![[Image]](banner2.JPG){kind=small}
All My Relations -The Other Metis-
Part 4 - Impediments and Solutions
All My Relations -The Other Metis-
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 will outline and describe mechanisms and processes
proposed by Metis individuals and communities for the accommodation of
Metis outside the MNC membership. The paper will also identify existing
impediments to the accommodation of Metis people, identity, culture and
communities. Finally, the paper will propose some recommendations related
to Metis peoples, that the Commission might consider in its final report
to Parliament.
Many of the impediments to the accommodation of Metis peoples in Canada have been touched upon in the previous pages. In that sense this section will be a summary of those impediments in the context of setting up a framework for solutions or options for resolution. 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
These elements are, of course inter-related, but, for
purposes of discussion they will be dealt with as discrete factors
with a discrete set of potential solutions. To a large extent, these
factors affect other Aboriginal peoples as well, but this section of the
paper will focusspecifically on their impact on Metis populations.
Identity and Definition - The Primary Impediment
If the previous pages have achieved their intent, it should be evident by now that a real problem does exist in the context of defining a new relationship between Metis peoples and other peoples in Canada. The historical background and the descriptions of contemporary Metis communities should have revealed that the problem, at root, is one of identity, identification, and definition. It is a question of the identity of individuals and communities, and of how that identity coincides or conflicts with the definition that others apply to those same individuals and those same communities. In short, it is a problem in the relationship between internal and external processes of identity, identification and definition.
At the outset of this paper, it was suggested that factors of identity and definition should be separated for as long as that separation contributed to an understanding of the issues. (Page 8) It is in the context of the resolution of the problem that the two factors must be rejoined. The paper has outlined at some length, the factor of identity in the lives of Metis communities and the affect of that identity on the capacity of individuals to access their Aboriginal and treaty rights. The paper has also demonstrated the parallel impact of "outsiders" --in the sense of governments, laws, and policies-- on those same individuals and communities. The impact of the "outsider" is most evident in the processes of definition. Where the two elements of identity and definition meet is in the arena of identification.
It is in this arena that the internal and external perceptions of identity and definition meet and, only too often, challenge each other. Very often they are using the same words to mean different things as in "Metis" as Red River descendant vs. "Metis" as non-status Indian. Even worse, both "sides" use different words to mean the same thing, as in "Metis" and "Halfbreed" to describe mixed-blood populations. It is in this context government officials might insist - "But we must have a definition of Metis, so we know who or how many we are dealing with." The usual response is: - "The Metis know who they are, and it is Metis who will do the defining."
Everyone who has been involved in this experience knows how unproductive it can be. This kind of no-win situation is created when the participants fail to make critical distinctions between the process of identity and the process of definition.
It might appear obvious that the processes related to identity are internal, either to the individual or the community. It is an internal psychological and cultural process. It is not always so apparent that the processes of definition can be categorized as the impact of a process of "outsider identification." That is, however, precisely what has taken place in Metis communities and in the lives of Metis individuals.
As long as the processes of individual identity and community identification are compatible with the external influences of definition of that same community, there is no real problem. Even if the situation is one of political or even military conflict, at least each side knows who they are, and knows who the enemy is.
However, when a process of externally imposed concepts of identity or definition conflicts with, or even contradicts, an internal process of identity or definition, a very confused and confusing set of relationships is generated. Even if the internal and external parties are involved in an apparently cooperative mode, the differences in definition that each bring to the process can negatively effect, or even prevent, mutually desirable results. And that is precisely what this paper is proposing has happened in the context of Metis peoples and their historical and current relationship with other Canadians --both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
The confusion is compounded when there are conflicts and/or contradictions between national or regional components of the larger Metis community. That situation is far too complex to be addressed comprehensively in this paper. However, this paper has tried to lay 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 at 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.
One difficulty lies in the fact that these various populations were, intentionally or otherwise, kept ignorant of each other for decades and even for generations. This paper has demonstrated the simple historical fact that bigotry, colonial conflicts, historical misrepresentation, and the Indian or Native policy of successive federal and provincial governments have all played role in the suppression and oppression of Metis populations at various times and places in Canada from the 1600s to the present day.
Hurdles to Overcome
It is little wonder then that the descendants of those populations experience some confusion as they try to re-assert their identity and reclaim their birthright as Aboriginal people. There are faced with three sets of hurdles. First they must overcome their own personal ignorance of, or exclusion from, their heritage. Then they must overcome the imposition of outside terminology and definition which was very often specifically designed to ignore, discourage, or actively oppress the very identity they attempting to assert. Then, finally, they must experience the bitterness of competition with other individuals and groups -- Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal-- for access to their birthright. It is truly astonishing that so many have succeeded, and it is no surprise that so many others have yet to succeed.
From page one, this paper has been positioning itself to answer questions related to the future of Metis in Canada. To begin that process there are two questions which were posed at the beginning of the paper which must now be answered. Given what has been presented as the historical background and current context of the Metis in Canada, it is now possible to answer the questions.
"Why would anyone want to identify as Metis?"
and
"Why should anyone else care if some identifies as Metis?
There are at least two answers to the first question. The most common, and most accurate response is that people identify as Metis because they are Metis. There really is no argument against that answer, but, at the same time, it is not particularly helpful in terms of increasing the understanding of people who are not Metis. This answer has a tendency to annoy people. The second answer, to put it bluntly, is that some people identify as Metis because they don't know what else to do. This answer has a tendency to infuriate almost everybody except the people who don't know what else to do, but it is a truthful answer that must be dealt with.
The Tizya paradigm outlined earlier described transitional and bicultural Aboriginal populations. The description of the NCC Constituency in 1982, identified a broad range of circumstances which affected how Aboriginal individuals identified themselves. It is in that broad area of uncertain transition that we find people who adopt or cling to Metis identity as a kind of life raft, while they get their "identity bearings," so to speak.
Some, perhaps even most, of these people are, in fact Metis. Often, they have lost their connections with their communities of origin and it often takes years to find their way back to an assured sense being Metis. Although they may never reconnect to their physical community of origin these people, by heritage, are Metis people with a just claim to their birthright as Metis.
There are others who "become" Metis. This is a difficult concept for many to grasp, but, there are mixed blood individuals and families, and even communities who are --even today-- rejected by both Indian and White worlds. They, just as the first Metis communities did, begin to build a distinct life for themselves. Being Metis becomes their way of looking at the themselves and at the world. Unfortunately, these peoplare often perceived by members of more traditional Metis communities as "wannabees" and unjustly rejected by them. As one participant at the Metis Perspectives workshop at an NCC Annual Meeting put it, "There aresome people who are "have-to-bees."
Then 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. It is this group that generates the greatest anxiety, and even outright paranoia, in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. These people are more accurately described as the "wannagets" and techniques for dealing with them will be outlined in the section on solutions.
The answer to the question, "Why should anyone care if a person identifies as Metis?" is considerably more complex. Some people care because the concept of Metis challenges their own sense of identity. Others care because they think they have their own rights and benefits to protect. Others care because they are anxious about the issue of cost. Non-Metis people concern themselves about Metis identity because they have the perception they have something lose to, or because of, the Metis.
Settler vs Indigenous
There is another factor that effects all Aboriginal peoples but is rarely directly confronted. The "problem" of identity and definition is not exclusively a problem of the Aboriginal community. It must be admitted that there are at least two sets of identities in Canada, other than the French-English set. The first set is the population of the indigenous or Aboriginal people and their descendants. The second set is, for want of a better word, the immigrant or settler population and their descendants.
The issue --pun intended-- of the interaction between these two populations is exactly what this paper is dealing with.
The factor that is too often ignored is that each of these populations has a distinct and --at least for a time-- mutually exclusive perception of the significance what being indigenous is about. This disparity, which will be described shortly, became apparent in the process of the negotiations of the First Ministers of Canada, and the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
These differences might be attributed to differences in cultural perspective, and that is probably the case. But that does not answer the more significant question of how fundamentally different that perspective might be. On the one hand, there was a group of people (or their descendants) who, as a condition of their being in Canada, had to have left their own "homeland" to come to Canada. Even those who have lived in Canada for generations presume Canadian history begins with European contact. Most had been culturally conditioned to think that the "real" Aboriginal people of Canada are extinct, or on their way to extinction.
On the other hand was a group of people whose entire reason for being at the table was that they were seeking accommodation as the indigenous people of the "homeland" in which the meeting was taking place. All of these people had, at the core of their cultures and identities, the perspective that they were mandated by the Creator to be custodians of North America, or at least the parts of it they traditionally occupied.
To put it bluntly, there was a difference of "immigrant"
or "settler" mentality on one side, and "Aboriginal" or "indigenous" mentality
on the other. For one group, the "settlers," the "fact" of indigenous relationship
to a homeland was secondary to the possibilities of creating a new life,
for whatever reasons, in a so-called new world. For the Aboriginal group,
the "fact" of indigenous relationship to homeland was a central factor
of both their identity and their culture. Not much wonder there was little
understanding between the groups. In the context of a discussion of what
being "Canadian" means, Harold Cardinal said:
"The basic task that remains after three or centuries of contact between Indians and whites is still the construction of a bridge of understanding that exist as separate realities."
Between the two, related to, and yet distinct from both, sat the Metis. From the Aboriginal perspective of Indians and Inuit, most Metis, at first glance, appear to be part of the settler group. From the point of view of the settler group, those same Metis seem to part of the indigenous group. The situation does not seem to have changed much in 300 years.
Put in its simplest terms, the major impediment to the achievement of Metis hopes and aspirations as an indigenous and Aboriginal people inCanada is the fundamental misunderstanding most Canadians, many Governments, and even some Metis, have about what and who the Metis people are. The fact that fully understanding one simple word --"Metis"-- might dissolve that impediment, seems almost beyond possibility, but that is a possibility that must be entertained.
Having briefly discussed how the issues of identity, identification and can be an impediment to the resolution of Metis, it is now possible to directly address a related impediment --that of governments and their interaction with Metis.
The technical and legal aspects of government relationship to Metis has been dealt with in other papers contracted by the Commission. For purposes of this paper, it will be more productive to examine the character of the relationship between governments and Metis rather than dealing with the technicalities.
The historical background presented earlier clearly demonstrated that Metis (by whatever name they were called at any given time) often held a dominant or "balance-of-power" position in terms of the military and economic life of Canada. When that situation existed, they were tolerated and often accommodated by colonial and post-Confederation governments, at least up to the point where those authorities could technically or militarily usurp those populations. At that point, which happened (and is happening) at different times and in different parts of Canada, Metis suddenly became a "conflict" that had to be "managed," rather than as "issue" that must be "resolved."
From the perspective of this paper that attitude, and the approaches dictated by "conflict management" techniques, have become a major part of the problem. The conflict management syndrome is part of a political and bureaucratic wall that is all too familiar to almost any Aboriginal group or organization that has approached government since the Royal Proclamation. Conflict management, which is, fundamentally, an adversarial process, has several readily identifiable elements:
1. Deny the problem
2. Ignore the problem
3. Deflect the problem
4. Identify/Analyze the problem
5. Consult on the problem
6. Introduce opposition to the problem
7. Divide/Conquer participants in problem
8. Co-opt the problem
9. Declare the problem eliminated
10. When the declaration is challenged, go back to 1.
These time proven techniques have the additional "advantages" of being primarily unilateral, and often involving considerable amounts of government funding. Given enough time and space it would be possible to show how every federal and provincial government in Canada has used most of these techniques at one time or another in order to avoid accommodation of Metis aspirations.
Some governments have denied Metis exists within their borders. Federal and provincial governments have kept Metis dancing on the head of the 91(24) pin since Confederation. Literally millions of dollars have been spent studying and analyzing "the Metis question" with no perceivable benefit to the Metis community. Consultation processes have dragged on for years with few concrete results. Third party and Indian interests have been encouraged to oppose Metis claims. Diversity in the Metis community has been manipulated to encourage disunity. Metis issues have been shuffled into the Aboriginal deck without specific mechanisms for resolution.
Jurisdiction Under 91(24)
The single most serious issue in this context is that of federal jurisdiction for Metis under Section 91(24) and the corresponding previously identified strategy of off-loading responsibility for Metis from federal to provincial governments. The historical background has already indicated how the Indian Act has been used in this context, and other papers have already explored this issue in detail. It will be discussed hereonly in terms of its current role as an impediment and its future potentialfor solution.
If there is to be a new relationship established between Metis people and governments in Canada, there must be a concerted effort to destroy that treadmill. A major restructuring of government policy in relation to Aboriginal people must take place. The conflict management regime must be rooted out and replaced with overtly co-operative and accommodative techniques which might be listed as follows.
1. Acknowledge the issue
2. Co-operatively address the nature of the issue
3. Develop consensus on processes needed for resolution
4. Confirm validity of processes with affected constituency
5. Examine/propose options for resolution
6. Review/confirm proposed resolution with constituency
7. Co-operatively execute implementation of resolution
8. Provide mutually agreeable conflict resolution processes
9. Periodically review implementation with constituency
10. Go back to 1 with next problem/issue
In order to be effective, the accommodation mode must be based on clearly expressed mandates related to carefully articulated problems which are then addressed in a consensus building process. In a later section a relationship will be drawn between these two problem solving techniques and the regimes proposed in the Charlottetown Accord.
Resistance of Aboriginal Peoples
Perhaps the most difficult issues this paper has to deal with are the impediments to Metis aspirations that arise from within the Aboriginal community itself, and particularly when those impediments exist among and between Metis communities.
In some Indian communities, there is a fundamental misunderstanding
about Metis and their place in the broader Aboriginal community. It is
very difficult for some Indians to believe, that any person of Indian ancestry
would identify him or herself as anything but an Indian. This is particularly
true, as was described earlier, in matriarchal or matrilineal communities
or other communities where the ratio of self-declared Metis identity is
low. It is also prevalent among people who are raised in strong traditional
communities, and have not been alienated, much less
completely separated, from their communities of origin.
"The issues (Corbiere-Laval) were being exploited by some Indians who felt we gone too far in seeking a working relationship with the Metis, and we worked for a hell of a long time just trying to quell that hostility between treaty Indians and the Metis population."
At a recent NCC annual meeting one western Metis woman who is living in the Maritimes reported seeing signs posted in more than one location of a picture of a young Indian with a feather headdress and the slogan "Either you is or you ain't." She was badly shaken by the experience and felt that, after years of healing and reclaiming her identity as a Metis in a white world, she was now being rejected in an Indian world.
There seems to be a total lack of formal research in this area, but any Metis person can relate similar kinds of stories, just as Indians can relate stories of rejection in the non-Aboriginal community. There seem to be two general themes in the kind of rejection that is experienced.
The first is related to the "wannabee" syndrome that was discussed earlier. Too often Metis are perceived as being "whites with Aboriginal ancestry who couldn't quite make it as a real Indians", or who are calling themselves Metis only because they have been rejected as Indians. This is not to say that those situations do not exist. In fact, they do. The important thing to keep in mind is that they are the exception rather than the rule in the broader Metis community. It is patently unjust to presume that because some people who identify as Metis fit this description, that all Metis must be doing the same thing. In fairness, it should also be recognized that some of these people are in a "transition phase" in terms of developing Metis identity. It cannot be condoned that they should be rejected or ridiculed as they go through that frequently painful experience.
There is another situation that is expressed less frequently, but may well be just a prevalent in some Indian communities. There can be no question that many status Indians are of mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal heritage. There is a concern on the part of some of these 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. There is certainly considerable historical precedent to justify that fear. From this point of view, identification as a Metis, becomes another conquer and divide technique in terms of Aboriginal unity.
If governments, other Aboriginal peoples, and even Metis themselves are often confused, it can only be expected that the Canadian public will share that confusion. The public education system in Canada still creates an indelible association between Metis and the Louis Riel resistances. In itself, that is not a bad thing, but, unfortunately it does little to relieve the ignorance most Canadians share about other Metis populations.
There is an even more serious side-effect of the lack of public awareness of pre- and post-Red River Metis heritages. The thousands of Metis who have been separated from those 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. This situation becomes more apparent in the 1991 Canadian census. The multiplicity of Metis responses, to say nothing of huge numbers who identified only as Indian/non-Aboriginal, indicates an uncertainty in terms of identity that the current public education system actually fosters. There can be little doubt that lack of public education and awareness on the history and current status of Metis who live everywhere in Canada is part of the problem and serves to at lest inhibit a viable solution.
If there were easy solutions to the problems presented
in this paper, then the paper itself would not be necessary. The issues
are complex, and so are the proposals for their resolution. There is, however,
one factor which has become abundantly clear since the beginning of constitutional
negotiations in 1980. It is not possible to construct
one "model" solution which will apply to all Aboriginal people everywhere.
At first, this was (and still is, by some,) attributed
to "disunity" among and between Aboriginal peoples. The mythical image
of the "homogenized Indian" in a western headdress, or "Red River Metis"
chasing buffalo, was shattered, during constitutional negotiations, by
the reality of the
historic and valid diversity of Aboriginal people in
Canada. It slowly became apparent during the 1983-87 FMC process that the
answer did not lie in the creation of a model solution into which everyone
would then be forced to fit.
The "solution" that slowly achieved consensus was that a forum or fora had to be created which would accommodate this diversity. By providing a range of vehicles it would become possible for distinct and diverse Aboriginal communities to negotiate whatever form of accommodation that was most appropriate to them. Before proposing such fora for Metis, it might be useful to re-state the basic problem that must be resolved.
Prior to 1982 the Metis in Canada, all of whom were the constituents of a single national Aboriginal representative organization, had one major problem in common: - a lack of recognition of themselves as Aboriginal people with recognized and confirmed Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. More than a decade later those same Metis are now represented by several organizations and have a new problem in common: how to access the Aboriginal and Treaty rights that have been recognized and confirmed to them as one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada -- as Metis.
In order to solve this common problem of access to rights, a number of steps must be taken.
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.
There are a number of both new and time-tested vehicles available for these purposes.
One solution to the jurisdictional question is to resolve the issue of 91(24) authority and responsibility for Metis. How this might be achieved is addressed in other papers.
Over the last decade, constitutional amendment has not proven to be a particularly reliable mechanism for change. It has, however, been a fruitful vehicle for bringing Aboriginal issues to national attention. It also has provided a forum in which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leadership can meet on an equitable footing with some dignity and respect.
In the form of the Charlottetown Accord, it has also achieved agreement among all governments and Aboriginal participants on the mechanism and processes by which a new relationship can be established. The constitution, in effect, contains a safety deposit box, Section 35, into which the results of other processes can be deposited for safekeeping.
The traditional vehicle for negotiating new relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people has been the treaty process. With all of its faults, particularly at the implementation stage, it still has viability in both communities. 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.
It is possible that a range of comprehensive and specific claims processes could be developed parallel to those that exist of Indian and Inuit peoples. The processes have the advantage of being specific to territory and to the history of a particular community or region which gives them a built-in eligibility factor at the level of implementation. Where appropriate such agreements can be "sanctified" by recognition as Treaties within themeaning of Section 35 of the Constitution Act.
It is also possible that specific on-the-ground 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. These protocols could, where appropriate, result in federal and/or provincial legislation in those circumstances where constitutional accommodation is not required.
The feasibility of all of these vehicles have been discussed exhaustively over the last decade of constitutional debate. Agreement on the processes necessary to implementing many of them has already been reached in the Charlottetown Accord. It only requires the political will of both parties to begin.
This paper proposes that 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.
One of the basic assumptions of this paper is that Section 35 is meant to recognize and affirm the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of all of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It is also evident that the three terms included in 35(2) --Indian, Inuit, and Metis-- are meant to include all of that population known to exist in 1982, and their descendants. This paper has proposed that 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.
From the perspective of this paper, the solution to all of this is almost embarrassingly apparent. Since the term "Metis" is included in the Constitution Act, and since increasing numbers of people are identifying themselves as Metis it just might be possible to look at the term "Metis" as a solution, instead of insisting that it is a problem.
By definition, Metis communities were founded by people who were willing to reach across the gap between the European and Aboriginal cultures. By whatever name they were called, historic Metis communities became legendary for their hospitality. It was to these communities that young colonists and mixed-blood children fled from the bigotry and oppression of European colonies. It was in these communities that "the people that nobody owns" (and in many cases nobody wanted) built their cultures on a co-operative and primal relationship to the land. It was in these communities that people created and evolved a new identity. From almost any perspective, that sounds more like the basis for a solution than a problem.
There are still, of course, many practical and thorny
issues to be addressed, before such a solution becomes realistic. In the
first section of this paper, it was indicated that a distinction should
be made between identity and definition. It is also necessary to make careful
distinction in the terminology that is applied to those aspects of identity
and definition that involve membership, residence, citizenship, and even
nationality. How they all relate to one another in the context of eligibility
for benefit and Aboriginal and Treaty rights is not something that should
be taken for
granted. The careless use of this terminology can generate
even more confusion, fear and anxiety on every side of the issue.
From a practical point of view, it is useful 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. Fortunately that question cannot be answered in the abstract. There are no abstract Metis. Any individual who identifies as a Metis has a specific history and a precise genealogy --even if a given individual may not know that history or have recorded that genealogy.
If the specific history and genealogy of an individual who identifies himself or herself as Metis has no demonstrable relationship to a specific time and place in which a comprehensive or specific claim can be made, than that individual has no eligibility for claim. It is, hoever, not necessary to deny that individual his claim to Metis identity, in order to exclude that particular individual from a particular claim. The point is that criteria and definitions that are required in the context of membership, residence, citizenship, and nationality, need not be applied to the processes of identity.
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.
Again, it is not necessary to deny that individual the right to claim Metis identity, in order to prevent him or her from unjustly claiming benefit from a particular 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. Again, it is not necessary to deny those individuals the right to identify as Metis in order to protect the rights and privileges and responsibility of the citizens defined in the context of a particular agreement.
The only situation in which real difficulty arises is one in which a given community or region or organization proposes that their local or regional criteria or definition for membership, residence, citizenship, and nationality be the only criteria applied anyone, anywhere who identifies himself or herself as Metis.
From the perspective of some Metis, this is precisely what the Metis Nation Accord is proposing. In effect, the Accord proposes to be the only vehicle by which Metis identity can be legally achieved. See Appendix 2.
As has been pointed earlier, the Charlottetown Accord contains many seeds, which have a potential for fruitful resolution of many of the issues this paper has addressed. Those which are particularly significant for the resolution of Metis issues can be summarized as follows:
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
A basis for current development of accommodation processes becomes more apparent when these elements are combined with other principles contained in the accord, including:
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
Since all of these elements were unanimously agreed to by all Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants in the Charlottetown process, they provide an convenient starting point for current negotiations. The NCC has in fact, recently signed a political accord with the federal government that does precisely that.
The success of any of the initiatives proposed in this paper will hinge on the knowledge and awareness of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities of those processes. Unfortunately, many Canadians still think Aboriginal people are looking for a free lunch. Others think that Metis, because they are perceived to be "only part" Indian, have a lesser scale of Aboriginal right. Still others are totally ignorant of the existence of pre- and post-Red River Metis populations. All of the myths and misleading information that have been part of the Canadian nunderstanding of Aboriginal people in Canada must be challenged and changed.
For better or worse, Metis organizations, like their Indian and Inuit counterparts, have, in the past, been forced to concentrated their scarce resources on influencing decision-makers. It was presumed that if politicians and bureaucrats were better informed about Metis issues they would be more prepared to make positive decisions in respect to Metis concerns. That strategy has had some specific successes in terms of constitutional recognition, but it has been achieved at the cost of a scarcity of information at the community level.
As a recent Commission-sponsored study by the NCC of urban Aboriginal self-government shows, if the Charlottetown process failed anywhere, it failed in communicating to the urban Aboriginal community. The level of suspicion and misinformation surrounding the Accord and the intent of the national leadership was high. If any of the above processes and techniques are going to be effective, that situation, too, has to be challenged and changed.
That is going to require a long term campaign of re-education.
It is going to mean changes, not only to curriculum, but to the education
system itself, in terms of Metis input and participation. It is going to
mean a consistent form of resourcing to Metis communities so that the education
processes can be carried on within and by the Metis community
in remote, rural, and urban settings. It is going to mean the development
of independent Metis media, to get the Metis perspective into public consciousness.
Fundamentally it means a massive implementation of all of the cultural
and political initiatives Metis people have been pressing for decades.
Unilateral Assertion of Rights
If the events of Oka did nothing else, they woke Canadians up to the fact that Aboriginal issues have serious implication for all Canadians. It certainly demonstrated that failures in negotiation at even a local level can have national, and very expensive repercussions. It also sent a message to every Aboriginal community in the country, Metis included, that it was time to stand up. When negotiations fail, when the will to accommodate is dissipated, Aboriginal people are forced into the unilateral assertion of their rights.
This is not the work of radicals or trouble makers with a hidden agenda. It is certainly not the work of criminals. It has become the business of ordinary Aboriginal Canadians, with their backs to the wall, who are defending a way of life. In Labrador, where the very existence of the Metis population is being denied, a middle-aged woman is challenging the provincial laws which would prevent her from doing what her family has done for generations. She is casting her net in the water to catch a meal of fish, and to establish her continuing right as a commercial fisherman.
The standing ovation Ms.Violet Brown of Paradise River received at the NCC Annual Assembly when she declared she was ready to go back out and face criminal charges again was a clear indication of the mood of Aboriginal people all across Canada. If the processes of accommodation fail, then the unilateral assertion of rights becomes the only direct action left open to people. This is particularly true of Metis people who, for the most part, do not have access to the resources of the federal government.
At the same time, those same people are faced with the combating the enormous resources of provincial governments whose laws are infringing on their Aboriginal and treaty rights. Court decisions in recent years, have been largely helpful to the cause of Metis fishing and hunting rights, but civil courts are expensive. It is more economical, for the people involved, to be charged with an offense and have the state pay the expense of a trial. It may be useful to remind the accountants among us that Oka cost more in a few weeks, then all of the claims negotiation processes with Mohawk people for the last 200 years, combined.
Having come to the end of this paper, it now becomes necessary to propose what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples might do to be helpful in resolving some or all of the issues the paper has addressed. Having been forewarned that the Commission is emphasizing the "do-able" rather than a theoretical wish list, this paper will place its emphasis on possible recommendations of the Royal Commission that might be considered.
As must be evident from the content of this paper, 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 a 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.
A workshop on Metis Perspectives was held at the recent
annual meeting of the NCC, in part, to prepare for the Metis Circle. The
workshop also drafted a number of resolutions which were adopted by the
annual meeting. Two of these resolutions are addressed directly to the
Royal Commission:
Resolution #27 - Recognition of Metis in Section 91(24)
Whereas, Metis are recognized as one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and
Whereas other Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, Indian and Inuit, are recognized as a legislative responsibility and fiduciary obligation of the Federal Government of Canada; and
Whereas Most current research on the subject, including that contracted by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, strongly suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada, if asked, would include Metis in Section 91(24);
and
Whereas the Native Council of Canada successfully negotiated an all-government agreement in the Charlottetown constitutional reform processthat the constitution would be amended (for greater clarity) to affirm that all Aboriginal people are included in Section 91(24).
Therefore be it resolved that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples be called upon to include in their final report to Parliament a recommendation that the Constitution be amended as per the Charlottetown agreement to affirm that all Aboriginal Peoples are included in Section 91(24):and
Be it further resolved that if constitutional amendment prove impractical, that RCAP be called upon to recommend that the federal government formally affirm in Parliament that Metis, like Indians and Inuit are included in Section 91(24); and
Be it further resolved that failing Federal unilateral declaration, a reference be made to the Supreme Court of Canada to include Metis in section 91(24).
Moved by:Ginette Racette Seconded by: Rejean Pilote Carried
Resolution #28 - Metis Identity and Definition
Whereas, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has a mandate to address the concerns of all Aboriginal peoples in Canada; and
Whereas, the Native Council of Canada was the national voice of Metis in every part of Canada when the term "Metis" was negotiated into Section 35 the Constitution Act, 1982 by representatives of the Native Council of Canada.
Therefore be it resolved that this General Annual Meeting of the Native Council of Canada call on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples to highlight this fact in their final report on issues relating to Metis people in Canada; and
Be it further resolved that the Royal Commission be called upon to avoid recommendations which would restrict the application or definition of the term "Metis" to any particular region of Canada, or would permit any organization or group of organizations to deny the Metis identity of any individual solely on the basis that the person was not a member of that organization or group of organizations.
Moved By: Frank Palmater Seconded by: Claude Aubin Carried
There were five other resolutions relating to Metis issues adopted by the general meeting which address concerns presented in this paper.
They are attached as Appendix 4.