Introduction

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 a 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 funders 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 above

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 others considered Labrador to be "the land God gave Cain."

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 factors 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 by the limited definition of Metis being proposed on the prairies, the LRMC maintained its own community-based process of definition and began seeking government recognition on its own terms. In the surprisingly short time of 18 months the organization negotiated the development of a Metis foster care program with the province, entered a trilateral self-government negotiation exercise with the federal and provincial government and a triumvirate of B.C. Metis organizations, and achieved a formal Proclamation of the provincial Legislature recognizing November 16 in B.C. as Metis Day. The group also negotiated the recognition of several community elders as the first Aboriginal Marriage Commissioners in the province.

The LRMC has, even in its short existence, shown the way for other urban Metis communities to organize themselves and achieve recognition and accommodation by responding to community needs.

Kelly Lake

The Metis community of Kelly Lake is often described as the only all-Metis community in B.C. It is highlighted here as an example of a remote Metis community which, because of its identity, suffers a lack of access to programs and services readily available to Indian and even other Metis communities in the area. If Kelly Lake was located 60 meters east of where it is, it would be eligible for Alberta programs designed to serve remote Metis communities. As it is, the 100 year community founded by refugees from the Riel resistance struggles to survive in a bureaucratic climate designed to ignore the communities needs.

The community cannot be designated, or serviced, as the reserve it looks like, but then the community does not want to be a reserve. As one community member put it:

"We call ourselves the freedom people because, 125 years ago, we saw what would happen to people when they went onto reserves. We don't want to be controlled and we don't want to be on reserves."--Clifford Calliou

Although the struggle to preserve a trapper's lifestyle has faltered in the face of pollution and surrounding development, the community is dedicated to re-claiming its Metis heritage. Michif-speaking elders are being encouraged to teach the language to younger people, and a 100th anniversary Kelly Lake Day was a recent success. While still trying to establish facilities for even a single nurse, or more emergency communication than the single pay phone in the community provides, community leaders are aware they have a basis for Aboriginal claims, which we will address in the next section. Kelly Lake is, as one visitor reported:

"...one of the warmest compassionate communities I have ever had the chance to visit. It may be that these bold people have benefited from their situation. They provide support for one another; they work as a community. They are, to be frank, the epitome of what I was raised to believe being a Metis community is all about."

Reverse Legislation

Up to this point, this paper has dealt with legislation which was designed to delimit, restrict, or eliminate various segments of the Aboriginal population of Canada. Within the limited scope of this paper we have seen how a variety of Metis organizations and communities have struggled to survive and achieve recognition of a heritage they themselves were often in the process of renewing or rediscovering. Most, if not all of this activity, was undertaken in the face of government policy and activity that was specifically designed to defeat and eliminate it

Before the section of this paper which deals with the Aboriginal and Treaty rights and claims of the Metis can be presented, there are two further and most significant factors which must be taken into consideration. The first is the constitutional reform process and the recognition of Metis in the Constitution Act of 1982, and the second is Bill C-31. Each of these events was a reversal of traditional government policy in the sense that they were, at least on the surface, an attempt to accommodate some Aboriginal aspirations.

For the purposes of this paper, the specific impact of these events on the processes of identity and definition of the Metis are the subjects to be examined. At the risk of being tiresome, it is also necessary to point out that we are limited to describing the uppermost "tips" of two of the largest "icebergs" in the sea of government policy in relation to Aboriginal peoples.

Constitutional Recognition of Metis

It is unlikely that there was a dry Metis eye in the whole of Canada on January 30, 1981, when it was agreed that the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada were recognized and affirmed and that those peoples should include Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples. In the aftershock of the rejection of most Metis and non-Status Indian claims less than a year earlier, it hardly seemed possible that one of the fundamental goals of that process had actually been surpassed. During the development of tactics and strategy for claims research in the early 1970s, the idea of achieving legislation to recognize Aboriginal people and their rights seemed a wild fantasy. To have achieved constitutional recognition seemed little less than the fulfillment of prophecy.

Although that recognition was to generate more heat than light over the next decade of Constitutional negotiation, there was one undeniable benefit, from the point of view of this paper. More and more people began to reclaim their Metis identity.

Secretary of State figures in 1979 estimated a "core" Metis and non- status Indian population of between 300,000 and 450,000 and a self- identifying population of up to 600,000. The number of Canadians with some Aboriginal ancestry was projected to be up to 3,500,000. The 1981 Census fell far short of any of those figures with a combined Metis and non-status Indian total of 173,160. The 1986 Census reported an off-reserve Aboriginal population of 551,605, at least three-quarters of whom (413,703) would be Metis and non-status Indians. In 1991, Census Canada reported a total Aboriginal origin population of 1,002,675, less than half of whom lived on reserves, and 385,800 of whom were registered Indians. Of the remaining 616, 875, 95% reported mixed blood and 34% (212,650) reported specific Metis ancestry. Census Canada explains the 41% increase in numbers of people reporting Aboriginal origins between 1986 and 1991 by saying:

"Public attention on Aboriginal issues may have increased reporting of Aboriginal origins."

It may be debatable whether the constitutional process or Oka did more to encourage increased reporting of Aboriginal ancestry, but the increase is a hard statistical fact. In 1986, 98,255 persons identified as Metis. That has more than doubled in a five year period. It is impossible to know how many of the 379,800 persons in the 1991 Census who reported a combination of Indian and non-Aboriginal ancestry could have legitimately identified themselves as Metis, if they were aware of their specific heritage. There can be no question, however, that the number of people "in transition" to reclaiming their Metis heritage is on a steep upward climb. The figures are outlined in Appendix 1.

The constitutional reform process had another significant effect. It placed Metis on an equal footing with other Aboriginal peoples in Canada at the negotiating table. Some might even say more than equal since both the Metis National Council and the Native Council of Canada were representing their respective Metis constituencies. By the end of the Charlottetown negotiations Metis peoples had achieved equity of access to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and future self-government negotiating processes, and were to be included in Section 91(24). The implications of these issues have been dealt with in other papers contracted by the Commission.

The Metis Nation Accord proposed by the MNC during the Charlottetown raises the definitional inclusion or exclusion for all Metis people in Canada. For some Metis it seems to be a framework for successful accommodation, for other Metis it seems to be an attempt to exclude them from accommodation. It has already been the subject of several presenters at Commission hearings and at the special consultation of the Commission with the MNC. Some aspects of the issue have been discussed in other commission papers. It is not within the scope of this paper to deal comprehensively with this issue. However, in an attempt to be helpful to the Commission an NCC critique of the MNC Accord will be attached to this paper as Appendix 2.

We have now come back to the central question to be addressed by the paper:

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

Given all of the foregoing background information, the answer proposed by this paper is simple and direct. 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 eligible to call themselves Metis at the time the term was negotiated into the constitution.

It is important to note the deliberate use of the word "constituents" rather than "member" or "affiliate." Like most representative organizations, the NCC, in the process of representing the interests of its affiliates and their membership, often played a much broader role in championing the hopes and aspirations of much larger numbers of people who, for whatever reason, were not signed-up members of any Aboriginal organization. Just as a Member of Parliament is mandated to represent all of his or her constituents, regardless of how they voted or party membership, the NCC was exercising a mandate to represent the interest of all of the Metis and non-Status Indian population of Canada. The president of the NCC who, in fact, negotiated the term Metis into the constitution recently wrote the letter on page 65 to Kirby Lethbridge of the Labrador Metis Association.

Letter Of Harry W. Daniels

February 17, 1994

In response to your question "What did the term "Metis" mean when inserted into the Constitution of Canada?" I am providing the following for your information. Firstly, let me state, that at the time I was President of the Native Council of Canada which was a Federation of Metis and Non- Status Indian Organizations representing Metis and Non-Status Indians from the Yukon to Newfoundland. As the President, I was responsible for negotiating constitutional change on behalf of the constituents of the Native Council of Canada.

On the 30th of January, 1981 when the agreement was reached that Indians, Inuit and Metis be specifically identified as Aboriginal People, in what is now Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act 1982, it was at my insistence that the above-mentioned were included.

With specific reference to the term "Metis" it was understood at the time that it (Metis) included the member organizations and their constituents who self-identified as a Metis person. The notion being that self-identity is a right that cannot be usurped by any means. It was also understood that the term Metis was not tied to any particular geographic area, keeping in mind that Aboriginal people from coast to coast identified with the term Metis as their way of relating to the world.

The then Minister of Justice and now Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien made the final deal and I distinctly remember stating that all our people were included whether they identified as Metis or the erroneous term Non-Status Indians. At that time we held a more accommodating view of what a Metis person was and is, contrary to the views of revisionist historians and lawyers who were not involved in the process.

In my view, the people of Labrador who identify as Metis are expressing their right to self-identify as an Aboriginal person and are included in the people who I negotiated into the Constitution in 1981, and should enjoy all the rights that inhere in them as Aboriginal people. I trust that this short letter answers your question and is of some assistance. If necessary I am prepared to testify under oath that the above is a true statement. Please do not hesitate to call me if a further clarification or additional information is required.

In Brotherhood, Honourary President, Native Council of Canada

Harry W. Daniels Board Member, Metis Society of Saskatchewa

There has been, however, at least one unfortunate side effect of the use of the term "Aboriginal Peoples." It has been used by policy analysts, program developers and service delivery agents as a generic term in the context of fund raising and, within government departments, in the context of allocation of funds. In terms of program criteria and expenditure or distribution of those funds, however, it is too often restricted to mean registered or status Indians. Many Metis groups would support the development of program on the assurance that it would be accessible to all Aboriginal people. Upon applying to that program, they would discover on on-reserve, or registered Indian were eligible to apply or be seriously considered.

The Impact of Bill C-31

Overlapping, the first phase of the constitutional process, was the passage of Bill C-31. The legislation was a response to one of the few gains made at the 1983 Constitutional table -- the entrenchment of sexual equality for male and female Aboriginal persons. At best, the legislation was a limited response to the initial Aboriginal demand for registration of the entire Indian population of Canada. It did do at least two things. It removed enfranchisement from the Act and it opened the door to some people who had been enfranchised or were labeled Non-Status Indian because their predecessors had been enfranchised. It is also beyond the scope of this paper to deal with the subtleties and vagaries of Bill C-31.

For purpose of this paper, however, a brief examination of the effect the Act had in the context of Metis identity and definition is necessary. As was pointed out earlier, there were many Metis and Halfbreeds who were admitted to many treaties and, by virtue of that admittance, became legal status Indians. Certainly the Metis of Rainy River maintained an internal sense of Metis identity although they long ago learned to avoid that identification in the presence of an Indian agent who might later enfranchise them.

Of the more than 100,000 who applied for registration under Bill C-31, there are no figures on how many of them had previously identified themselves as Metis persons. In some situations, the simple fact that a Metis person, including some Metis leaders, were able to reinstate under the Act, created conflicts. As we have seen, the little legislation that does currently attempt to define Metis, expressly excludes persons who are registered under the Indian Act.

If we return for a moment to the list of NCC constituency characteristics, we can now, thanks to Bill C-31, add several more:

List 2 of NCC Constituency Characteristics

25. Indians who are reinstated with band membership

26. Indians who are reinstated without band membership

27. Indians who are reinstated and living on-reserve

28. Indians who are reinstated and living off-reserve

29. Metis who are reinstated with band membership

30. Metis who are reinstated without band membership

31. Metis who are reinstated and living on-reserve

32. Metis who are reinstated and living off-reserve

33. Children of the above who will be registered at maturity

34. Children of the above who will not be registered at maturity

Although the problem of conflicting definitions has been resolved in some instances by changing the legislation, --as we saw earlier in the case of Metis Settlements of Alberta-- it is not quite as easy to change community attitudes. Those Indian, Metis and non-Aboriginal people who perceive identification as Metis as a way of becoming distinct from Indian identity are outraged that people could apply for registration as Indians and still maintain identity as Metis. Many others, who have long recognized that registration under the Indian Act has nothing to with "Indian-ness," "Metis-ness" or Aboriginality have no difficulty with the idea of a kind of "dual" Aboriginal identity.

In any case, the Census figures examined previously indicate that if there are people who are reinstated and no longer identify themselves as Metis, they are vastly outnumbered by those who began such identification since 1986.

There is one other factor that surfaced as a result of "new" categories or divisions created by Bill C-31. Prior to the Act, the major dividing line between the two major national Indian organizations was registration under the Indian Act. For the most part, registered Indians were represented by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and unregistered Indians by the Native Council of Canada. Reinstatement blurred those lines considerably. Most of those who reinstated and received band membership consider themselves represented by the AFN. Those who were not band members, and particularly those who continued to live off reserve, still look to the NCC for representation. In the last few years, even band members who are unable to access benefits from their bands have asked for NCC intervention.

The distinction between Aboriginal constituencies of the AFN and the NCC has been increasingly labeled as On-Reserve (AFN) and Off-Reserve (NCC) constituencies. This is by no means a universal application, but it has been used more and more frequently in recent years. From the point of view of some Metis, this terminology has created a new no-man's-land in the area of access to rights and benefits. As in the earlier reference to the term "Aboriginal" programs and services nominally designed for "Off-Reserve" Aboriginal people, are, in fact, delivered primarily to off-reserve registered Indians.