"I, myself, am a question which is addressed to the world, and I must communicate my answer, for otherwise I am dependent on the world's answer." C.G. Jung 

The questions "Who am I?" and "Who are you?" are among the most fundamental in modern human experience. The possible responses to those questions are as variable as the human condition and the cultures that produce those conditions. The response from a given individual or community or nation, can also vary with time, place and circumstance. To give a valid response, the conditions under which the question is asked -- and answered-- must be fully understood. To avoid misunderstanding it must be clear what question this section of this paper will attempt to answer, which is: 

"Who are the Métis referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?" 

It is necessary to be equally clear about why the question is being asked. Although the term "Métis" is used in the Constitution to identify one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, the term itself is not defined. At this precise point, the issue of identity and the issue of definition are at least distinct, if not actually different. If only for purposes of clarity, this paper will maintain that distinction and/or difference for as long as it will serve to increase understanding of the issues. That means there are several other questions to answer: 

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

and 

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

The last question is the simplest to answer. The first two questions are being asked because there appears to be differences of opinion in both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community as to how those questions might be answered. There are political, legal, economic, cultural, and social repercussions which are dependent on the answers to those questions. And given the basic purposes of this paper, the Commission is asking for advice and information on how to address these questions so they can fulfill their mandate. 

The first question is more difficult to answer because the answer relies on the response to still more questions. It is necessary to have some idea of why anyone wants to call him/herself Métis. It is also necessary to know why anyone else should care if a person calls him/herself Metis, or not. At the risk of backing into the conclusions that might be drawn from this paper, the paper will begin by establishing a framework for Métis identity before addressing the separate issue of definition. Research papers previously contracted by the Commission deal in considerable detail with how the term "Métis" has been used, and how that usage has changed and varied in different places and times. There is general agreement that there are three fundamental factors involved in Métis identity. These are: 

1. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry 

2. Self-Declaration 

3. Community validation or acceptance 

As straightforward as that list might seem at first glance, it only takes us forward a few steps before it begins to generate as many problems as it solves. Each of these three conditions for Métis identity are individually capable of generating many fears and anxieties. If narrowly interpreted, the three conditions taken together could prevent almost any given individual from being recognized as a Métis within the context of Section 35, including Louis Riel, himself. If the list is given the broadest possible interpretation, there are up to 10 millions of Canadians who can claim to be Métis if they so choose, including the former Prime Minister the Right Honourable Pierre Elliot Truau, himself. 

This paper stands at the entrance of a very treacherous maze. In order to address these issues this paper must, as was pointed out earlier, examine the backdrop against which these criteria for identity arise.