For the purposes of Metis 101, I am going to focus on the current Metis context -- that is,  the period since the constitutionalization of the term ÏMetisÓ in the Constitution Act of 1982. Whatever the term meant in whatever part of North America prior to 1982, it now has a specific legal place (although not a definition) in the highest official law of Canada.   There can no longer be a legal doubt that Metis (whoever they are) are an Aboriginal people in Canada.  Metis have been saying so for centuries. The constitution now agrees with us, and several court decisions from the Supreme Court on down since 1982 say as much. <Note 6>

It is also an inescapable fact the term ÏMetisÓ is not defined in the constitution at all, or by the courts except for the specific and narrow purposes of a given application or situation.  Without a definition we are left with a fluid situation when it come to determining who can legitimately identify themselves as a Metis person within the meaning of the Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982.  For a detailed presentation on the distinction between Metis definition and Metis identity see the following links  [Link 8] [Link 9] [Link 10]

There is nowhere near a sufficient consensus, even among Metis themselves, as to how that question can be answered.  But I suggest there is a real and practical basis from which an answer can developed.  It seems reasonable to methat we should  begin with an examination of the intent of those who placed the term ÏMetisÓ into the constitution.

The Holy Trinity of Metis Identity/Definition

The question then begins to focus on who those Metis people referred to in the constitution are and what they had in common.  There are three factors which can be identified very quickly.  All of these people had both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry (or were related to such people by marriage or adoption.)  All of these people publicly identified themselves as Metis.   And all of these people were recognized as Metis within their respective community -- often (prior to 1983) by membership in a specific NCC affiliate. <Note 7>

In fact all 17 delegations to the First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Matters between 1983 and 1992 agreed these were the criteria on which Metis definition/identity must be based. At a minimum, then, the constituency of the NCC in 1982 who identified themselves as Metis and their descendants are unquestionably entitled to identify themselves as Metis today, within the meaning Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

I donÌt mean to imply that NCC constituents in 1982 are the only people who can call themselves Metis today.  The sharp rise in Metis census figures (or figures for all Aboriginal people for that matter) since 1981 is statistical evidence of the fact that literally thousands of Canadians are discovering or re-asserting their Metis roots.  Many, if not most of these people donÌt, and may never belong to any Aboriginal organization but the genetic and/or cultural Metis heritage of many of these people cannot be sucessfully challenged.

I also donÌt mean to imply that everyone who identifies themselves as Metis is, in fact Metis.  As more benefits and programs become available to Metis recipients, there are those -- both Indian and white -- who only pose as Metis to reap whatever financial or service benefit they can.  Fortunately most of these people simply drift away once the benefit is exhausted and rarely contribute to or become a permanent part of the Metis community. 

There is another set of factors related to cultural orientation which must be taken into consideration.  Given the 500+ year history of Metis on this continent, and the racial bigotry imposed on Aboriginal Canadians for most of that period, it is hardly surprising that Aboriginal ancestry became a dark secret in the family closet of hundreds of thousands,  (millions if you include Quebec) of Canadians.  As a result there is a broad range of social/cultural situations in which Metis descendants find themselves.  See a detailed description at: [Link 11]

Briefly described, we can recognize that there is a sliding scale between Metis descendants who are Traditional and those who are, for most purposes assimilated into the general Canadian population.  Between the two extremes there are those who hold or experience a kind of Dual Citizenship between the two sets of parent cultures.  From my own point of view all of these people are entitled to identify themselves as Metis within the meaning of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Now we are faced with the much more problematic issue of what are, if any, the rights and/or benefits to which this huge variety of Metis peoples might be entitled.  Again, a more detailed discussion of these issues are dealt with in an article at: [Link 11a]

For purposes of this discussion it is enough to propose that a careful distinction must be made between definition and identity on the one hand and eligibility for rights and eligibility for benefits on the other hand..  If a definition of Metis was to be based only on whether or not a given individual or community had land claims, the number of -legitimate- Metis in Canada would be reduced by at least two-thirds.  If all people of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry were somehow forced to identify themselves as Metis, then virtually every Canadian who had ancestors here in 1867 (outside of Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City) would likely have to call themselves Metis -- including most Indians today. 

That is clearly a ridiculous situation which is fortunately avoided by the ÏrequirementÓ for self-identification.  Regardless of bloodlines, if a person does not identify him/herself as Metis then that person is, in any pragmatic sense, not Metis.  People of mixed blood who identify themselves as Indians for example are not Metis.  They are clearly and legitimately Indians.  People who --in spite of their mixed blood -- have chosen to assimilate into the general Canadian population have every right to do exactly that.  They too, are not Metis.  But that should not infringe on the right of some individuals,and even groups, to maintain a dual citizenship between either Indian and Metis identification or Metis and white identification. Who does it hurt? <Note 8>