The inappropriate application of Euro-Canadian terminology to North American Aboriginal peoples has become a popular subject in recent years. Still, it cannot be denied that if there is one over-riding issue in the dialogue between Metis people and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, it is the issue of Metis identity and how, or if, or by whom, the term is defined. 

The issue of who is, or is not, an Indian or an Inuit is complex, but in most cases quickly boils down to a few fundamental issues on which most people can at least agree to disagree. Somehow, the issue of who identifies as French, or English, or German, or Chinese, or even Canadian rarely seems to come up. The issue of Métis identity, however, seems, like quick silver, to multiply in complexity the more it is touched on. 

In order to stay focused on the potential for useful solutions to the issues raised in this paper, all of the factors in the discussion on identity and definition will be related to the use of the term "Métis" in the Constitution Act of 1982 as a fulcrum on which everything else is balanced. 

To understand why this issue is so mercurial, the backdrop against which terminology related to Métis has developed must be carefully outlined. The semantic issue has been exhaustively explored elsewhere but this paper will examine the framework of human interaction in which Métis identity and definition take place. It will certainly be necessary to refer to legal and academic issues, but this paper intends to focus more sharply on the human factors involved in those issues. 

Métis have been referred to as a living bridge between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal cultures. At one meeting, the Métis Commissioner, Paul Chartrand, pointed out that bridges have to expect to be walked on by both sides. In another context, Métis could also be described as living treaties between Indian and non-Aboriginal cultures. Both of these images help to explain why Métis is so hard to define. Like mercury, the concept of Métis identity is at once fluid and elusive. 

In an effort to be helpful, this paper will attempt to clarify the context in which issues of identity and definition take place. There is no question that the issue is an emotional minefield and is too often over-heated when the issues of identity, membership, citizenship, nationality, and beneficiary are carelessly mixed together. This issue is further complicated when the factors of identity and factors related to definition are confused with each other. By examining all of these factors separately, it may be possible to trace a critical path to a workable solution to the issues raised by identity and definition. 

It will also be necessary to examine a number of factors in terms of their effect on the context in which Métis identity is formulated. The paper will demonstrate that the use of terminology significantly, and often negatively affects Métis identity. There are also effects generated by cultural, socio-economic, historical and political circumstances. 

The paper will describe cultural circumstances which seem to foster Metis identity and other cultural circumstances in which Métis identity does not seem to develop at all. Historical factors are more significant for some Métis groups than for others, but they certainly must be taken into account. This is particularly necessary where the popular history of a particular era or area masks, ignores, obscures, or misrepresents the existence of a Métis population. Métis populations were perceived (and perceived themselves) differently in different periods of Canadian history. 

Finally, the paper will look at the effects of other factors that are often ignored or avoided. The creation of borders has a marked impact on the way in which Métis populations were treated. In the modern area the legal and academic theory has had a major impact on both public and official perception of how and where Metis people fit in the emerging negotiations between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians. All of these factors influence how Métis perceived themselves in Canada and how they were and are perceived by other Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal populations. Each must be examined in order to understand the issue of Metis identity and definition.