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

The Effect of Terminology

Contrary to popular opinion, most Metis today are born of one of more parents who are Metis, and not so much from Indian and White intermarriage. The multiplicity of terminology that is historically associated with what would, today, be called Metis populations is demonstrated.

The use of the term "Metis" is discussed in terms of its historic use in New Brunswick, Quebec and the Red River. It is proposed that the term was adopted by most of the communities who used it, including Red River, as a result of outside intervention. It is also proposed that the constitutional use of the term was intended to cover a broader range of peoples than the historic use of the term would indicate.

The section concludes that the external application of terminology does not guarantee that the 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, after the fact, to what amounts to a sub-group of that population.

Socio-Economic Identifiers

Several basic characteristics are identified as common to all of the mixed blood groups to which this variety of terminology is applied. Those characteristic are listed as:

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. Identified 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.

Research also indicates that there is an identifiable pattern of events that seem to embroil virtually every mixed blood community. The elements of that pattern are listed as:

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

2. The community exists before 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 share 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.

The Effect of Culture

The cultural elements and location which affect the development of Metis identity are discussed in the context of traditional, transitional, bicultural, and assimilation modes. A broad range of current Metis life styles is outlined to demonstrate the diversity of the Metis population.

The location of various Metis communities, and how that location in time and place affected their recognition as Aboriginal people is discussed. The populations of Acadia, New France, Sault Ste. Marie, and Red River are identified as Metis communities who were often labeled with other names.

Part 2 - Pre & Post-Red River Metis Communities

The concept that Metis populations developed in different parts of the country in different times as settlement spread westward from the Maritimes and the St. Lawrence is developed. The events of these historic communities are said to be repeating themselves today in the Northwest Territories and in Labrador. The paper suggests that what we learn of the Metis of yesterday may well help us prepare for dealing with the Metis of tomorrow.

The process of "metissage" or racial mixing is discussed in a historical sequence and traveling from east to west across Canada. The creation of "new" indigenous population is described in various parts of the country. Brief historical outlines are presented in the paper to describe the Metis experience in the Atlantic, the St. Lawrence area, the Upper Country, the west, and the United States.

Legislated Identity

This section of the paper demonstrates the impact of the legislation on the process of Metis identity and identification. It describes the basis for some of the issues raised in both the claims, and accommodation sections. The effect of Indian Act amendments on the mixed-blood segment of the Aboriginal population is described, including the creation of situations in which a mixed-blood indigenous population of a given area uses the term "Metis" for the first time, as a way of reacting to the imposition of federal legislation and policy.

Some detail is presented to describe how the Indian Act was amended from time to time to specifically exclude or expel Metis. The impact of that legislation on the ability of Metis to access Aboriginal and Treaty rights is briefly indicated in connection with the issue of scrip, and the Halfbreed Adhesion to Treaty 3, and the subsequent exclusion of Halfbreeds from Treaty.

Pan-Canadian Metis (Contemporary Cultural Realities)

This section describes contemporary Metis populations and cultures outside the membership of the Metis National Council and their relationship to current Metis issues and concerns. Some of these Metis communities had their genesis in the pre-Confederation era, but are dealt with here because the assertion of Metis identity in these communities surfaced in the context of post-confederation government policy. The development of Aboriginal representative organizations and a land claims research process are discussed as two factors which had a major impact on the climate in which identification and definition of Metis evolved in the 1970s.

Contemporary Metis Communities

A few Metis communities are examined which evolved and exist today independently of the Red River Metis. These communities 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. Thumbnail sketches of a variety of New Brunswick, Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia communities are presented.

Reverse Legislation

The constitutional reform process and the recognition of Metis in the Constitution Act of 1982, and Bill C-31 are discussed in terms of the impact on current Metis populations. These events are described as a reversal of traditional government policy in the sense that they were an attempt to accommodate some Aboriginal aspirations.

Factors which increased the incidence of Metis identification are outlined, including census statistics which indicate the number have doubled between 1985 and 1991.

Under Constitutional recognition of Metis the central question of the paper is addressed:

"Who are the Metis referred to in Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982?"

The proposed answer is that the people referred to by the term Metis in the Constitution Act of 1982 are those constituents of the Native Council of Canada who called themselves or were were eligible to call themselves Metis at the time the term was negotiated into the constitution. A recent letter drafted by the former president of the NCC who negotiated the term "Metis" into the constitution is presented as evidence to support this position.

The effect of Bill C-31 on Metis identity is described as a limited response to the initial Aboriginal demand for registration of the entire Indian population of Canada. The effect the Act has had on Metis identity and definition, is discussed, particulasrly in relation to those who were admitted to treaties and, by virtue of that admittance, became legal status Indians.

The attitudes of Indian, Metis and non-Aboriginal people who perceive identification as Metis as a way of becoming distinct from Indian is discussed. The paper indicates some are outraged that people could apply for registration as Indians and still maintain identity as Metis. Others, who have long recognized that registration under the Indian Act has nothing to with "Indian-ness," "Metis-ness" or Aboriginality accept the idea of a kind of "dual" or bicultural Aboriginal identity.

The terminology surrounding "on-reserve" and "off-reserve" population is explored in terms of the creating a new "no-man's land" in the area of access to rights, services, programs and benefits. 

Part 3 - Aboriginal, Treaty Rights, & Claims of Metis

This section outlines the basis for the Aboriginal, treaty rights and claims of Metis apart from those generated by the Manitoba Act and the Dominion Lands Act which apply primarily to prairie Metis. In particular it emphasizes the contemporary Metis relationship to Aboriginal title issues, the historical role and current relationship to treaty and treaty rights, and the position and participation of Metis in contemporary claims processes.

Aboriginal and Treaty rights and claims that pertain to specific collectivities of Metis are related to the respective histories and relationships of those communities with particular Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations. The paper points out that not every person of Aboriginal ancestry in Canada who chooses to call him or herself Metis has an automatic claim on any given title, treaty, or land claim. At the same time, it is proposed that an individual of Aboriginal ancestry cannot be denied from identifying him or herself as Metis simply because he or she has no other claim to make. A basis for Metis claims related to Aboriginal and Treaty rights is then presented.
 

Historical Background for Metis Claim

An historical background for claims, from a Metis perspective, and an analysis of those events in terms of Metis title, treaty rights and related claims is described. The negative effect of the Proclamation of 1763 is outlined as well as the impact of the Indian Act.

The factors that generated a negative climate for claims are discussed. This includes the decline in the significance of Metis as military allies, and in proportion to the need, from a colonial point of view, for settlement lands and access to valuable resources in unsurrendered Indian lands. The involvement and effect of the Department of Indian Affairs is discussed in terms of Indian Act amendments and other overt policies that promoted the extinction of the special status of Metis people, and made the potential for success of Metis claims bleak.

The impact of these policies on the Halfbreeds of the Robinson Treaties, the Halfbreeds from Treaty 3, Treaty 9, and the Williams Treaties is presented. The paper proposes that Indian Affairs policy drove a legislative wedge between full-blooded Indians and Halfbreeds. The combined effect of these cultural, political, and legal factors was to create an "invisible" Aboriginal population.

The factors that led to the resurgence of Metis and Non-Status Indian claims in the last decade are identified, including the emergence of more liberal and humanistic attitude on the part of governments, and an awakening within the Aboriginal population to re-assert their identity.

The historical events that helped make Canada's Metis population legally and politically invisible are described in some detail. Laws and official policies towards Metis/Halfbreed people are described as a revolving door which only recognized the "Indian title" of some Halfbreeds long enough to extinguish it by treaty as "Indians"-- thereby avoiding legal recognition as Metis- then subsequently stripping them of Indian status because they were Halfbreeds.

The factors which contributed to the "invisibility" of Metis are described, including the proposition that two-thirds of mixed bloods who could be identified as Indians or Whites, assimilated into those groups. The remaining third, it is suggested, tended to function independently of either group and developed their own cultural, political, and legal institutions.

Current Climate for Metis Claims

Two events in 1970 which co-incided to foster reception of Metis and Non-Status Indian claims are described. The first of these events was the emergence of Metis and Non-Status organizations as a distinct entity apart from Status organizations. The second was a nearly successful claim by the Nishga of British Columbia in the Calder case. This case jolted the government into designing a claims policy which would, on the one hand appear to respond to Aboriginal demands and, on the other hand, to extinguish Aboriginal claims in the north and northwest to clear the way for resource development.

The Federal Native Claims Policy paper of 1973 which committed the Federal government to "recognition of lawful obligations to Indian people" is described. The impact of comprehensive and specific claims policy on Metis is explored and significant sections of documents related to the process are presented. These include recommendations which report the needto recognize a parallel claims process for Metis and non-Status Indian people. Some current potential claims of Metis are briefly identified including those relating to the Northwest Territories and Labrador.

Claims Related to Aboriginal Title

The paper proposes that all of the Aboriginal titles and rights that have been recognized and affirmed in Section 35 (presuming a full box) pertain to Metis as an Aboriginal people. It suggests that if the Metis have no Treaty rights, then it follows that whatever Aboriginal title pertains to them must still be intact. This title, the paper suggests, would apply to the Metis of any comprehensive claims area.

The statement of claim made in 1979 by the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association is one example of how Metis might articulate their claim. The Baker Lake criteria for Aboriginal title are discussed as a basis for establishing the Aboriginal title of a given Metis population.

The paper demonstrates that the Baker Lake criteria are met by Metis in cases where:

 
1. Distinct Metis populations were highly organized:

2. The occupation of specific territories is easily demonstrable in the case of both pre-confederation and pre- Proclamation of 1763 Metis communities.

3. Metis communities fought in battles with and against Indians and Whites to maintain their territories.

4. Many Metis in eastern Canada, Quebec and northern Ontario could easily establish possession prior to 1763.

Claims Related to Treaty

Literally thousands of Halfbreeds and Metis were initially included in Treaty, and later expelled via a shrinking definition in the Indian Act. In every circumstance where a treaty uses the terminology "and their descendants," Metis associated with any given treaty who have been denied their treaty rights, have a potential claim, according to the paper.

There are at least two situations in which Metis have every expectation and right to make treaty claims. The first is in circumstances in which Metis title is intact (i.e. Labrador) and therefore treaty (or comprehensive claim settlement) is required.

The second situation is a specific claim arising from circumstances in which Metis were first included in treaty and later expelled, or were excluded from Treaty at the outset and never dealt with at all. The potential treaty claims of Treaty 3, Moose Factory, pre- confederation Treaties in Ontario, the Maritimes and in Quebec are outlined. The Manitoba Metis case before the Supreme Court is discussed as a model for treaty claim in other parts of Canada.

Claims Related to Section 35

The involvement of Metis in the constitutional reform process is discussed in some detail. Issues include:

1. the question of 91(24) jurisdiction

2. the creation of a federal "interlocutor" for Metis and Non- Status Indians.

3. Aboriginal self-government for Metis

4. the Metis Nation Accord

5. the Charlottetown Accord

The issue of 91(24) responsibility for Metis is so significant that the Commission has contracted two other papers to deal with it. For that reason the issue is not dealt with except as it impacts on those issues which are the subject of this paper. The background of the modern relationship between the federal government and Metis is described in terms of federal efforts to avoid recognition of, or responsibility for, Metis. It was not until Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 came into effect that there was both a significant legal basis and a national forum in which those concerns could be expressed.

The need to establish a bilateral relationship is outlined and the differences in strategy and tactics between the MNC and the NCC during the FMC process is noted. The MNC chose the route of creating separate schedules and agendas with the First Ministers Conferences (FMCs) themselves. The NCC pressed for 91(24) recognition of, and equity of access for, all Aboriginal peoples, including Metis, as a constitutional amendment.

The impact of the constitutional process on developing a bilateral relationship is described and includes quotations from a variety of agreements on the issue.

Metis Self-Government

The issue of Aboriginal self-government for Metis is presented in some detail, including the failure of trilateral self-government negotiations to achieve a single agreement with Metis. The core issue for Metis as the need for a land base. The paper suggest that the MNC pursued the creation of a land base for Metis and the development of self-government for Metis as a matched set.

The NCC, in order to accommodate its large urban constituency, also pursued the issue of urban self-government based on the idea that government could be built around a "community of interest" as well as it could be built around around a geographic community.

The Charlottetown Accord

The Charlottetown Accord, and its potential impact on the Aboriginal and treaty rights and claims of Metis in Canada as a basis for future interaction between governments and Metis is explored. In summary it can safely be said that every government in Canada and four national Aboriginal organizations have agreed that all Aboriginal peoples will:

 
1. have a constitutionally based framework in which to negotiate agreements on Aboriginal self-government,

2. be able to enter into a process of Treaty renovation if they so wish, and

3. be included in Section 91(24).

Under the terms of the agreement, Metis and unregistered or non- status Indians would have a constitutionally guaranteed access to both the process of negotiating self-government agreements and to the process of Treaty renovation. The experience of Aboriginal organizations since the entrenchment of Aboriginal and Treaty rights in 1982 has made it very clear that existing governmental machinery is prepared only to deal with the status quo and is almost certain to resist the changes that will be necessary to implement whatever gains that might be made in future negotiations.

The paper describes NCC initiatives to achieve recognition under 91(24), and to include equity of access clauses for all Aboriginal people in the constitution. The renewal, renovation and negotiation of Treaties became a significant issue in the 1992 process, and governments accepted the NCC proposals for an equity of access clauses on Treaty rights and on Aboriginal self-government. MNC initiatives on 91(24) and accommodation via the Metis Nation Accord are presented.

The Metis Nation Accord

The Metis Nation Accord is discussed in terms of its potential impact on Metis outside the MNC affiliates. The proposed definition of Metis in the Accord is described as linking identification as Metis to federal legislation relating to scrip and to the Manitoba and the Dominion Lands Acts. NCC concerns that the proposed Accord could exclude most Metis outside the prairie provinces are identified. NCC attempts to negotiate the inclusion of a non-derogation clause in the accord is described as an effort to ensure that the terms of the accord and the definition of Metis included in that accord would not deprive other Metis in Canada of their Aboriginal and Treaty rights --including the right to identify themselves as Metis.

The NCC, at the time the accord was presented, and the Confederacy today, does not oppose the Metis Nation Accord as an instrument for achieving the aspirations of the constituency of the MNC. What is adamantly opposed is the possibility that the definition sections of the accord might be used by government and by some MNC affiliates to exclude other Metis people from asserting their own identity as Metis individuals, and achieving their own negotiated arrangements as Metis people.

The formation of the Confederacy of Metis Peoples is described and its reaction to the MNC proposal identified. 

Part 4 - Impediments and Solutions

In response to the emphasis of the Commission on resolution and solution to current issues and problems facing Aboriginal peoples, this section of the paper outlines and describes mechanisms and processes proposed by Metis individuals and communities for the accommodation of Metis outside the MNC membership. Existing impediments to the accommodation of Metis people, identity, culture and communities are identified. Finally, some recommendations are proposed related to Metis peoples that the Commission might consider in its final report to Parliament.

In a nutshell the impediments can be characterized as being related to:

1. Identity and definitional issues

2. Resistance of governments

3. Resistance of Aboriginal peoples

4. Lack of public awareness

The paper states that the root problem in the context of defining a new relationship between Metis peoples and other peoples in Canada is one of identity, identification, and definition. Specifically the paper suggests it is a problem in the relationship between internal and external processes of identity, identification and definition.

In a discussion on the relationship between internal and external factors of identity and definition, the paper describes a foundation for some resolution of these conflicts by describing the application of different terminology to similar populations in various times and places, who all share a number of commonalities:

1. They were of mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry

2. They were dispossessed of their birthright as indigenous and Aboriginal people

3. Some of their descendants were constituents (if not members) of NCC affiliates at the time the term "Metis" was included in The Constitution Act, 1982

4. Some of their descendants are seeking recognition, and in some cases compensation or accommodation of themselves and their communities as Aboriginal entities who have been unjustly deprived of that recognition and/or accommodation.

The reasons for identifying as Metis and the reasons why others would react negatively to the assertion of Metis identity are explored. The paper suggests the most people who identify as Metis do so because they are Metis. It admits, however, that some people identify as Metis because they don't know what else to do.

Some of these people are, in fact, Metis and still others are "becoming" Metis. The suggestion is made that being Metis becomes their way of looking at themselves and at the world, and that they should not be rejected because of that. It is admitted that there are those people of distant Aboriginal ancestry who identify as Metis in order to qualify for a benefit or a program designed to serve Metis people, or even as a beneficiary to a claim.

The answer to the question, "Why should anyone care if a person identifies as Metis?" is addressed in the paper. It suggests that non-Metis people concern themselves about Metis identity because they have the perception they have something lose. A discussion of the misunderstanding generated by the differences between "settler" and "indigenous" population in Canada is presented. The ambiguous role of the Metis in that situation is noted.

The paper claims that the major impediment to the achievement of Metis hopes and aspirations as an indigenous and Aboriginal people in Canada is the fundamental misunderstanding most Canadians, many Governments, and even some Metis, have about what and who the Metis people are. The paper proposes that fully understanding one simple word --"Metis"-- might dissolve that impediment.

Resistance of Governments

The technical and legal aspects of government relationship to Metis has been dealt with in other papers contracted by the Commission. A discussion of conflict management techniques, as they have been applied to Metis by governments, are discussed. An outline of accommodative techniques is offered in comparison. The paper proposes that the conflict management regime must be rooted out and replaced with overtly co-operative and accommodative techniques.

Resistance of Aboriginal Peoples

Impediments to Metis aspirations that arise from within the Aboriginal community itself, are identified, including impediments which exist among and between Metis communities. Some Indian communities have a fundamental misunderstanding about Metis and their place in the broader Aboriginal community. It is suggested that this misunderstanding is prevalent among people who are raised in strong traditional communities, and who have not been alienated, or separated, from their communities of origin.

Two general themes in the kind of rejection that is experienced are identified:. The first is related to the "wannabee" syndrome. The second is identified as a concern on the part of some of people that, if Metis were to become a legally defined category of Aboriginal person, (in the sense of status Indian under the Indian Act), that they themselves might be "forced" to identify as Metis.

Lack of Public Awareness

A lack of public education and awareness on the history and current status of Metis everywhere in Canada is identified as part of the problem which serves to at least inhibit a viable solution. The public education system in Canada is said to create and indelible association between Metis and the Louis Riel resistances, which does little to relieve the ignorance most Canadians share about other Metis populations.

A more serious side-effect of the lack of public awareness of pre- and post-Red River Metis heritages is that thousands of Metis, who have been separated from their communities of origin, have virtually no opportunity in the current education system, or even in most existing information systems, to discover or re-discover their heritage.
 

The Basic Solutions

The paper warns that it is not possible to construct one "model" solution which will apply to all Metis people everywhere. By providing a range of vehicles it would become possible for distinct and diverse Metis communities to negotiate whatever form of accommodation that was most appropriate to them.

The paper identifies access to Aboriginal and Treaty rights as a priority for resolution. The paper outlines a number of steps.

1. There must be a clear understanding of the role and jurisdiction of participants.

2. A mechanism must be put in place by which specific local, regional and national Metis groups can be recognized as legitimate representatives of their respective Metis constituencies.

3. A protocol must be established to determine the form of negotiation a community requires to achieve its objectives.

4. A negotiation process must then be undertaken to arrive at mutual agreement on the substance of the negotiation.

5. Finally, a scheduled implementation process must be agreed upon and reviewed periodically.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act is a safety deposit box into which the results of other processes can be deposited for safekeeping.

A national treaty with Metis people could be particularly valuable as a symbolic starting point in terms of joint declaration of a national framework of principles.

A range of comprehensive and specific claims processes could be developed parallel to those that exist for Indian and Inuit peoples.

On-the-gound community or local initiatives could be launched under the auspices of protocols or bilateral or multilateral accords designed to accomplish a specific purpose in a shorter time frame.

The Need for Distinctions

The basic solution to the fundamental problem of Metis identity is to establish the principle that the term "Metis" as it exists in Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is intended to cover every individual and community in Canada of Aboriginal descent who or which identifies as Metis. At the same time, it should be understood that the practical application of this principle must be qualified in a way that is both practical and just.

Section 35 is said to recognize and affirm the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of all of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The term "Metis" was specifically negotiated into the constitution to cover the constituency of the NCC which, at the time, included the three prairie affiliates of the MNC.

The paper proposes to establish, in the clearest possible terms, what kinds of relationship to rights and benefits the simple act of identifying as a Metis might have. It suggests that an individual who identifies himself or herself as Metis and who has no demonstrable relationship to a comprehensive or specific claim has no eligibility for claim. It is not necessary to deny that individual his claim to Metis identity, in order to exclude that particular individual from a particular claim.

If a particular Metis community is able to establish that it does have a viable claim and a settlement is reached, the terms of that settlement determine who the beneficiaries of that claim may be. If an individual is not accepted by that community as a beneficiary within the terms of that settlement, then that individual is not eligible to benefit from that claim.

If a Metis organization negotiates a specific agreement to provide programs and services to its membership, the bylaws of the organization will determine the criteria for membership in that organization. If a self-identifying Metis person is not a member of that organization, then that person is not eligible for that particular program or service.

If a particular territory or region is able to negotiate a self- government agreement which recognizes it as a Metis Nation, the citizenship of that nation is defined in that agreement. Individuals who identify themselves as Metis but do not meet the criteria for citizenship of that particular nation, are not eligible to be citizens of that nation.

It is not necessary to deny any of those individuals the right to identify as Metis in order to protect the rights and privileges and responsibility of the legitimate members, claimants, or citizens as defined in the context of a particular agreement.

The implications of the Metis Nation Accord are discussed in this context. The paper suggests the Accord proposes to be the only vehicle by which Metis identity can be legally achieved.

The Charlottetown Solution

The Charlottetown Accord is examined for its potential for the resolution of Metis in relation to:

1. Recognition that Metis are included in 91(24)

2. Equity of Access to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

3. Equity of Access to Self-Government negotiations

 
1. Aboriginal government as a third order of government;

2. A commitment to negotiate self-government agreements

3. Accommodation of "different circumstances"

4. Recognition of agreements as treaties

5. "Just, broad and liberal" interpretation of treaties

6. Participation in future constitutional conferences

7. Judicial dispute resolution mechanisms

8. Non-derogation clauses re Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Awareness and Education

The myths and misleading information that have been part of the Canadian understanding of Aboriginal people in Canada must be challenged and changed. It suggests that the current concentration on influencing decision makers has left Aboriginal communities and the Canadian public without the information they need to understand Metis issues.

A long term campaign of re-education is urged in the paper which will mean changes, not only to curriculum, but to the education system itself, in terms of Metis input and participation.

If not accommodated, Metis could be forced into the unilateral assertion of their rights.

RCAP Recommendations re Metis

The last section of the paper proposes what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples might do to be helpful in resolving some or all of the issues the paper has addressed.

The paper says there is one fundamental concept that the Metis Circle is intent on communicating to the Royal Commission and, through the Commission to Parliament and the rest of Canada. The historic fact that there were and are Metis communities and cultures before and after Red River must be communicated to the Canadian public. Public and even government ignorance of that fact is impeding a whole segment of Canada's Aboriginal population from achieving a just and equitable accommodation of their birthright.

In order to set the stage for a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, an increased awareness of these Metis populations is a essential component. Without that awareness, the relationship will be built on false foundations -- as they have been for the last 300 years.

From that point of view, the first expectation of the Metis Circle is that the Royal Commission will highlight the existence of a diversity of Metis peoples in their final report, and that they will address accommodation of those populations in their recommendations.

In a nutshell, it is clear that if all of the Metis peoples of Canada are to take their rightful place along side their Indian and Inuit brothers and sisters, the following minimum process and/or vehicles must be in place.
 
 

1. A process by which Metis individuals, groups, communities, regions and nations can identify themselves in the context of an inclusive framework for enumeration.

2. A process to directly address the Aboriginal and Treaty rights and Claims of all Metis population to whom those rights pertain, as set out in Charlottetown Accord,

3. A legal, and preferably constitutional, commitment to negotiate self-government agreement as set out in the Charlottetown Accord.

4. A long term public education campaign to increase awareness in the Canadian public of the diversity of Metis populations in Canada.

5. A long term education campaign to increase awareness in the Aboriginal community of the diversity of Metis populations in Canada.

Conclusions

This paper has covered a very broad range of time, place, and issues related to the concerns of the NCC and the Confederacy of Metis Peoples in Canada. As a result it is somewhat longer than originally intended, and even an executive summary of it is longer than might be expected. Any concluding statement must, by definition, extract the bare essence what is presented and proposed in the paper.

This section is being written on the assumption that the paper itself has been read. It is not intended to stand on its own, but as a convenience to those who need a tightly focused description of the essential elements proposed in the paper.

If the paper has served its intended purpose, the foundation has been laid to make the following direct conclusions. The first group of conclusions addresses the current constitutional status of Metis, wherever they originated and wherever they now live in Canada.

1. There are many diverse and distinct Metis populations in Canada which both pre-date and post-date the Red River Metis populations.

2. The term "Metis," whatever its origins or historical application, was negotiated into the Constitution Act, 1982, to recognize these diverse and distinct populations as Aboriginal people within the meaning of Section 35.

3. The Aboriginal and Treaty rights recognized and confirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act are applicable to any Metis population anywhere in Canada which can demonstrate a legitimate historic and/or current relationship to such rights.

1. The confusion, both historic and current, over the use and application of the term "Metis" is a major impediment to the access to Aboriginal and Treaty rights by the persons to whom the constitutional term "Metis" was intended to apply.

2. Federal and provincial governments have only addressed Metis concerns in the context of adversarial modes of conflict-management, rather than the accommodative modes of conflict resolution, resulting in a virtual impasse on the issues of Aboriginal and Treaty rights for Metis.

3. Within the Aboriginal community itself, there are deep seated misunderstandings which contribute to the resistance Metis people experience when they try to access their Aboriginal and Treaty rights, or when they try to benefit from government programs and services designed to serve the Aboriginal community.

4. There is a general lack of awareness on the part of all Canadians, including governments, bureaucrats, politicians, and Aboriginal people of the nature of the Metis population in Canada and their "status" as Aboriginal people with Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

1. A national forum must be created in which all of the Metis peoples in Canada can begin to address the issues listed above.

2. The existing mechanisms and processes (i.e. constitutional reform, 91(24), comprehensive and specific claims, treaty, and self-government negotiations) must be revamped to ensure full access for Metis peoples.

3. A national education campaign must be implemented to enable the various Metis collectivities in Canada to identify themselves to other Canadians on a local, regional and national basis.

1. Highlight in the final report and recommendations of the Royal Commission that many Metis peoples exist in Canada.

2. In each of the areas listed above, recommend that special initiatives are required to achieve equity for Metis everywhere in Canada in terms of access to those Aboriginal and Treaty rights which pertain to them.

3. Call for a national meeting of representatives of Metis communities, including urban communities of interest, from all across Canada to address these issues and propose specific resolutions to them.