|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Preface
When I was first invited to participate in the conference on Métis Identity and Definition, I made the mistaken assumption that the conference would be a fairly conventional academic process. Accordingly my original draft was designed to explore the possibility that Métis identity was, fundamentaly, the core of Canadian identity and that Métis/Canadian identity had, in fact, been co-opted by Confederation. I wanted to test this idea out among academics.
When I arrived in Peterborough I was surprised to learn that half, if not more, of the participants would be officials of various Ministries of Natural Resources. Presuming they would be considerably less interested in my esoteric subject of Canadian/Métis identity issues, I quickly re-drafted my presentation to emphasize those issues that might help these officials consider options for the process of dealing with Métis Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and their impact on MNR policy development.
Since I was schedulled to make the last presentation on the first day of the conference, I spent most of that day listening to other presenters and participating in question/answer exchanges. This experience made me aware that a number of the issues I had intended to address were already covered by others in their presentations. The questions of other participants also made me aware that there was a significant lack of information in terms of the practical on-the-ground application of government policy which should be addressed.
As a result of all this, and in a honest effort to be helpful to government people who had given up their weekend to learn something about Métis issues, I radically altered my presentation. I selected those segments of my original draft which I thought would be most applicable and linked them together with some off-the-cuff experiences and opinions about these on-the-ground-issues. Following the presentation, I was aksed by several participants if copies of my paper would be available. I advised them the text would be put up on this site and they could download a draft from here.
Since the text of the presentation is quite long, I have also included
an Executive Summary and a postscript - AfterThought - to summarize some
of my reactions to the Conference.
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
The purpose of this presentation is fourfold:
1. To describe the historical development of Métis populations everywhere in North America.
2. To identify existing Métis populations in the context of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
3. To explore the often destructive relationship between the process of Métis identity building and the exercise of defining the term "Métis."
4. To consider some of the obstacles to the Metis exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
5. To consider some factors related to the accommodation of the Metis exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
The presention, via a brief outline of the historical development of mixed blood communites in North America, shows how a variety of terminology was applied to these populations. The presentation suggests that the descendants of these populations in Canada, via the negotiation of the term "Métis" into the Constitution Act of 1982 by the Native Council of Canada, are entitled to identify themselves of Métis persons and/or communities.
The presentation proposes that the process of "metissage" -- the creation of mixed blood/Métis populations, and the academic or legal exercise of applying terminology and definition to Métis populations are mutually destructive. The paper suggests that, by separating the two initiatives - identity and definition - it may be possible to create realistic government policy without unitalerally or illegitimately restricting the number of people who identify as Métis.
By concentrating on the determination of "beneficiaries" to specfic Métis Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, the paper suggests, it becomes possible to "manage" the number of those exercising hunting or fishing rights on a specific territory without unilaterally imposing restrictive definitions.
The paper identifies a range of historic and current factors related to government, other Aboriginal peoples, and the public in general which obstruct the recognition of Métis identity, and accommodation and exercise of Métis Aboriginal and Treaty rights. It also makes some suggestions as to how those factors can be reversed by treating the concept of Métis as part of a solution to accommodating Aboriginal people in Canada rather than as a "problem" to be managed.
If the premise and argument of the presentation is followed to its natural conclusion it becomes evident that Métis identity in and of itself does not inevitably give rise to elligibility to benefits or the exercise of Aboriginal or Treaty Rights. That elligbility is dependent on historical circumstance related to use and occupancy of land, or to descendency from a Treaty situation. In that context it is evident that the community to which the benfit or right applies should determine which Metis individuals should be elligible for that benefit or the exercise of a specific right.
As a corollary conclusion, the presentation also proposes that definition
of Métis should not be used as a technique to identify those elligible
for a benefit or right, particularly when that process of identification
might exclude or interfere with a Métis identity building process.
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
As in every conference of this type, the interaction of participants before and after the formal presentations are often more revealing in terms of evaluating the effectiveness or success of the exercise. As a personal experience, the conference as an unqualified success for me. Quite apart from the rare experience of being in an environment where the sole source of discussion and interaction revolved around Métis concerns, I learned a great deal from some of the other presenters and several doors have been opened into the new areas of exploration for me.
The fact that there were two distinct sets of peoples there -- academics and MNR officials -- created an interesting dynamic in which both sets of people found many of their preconceptions about Métis challenged. There was an air of open academic exchange which was successfully grounded in the need to address very real government policy problems in dealing with Métis Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.
I don't mean to suggest that everything I, or anybody else, said immediately enlightened all concerned and will result in more positive and effective government policy. In fact, I had the distinct sensation that more than a few MNR officials and at least one Métis academic thought I was right out of my tree. But even those people were exposed, at least, to ideas and realities it would be difficult to find anywhere else.
I have said in the context of many meetings that I am often paid to be paranoid. From that point of view there was much to be concerned about at the conference. The fixation of both academics and MNR officials alike that the easiest and most effective way to "solve the Métis problem" is to limit the number of people who identify as Métis is profoundly disturbing. The extent to which both sets of people have difficulty seeing beyond the borders of either conservative academia (18-19th century fur trade) or the government party line (conflict management technique) is actually depressing.
Nevertheless, it was a good conference. Many good ideas were
shared. And it may well be that something proactive will come of
it in terms of a fresh approach or perspective in dealing with the reality
of Métis peoples. I am grateful for the invitation to participate
and I hope there will be others like it.
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||