UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Metis aboriginal title Bell, Catherine Edith 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A6_4 B44.pdf [ 17.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077709.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077709-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077709-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077709-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077709-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077709-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077709-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077709-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077709.ris

Full Text

METIS ABORIGINAL  TITLE  by CATHERINE EDITH B E L L B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Regina, 1982 L.L.B., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f Law  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1989 (g>  C a t h e r i n e E d i t h B e l l , 1989  In  presenting  degree freely  at  the  available  copying  of  department publication  this  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or for  her  of  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  5#. f?8?  I  I further  purposes  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  Department  study.  of  be  It not  that  the  be  Library  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  by  understood allowed  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  copying my  my or  written  ii ABSTRACT  T h i s t h e s i s i s a l e g a l a n a l y s i s of the o r i g i n and p e r s i s t e n c e of  Metis  aboriginal  title  as  an  independent  p o p u l a r d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e natural  rights  title.  A  examination 1.  o f the M e t i s  theory  of  Metis  and  legal  right.  i s r e j e c t e d i n f a v o u r o f the  first  title  principles  is  developed  of  aboriginal  through  the  inclusion  of M e t i s  peoples  j u r i s d i c t i o n over M e t i s c l a i m s ;  3.  natural  rights  recognition  of  of  i n s.35(2) o f  the  1982;  2.  indigenous  natural  international positive  rights  peoples in  and  the  domestic  and  law;  4.  n a t u r a l r i g h t s of the M e t i s N a t i o n of Manitoba; and  5.  the  persistence of  Metis  title  u n i l a t e r a l and consensual a c t s o f  importance  the  of:  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Act.  The  The  examination  of  natural  rights  in  the  face  of  extinguishment. reveals  of n a t u r a l t h e o r i e s i n a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e  an  increased  cases.  These  t h e o r i e s p r o v i d e the b a s i s upon which M e t i s c l a i m s t o t i t l e can be l i n k e d t o a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e c l a i m s and d o c t r i n e s o f can be re-examined.  extinguishment  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE  i  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OP CONTENTS  iii -vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  v i i  CHAPTER 1 - I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF THE METIS PEOPLE Introduction I  II  " A b o r i g i n a l Peoples"  3  The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Term "Peoples"  3  (a)  Collective Beneficiaries  3  (b)  D e f i n i t i o n o f t h e word "Peoples"  9  (c)  Temporal C o n s i d e r a t i o n s  17  2.  Who i s an A b o r i g i n a l and What i s an A b o r i g i n a l Group?  19  3.  Summary  24  Who a r e t h e M e t i s ?  25  1.  The Comparative Approach  26  2.  Historical, Political,  3. III  1  The Impact o f t h e Phrase 1.  1  and L e g a l Usage o f  the Term " M e t i s "  34  R e s o l u t i o n o f t h e D e f i n i t i o n Debate  39  S t a n d i n g t o Sue  42  1.  Introduction  42  2.  Standing  44  Endnotes  49-59  CHAPTER 2 - J U R I S D I C T I O N OVER METIS CLAIMS  60  I  A r e t h e M e t i s s. 91(24) Indians?  60  II  Lands Reserved  69  III  J u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e Question o f A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e  F o r Indians  74  iv 1.  Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n s  74  2.  Land Claims L i t i g a t i o n  78  Endnotes  85-91  CHAPTER 3 - A NATURAL THEORY OF ABORIGINAL T I T L E Introduction I  II  III  IV  92 92  I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the N a t u r a l Law  Tradition  94  Survey of B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s  94  1.  A General  2.  A N a t u r a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P r o p e r t y R i g h t s  105  (a)  Historical  105  (b)  Contemporary Views  111  (c)  Fundamental P r o p e r t y R i g h t s  113  N a t u r a l Law  Views  and the O r i g i n o f A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e o f Nations  114  1.  N a t u r a l Law  and the Law  114  2.  N a t u r a l Law  and T h e o r i e s of A c q u i s i t i o n  119  3.  N a t u r a l Law  and B r i t i s h  Jurisprudence  128  4.  N a t u r a l Law  and B r i t i s h  Practice  134  5.  Concluding Remarks  138  N a t u r a l Law and the Common Law Aboriginal T i t l e  Doctrine of  140  1.  The American D o c t r i n e  141  2.  The  154  3.  Canadian D e c i s i o n s  Commonwealth D o c t r i n e  Summary of a N a t u r a l Law Title  156 Theory on  Aboriginal  Endnotes CHAPTER 4 - NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE METIS NATION OF MANITOBA Introduction  172 176 - 193  194 194  V  I  II  Positivist  Share i n A b o r i g i n a l A n c e s t r y  197  2.  R e c o g n i t i o n of M e t i s T i t l e  202  3.  Arguments A g a i n s t M e t i s T i t l e  205  N a t u r a l R i g h t s o f the Manitoba M e t i s  215  1.  Proof o f T i t l e  215  2.  I d e n t i f i a b l e Group  221  (a)  Aboriginality  221  (b)  The M e t i s People  229  4.  O r i g i n a l or P r e s c r i p t i v e Rights R i g h t s of the Cree, A s s i n i b o i n e and Saulteaux  241  (b)  Hudson's Bay Company T i t l e  247  (c)  Title  256  (d)  Conclusion  268  Metis T e r r i t o r y  269  i n the Crown  Summary o f a N a t u r a l Theory on M e t i s T i t l e  271  Endnotes  275 - 289  CHAPTER 5 - PERSISTENCE  II  240  (a)  Appendix t o Chapter  I  196  1.  3.  III  Arguments For and A g a i n s t M e t i s T i t l e  4 - H i s t o r i c a l Outline OF METIS T I T L E  290 - 284 296  Introduction  296  The Q u e s t i o n of U n i l a t e r a l Extinguishment  299  1.  Common Law  299  2.  N a t u r a l Law  Analysis  302  The P e r s i s t e n c e of M e t i s R i g h t s  308  1.  Defence t o U n i l a t e r a l Extinguishment  308  2.  Defences t o Consensual  319  Extinguishment  vi  III  IV  (a)  Freedom o f Choice  322  (b)  V i o l a t i o n of t h e Agreement Reached  324  (c)  Immoral E x e r c i s e o f D i s c r e t i o n  333  Translation  i n t o Domestic P o s i t i v e Law  334  1.  Breach o f F i d u c i a r y O b l i g a t i o n  335  2.  Breach o f Agreement  336  3.  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Competence  338  The Hard Case  339  Endnotes  342 - 350  B I B L I O G R A P H Y  351 - 360  vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The  author g r a t e f u l l y  of  P r o f e s s o r s Douglas  to  Douglas The  its  Sanders  and  support.  Sanders  and M i c h a e l J a c k s o n .  f o r h i s t i m e and  author a l s o thanks  financial  Robert  a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e a s s i s t a n c e and  support  of  Geraldine Bell  Special  advice thanks  efforts.  t h e F e d e r a l Department o f J u s t i c e f o r  this  project.  for their  Loving  continuous  appreciation  encouragement  to and  1 CHAPTER 1  IDENTIFICATION OF THE  METIS PEOPLE  Introduction Throughout the course of Canadian h i s t o r y v a r i o u s terms have been  adopted  to  refer  to  Canada's  I n d i a n s , s t a t u s I n d i a n s , non-status  native  population  including  Indians, t r e a t y Indians,  non-  t r e a t y Indians, I n u i t , Metis, half-breeds, r e g i s t e r e d Indians,  non-  registered  Indians  partially  due  definitions  to  for  and the  urban  Indians.  This  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  various  native  legal  groups  fragmentation  and  is  administrative  through  federal  Indian  l e g i s l a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e programs which e s s e n t i a l l y c r e a t e d f o u r legal  categories  Indians,  Inuit  "Metis.") federal  of and  native  people:  half-breeds  status  (now  Indians,  commonly  referred  F u r t h e r d i v i s i o n s have been c r e a t e d by responsibility  for  Metis  and  non-status to  as  the d e n i a l of  non-status  Indians,  the  u n i t i n g o f these groups i n t o n a t i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r the purpose of a c h i e v i n g s o c i a l and both  groups as disadvantaged  provincial  governments  economic g o a l s common t o  a b o r i g i n a l populations,  (namely  Alberta  e s t a b l i s h programs i n response t o the  and  attempts  Saskatchewan)  e x c l u s i o n o f these  by to  groups  from f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , and the movement back t o s e g r e g a t i o n of M e t i s and non-status as  a distinct  A c t , 1982.  1  Indian i s s u e s a f t e r the r e c o g n i t i o n o f M e t i s  a b o r i g i n a l people  35(2)  o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n  As a r e s u l t of these developments, the  of I n d i a n s , M e t i s and non-status exercise.  i n s.  identification  Indians has become a  complicated  2 The  most  recent  legal  d e f i n i t i o n of  found i n s. 35 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n  which  aboriginal  peoples  is  states:  35(1) The e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s o f the a b o r i g i n a l peoples of Canada are hereby r e c o g n i z e d and affirmed. 35(2) In t h i s A c t , " a b o r i g i n a l peoples o f Canada" i n c l u d e s the Indian, I n u i t and M e t i s peoples o f Canada. Unfortunately, definition  this  fairly  problems as the  l e f t open f o r debate. because i t w i l l  simple  division  selection  s p e c i f y the c l a s s of persons  p o l i c y and  definition usage  of  35  i s the  l o g i c a l basis  o f the M e t i s as the  term  elements i n s.35  "Metis"  may  through the p r o c e s s  as an a b o r i g i n a l from  which t o  i t c o n t a i n s the as  an  25  The debate i s of p a r t i c u l a r  I n d i a n peoples and who,  have been denied r e c o g n i t i o n  Section  is  t o whom s e c t i o n s  l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n have been excluded  f e d e r a l schemes designed t o b e n e f i t recently,  identifying criteria  t o M e t i s and non-status Indians who  of p o l i t i c a l  numerous  The r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s debate i s s i g n i f i c a n t  and 35 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n w i l l apply. importance  of  creates  first  aboriginal  from until  people.  formulate  national  people.  a  legal Certain  h e l p i n the d e f i n i t i o n p r o c e s s i n c l u d i n g  the  d e s c r i p t i o n o f M e t i s as " a b o r i g i n a l s " and the c o l l e c t i v e r e f e r e n c e t o M e t i s "peoples."  However, one  is still  l e f t with a d e f i n i t i o n  which l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a t o i d e n t i f y the M e t i s as a d i s t i n c t group.  W i t h i n the c o n t e x t of s. 35, two  be adopted  t o develop  further  " M e t i s " may  be d e f i n e d  " I n u i t " and  " I n d i a n " i n s. 35(2)  meaning and  history.  d i f f e r e n t approaches  identification criteria.  The  may term  w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the i n c l u s i o n o f the term or i n accordance  w i t h i t s unique  3 I  T h e Impact o f t h e P h r a s e " A b o r i g i n a l  1.  The S i g n i f i c a n c e  (a)  Collective  o f t h e Term  Peoples"  "Peoples"  Beneficiaries  I t h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e word i n s . 35 r e f l e c t s t h e c o l l e c t i v e n a t u r e o f a b o r i g i n a l interpretation all  f a i l s t o account f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t y  aboriginal  "collective  rights  rights"  are  collective  h a s come  t o be u s e d  and  "peoples"  rights.  This  2  of proving  that  the  that  phrase  i n two d i f f e r e n t  ways.  A l t h o u g h t h e c o u r t s h a v e r u l e d on t h e c o l l e c t i v e n a t u r e o f s p e c i f i c aboriginal whether  an  aboriginal For  r i g h t s , t h e r e has n o t been a j u d i c i a l individual  aboriginal  group  by  reason  of  being  as a  collective  right  c a n o n l y be advanced by an the other  hand, t h e  r e c o g n i z e s t h e l e g a l e n t i t l e m e n t o f an i n d i v i d u a l  aboriginal  aboriginal  true  i s treated  of aboriginal  t o seek j u d i c i a l  may  title  i n a group and c l a i m s t o t i t l e  organized court  rights  o r b e c a u s e s h e i s a member i n a n a b o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i v e .  example,  vested  has a b o r i g i n a l  d e t e r m i n a t i o n on  seek t o e n f o r c e  rights  different  true  by v i r t u e  that  aboriginal  or f i s h .  Iti s  4  o f membership  in a  t h e i n d i v i d u a l , and n o t t h e  the right.  Further d i f f i c u l t y "group"  r i g h t s d e p e n d i n g on t h e  r i g h t t o hunt  accrues  but i s equally  exercises  On  F o r example, a n i n d i v i d u a l  an a b o r i g i n a l  one c a n s a y t h e r i g h t  group,  3  enforcement o f a b o r i g i n a l  right at issue.  collectivity,  people.  i s used  ways.  members h a v e t h a t  arises  from t h e f a c t t h a t  in political  The p h r a s e  refers  are exercised  " c o l l e c t i v e " or  and l e g a l t e r m i n o l o g y to rights  by i n d i v i d u a l s ,  which  only  i n two group  such as t h e r i g h t  4 to  hunt  and  fish.  a collectivity b a s e and  It also  s u c h as  linguistic  The  matter  classification  the  recognize  order." and  treaty  upon  the  is  further  of  r i g h t s " as  rights.  created.  involved  point  is  unnecessary  scope of  is  that in  of  the  term  As  peoples" instead the  with  interpretation,  as  economic  Supreme  Court's Douglas  5  of  Indian  "existing  the  Indian  is  legal  aboriginal  i n d i v i d u a l o r b o t h may  depend  community  of  can  only  the  not to  content  treaty rights."  s.  35  their  own  existing  provide  assume  clarify  of, The  within  below,  not  of  the  the  aboriginal the the  rights place to,  interpretation  c o l l e c t i v e nature  c o l l e c t i v e nature  " p e o p l e " may  to  terminology.  simply  According treaty  of  "aboriginal  distinct aboriginal  and  word  entitlement  reference  aboriginal  detailed  t h i s may  better the  to  that  and  a  that  Rather,  describing and  recognition  to  their application  of a s i n g l e a b o r i g i n a l  the  the  pre-contact  group r i g h t s .  discussed  g o v e r n m e n t s ' new  accordance  the  by  one  " p e o p l e s " as  beneficiaries rights.  an  of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n  this thesis  s.35  r e s t r i c t i o n s on  to view the  collectivity  7  " e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l and  their  right  c o l l e c t i v e or  is  a  pre-existing.  classification  that  included  are  by  as  implications  c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s and  The  "peoples"  rights  c o l l e c t i v e or  of  i s beyond the of  complicated  aboriginal  treatment  analysis  of  self-government,  " I n d i a n r i g h t s b a s e d on  w h i c h i t was It  rights  rights to  Consequently the  6  to  survival.  Sanders suggests t h a t the to  refers  reflect  groups to  rights  in  this of  the  a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s ; whether c o l l e c t i v e , i n d i v i d u a l or a combination of both,  are  r e c o g n i z e d and  affirmed  by  s.  35.  5 I f one a c c e p t s t h e above argument, t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e ways to  read s. 35(2).  The f i r s t assumes t h a t t h e r e a r e t h r e e d i s t i n c t  a b o r i g i n a l peoples  i n Canada - t h e Indian, I n u i t , and M e t i s .  The  second assumes t h a t "peoples" r e f e r s t o numerous s m a l l e r a b o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e t h r e e broader  named groups.  That  i s , t h e a b o r i g i n a l peoples o f Canada a r e t h e I n d i a n peoples,  Inuit  peoples,  and M e t i s peoples  o f Canada.  There a r e s e v e r a l  reasons  why t h e second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s p r e f e r a b l e t o t h e f i r s t i n c l u d i n g : 1.  Groups which i d e n t i f y as I n u i t , I n d i a n and M e t i s view themselves as d i s t i n c t from o t h e r  self-  i d e n t i f y i n g groups o f I n u i t , I n d i a n and M e t i s ; 2.  Contemporary a b o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s for  organized  s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l o r l e g a l reasons may draw  t h e i r membership from two o r more o f t h e named groups i n s.35(2) and t h e r e f o r e w i l l n o t f a l l  within  any p a r t i c u l a r named group; and 3.  C u l t u r a l , s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s among a b o r i g i n a l groups r e s u l t i n t h e law t r e a t i n g them as d i s t i n c t  The  first  point  " a b o r i g i n a l people"  is  peoples. illustrated  by  the  definition  of  adopted by t h e J o i n t C o u n c i l o f t h e N a t i o n a l  I n d i a n Brotherhood i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n o f F i r s t  Nations:  " A b o r i g i n a l people" means t h e F i r s t Nations o r T r i b e s o f I n d i a n s i n Canada and each N a t i o n having t h e r i g h t t o d e f i n e i t s own c i t i z e n s h i p . 8  T h i s viewpoint Indian  i s expressed  organization  literature  and  i n the t i t l e  (The Assembly  government  of  literature.  9  of the national status First  Nations),  Similarly,  the  Indian Inuit  6 peoples  o f Canada  a r e viewed  as a d i s t i n c t  composed o f v a r i o u s t r i b e s o r bands.  group,  but a group  10  Among t h e M e t i s , t h e r e i s disagreement whether t h e M e t i s a r e a s i n g l e people variety  o r s e v e r a l peoples.  o f mixed  M e t i s people.  blood  aboriginal  This i s reflected  However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t a collectivities  identify  as a  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g statement  by a  New Brunswick member o f t h e N a t i v e C o u n c i l o f Canada: There i s no one e x c l u s i v e M e t i s People i n Canada, anymore than t h e r e i s no one e x c l u s i v e I n d i a n people i n Canada. The M e t i s o f e a s t e r n Canada and n o r t h e r n Canada a r e as d i s t i n c t from t h e Red R i v e r M e t i s as any two peoples can be. Yet a l l a r e d i s t i n c t from I n d i a n communities by a n c e s t r y , by c h o i c e , and t h e i r s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as Metis. As e a r l y as 1650, a d i s t i n c t M e t i s community developed i n LeHeve, Nova S c o t i a , s e p a r a t e from Acadians and M i c Mac I n d i a n s . A l l M e t i s a r e a b o r i g i n a l people. A l l have I n d i a n a n c e s t r y . 11  An example o f t h e second p o i n t a r e t h e M e t i s people l i v i n g on the  settlements  i n northern  Alberta.  The M e t i s  Betterment A c t  which e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p r o v i n c i a l s e t t l e m e n t scheme d e f i n e s "Metis" on a r a c i a l b a s i s as persons w i t h a minimum o f 1/4 I n d i a n b l o o d who are n o t s t a t u s o r t r e a t y The  definition  reflects  Indians as d e f i n e d by t h e I n d i a n the f a c t  t h a t t h e persons  Act.  1 2  f o r whom t h e  s e t t l e m e n t s were c r e a t e d were not a s i n g l e people t h a t c o u l d t r a c e i t s o r i g i n s t o a d i s t i n c t I n d i a n o r M e t i s people. perhaps t h e m a j o r i t y )  Rather many (and  were Indians who s u r r e n d e r e d  r i g h t s o r were s t r u c k from government band l i s t s .  1 3  their  The c r e a t i o n  o f t h i s group o f s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g and l e g a l l y r e c o g n i z e d resulted  from  the p o l i t i c a l  unification  of  treaty  "people"  individuals  from  d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l groups who were f a c i n g s i m i l a r problems c r e a t e d by  poverty,  similar  homelessness,  economic  and  disease  social  and hunger  goals.  United  and were under  seeking  the  Metis  7 A s s o c i a t i o n o f A l b e r t a , they s u c c e s s f u l l y l o b b i e d f o r t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e M e t i s S e t t l e m e n t s . the  Metis  proposed  a r e moving  In t h e proposed M e t i s Settlements A c t ,  14  away  from  a  racial  definition  t h a t " M e t i s " be d e f i n e d as "an i n d i v i d u a l  and have  of aboriginal  a n c e s t r y who i d e n t i f i e s w i t h M e t i s h i s t o r y and c u l t u r e . "  1 5  Although  t h i s suggests a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h a s i n g l e M e t i s people, i t does not change t h e o r i g i n a l composition  o f t h e group o r a s s i s t us i n the  p r o c e s s o f d e f i n i n g who t h e M e t i s people a r e . I t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed among academics t h a t s. 35 entrenches a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s as they e x i s t e d a t A p r i l some disagreement  whether  the section  r e s t r i c t e d and f u t u r e r i g h t s . 1982 and  1 6  17, 1982 b u t t h e r e i s  applies t o extinguished,  I t i s c l e a r t h a t up t o A p r i l 17,  Canadian law r e c o g n i z e d I n d i a n t r i b e s as d i s t i n c t responded  t o them as separate groups.  only r e f l e c t e d i n a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e cases, l e g a l documents.  17  The h i s t o r i c a l treatment  societies  T h i s approach i s not but a l s o i n h i s t o r i c a l o f Indians as d i s t i n c t  peoples i s i l l u s t r a t e d by Douglas Sanders i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e x t e n t o f r e c o g n i t i o n by Canadian law o f l e g a l o r d e r s e s t a b l i s h e d by I n d i a n s o c i e t i e s p r i o r t o European s e t t l e m e n t : The Royal P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1763 r e f e r r e d t o t h e " s e v e r a l n a t i o n s as t r i b e s o f Indians w i t h whom we a r e connected, and who l i v e under our p r o t e c t i o n . . ." The t r e a t i e s were made between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e Crown and l e a d e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g I n d i a n t r i b a l groups. Indian l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e r e s e r v e system i n v o l v e d t h e formal d e f i n i t i o n o f groups o f Indians as bands t h a t had c e r t a i n r i g h t s o f self-government on band-reserve l a n d . N a t i v e people argue t h a t one o f t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i s a r i g h t t o c o n t i n u e as s e l f - g o v e r n i n g communities. 18  This  legal  coupled  treatment  with  communities  of Indian  t h e focus  societies  on self-government  a t the F i r s t  Ministers  as d i s t i n c t f o r Indian  Conferences  on  peoples, and I n u i t aboriginal  8  matters, p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r support f o r the argument t h a t refers  to  smaller aboriginal  collectivities  o f the  "peoples"  t h r e e named  a b o r i g i n a l groups i n 35(2). A t t h i s p o i n t one might argue t h a t s. 35(2) r e f e r s t o a s i n g l e M e t i s people, but numerous d i s t i n c t I n d i a n and I n u i t p e o p l e s .  To  argue otherwise i s t o d i s t o r t the f a c t u a l h i s t o r y of the M e t i s and the emergence of the M e t i s as a d i s t i n c t s o c i e t y i n Western Canada. The  first  o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s s u g g e s t i o n i s i t s t r e t c h e s the  r e a d i n g of s. 35 and  i s grammatically  incorrect.  plain  Read p r o p e r l y ,  the words " I n d i a n , I n u i t and M e t i s " are c o o r d i n a t e m o d i f i e r s o f the word "peoples."  However, i t i s t r i t e t o base a l e g a l argument on  a grammatical  error.  depend on the  following:  1.  Rather, the r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s problem  The d e f i n i t i o n of the word "people."  may  I s the word  people synonymous t o " s t a t e " o r i s i t something less? 2.  The temporal nature o f the word people.  Does i t  r e f e r t o d i s t i n c t h i s t o r i c a l groups o r does i t encompass contemporary s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g 3.  The approach  adopted  in selecting  collectivities?  identifying  c r i t e r i a f o r the t h r e e named groups i n s. 35(2). Item 3 above i s d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l below.  For now,  l e t us  c o n c e n t r a t e on the p o t e n t i a l l i m i t s p l a c e d on the terms " I n d i a n " , " I n u i t " , and " M e t i s " by v i r t u e of t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the word "peoples."  The  q u e s t i o n which i s of key  i s whether the term  "people"  importance  t o the M e t i s  i s e q u i v a l e n t t o the term  "state".  I f yes, some c e r t a i n t y o r c r i t e r i a f o r d e f i n i n g the M e t i s i s made possible.  9  (b)  D e f i n i t i o n o f the Word  "Peoples"  P u b l i c i s t s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law have used the terms " n a t i o n " and  "state"  interchangeably  r e c o g n i z e d as s t a t e s by the i n t h i s sense, requirements  to  refer  to  those  communities  i n t e r n a t i o n a l community.  Understood  i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i d e n t i f i e s f o u r fundamental for a  state to  be  recognized  as  a  legal  entity,  namely: a permanent p o p u l a t i o n , a d e f i n e d t e r r i t o r y , a government and the a b i l i t y t o e n t e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s .  Some p u b l i c i s t s  1 9  would add t h a t the n a t i o n must a l s o be a r e c o g n i z e d member o f the f a m i l y of n a t i o n s .  Others  would d i l u t e the c r i t e r i a by  arguing  t h a t the f i r s t t h r e e elements are r e q u i s i t e elements o f the f o u r t h r a t h e r than t r e a t i n g the f o u r t h element s e p a r a t e l y . of  how  these debates are r e s o l v e d , o n l y one  21  Regardless  M e t i s group can meet  the c r i t e r i a - descendants of the Red R i v e r M e t i s who  i n the  late  18th c e n t u r y emerged as a d i s t i n c t n a t i o n a l group. Traditionalists  will  argue  that  mixed  blood  populations  o r i g i n a t e d i n E a s t e r n Canada from the time o f f i r s t c o n t a c t between Indians and  Europeans, but o n l y i n the North West d i d a d i s t i n c t  p o l i t i c a l and n a t i o n a l consciousness develop among the mixed blood population. geographic  Some argue t h i s consciousness and  social  isolation  i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the  of the M e t i s  populations  i n the  North West brought about by the discouragement o f s e t t l e m e n t the c o n t r o l of the f u r t r a d e . was  f o s t e r e d by  the North  i n the  collectivities  social  and  i n what was  Others argue t h a t M e t i s n a t i o n a l i s m  2 2  West Company i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t i t s  economic i n t e r e s t i n the West. itself  and  23  Whatever i t s source, i t manifested  political then  unification  of v a r i o u s  known as Ruperts  Metis  Land t o oppose  10 Canadian  expansions  into  t h e North  West  and  to constitute  a  d i s t i n c t people commonly r e f e r r e d t o as t h e M e t i s N a t i o n . From t h e m i d - s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y u n t i l  the e a r l y  nineteenth  c e n t u r y d i v e r s e M e t i s communities were forming i n Western Canada. The p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d o f two f a i r l y d i s t i n c t groups "the French M e t i s " o r B o i s B r u l e s , whose p a t e r n a l language was French, and the E n g l i s h M e t i s , whose p a t e r n a l language was E n g l i s h . " groups d i s t i n c t of  Metis  permanent  l i f e s t y l e s developed  who  hunted  sites  buffalo  i n t h e Red  fisherman, voyageurs,  and  Among these  i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n a l bands after  River  t h e hunt  region,  returned  trappers,  i n t e r p r e t e r s and f r e i g h t e r s .  to  farmers,  Although i t  2 5  i s c l e a r t h a t a d e f i n i t e p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n e v o l v e d around t h e b u f f a l o hunt, t h e d i v e r s e elements o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n d i d not  crystallize  i n t o a u n i t e d people  until  the early  nineteenth  century. It  is difficult  came i n t o b e i n g . as a people at  The development o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l  can be t r a c e d from t h e i r i n i t i a l  the B a t t l e  Selkirk  t o p i n p o i n t t h e exact date t h e M e t i s  o f Seven Oaks t o r e s i s t  Settlement,  to  the  consciousness  unification  the establishment  establishment  of  Nation  a  i n 1816 of the  provisional  government i n 1869 which n e g o t i a t e d what i s now known as Manitoba i n t o Canadian C o n f e d e r a t i o n .  26  Although Lord S e l k i r k was s u c c e s s f u l  i n e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s white s e t t l e m e n t , by 1871 t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e Red R i v e r c o n s i s t e d o f 5,720 French speaking M e t i s , 4,080 E n g l i s h speaking M e t i s and 1600 white  settlers.  2 7  A f t e r t h e c r e a t i o n o f Manitoba a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f M e t i s m i g r a t e d west and north-west of A l b e r t a .  i n t o what i s now Saskatchewan and p a r t  D i s t i n c t M e t i s communities w i t h t h e i r own  political  o r g a n i z a t i o n developed once a g a i n . lived.  The M e t i s , white  p o v e r t y , an  However, p r o s p e r i t y was s h o r t  s e t t l e r s and  Indians were t h r e a t e n e d  by  i n f l u x of s e t t l e r s and government imposed changes t o  the e x i s t i n g l a n d h o l d i n g system.  Numerous p e t i t i o n s were sent t o  Ottawa from v a r i o u s communities s e e k i n g a r e d r e s s o f g r i e v a n c e s . Although  sufficient  predominantly concerns  white  remained  consciousness  was  compromises  were  communities  unresolved.  (such  made as  St.  Once a g a i n ,  d i s p l a y e d i n the  to  Albert),  the  formation  satisfy  Metis of  a  Metis  rights  were  and  deprived  the s c r i p  of  the  opportunity  system adopted  to  Keeping  T h i s time, their  extended  c r i t e r i a of a s t a t e ?  to  2 9  t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the M e t i s N a t i o n i n mind do  f i t the aforementioned i n 1871  political  negotiate  i n Manitoba was  A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan t o s a t i s f y M e t i s c l a i m s .  Metis  provisional  government and a r e s i s t a n c e t o the Canadian government. the  the  they  I t i s undisputed that  the predominant p o p u l a t i o n i n Manitoba was  M e t i s and t h a t  h i s t o r i c a l p o p u l a t i o n s can a l s o be t r a c e d t o s p e c i f i c g e o g r a p h i c a l areas i n A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan.  Although one c o u l d take i s s u e  w i t h the l e g i t i m a c y , e f f i c i e n c y and r e c o g n i t i o n o f the government established  i n Saskatchewan under L o u i s R i e l  exclude  these  Nation)  s t r o n g arguments can  historic state  areas  from  the  defined t e r r i t o r i e s be  advanced  M e t i s p o p u l a t i o n i n Manitoba  in  international  law.  d e f i n i n g Metis t e r r i t o r y  i n 1885 of  the  may  be  a  encountered  the  in  i f emphasis i s p l a c e d on t h e method of  I f one t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n l a n d uses r a n g i n g  freighting  to  to  Metis  recognized  l a n d use.  hunting  thus  i n r e c o g n i t i o n of  constituting  Problems  (and  cultivation,  the  extent  of  the  from Metis  12 homeland  i s vast.  On t h e o t h e r  hand,  i f emphasis  c u l t i v a t i o n , t h e area i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. discussed  i n chapter  sufficient  4 of this  to establish that  thesis.  These problems a r e  At t h i s  the Metis  i s p l a c e d on  Nation  juncture  i t is  existed within a  s p e c i f i c t e r r i t o r y t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f which may v a r y depending on the  criteria  adopted.  international  law  identification.  This  which  is  i s not often  an  unusual  concerned  issue  with  in  boundary  S t a b l e s t a t e boundaries a r e a r e c e n t development.  Arguably t h e i s s u e i s n o t one o f s t a b l e boundaries so much as the e x i s t e n c e o f a t e r r i t o r y t h a t can be i d e n t i f i e d as M e t i s . The  main  h i s t o r i c Metis According  argument Nation  against  the i n t e r n a t i o n a l status  i s t h e i l l e g i t i m a c y o f R i e l ' s government.  t o t h i s argument, t h e proper  R i v e r Settlement  of the  governing  body i n t h e Red  from 1835 u n t i l Canada assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n over  the M e t i s i n 1870 was t h e C o u n c i l o f A s s i n i b o i a e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Hudson's Bay Company.  30  Whether R i e l ' s p r o v i s i o n a l government i s  defended on t h e b a s i s o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e C o u n c i l t o e f f e c t i v e l y represent  t h e Red  aboriginal lands,  River  sovereignty  and  i t i s c l e a r that  31  population  or  voluntary  an  inherent  surrender  right  to  of aboriginal  i t was t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  of Riel's  p r o v i s i o n a l government t h a t n e g o t i a t e d t h e terms o f t h e Manitoba Act  with  Ottawa.  32  The A c t was  "endorsed  l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e Red R i v e r , enacted and  confirmed Metis  either  by I m p e r i a l  nationalists  accept  offers  by t h e P a r l i a m e n t  legislature." would  argue  o f annexation  by t h e p r o v i s i o n a l o f Canada  3 3  that  they  had a c h o i c e t o  t o the United  States  or to  s t r i k e a d e a l w i t h Canada i n which a l e v e l o f M e t i s autonomy c o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d .  In t h i s sense, t h e M e t i s n a t i o n was capable of, and  13 d i d conduct, i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r n a t i o n s . of  government  provincial state.  By  envisioned  government virtue  by  the  forming  of  the  a  Metis  Nation  component  population,  was  part  the  a  of  Metis  The  form  non-ethnic a  federated  would h o l d  the  m a j o r i t y of the s e a t s i n the newly c r e a t e d p r o v i n c e o f Manitoba. However, t h e massive i n f l u x of s e t t l e r s soon r e s u l t e d i n the M e t i s becoming a m i n o r i t y l e g i s l a t u r e was The  in their  homeland and  c o n t r o l i n the  local  lost.  c l a i m of a b o r i g i n a l peoples  t o r e c o g n i t i o n as s t a t e s i s  based i n the l e g a l o r d e r e s t a b l i s h e d by I n d i a n s o c i e t i e s p r i o r t o European c o n t a c t ; the s u g g e s t i o n i n e a r l y U n i t e d S t a t e s d e c i s i o n s t h a t a t the time o f B r i t i s h C o l o n i a l expansion  i n North America,  I n d i a n t r i b e s were r e c o g n i z e d by the B r i t i s h as s o v e r e i g n capable  of  publicists  entering and  international  decisions  relations;  challenging  the  nations  international  legal  and  law  political  assumptions upon which the d e n i a l of I n d i a n s o v e r e i g n t y i s based; and  t r e a t y p r a c t i c e i n North  practice. statehood,  In  order  for  a l l tribes  and to  international meet  the  the b a s i s f o r comparison i n d e t e r m i n i n g  of a government must be government.  America  something o t h e r than  treaty  criteria the  of  existence  a western model of  F u r t h e r , the a t t r i b u t e s of a t r i b a l government and i t s  a b i l i t y t o conduct i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i l l v a r y depending upon the  terms o f the  various t r e a t i e s  Canadian governments.  34  Given  i d e n t i f y i n g I n d i a n peoples term  "peoples"  entered  these  limitations,  c o u l d be excluded  i s equated w i t h  the  with  term  the  British  numerous  from s. 35(2)  states.  and  selfi f the  However, most  would e a s i l y meet the contemporary d e f i n i t i o n of "nationhood"  which  14 d i f f e r s from statehood i n t h a t n a t i o n s do not r e q u i r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y under a government. The that  use  a  o f the  "people"  Debate over the various  United  determination  term "people" i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law  need  not  meet the  meaning of Nations  this  formal  term was  documents u p h o l d i n g  criteria  of  r a i s e d by the  a  state.  i t s use  r i g h t to  principle  of  self-determination  has  not  been  United To  35  in  "self-  o f p e o p l e s " and the i n c r e a s i n g a c t i v i t y o f the  N a t i o n s aimed a t p u t t i n g an end t o c o l o n i a l d o m i n a t i o n . the  suggests  date  applied  to  a b o r i g i n a l groups whose t e r r i t o r i e s l i e w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of recognized  members of the  International  Court  of  Untied  Nations.  J u s t i c e gave an  However, i n 1975  advisory  opinion  Western Sahara which a t t r i b u t e d t h i s r i g h t t o a nomadic w i t h l i t t l e i n the way  of a western s t y l e government.  tribes  out  were not  nation,  held  they were h e l d  to  to  meet the  have s u f f i c i e n t  organization to require voluntary exercise  a  arguments rejected.  right used  of  to  formal  surrender  self-determination. deny  aboriginal  on  the  population  Although the  requirements  social  the  and  of  political  of t h e i r lands and Further,  sovereignty  a  to  traditional were  clearly  3 6  I n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s of indigenous peoples have focused on  the  question  of  self-determination  i s s u e of what c o n s t i t u t e s a people.  but  have not  resolved  Some indigenous groups have  argued t h a t "people" are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from m i n o r i t i e s i n t h a t former are c o n s t i t u t e d of "persons who existing  s t a t e s " but  self-determination."  the  the  accepted i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o  "peoples were c o l l e c t i v e e n t i t i e s r e q u i r i n g 3 7  The  d i s t i n c t i o n i s of l i t t l e  establishing identifying criteria.  assistance i n  Rather than r e s o l v e the i s s u e ,  15 the  participants  Organization  at  a  Conference  1977 on  United  Nations  Discrimination  P o p u l a t i o n s adopted t h e formal requirements  Non-Governmental  Against  Indigenous  o f statehood  f o r the  purpose o f i d e n t i f y i n g indigenous n a t i o n s , b u t a l s o d e c l a r e d t h a t groups  not  meeting  the  criteria  were  proper  subjects  of  i n t e r n a t i o n a l law e n t i t l e d t o t h e same r i g h t s as n a t i o n s i f they are  "identifiable  groups  having  bonds  o f language,  heritage,  t r a d i t i o n o r o t h e r common i d e n t i t y . " The  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission  of J u r i s t s  has proposed  a  d e f i n i t i o n o f people based on t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a :  This  1.  a common h i s t o r y ;  2.  r a c i a l or ethnic t i e s ;  3.  c u l t u r a l or l i n g u i s t i c  4.  r e l i g i o u s or ideological  5.  a common t e r r i t o r y o r g e o g r a p h i c a l  6.  a common economic base; and  7.  a s u f f i c i e n t number o f p e o p l e .  definition  nationhood and by  accords  ties; location;  39  the social-science  criteria  of  which emphasizes a p s y c h o l o g i c a l bond j o i n i n g a people  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g them from o t h e r s , an a v e r s i o n t o b e i n g  ruled  o t h e r s , common i d e o l o g y , common i n s t i t u t i o n s and customs, and  a sense o f homogeneity. but  with  ties;  not a  people.  40  A c o l l e c t i v i t y may be a s t a t e o r n a t i o n  F o r example,  Canada  is a  state  but  its  p o p u l a t i o n does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s i n g l e "people" g i v e n c r i t e r i a one t o f o u r above. The  impact  o f adopting  this  definition  i s t o expand t h e  parameters o f s. 35(2) t o i n c l u d e a b o r i g i n a l groups t h a t do not meet t h e formal c r i t e r i a  of a state.  F o r t h e M e t i s , t h i s would  mean t h a t  i t would not be necessary  f o r a group  i d e n t i f y i n g as  M e t i s people t o e s t a b l i s h a l i n k t o t h e M e t i s N a t i o n .  An example  of such a group would be the M e t i s i n Grande Cache, A l b e r t a . people  trace  their  origins  to  "Iroquois-Cree  and  These  White-Cree  marriages between f u r company men and Cree women."  41  There  are several  "peoples"  is  nationalists. discussion  preferable The f i r s t ,  i s that  statehood  reasons why t h e broader the  aboriginal  arguments  of  Metis  and most obvious i n l i g h t o f t h e above  the adoption  o r nationhood  identifying  despite  interpretation of  may  peoples  of  result  t h e formal  requirements  i n the exclusion  from t h e scope  of  o f s. 35(2).  selfThe  second i s t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e term n a t i o n i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n would have been t o t a l l y unacceptable because and  the r e j e c t i o n  o f "two n a t i o n s "  o f Quebec's p o s i t i o n  as a d e s c r i p t i o n  o f Canada.  F u r t h e r , t h e f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments i n i t i a l l y  rejected  a b o r i g i n a l s o v e r e i g n t y and a r e s t i l l d e b a t i n g t h e meaning o f s e l f government and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a b o r i g i n a l g r o u p s . "nations"  o r "peoples" i s i n t e r p r e t e d  the I n t e r n a t i o n a l without  denying  sovereignty. groups  F i n a l l y , Canadian  not  aboriginals  t o give than  o r common  those  they  aboriginal self-  and p r o v i n c i a l governments d i d additional  have  status.  treated  aboriginal  but not as independent  law and thus  acknowledge t h e i r n a t i o n a l  admitting  c o u r t s have  The f e d e r a l  treaties  i n t h e manner suggested by  s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n or  governing s o c i e t i e s .  constitution  I f Indian  Commission o f J u r i s t s , t h e term i s g i v e n meaning  as d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l groups  intend  42  by  they 4 3  virtue would  rights  under t h e  of l e g i s l a t i o n , not i n t e n t i o n a l l y  17 The and this  d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c e d by contemporary I n d i a n  groups p u r p o r t i n g t o r e p r e s e n t t h e M e t i s conclusion.  Although  collectivities  a r e n o t overcome by  the Metis  on A l b e r t a s e t t l e m e n t s can  e s t a b l i s h a common h i s t o r y o f p o v e r t y  and d e p r i v a t i o n , they have  d i f f i c u l t y e s t a b l i s h i n g a common h i s t o r y as a "people." problem  i s faced  by  Indian  bands  A similar  on t h e p r a i r i e s  which a r e  r e c o g n i z e d as e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s by the I n d i a n Act, but  a r e c o n s t i t u t e d by descendants  tribe.  4 4  from  more  than  one  Indian  Given t h e emphasis on r e g i s t e r e d bands i n self-government  n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h e argument can be made t h a t "peoples" s h o u l d simply r e f e r t o i d e n t i f i a b l e c o l l e c t i v i t i e s having a common bond based on some, b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a l l , International  Commission  approach i s i t i s broad aboriginal  of the c r i t e r i a  of Jurists.  The  enumerated by t h e advantage  of  this  enough t o encompass a l l s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g  groups without  c o n f e r r i n g r i g h t s t h a t they  would not  otherwise have as o n l y " e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s " a r e recognized create  and a f f i r m e d .  entitlement  Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t bonding t o  to a collective  right  would  be  q u e s t i o n o f f a c t f o r t h e c o u r t s depending on t h e r i g h t  left  as a  asserted.  A c c e p t i n g t h i s approach "peoples" would simply be a body o f persons u n i t e d i n t o a community f o r whatever  (c)  reason.  Temporal C o n s i d e r a t i o n The  issue  contemporary  o f whether  groups  "peoples"  i s significant  refers  to historical  f o r two reasons.  First,  or an  i n d i v i d u a l may n o t be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an ongoing c o l l e c t i v i t y but may be a b l e collectivity.  to establish  descent  from  a historical  aboriginal  Second, contemporary a b o r i g i n a l groups may n o t be  18 able to trace a l i n k to a s i n g l e h i s t o r i c a l have  difficulty  showing  they  have  "people" o r they  sufficient  permanence t o c o n s t i t u t e a contemporary people.  coherence  may and  Rules o f s t a t u t o r y  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are of l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e i n t h i s r e g a r d .  On the one  hand, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l documents are t o be d e f i n e d b r o a d l y so t h a t they are f l e x i b l e enough t o adapt t o the times. one  can  argue  Indians  and  there  Metis  i s no  are  need  On the o t h e r hand,  for f l e x i b i l i t y  historically  identifiable  because people.  Inuit, The  45  obvious problem w i t h the second argument i s i t f r e e z e s a b o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s a t a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n h i s t o r y and d e n i e s them the ability  to  political,  reformulate  identify  purpose  of  achieving  specific  economic and s o c i a l g o a l s .  T h i s problem experience  f o r the  i s of p a r t i c u l a r importance t o the M e t i s who  difficulties  establishing  a  contemporary  may  collective  f o r the numerous reasons s e t out i n s e c t i o n s I I I and  of t h i s c h a p t e r .  T h i s problem was b r i e f l y mentioned by Mr.  0 ' S u l l i v a n i n h i s d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n Dumont v. A.G.  IV  Justice  of Canada  where he s t a t e d t h a t s. 35(2) r e c o g n i z e s the M e t i s as an a b o r i g i n a l people  and  " [ i t ] must be  people  i s a s s e r t e d i n the  simply as o f the p a s t . " term  "people"  significance. accepted, descendants  i s to  4 6  be  noted  of  must  historic  the e x i s t e n c e o f the  Constitution  as  of  the  Metis  present,  not  By t h i s statement 0 ' S u l l i v a n suggests the given  Regardless  peoples  that  of  refer  both  contemporary  whether to  one  aboriginal  and  0 ' S u l l i v a n ' s views  of  two  possible  collectivities  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h contemporary a b o r i g i n a l  historical  or  collectivities.  are  groups  -  peoples  19 2.  Who I s An A b o r i g i n a l and What i s an A b o r i g i n a l Group? The s h o r t e r Oxford D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s " A b o r i g i n e s " ,  and  "Indians"  " N a t i v e s " as f o l l o w s : A b o r i g i n e s : U s u a l l y e x p l a i n e d as from t h e beginning, but this i s not c e r t a i n ; inhabitants of a country; s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e n a t i v e s as opposed t o t h e c o l o n i s t s , 1789. Indian: Belonging o r r e l a t i n g t o t h e o r i g i n a l i n h a b i t a n t s o f America and t h e West I n d i e s , 1618. N a t i v e : Of indigenous o r i g i n , p r o d u c t i o n as growth 1555; of or belonging t o the natives of a p a r t i c u l a r place, 1796. 47  These terms have been used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y  and c o n j u n c t i v e l y , i n  common and l e g a l use, t o r e f e r t o t h e o r i g i n a l r a c e which i n h a b i t e d to  Canada as d i s t i n c t from European c o l o n i s t s . term " a b o r i g i n e "  i s a generic  racial  Used i n t h i s way t h e  term and an a b o r i g i n e  descendant o f t h e indigenous i n h a b i t a n t s o f Canada.  isa  However, over  time t h e terms " a b o r i g i n a l " and " I n d i a n " have taken on n o n - r a c i a l dimensions.  As d i s c u s s e d below, many persons o f n o n - n a t i v e o r i g i n  or mixed n a t i v e federally  and non-native o r i g i n s have been drawn i n t o t h e  recognized  collectivities. contemporary  Indian  bands  I f t h e term  significance,  and  "peoples"  then  the  other  contemporary  i s t o be  broader  named  given group  any of  " a b o r i g i n a l people", n e c e s s a r i l y takes on n o n - r a c i a l dimensions. How then do we determine i f a group q u a l i f i e s as " a b o r i g i n a l " ? Arguably t h e c o r e o f t h e group must be descendants o f t h e o r i g i n a l n a t i v e i n h a b i t a n t s o f Canada. may  be  expanded  by  a  The r a c i a l boundaries o f t h e group  variety  o f means  including  legislated  d e f i n i t i o n s , n a t i v e customary law (eg. marriage and adoption) and r e c o g n i t i o n o f s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g members by p a r t i c u l a r a b o r i g i n a l communities.  P r o f e s s o r S l a t t e r y suggests t h a t a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s  20 to  consider  aboriginal 1.  i n the  classification  of  a  group  of  people  as  include: the s e l f - i d e n t i t y  o f i t s members,  as shown  i n their  a c t i o n s and statements; 2.  t h e c u l t u r e and way o f l i f e o f t h e group;  3.  t h e e x i s t e n c e o f group norms o r customs s i m i l a r t o t h a t of  4.  o t h e r a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e ; and  the genetic composition of the group.  Although  Slattery's  criteria  are useful  49  i n attempting t o  d e f i n e an a b o r i g i n a l group, t h e author submits t h a t c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d i n p l a c i n g t o o much emphasis at  t h i s stage i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n p r o c e s s .  on f a c t o r s  (2) and (3)  Problems a r i s e from t h e  tendency o f n o n - n a t i v e s t o h o l d a s t a t i c view o f a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e by f r e e z i n g i t a t a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c moment.  This perspective  i s d e s c r i b e d by S a l l y Weaver as t h e " h y d r a u l i c I n d i a n " v i e w . Indian  or native  person i s a c y l i n d e r which,  50  The  a t some u n d e f i n e d  point i n h i s t o r y i s f u l l t o the top with Indian c u l t u r e .  As time  passes, a group adopts c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f European c u l t u r e and t h e l e v e l o f " I n d i a n n e s s " i s dropped t o t h e p o i n t t h a t t h e c y l i n d e r i s almost empty.  The n a t i v e group i s then accused o f h a v i n g " s p u r i o u s  e t h n i c i t y " and i s no l o n g e r c o n s i d e r e d a b o r i g i n a l . even  more  restrictive  when combined  5 1  T h i s view i s  w i t h t h e tendency  n a t i v e s t o assume one c u l t u r e o r custom  o f non-  i s more a b o r i g i n a l  than  another by an e t h n o c e n t r i c comparison t o t h e i r own white c u l t u r e or  customs. These  opponents  perspectives  are  adopted  in  arguments  raised  by  of Metis aboriginal  rights.  Emphasizing t h e European  t e n d e n c i e s o f t h e M e t i s o f Ruperts Land i n t h e 1870s and comparing  21 their  lifestyle  plains,  to  the  Thomas Flanagan  agricultural argues  and  i t is difficult  M e t i s are a d i s t i n c t a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e . M e t i s as  nomadic  52  tribes  of  the  t o show t h a t  the  Flanagan d e s c r i b e s the  follows:  Now the M e t i s o f Ruperts' Land were v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from the I n d i a n s . They d i d not e x i s t i n a n a t u r a l economy of h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and food g a t h e r i n g . They were from the s t a r t p a r t o f the commercial economy o f the f u r t r a d e . Some were l o n g term employees of the companies. Others worked i n t e r m i t t e n t l y on the c a r t t r a i n s and boat b r i g a d e s . Many hunted b u f f a l o , but not i n a s u b s i s t a n c e f a s h i o n . . . The way of l i f e o f most was much c l o s e r to t h a t o f t h e i r p a t e r n a l white a n c e s t o r s than t o t h a t of t h e i r maternal I n d i a n f o r e b e a r s . T h e i r r e l i g i o n was P r o t e s t a n t o r C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n i t y . Many were f a m i l i a r w i t h and used i n t h e i r l i f e , white p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s such as w r i t t e n law, c o u r t s , m a g i s t r a t e s , e l e c t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e assemblies and committees . . . He c o n t i n u e s : There were some mixed b l o o d people who had I n d i a n wives, lived with Indian bands, and were scarcely d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Indians . . . To the e x t e n t t h a t the M e t i s l e a d a t r u l y a b o r i g i n a l l i f e , they were not d i s t i n c t from the I n d i a n s ; and t o the e x t e n t t h a t they were d i s t i n c t from the I n d i a n s , t h e i r way o f l i f e was not a b o r i g i n a l . 5 3  Similar  arguments  are  raised  by  Brian  Schwartz  in  his  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f whether the M e t i s are I n d i a n s w i t h i n s. 91(24) of the B r i t i s h North America A c t . 1867 t h a t those M e t i s who s h o u l d be  (B.N.A. A c t ) .  5 4  Schwartz argues  i d e n t i f i e d as Indians and l i v e d among Indians  c o n s i d e r e d Indians under s. 91(24).  He  distinguishes  t h e s e M e t i s from the Red R i v e r M e t i s d e s c r i b e d above.  Of them he  states: The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the M e t i s as an a b o r i g i n a l people i s e t y m o l o g i c a l l y dubious. The M e t i s are c e r t a i n l y indigenous t o North America - they came i n t o b e i n g as a d i s t i n c t people on t h i s c o n t i n e n t . But they are not a b o r i g i n a l i n the same sense as the I n d i a n and I n u i t ; they were not here from the b e g i n n i n g , but i n s t e a d they developed when a l a r g e number of Europeans came t o Canada i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the f u r t r a d e . 5 5  The  difficulty  w i t h these  arguments i s the assumption  that  t h e r e i s a s i n g l e a b o r i g i n a l way  o f l i f e and the treatment  Red  reference to i t s native origins.  R i v e r M e t i s c u l t u r e without  Extremely  different  p i c t u r e s of the M e t i s  emphasizes t h e i r maternal  culture  emerge i f one  n a t i v e a n c e s t r y ; M e t i s a r t s and  the i n t r o d u c t i o n of unleavened  bread  (bannock);  of the  crafts;  the dependence of  the community on the b u f f a l o hunt, h u n t i n g and  fishing;  and  the  a d o p t i o n o f the dances o f the p l a i n s Indians i n the Red R i v e r J i g . Like other a b o r i g i n a l their  groups,  native ancestors with  the M e t i s  combined t h e c u l t u r e  t h a t of the  European  colonizers  5 6  of in  o r d e r t o s u r v i v e p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l and economic changes i n t r o d u c e d by the 'whiteman . 1  and  other  The main d i s t i n c t i o n between the M e t i s c u l t u r e  aboriginal  c u l t u r e s i s the  historic  and  contemporary  M e t i s c u l t u r e descends from the n a t i v e and European c u l t u r e s i n a hereditary  sense.  As an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h i s p o i n t c o n s i d e r the Cherokee N a t i o n as  it  existed  in  the  nineteenth century.  State  of  Georgia  in  the  P r i o r t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  early-to-mid  and  territorial  f i g h t s between the Cherokee and the S t a t e of Georgia, the Cherokees l i v e d u n d i s t u r b e d w i t h i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c t e r r i t o r y governed by t h e i r own  laws, usages and customs.  However, European c o n t a c t r e s u l t e d  i n the a d o p t i o n of c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f the European c u l t u r e i n t o the Cherokee way Supreme  Court,  civilization." for  the  follows:  of  5 7  life  which,  i n the  "lead  the  Cherokees  words o f to  a  the  United  greater  degree  A b i l l p r e s e n t e d t o the Supreme Court by  Cherokees  described  the  Cherokee  culture  States  in  of  counsel part  as  23 They have e s t a b l i s h e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n and form of government, the l e a d i n g f e a t u r e s of which they have borrowed from t h a t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s ; d i v i d i n g t h e i r government i n t o t h r e e separate departments, l e g i s l a t i v e , e x e c u t i v e and judicial. In c o n f o r m i t y with this c o n s t i t u t i o n , these departments have a l l been o r g a n i z e d . They have formed a code o f laws, c i v i l and c r i m i n a l , adapted t o t h e i r s i t u a t i o n ; have e r e c t e d c o u r t s t o expound and apply those laws, and o r g a n i z e d an e x e c u t i v e t o c a r r y them i n t o e f f e c t . They have e s t a b l i s h e d s c h o o l s f o r the e d u c a t i o n of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , and churches i n which the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n i s taught; they have abandoned the hunter s t a t e and become a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s , mechanics and herdsmen; and under p r o v o c a t i o n s l o n g c o n t i n u e d and hard t o be borne, they have observed, w i t h f i d e l i t y , a l l t h e i r engagements by t r e a t y w i t h the U n i t e d States. 5 8  The  a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s of the Cherokee were argued  b e f o r e the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court again i n 1832. the Cherokee N a t i o n was  d e s t r o y e d and d i s p l a c e d .  59  Eventually  Not once d i d the  Court, or opponents of the Cherokee, take i s s u e w i t h the a s s e r t i o n t h a t they were an a b o r i g i n a l people d e s p i t e t h e i r s u r r e n d e r o f the nomadic  hunting  lifestyle  traditionally  associated with  native  c u l t u r e s and the adoption of European c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .  More  modern examples of c u l t u r a l b l e n d i n g are seen among t r i b e s such as the West Coast  Squamish who  r e l y on r e a l e s t a t e as a  significant  c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e i r economic base and the Hobbema i n A l b e r t a are the b e n e f i c i a r i e s of o i l and gas development on t h e i r  who  lands.  I t i s l u d i c r o u s t o suggest these people are not a b o r i g i n a l because they have s a t e l l i t e T.V.,  d r i v e Ford t r u c k s , send t h e i r  children  to  schools  replaced  accredited provincial  and  have  expanded  or  t h e i r h i s t o r i c economic base. As is  Professor Slattery  misleading  aboriginal  to  speak  lifestyle  or  i m p l i e s i n h i s suggested  of  a  single  culture  contemporary  among  aboriginal  criteria, i t or  historic  groups.  A  comparison o f a b o r i g i n a l groups a c r o s s Canada from t h e West Coast  Haida,  through t h e P l a i n s Cree,  t o t h e M i c Macs o f t h e E a s t c o a s t  i l l u s t r a t e s t h e d i v e r s i t y o f h i s t o r i c a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e s i n areas such as r e l i g i o n ,  economic development and p o l i t i c a l  A l t h o u g h one might  f i n d s e v e r a l common f e a t u r e s among g r o u p s  close geographic proximity, s i m i l a r i t i e s g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t a n c e between groups of the earth  organization.  changes.  are less  within  f r e q u e n t as t h e  i n c r e a s e s and t h e topography  6 0  G i v e n t h e d i v e r s i t y among h i s t o r i c a l a b o r i g i n a l g r o u p s a n d t h e inevitability cultures, linking trace  o f t h e commingling  i t is difficult  of the aboriginal  to  identify  a b o r i g i n e s t o g e t h e r as a group  t h e descendency  common  other than  the a b i l i t y to  o f t h e group  indigenous lines.  Consequently  i t i s more a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r c u l t u r e ,  custom  in  the d e f i n i t i o n  of  emphasis g i v e n t o t h e s e cultural  composite  t h e term factors  traditional  groups  of aboriginals  "aboriginal." will  evolution of a particular  t h i s may mean t h a t  or  to  paternal  when d e f i n i n g  maternal  factor  of  lifestyle  through  single  inhabitants  and  Canada  of the core  a  and c o l o n i z i n g  vary  Even  then,  i n accordance  aboriginal  group.  and contemporary  than the  with the  Ultimately,  cultures,  customs  and l i f e s t y l e s become more i m p o r t a n t when d e f i n i n g e n t i t l e m e n t t o , and  the content  group  3.  of, aboriginal  rights  than  d e t e r m i n i n g whether a  i s "aboriginal."  Summary I n s h o r t , t h e i m p a c t o f t h e p h r a s e " a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s " on t h e  definition 1.  o f i t s composite  groups i s :  t h e term people i m p l i e s a c o l l e c t i v i t y o f persons together  i n t o an i d e n t i f i a b l e  community;  united  2.  identification 35(2)  is  an  Indian,  dependent  aboriginal  3.  as  on  Inuit  o r M e t i s under  descent  collectivity  or  from  a  s.  historical  association  with,  and  acceptance by, a contemporary a b o r i g i n a l  collectivity;  the c o l l e c t i v i t y  to the extent  must be a r a c i a l  group  t h a t t h e c o r e o f the group must be descendants o f the original 4.  i n h a b i t a n t s o f Canada; and  the r a c i a l be  boundaries and u n i f i c a t i o n  defined  legislation  in  II  Who  different  (eg. M e t i s Betterment  Act) , n a t i v e specific  numerous  customary  o f t h e group ways  Act  may  including  and  the  Indian  law and membership c r i t e r i a o f  a b o r i g i n a l groups.  61  Are t h e M e t i s ?  The c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d by an examination o f t h e phrase " a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s " i s u s e f u l t o determine t h e minimum standards t h a t must be met by a group p u r p o r t i n g t o be " M e t i s , " but i s not s p e c i f i c enough t o d e f i n e t h e M e t i s as a d i s t i n c t a b o r i g i n a l group. Within  t h e c o n t e x t o f s.  35,  d e l i n e a t e more i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  two  approaches  criteria.  the c r i t e r i a  definition as M e t i s . according definition  i n section  adopted  to  does  I f an a b o r i g i n a l group not  fall  within  the  o f I n u i t o r Indian, the group i s M e t i s i f i t i d e n t i f i e s The to  second approach i s t o t r e a t  i t s own  use,  rather  than  to  each term adopt  a  separately "catch a l l "  i n f e a r o f i n a d v e r t e n t l y e x c l u d i n g an a b o r i g i n a l  from c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n . with  I I , but  be  The f i r s t approach i s t o  d e f i n e t h e M e t i s by p r o c e s s o f e l i m i n a t i o n . fits  may  defining  the  terms  The numerous problems  "Indian",  "Inuit"  and  group  associated  "Metis";  the  26 p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r i e s o f each term; and t h e u n r e s o l v e d p o l i t i c a l and legal  debates  feasible  concerning  their  way t o d e f i n e these  meaning  groups  suggests  that  i s by d e f i n i n g  each  without r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s o f a b o r i g i n a l  1.  the only group  peoples.  The Comparative Approach Prior t o the d e f i n i t i o n  o f a b o r i g i n a l peoples  i n s. 35(2),  f o u r main c a t e g o r i e s o f a b o r i g i n a l peoples were commonly used i n l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l spheres. non-status  These c a t e g o r i e s a r e s t a t u s Indians,  I n d i a n s , I n u i t and M e t i s .  specifically  recognized  Consequently,  in  as  order  Non-status  aboriginal  f o r them  to  I n d i a n s a r e not  peoples  i n s.  receive  constitutional  p r o t e c t i o n , they must f a l l w i t h i n one o f t h e t h r e e named The c e n t r a l i s s u e debated the  Metis  i s whether  p r o p e r l y be i d e n t i f i e d the M e t i s N a t i o n . term of  definition  groups.  among groups p u r p o r t i n g t o r e p r e s e n t  non-status as M e t i s  persons  o f mixed  o r i g i n s can  i f they have no c o n n e c t i o n  with  E s s e n t i a l t o t h i s debate i s t h e scope o f t h e  " I n d i a n " i n s. 35(2).  persons  35(2).  I f " I n d i a n " r e f e r s t o t h e same c l a s s  r e f e r r e d t o i n s. 91(24) o f t h e B.N.A. A c t . a narrow o f Metis  peoples  focusing  on  a  common  political,  n a t i o n a l and h i s t o r i c background may n o t a f f e c t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f non-status I n d i a n s . been  interpreted  position applied  to refer  has been t o s.91(24)  subject  only  Although t h e term " I n d i a n " has t o Indian  t o strong  Act Indians,  criticism  6 3  62  and cannot  i n t h e f a c e o f t h e Eskimo d e c i s i o n .  6 4  this be The  Eskimo d e c i s i o n h e l d t h a t Eskimo peoples are s. 91(24) Indians even though  they  a r e not i n c l u d e d as Indians  Indian l e g i s l a t i o n .  i n post-confederation  The term " I n d i a n " i n s. 91(24) was i n t e r p r e t e d  27 to include " a l l present  and  f u t u r e a b o r i g i n a l n a t i v e s u b j e c t s of  the proposed c o n f e d e r a t i o n o f B r i t i s h North A m e r i c a " . The  reasoning  non-status were  adopted i n the Eskimo case  Indians who  enfranchised,  can  65  be  applied to  were never r e g i s t e r e d under the I n d i a n Act,  were  excluded  from  treaties,  never  signed  t r e a t i e s or are descendants of the above as l o n g as t h e i r a n c e s t o r s were  recognized  living  within  by the  the  fathers  territories  of to  Confederation be  included  c o n f e d e r a t i o n o f B r i t i s h North America.  The  as  in  aborigines  the  fact that  proposed Parliament  has chosen not t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over these people  and  has excluded them from the d e f i n i t i o n of " I n d i a n " i n an independent l e g i s l a t i v e regime does not mean they cease t o e x i s t as s. 91(24) Indians.  Parliament  cannot c o n t r o l or a l t e r  d e f i n i t i o n o f the term through  legislation.  read  constitutional  6 6  I f one a c c e p t s the argument t h a t s. 35(2) A c t must be  the  of the C o n s t i t u t i o n  independent of s. 91(24) of the B.N.A. A c t ,  or  t h a t the term " I n d i a n " r e f e r s o n l y t o a r e c o g n i z a b l e I n d i a n group, the  definition  significance.  of  The  term  There are  read independently 1.  the  "Metis"  peoples  s e v e r a l reasons  why  takes s.  on  35(2)  greater  should  be  o f s. 91(24) i n c l u d i n g :  i n c l u s i o n of the I n u i t peoples  i n s. 35(2)  t h a t the term " I n d i a n " i s not b e i n g used simply  suggests in its  meaning i n s. 91(24). 2.  The f u n c t i o n s of the two s e c t i o n s are s e p a r a t e .  Section  91(24) c e n t r a l i z e s c o n t r o l over I n d i a n a f f a i r s by p l a c i n g Indians  and  lands  reserved  for  Indians  j u r i s d i c t i o n of the f e d e r a l government.  under  S e c t i o n 35  the of  the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t i s not concerned w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  28 issues  but with  giving  constitutional  recognition to  a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s by l i m i t i n g t h e a b i l i t i e s of  f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments t o i m p a i r e x i s t i n g  rights. persons 3.  Although  Section  defines  the class  of  t o whom s e c t i o n s 25 and 35 a p p l y . the Native  constitutional should  35(2) simply  C o u n c i l o f Canada  provision  reflect  what  defining  was  argued t h a t t h e  aboriginal  intended  at  the  peoples time  of  C o n f e d e r a t i o n by p r o v i d i n g a more e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n o f who i s an Indian, post 1982 a c t i v i t y suggests t h a t t h i s was not t h e approach t a k e n .  67  The f e d e r a l government has  not changed i t s p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and some M e t i s  o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e a d e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e  M e t i s c o n t i n u e t o p r e s s f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments t o d e a l w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 4.  6 8  The wording o f t h e two s e c t i o n s i s d i f f e r e n t .  Although  t h e r e a r e s t r o n g arguments t h a t t h e word " I n d i a n " i n s. 91(24) means " a b o r i g i n a l " and i n c l u d e s a l l f u l l and mixed b l o o d persons opposing  o f a b o r i g i n a l descent,  o p i n i o n s and t h e matter has n o t been r e s o l v e d  by t h e c o u r t s .  I f s. 91(24) and 35(2) were intended t o  be read t o g e t h e r , t h e use o f t h e word  If  of  t h e word  to  eliminate confusion.  s t a t u s Indians  "Indian."  who  "Indian" instead  " a b o r i g i n a l " i n s. 35(2) would have helped  the "Indians" r e f e r r e d  I n d i a n s who a r e they? of  there are several  t o i n s. 35(2) a r e n o t s. 91(24)  One c o u l d argue they a r e i d e n t i f i a b l e groups fall  w i t h i n the Indian A c t d e f i n i t i o n of  I f t h i s i s so, d e f i n i n g "Metis" as r e q u i r i n g some l i n k  to the Metis native  Nation  persons  questionable competence  from  s. 35(2).  because  i n e x c l u d i n g a l a r g e number o f However, t h i s  i t allows  to define  proclamation Indian  could r e s u l t  terms  Parliament  Since  o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e membership c r i t e r i a  A c t has been  only  t o a c t beyond i t s  i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n .  changed  t o include  p r e v i o u s l y l o s t s t a t u s through marriage. are  interpretation i s  Indian  A c t Indians,  Indian  the  of the  women who had  I f " I n d i a n s " i n s. 35(2)  Parliament  might  arguably  have  u n i l a t e r a l l y amended t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n by amending i t s l e g i s l a t i o n . The a l t e r n a t i v e argument i s " I n d i a n s " might mean Indians as d e f i n e d from  time t o time by P a r l i a m e n t .  f o r e c l o s e Parliament's  The c o u r t s  69  are u n l i k e l y to  o p t i o n s by l i m i t i n g t h e term t o I n d i a n A c t  Indians. I t i s a l s o c l e a r from t h e context o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s l e a d i n g to  the  inclusion  interpretation  was  of  s.  35  i n the  n o t intended.  Constitution  During  that  time  that there  this was  p o l i t i c a l concern w i t h s e x u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e I n d i a n A c t and p r o p o s a l s were b e i n g made f o r reworking system.  Although  there  had been  a  t h e I n d i a n A c t membership little  litigation  a p p l i c a t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s t o non-status a p a t t e r n o f d e c i s i o n s had developed  on t h e  Indians,  70  which f a i l e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  between s t a t u s and non-status Indians when d e t e r m i n i n g the v a l i d i t y o f p r o v i n c i a l laws o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n . federal  occupation  differentiation  of the f i e l d .  has re-emerged  7 1  after  The i s s u e was one o f  However,  the question  the proclamation  c o n s t i t u t i o n i n Dick v . The Queen which made i t c l e a r  of  of the  provincial  h u n t i n g laws o n l y a p p l i e d t o Indians because o f t h e wording o f s. 88 o f t h e I n d i a n  Act.  7 2  The  main  "Indian" 35(2).  argument  in  support  i s the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n However, i f one  of  a  narrow  between I n d i a n s  c o n s i d e r s the p o l i t i c a l  definition  and  Inuit  i n s. 35(2)  need not r e s u l t  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the word " I n d i a n . "  The  i n s.  a c t i v i t y leading  t o the i n c l u s i o n o f s e c t i o n 35 i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e o f t h e term " I n u i t "  of  in a  inclusion restricted  f e d e r a l government  was  l o b b i e d by t h r e e independent n a t i o n a l a b o r i g i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o p r o t e c t a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s i n the new  C o n s t i t u t i o n - the  Assembly o f F i r s t Nations (A.F.N.) r e p r e s e n t i n g s t a t u s I n d i a n s , the N a t i v e C o u n c i l o f Canada non-status West  Indians  ( i n c l u d i n g the M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n of the  Territories)  represented  by  and  the  National  Issues  response  to  (N.C.C.) r e p r e s e n t i n g M e t i s peoples  the  Inuit  Inuit  Tapirisat  (I.C.N.I.). these  I f s.  three  people  expediency  in  and  accordance  sophisticated  and 35  the  with  their  was  terms "Savages" and  with  Committee  as  a  not  own  a  distinct  include  the  simply  Indian  "Indians."  mean the  Inuit.  a p p r e c i a t e d by  nations The  73  term  Whether  analyzed  by  an  the  aboriginal  the  term  "Indian"  of  lumped " I n d i a n -  in their  i n s.  This  Fathers  usage o f  w i l l i n g n e s s of the  "Indian"  the  I n d i a n s has never been an i s s u e . need not be  on  political  terminology.  government t o r e c o g n i z e a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two groups may  North  organizations,  C o n f e d e r a t i o n and t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t s who Esquimauxs" t o g e t h e r  the  North  can be viewed as both a matter of  r e c o g n i t i o n of  distinction  of  Inuit  i s viewed  independent  s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f I n u i t peoples political  communities  and  35(2)  the  federal  aboriginal does  not  includes status  I f one a c c e p t s t h a t s e c t i o n 35(2)  "either-or"  logic  (that i s e i t h e r i t  encompasses Indians r e f e r r e d t o i n s. 91(24) o r i t does not)  then  31 t h o s e persons who do not f a l l under a narrow d e f i n i t i o n o f " M e t i s " peoples can l o g i c a l l y be i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e t o " I n d i a n s . " Who a r e t h e M e t i s People i n t h i s context? given  specific  referred  recognition  i n s. 35(2)?  t o i n s. 35(2) as a matter  r e c o g n i t i o n as an a b o r i g i n a l inserted  primarily  to  r e c o g n i t i o n as a d i s t i n c t  The " M e t i s "  of p o l i t i c a l  group.  satisfy  Why have they been  expediency and  The d e f i n i t i o n  the  aboriginal  claims  of  people.  may be  s e c t i o n was  the Metis  to  The i n c l u s i o n was  made without making a p r e v i o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether t h e M e t i s a c t u a l l y had a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s .  Further, the d e c i s i o n  7 4  was made without d e t e r m i n i n g who t h e M e t i s a r e . is  illustrated  by t h e subsequent  debates  c o n f e r e n c e s on t h e q u e s t i o n o f M e t i s There  are several  broad  d e f i n i t i o n f o r t h e term " M e t i s . " 1.  anyone o f mixed  a t the F i r s t  identity.  choices  This l a t t e r point  from  Ministers  7 5  which  t o choose  a  Among these a r e :  Indian/non-Indian  b l o o d who  i s not a  status Indian; 2.  a person who i d e n t i f i e s  as M e t i s and i s accepted by a  s u c c e s s o r community o f t h e M e t i s N a t i o n ; 3.  a person who i d e n t i f i e s  as M e t i s and i s accepted by a  s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g M e t i s community; 4.  persons  who took,  o r were e n t i t l e d  g r a n t s under t h e Manitoba t h e i r descendants; 5.  descendants  76  t o take h a l f - b r e e d  A c t o r Dominion Lands A c t and  and  o f persons  excluded  regime by v i r t u e o f a way o f l i f e  from  the Indian Act  criteria.  Given t h e p o l i t i c a l nature o f s. 35(2), one c o u l d argue the M e t i s people a r e those persons  that  intended t o be encompassed by  the  term  when  Constitution. from  t h e N.C.C.  this  term  t h e M e t i s N a t i o n who i d e n t i f y  the  themselves  as " M e t i s " r a t h e r  Some o f these persons whose a n c e s t o r s d i d n o t  l i v e an I n d i a n way o f l i f e 91(24) and thus  may n o t f a l l  specific  mention  w i t h i n t h e parameters o f  i s necessary  a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n s 25 and 35 t o t h i s group. has  into  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n would i n c l u d e p o p u l a t i o n s d i s t i n c t  than as " I n d i a n s . "  s.  negotiated  t o ensure t h e This position  77  n o t been accepted by a l l persons who i d e n t i f y  themselves as  Metis.  I n March, 1983 t h e M e t i s o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n Saskatchewan,  Alberta  and Manitoba  split  from t h e N.C.C. and formed t h e M e t i s  N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l (M.N.C.).  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e M.N.C. t h e M e t i s a r e  the "Metis N a t i o n " d e f i n e d a s : A l l persons who can show they a r e descendants o f persons c o n s i d e r e d M e t i s under t h e 1870 Manitoba A c t , a l l persons who can show they a r e descendants o f persons c o n s i d e r e d as M e t i s under t h e Dominion Lands A c t o f 1879 and 1883; and a l l o t h e r persons who can produce p r o o f o f a b o r i g i n a l a n c e s t r y and who have been accepted as M e t i s by t h e M e t i s community. 78  The  M.N.C.  was  allowed  representation  i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  c o n f e r e n c e s and t h e debate s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f M e t i s p e o p l e s remains  unresolved.  C a u t i o n must be observed i n p l a c i n g t o o much emphasis on t h e r o l e o f t h e N.C.C. without t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n some o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l and economic concerns. funding  on b e h a l f  o f Metis  P r i o r t o 1982 t h e N.C.C. r e c e i v e d  and non-status  Indians  p o l i t i c a l , l e g a l , economic and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . of  f o r certain  A large portion  i t s membership was composed o f non-status I n d i a n women who would  ultimately narrow  be r e t u r n e d t o s t a t u s .  definition  o f Metis  people  I f t h e N.C.C. r e c o g n i z e d a and t h e i r  need  f o r special  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a l o b b y i n g group c o u l d be  m a r g i n a l i z e d and t h e i r funding base reduced.  The F i r s t m i n i s t e r s  c o n f e r e n c e s i l l u s t r a t e t h e r e was no s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n o f M e t i s at  t h e time  s. 35(2) was n e g o t i a t e d and a f t e r  that  time  i t was  c o n t r a r y t o t h e N.C.C.'s p o l i t i c a l and f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t s t o agree to  a  narrow  definition  of Metis  peoples.  Further,  d e f i n i t i o n could p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l its  non-status  membership.  By t h i s  discussion  author's i n t e n t i o n t o down-play t h e achievements t h e i r importance simply  some  of the p o l i t i c a l  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  "Metis."  narrow  r i g h t s of  i t i s not the o f t h e N.C.C. o r  i n r e p r e s e n t i n g Canada's non-status I n d i a n s , but  t o address  created  a  problems  realities  associated with  which  have  the  term  Because o f these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e  N.C.C. d u r i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s can n o t be d e t e r m i n a t i v e . The above i n t e r r e l a t e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e terms used i n s. 35(2) does l i t t l e left  with  because  to assist  numerous v a r i a b l e s .  i t illustrates  "Indians."  However, t h e a n a l y s i s  non-status  Indians  fall  i s useful  w i t h i n t h e term  T h i s means t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e i s not whether non-status  Indians w i l l definition  i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n p r o c e s s as we a r e s t i l l  be i n a d v e r t e n t l y excluded  of Metis  i s adopted.  from s. 35(2) i f a narrow  Consequently,  t h e most  logical  approach t o d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e M e t i s i s t o look at  t h e unique h i s t o r y and use o f t h e term as w e l l as t h e views o f  the M e t i s community.  2.  H i s t o r i c a l . P o l i t i c a l and L e g a l Usage o f t h e Term " M e t i s " B a s i c t o an understanding o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  d e f i n i n g t h e term use o f t h e term.  " M e t i s " i s an understanding o f t h e h i s t o r y and The word "metis" i s a French word meaning "mixed"  and was  f i r s t used t o r e f e r t o the French speaking h a l f - b r e e d s of  the Red  R i v e r s e t t l e m e n t and  surrounding a r e a s .  Initially  79  term was used t o r e f e r t o the French and Cree speaking of  the  F r e n c h - C a t h o l i c Red  River  Metis  as  the  descendants  distinct  from  the  descendants o f E n g l i s h speaking h a l f - b r e e d s o r "country born," lived  a  more  Protestant  agrarian  and  lifestyle  British.  scholars writing  Later,  histories  on  and  identified  both  the Red  native  who  themselves and  as  non-native  R i v e r area used  the  term  c o l l e c t i v e l y t o r e f e r t o French and E n g l i s h speaking h a l f - b r e e d s who  emerged as a d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l group i n the West and spoke of  themselves as the "New By  the  1970's  geographic and mixed  Nation." the  term  extended  beyond  its  religious,  l i n g u i s t i c boundaries t o encompass "any  Indian-white  b l o o d who  identified  him  person of  or h e r s e l f  and  was  i d e n t i f i e d by o t h e r s as n e i t h e r I n d i a n o r white, even though he or 81  •  she might have no p r o v a b l e l i n k t o the h i s t o r i c Red R i v e r M e t i s . " The  identification  was  a  negative  identification  i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y w i t h the word " h a l f - b r e e d . "  used  They were M e t i s or 82  half-breed  because  they  were  not  somebody  else.  More r e c e n t  h i s t o r i c a l works f o c u s i n g on e t h n i c o r i g i n s and changing dimensions o f M e t i s i d e n t i t y use the term t o r e f e r t o those i n d i v i d u a l s , f r e q u e n t l y of mixed I n d i a n , Western, European and o t h e r a n c e s t r y , who are i n the S t . Lawrence - Great Lakes t r a d i n g system, including i t s extension t o the P a c i f i c and A r c t i c c o a s t s and chose t o see themselves i n v a r i o u s c o l l e c t i v i t i e s as d i s t i n c t from 83  members o f the Some suggest  that  'white the  1  community.  contemporary  usage s h o u l d be  persons o f mixed m e t i s / I n d i a n a n c e s t r y .  Of  extended  to  35 The l a c k o f consensus on the use o f the term i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n an a r t i c l e on M e t i s h i s t o r y by J e n n i f e r Brown i n The Encyclopedia.  Canadian  C a u t i o n i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no agreement among w r i t e r s  c o n c e r n i n g who the M e t i s a r e , she argues t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n s must be made based on the c o n t e x t i n which the term i s used. I t i s important t o d e f i n e s p e c i f i c meanings f o r the terms as used i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , w h i l e c a u t i o n i n g that w r i t e r s , p a s t and p r e s e n t , have not a c h i e v e d consensus on the matter. W r i t t e n w i t h a s m a l l "m",metis i s an o l d French word meaning "mixed", and i t i s used here i n a g e n e r a l sense f o r people o f d u a l Indian-white a n c e s t r y . C a p i t a l i z e d , M e t i s i s not a g e n e r i c term f o r a l l persons of t h i s b i r a c i a l descent but r e f e r s t o a d i s t i n c t i v e sociocultural heritage, a means of ethnic selfidentification, and sometimes a p o l i t i c a l and legal c a t e g o r y , more o r l e s s narrowly d e f i n e d . . . T h i s c o m p l e x i t y a r i s e s from the f a c t t h a t b i o l o g i c a l r a c e m i x t u r e ( F r , metissage) by i t s e l f does not determine a persons s o c i a l , e t h n i c o r p o l i t i c a l i d e n t i t y . 8 5  T h i s same d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n has been adopted by the M e t i s N a t i o n a l Council. group  In i t s opening statement t o the U n i t e d N a t i o n s working  i n August  w i t h a s m a l l "m"  1984  i n Geneva i t suggested t h a t "metis" w r i t t e n  be used as a r a c i a l term f o r any person o f mixed  Indian-European a n c e s t r y , and w r i t t e n w i t h a c a p i t a l t o r e f e r t o the M e t i s N a t i o n .  "M"  be used  For the remainder o f t h i s  thesis  t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s p e l l i n g w i l l be adopted i n the same way  with  the a d d i t i o n t h a t the term " M e t i s " i n q u o t a t i o n marks r e f e r s t o the term as i t appears i n S.35(2). Indians" w i l l  refer  The use o f the term "non-status  t o those non-status a b o r i g i n a l s  who  do  not  i d e n t i f y as m e t i s . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the l e g a l and common use o f the term h e l p s t o understand how  some o f the c o n f u s i o n a r o s e .  The  only  legal  d e f i n i t i o n o f M e t i s i s i n the M e t i s Betterment A c t which adopts a r a c i a l view f o r the purpose o f d e f i n i n g M e t i s persons w i t h i n the  boundaries that  the  only  nation.  to Metis  breeds.  In  1879  the  and  breeds.  the  of A l b e r t a .  Metis  i t has  Manitoba Act  descendants  the  legislated  of  1870  and  not  by  people  to  of  purpose  of  Indians  and  satisfy  respect  Dominion  granted  o f l a n d g r a n t s and  claims  existing  of Indian t i t l e . treaty  treaty  making  on  to  a  group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b a s i s .  the a  were g i v e n  A  review  scrip.  of  the  reveals that this  to  Acts half-  legislation to the  half-  with  prairies.  distinction  the  was  the  For  drawn  the  between  self-identification  Those l i v i n g the  lifestyle  of  and  Indians  were a l l o w e d t o take t r e a t y .  The  8 8  historical  development  same g r o u p o f p e o p l e  benefits received  half-  Lands  connection  western  lifestyle,  associated with Indian tribes  others  in  scrip  with  to  lands  in  Metis  This procedure coincided with  entitlement,  half-breeds  the  legislated  with  the  f e d e r a l government  f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n  extension  from  not  i s somewhat i r o n i c  f e d e r a l government has  peoples,  1883,  extinguishment  and  are  This  S u b s e q u e n t f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n and s u b o r d i n a t e  provided breed  "status"  Although  respect  of  of the province  by  Indian  of  the  Indian  were i n t e n t i o n a l l y  peoples  pursuant  to  Act  excluded  the  Indian  89  Act.  The  term  interchangeably  "half-breed"  with  the  term  in  "Metis."  the Manitoba Act.  Dominion Lands Act  "half-breed"  lead  logical those  legal  has  p e r s o n s who  •  Indian include  90  Act.  Douglas  definition took i  of  scrip  this  and  Sanders  "Metis" and  are  context  The  would  suggest be  excluded  •  William  the from •  Pentney  would  descendants of persons e n t i t l e d  extend to  be  relationship  Indian Act to  can  this  receive  used  between  definitions that  the  of only  descendants s t a t u s by •  #  9 1  the  i  definition scrip.  of  to  Non-status  Indians  emerged  slowly  i n t e r m a r r i a g e o f Indians and non-Indians. not a c a t e g o r y t h a t was expected these  individuals  were  blood  s t a t u s Indians  were  to  group  Non-status  assimilate  membership  9 2  and  lose  was  their  E v e n t u a l l y , p o p u l a r usage came t o  accepted  into  T h i s equating  f u n d i n g and nonMetis  o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e economic, s o c i a l goals.  Rather,  the option t o surrender  o f t h e two c a t e g o r i e s a l s o o c c u r r e d i n f e d e r a l Indian  I n d i a n s was  itself.  equate M e t i s and non-status I n d i a n s on t h e p r a i r i e s .  status  through  F u r t h e r c o n f u s i o n arose when mixed  given  t r e a t y r i g h t s and take s c r i p .  a  t o perpetuate  expected  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as an I n d i a n .  as  provincial  and p o l i t i c a l  9 3  The contemporary usage o f t h e term M e t i s has been adopted by the  N.C.C.  relatives  They  argue  that  Metis  o f t h e Red R i v e r M e t i s  people  i n c l u d e "both  and completely  distinct  blood Metis  p o p u l a t i o n s which pre-and-post date both t h e h i s t o r y and t h e people of t h e Red R i v e r . " the  Constitution  themselves excluded  They contend t h e term " M e t i s " i n s. 35(2) o f refers  as metis  from  treaty  to their  and were never  constituents  who  included i n treaty,  identify o r were  as h a l f - b r e e d , o r were r e f u s e d s c r i p  r e s i d e n c y b a s i s o r a r e descendants  o f t h e above.  95  on a  The M.N.C. have  r e j e c t e d both t h e contemporary and t r a d i t i o n a l usage o f t h e term M e t i s and have adopted a d e f i n i t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e and p o l i t i c a l  a c t i v i t y o f t h e f e d e r a l government w i t h r e s p e c t t o  h a l f - b r e e d s l i v i n g i n Ruperts Land and t h e Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . The M.N.C. d e f i n e t h e M e t i s as f o l l o w s :  38 1.  The M e t i s a r e : - an a b o r i g i n a l  people  distinct  from  I n d i a n and  Inuit; - descendants what  o f t h e h i s t o r i c M e t i s who e v o l v e d i n  i s now Western Canada as a people  common p o l i t i c a l - descendants  with a  will;  o f those  a b o r i g i n a l s who have been  absorbed by t h e h i s t o r i c M e t i s . 2.  The M e t i s community comprises members o f t h e above who share a common c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y and p o l i t i c a l will.  The similar been  9 6  provincial definitions  accepted  organizations comprising but also  t h e M.N.C.  accept non-status  as members o f t h e p r o v i n c i a l  adopt  I n d i a n s who have  organization.  For  example, when t h e A l b e r t a M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n was founded i n 1932 i t o f f e r e d membership t o anyone o f n a t i v e a n c e s t r y . 1987,  9 7  As r e c e n t as  any person o f n a t i v e a n c e s t r y c o u l d be a member so l o n g as  a member o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n was w i l l i n g t o take a sworn t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t was a m e t i s .  In Manitoba,  statement  t h e Manitoba  Metis  F e d e r a t i o n was s t a r t e d because o f a s p l i t between s t a t u s and nonstatus Indians. person  Their c o n s t i t u t i o n provided that a non-registered  of Indian  Federation.  descent  could  the  organizations  a metis  member  of the  A non-native person c o u l d a l s o be a member p r o v i d e d  he o r she was m a r r i e d t o a m e t i s . within  become  membership that  99  criteria  i s t h e reason  I ti s likely of behind  the  this  prairie  flexibility political  the s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  element i n t h e M.N.C. d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e M e t i s N a t i o n .  39 The r e s u l t i s today "metis" can be d e f i n e d i n many d i f f e r e n t ways. who  A metis person i s d e s c r i b e d as a person o f mixed-blood,  considers herself  a  metis,  a  non-status  r e c e i v e d l a n d s c r i p o r money s c r i p , one who group  that  metis. all  identifies  persons  and  a  who  i s i d e n t i f i e d with a  non-native  married  who  identify  themselves  as m e t i s .  These  to  a  potential  and d e f i n i t i o n s have c r e a t e d the i d e n t i t y debate  resulted  3.  metis  one  None o f the d e f i n i t i o n s s t a n d i n g alone i s s a t i s f a c t o r y t o  1 0 0  usages  as  Indian,  one  i n major d i v i s i o n s  i n native p o l i t i c a l  and have  organizations.  R e s o l u t i o n o f the D e f i n i t i o n Debate Given the complexity of the d e f i n i t i o n debate i s i t p o s s i b l e  t o d e f i n e the term " M e t i s " i n s. 35(2)? view o f e t h n i c i t y  T h i s c o u l d depend on the  adopted by the i n t e r p r e t e r  of s. 35(2)  and  the  w i l l i n g n e s s o f the governments and metis o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o accept varying  definitions  o t h e r purposes. and  i f we  of  the  term  I f s. 35(2)  accept  the  "Metis" f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r e f e r s t o the metis e t h n i c  proposition  that  ethnicity  i s an  and  identity ongoing  p r o c e s s d e f i n i n g i t s boundaries i n response t o and i n the c o n t e x t of  social  history,  change, such  culture  bearing c o l l e c t i v i t i e s  as the descendents  with  a common  o f the M e t i s N a t i o n , w i l l  n e c e s s a r i l y have t o be equated t o the e t h n i c group r e f e r r e d s.  35(2).  metis  is  Joe a  Sawchuk argues  drastic  many  political  cultural  the contemporary  reformulation of  i d e n t i f i e d the M e t i s N a t i o n . primarily  that  the  i n nature r e f o r m u l a t i n g i t s e l f  stimuli,  the  emphasis  on  to i n  concept  criteria  However, i f one views  not  that  of  once  ethnicity  as  i n response t o  different  identifying  c r i t e r i a by d i f f e r e n t metis o r g a n i z a t i o n s can be e a s i l y understood.  40 Sawchuk contends t h a t e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s more than r e c o g n i t i o n of  cultural  phenomena,  i t is a  political  assertion  predominantly economic i n t e r e s t s o f a c o l l e c t i v i t y . ethnic identity political  i s always  c l i m a t e of  defend  Consequently,  i n a s t a t e o f f l u x and responds t o the  a given p e r i o d .  n a t i o n a l m e t i s o r g a n i z a t i o n s cannot m e t i s does not mean a contemporary exist.  to  The  1 0 1  fact  agree on who  that  the  two  i s o r i s not a  metis e t h n i c i d e n t i t y does not  I t may mean t h a t these p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have adopted  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a t h a t f u r t h e r t h e i r p o l i t i c a l and economic goals. An example of t h i s phenomena can be seen i n the New A s s o c i a t i o n o f M e t i s and Non-Status was  Indians.  Brunswick  In the 1600s t h e r e  a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of mixing between the French and I n d i a n  f a m i l i e s i n A c a d i a and New did  not  •  emerge  •  and  France, but a d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l  their  offspring  were  not  group  classified  as  a  102  distinct  race.  Association research  supports these represents  organizations impact •  Research  a  which may  result •  organization  facts.  by  Clem  "conscious  t o d i s t a n c e themselves  103  Metis."  conducted  the  Chartier  suggests  attempt" from  any  Brunswick  by  "maritime  possible  from b e i n g i d e n t i f i e d  this  negative  as h a l f - b r e e d s or •  Chartier changed.  argues  that  After  the  tune  Constitutional  of  criteria.  the  •  provincial  recognition  M e t i s as a d i s t i n c t a b o r i g i n a l people, focus was o r i g i n s and r a c i a l  New  of  the  s h i f t e d t o metis  1 0 4  I f the e x i s t e n c e o f more than one metis people i s accepted, t h e r e w i l l be some i n d i v i d u a l s of I n d i a n descent who and do not have I n d i a n s t a t u s . t o be one o f two p o s s i b l e  are not metis  The " M e t i s " i n s. 35(2) w i l l have  groups:  41 1.  The descendants o f t h e h i s t o r i c M e t i s  2.  People a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ongoing metis  Nation. collectivities.  A r e f u s a l t o s e l e c t i d e n t i f y i n g c r i t e r i a by f r e e z i n g c u l t u r a l idioms 35(2)  a t a g i v e n p o i n t i n h i s t o r y a l l o w s t h e i n t e r p r e t e r o f s. t o d e f i n e "Metis" f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l purposes as s m a l l  metis.  This  political  interpretation  activity  Constitution.  makes sense  surrounding  i n the context  "m"  of the  t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f s. 35 i n t o t h e  The r e s u l t i s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l term " M e t i s " does  not r e f e r t o a homogeneous c u l t u r a l group but a l a r g e and v a r i e d p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a b o r i g i n a l a n c e s t r y .  This conclusion  s h o u l d not be s u r p r i s i n g as t h e term " I n d i a n " c l e a r l y encompasses a v a r i e t y o f I n d i a n n a t i o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l , c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l backgrounds. groups  i s their  The common f a c t o r shared by a l l o f these  aboriginal  ancestry.  This  interpretation  also  a v o i d s u n i l a t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f a l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n and a l l o w s f o r self  identification. So when does t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s m a l l "m" metis and t h e  M e t i s N a t i o n become s i g n i f i c a n t ?  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n the context  o f e n t i t l e m e n t t o s p e c i f i c a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s such as a l a n d base and t h e r i g h t t o self-government. not  so much  one  of d e f i n i t i o n  In t h i s c o n t e x t t h e q u e s t i o n i s but e n t i t l e m e n t  and  Membership c r i t e r i a w i l l v a r y depending on r e g i o n a l , cultural  and p o l i t i c a l  asserted.  d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e nature  The demands o f t h e membership w i l l  standing.  historical,  of the claim  v a r y depending on  these d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e i r h i s t o r y o f d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments.  Consequently,  i t may be i m p o s s i b l e t o  d e s i g n a s i n g l e system o f compensation f o r a l l metis c l a i m s which recognizes  their  diversity  or resolve  their  grievances  with  a  42  single  court  action  i d e n t i t y of the Metis  Ill  S t a n d i n g t o Sue  1.  Introduction  and a t t h e same  time  upholds  t h e unique  Nation.  The membership c r i t e r i a and d e f i n i t i o n o f a metis group w i l l affect  t h e b a s i s upon which c l a i m s t o a b o r i g i n a l  and t h e form o f compensation sought.  title  a r e made  Groups which have a d i f f i c u l t  time e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s t o r i c a l o c c u p a t i o n o f a d e f i n e d t e r r i t o r y may shift  their  focus  t o t h e mode o f extinguishment  adopted by t h e  f e d e r a l government c r e a t i n g a n a t u r a l d i v i d i n g l i n e between those metis who took s c r i p and those who accepted t r e a t y . hand,  persons  living  w i t h i n t h e same geographic  On t h e o t h e r  boundaries  and  j o i n e d t o g e t h e r i n p u r s u i t o f t h e same g o a l s may s e l e c t i d e n t i f y i n g criteria  focused  history.  more on a contemporary  solution  than  a common  F o r example, t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " M e t i s " i n t h e proposed  Dene/Metis l a n d c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t has r a c i a l , identification  and group  i n c l u d e s persons  identification  criteria  who may have had t r e a t y ,  a g a i n s t t h e f e d e r a l government.  geographical,  scrip  and  or other  self-  clearly claims  Those metis who took s c r i p may  o r g a n i z e i n t o d i s t i n c t groups based on c l a i m s t o M e t i s n a t i o n a l i t y , c l a i m s t o monetary compensation as opposed t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f a l a n d base and membership i n a group occupying base.  a contemporary l a n d  Whether t h e c l a i m s o f these groups a r e r e s o l v e d by j u d i c i a l  determination right  will  those  rights.  o r land claims settlement,  concern  itself  t h e group a s s e r t i n g t h e  with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  protection of  The n e c e s s i t y o f t h e groups t o c r e a t e a p l a i n t i f f  43 r e c o g n i z a b l e i n law  i s one more reason why  o f the word " M e t i s " i n s. 35(2) Recognizing and  the  a broad i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  i s desirable.  the d i v e r s i t y among s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g m e t i s groups  reformulation  of  groups  various claims, t h i s t h e s i s w i l l  f o r the  purposes  of  asserting  address the c l a i m t o a b o r i g i n a l  t i t l e by descendants of the M e t i s i n h a b i t i n g Manitoba p r i o r t o and  their  reference  descendants will  be  particular points. of standing w i l l  2.  (Manitoba  made  to  Metis).  other  metis  Where groups  Keeping t h i s i n mind, the  1870  appropriate, to  illustrate  following analysis  focus on the Manitoba M e t i s .  Standing In  Calder  v.  aboriginal t i t l e  A.G.  of  B.C.  Mr.  J u s t i c e Judson  summarized  as f o l l o w s :  . . . when the s e t t l e r s came, the Indians were t h e r e , o r g a n i z e d i n s o c i e t i e s and occupying lands as t h e i r f o r e f a t h e r s had done f o r c e n t u r i e s . T h i s i s what I n d i a n t i t l e means... 106  T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t i t l e has Court  of  Canada  and  forms  s i n c e been confirmed the  basis  aboriginal t i t l e i s a collective right.  1 0 7  for  the  by the Supreme assertion  that  Although the q u e s t i o n of  c r i t e r i a f o r p r o o f of t i t l e i s the s u b j e c t of debate, academic and j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n agree t h a t p a r t i e s a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m t o t i t l e must c o n s t i t u t e an o r g a n i z e d  group of n a t i v e people.  In h i s a r t i c l e  "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " , P r o f e s s o r S l a t t e r y e x p l a i n s t h i s c r i t e r i o n as f o l l o w s : T h i s c r i t e r i o n excludes c l a i m s advanced by i n d i v i d u a l s . A b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s a c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t v e s t e d i n a group. It should be noted t h a t t h i s does not mean t h a t i n d i v i d u a l members of a n a t i v e group cannot h o l d l e g a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e r i g h t s t o share i n a group's c o l l e c t i v e t i t l e  under t h e r u l e s i n f o r c e w i t h i n t h e group. Such r i g h t s are not, however, a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n t h e s t r i c t sense. The c r i t e r i o n a l s o d i s q u a l i f i e s c o l l e c t i o n s o f people who lack sufficient coherence, permanence or self i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o q u a l i f y as an o r g a n i z e d group. But these requirements must be a p p l i e d f l e x i b l y , i n l i g h t o f the v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n found i n a b o r i g i n a l societies. A s i m i l a r view i s adopted by Mr. J u s t i c e S t e e l e who s t a t e s the f o l l o w i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n o f s t a n d i n g i n t h e Bear I s l a n d case: I t i s t r i t e law t h a t a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s pre-date any t r e a t y o r s e t t i n g up o f r e s e r v e s . Hence i f t h e r e a r e persons who a r e r e c o g n i z e d by n a t i v e I n d i a n groups as b e i n g Indians and members o f t h e i r group, b u t who a r e not a b l e t o be r e g i s t e r e d under t h e [Indian] A c t , then t h e r e must be a method whereby t h e i r r i g h t s can be a s s e r t e d . . . The o n l y way t h i s can be done i s by a l l o w i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f t h e band... Whether t h e r e i s a band, and who i t s members are, i s a matter t o • . . . 110 be determined i n t h e a c t i o n upon t h e evidence. The group  requirement  of native  aboriginal t i t l e  t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ( s ) r e p r e s e n t an o r g a n i z e d  people  could  result  in a  bar t o a  claim to  by descendants o f t h e Red R i v e r M e t i s g i v e n t h e  problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  d e f i n i n g a contemporary metis  identity  and a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t t h e M e t i s N a t i o n d i e d w i t h L o u i s R i e l .  This  p o i n t i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n o f Dumont e t a l v A.G. of  Canada.  111  T h i s was not an a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e  case  but a  case  concerned w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y o f o r d e r s - i n - c o u n c i l and A c t s o f P a r l i a m e n t p u r p o r t e d l y passed i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n s 31 and 32 o f t h e Manitoba A c t o f 1870.  The i n d i v i d u a l  plaintiffs  c l a i m e d t o be descendants o f persons r e f e r r e d t o as " h a l f - b r e e d s " in  t h e Manitoba A c t and t h e c o r p o r a t e p l a i n t i f f s  Federation interest  I n c . and t h e N.C.C. Inc.) p u r p o r t e d  o f " a l l o t h e r descendants o f M e t i s  (Manitoba  Metis  t o represent the  persons e n t i t l e d t o  l a n d and o t h e r r i g h t s under S e c t i o n 31 and 32 o f t h e Manitoba A c t of  1870."  112  45 At the t r i a l General  of  level,  Canada t o  an a p p l i c a t i o n was  strike  grounds t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s suit.  The 1.  out  the  lacked  made by  statement  standing  of  the claim  Attorney on  the  in a public interest  c o u r t h e l d f o r the p l a i n t i f f s on the f o l l o w i n g grounds: the c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a d e c l a t o r y order  providing  a  real  issue  concerning  the  r e l a t i v e i s s u e s of each has been r a i s e d ; 2.  the r e a l i s s u e s i n the a c t i o n are whether the Manitoba  Act  promised  whether  the  alleged  a  Metis  measures  reserve  and  taken  to  e x t i n g u i s h M e t i s t i t l e were u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; 3.  the p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t o f f i n d i n g f o r the p l a i n t i f f s would be support i n t h e i r l a n d c l a i m  4.  the  legislation  specific  group  plaintiffs; 5.  in or  negotiations;  question  class  refers  represented  to by  a the  and  t h e r e i s a c u r r e n t v i o l a t i o n of the p l a i n t i f f s ' r i g h t s r e l a t i n g t o the M e t i s  T h i s case was Speaking f o r the  reserve.  s u c c e s s f u l l y appealed by the A t t o r n e y Court of Appeal, Mr.  General.  J u s t i c e Twaddle h e l d  the d e c l a r a t i o n o f i n v a l i d i t y would not serve the intended  that  purpose  of d e c i d i n g an i s s u e e s s e n t i a l t o the l a n d c l a i m s n e g o t i a t i o n s the l e g a l b a s i s o f a l a n d c l a i m was  a matter o f "great  and  also  the  political  f e d e r a l government would and  historical  considerations.  s t a t e d t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s ' in  land  was  not  alleged  be 1 1 3  influenced  as  uncertainty" by  social,  J u s t i c e Twaddle a l s o  a s s e r t i o n o f a community o f i n t e r e s t  i n the  statement  of  claim  and  was  not  supported by the Manitoba A c t which granted i n d i v i d u a l , r a t h e r than  collective,  rights.  F o r t h e purpose  o f t h e appeal he assumes  t h a t " a l l h a l f - b r e e d s o f 1870 were 'Metis'; t h a t t h e M e t i s o f 1870 were a d i s t i n c t included  within  people;  and t h a t  a l l of their  t h e u n d e f i n e d group  o f persons  r e c o g n i z e d today as 'the M e t i s p e o p l e * . " two  assumptions  challenged resolved.  made  by  Mr.  115  Justice  and a r e n o t statements  descendants a r e constitutionally  As d i s c u s s e d , t h e f i r s t Twaddle  of fact  are  currently  but issues  t o be  The d e c i s i o n i s c u r r e n t l y under a p p e a l .  Although t h e q u e s t i o n o f s t a n d i n g i s n o t d i r e c t l y r a i s e d by J u s t i c e Twaddle, t h e d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n o f Mr. J u s t i c e O ' S u l l i v a n notes t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r the c o u r t s and lawyers t o understand what t h e r i g h t s o f a "people" can mean and how they a r e a s s e r t e d . A c c e p t i n g t h a t s. 35(2) r e c o g n i z e s t h e M e t i s as a b o r i g i n a l and r e j e c t i n g t h e argument t h a t t h e s e c t i o n i s meaningless  people because  the M e t i s have no r i g h t s , he argues t h a t " i t i s i m p o s s i b l e i n our j u r i s p r u d e n c e t o have r i g h t s without a remedy and t h e r i g h t s o f t h e M e t i s people must be capable o f b e i n g a s s e r t e d by somebody."  116  He  emphasizes t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n r e c o g n i z e s t h e M e t i s as a people of as  t h e " p r e s e n t " and not t h e " p a s t . " collective  rights,  he  1 1 7  concludes  Treating t h e i r land r i g h t s that  the " p l a i n t i f f s  are  s u i t a b l e persons t o a s s e r t t h e c l a i m s o f the h a l f - b r e e d p e o p l e " and comments on t h e need f o r t h e development o f "a r u l e o f law t o make 118  possible a legal solution t o minority claims." The Dumont d e c i s i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t r e j e c t s r e l i a n c e on  t h e Manitoba  title.  Act t o assert  I f i t i s upheld,  established.  a collective  some  Further, c e r t a i n  other  factual  claim  source  may  assumptions  p e r m i t s t a n d i n g by t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e a c t i o n .  to aboriginal have  t o be  were made t o  I n t h e event o f  47 an  aboriginal  dispute.  title  case,  The i n a b i l i t y  t h e assumptions  would  o f s e l f - i d e n t i f y i n g metis  be  issues of  t o agree  on a  d e f i n i t i o n o f "Metis p e o p l e s , " t h e non-existence o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n p u r p o r t i n g t o r e p r e s e n t o n l y descendants  o f t h e Red R i v e r M e t i s ( t o  the e x c l u s i o n o f non-status Indians and o t h e r metis accepted by t h e organization), Canada,  the  the scattering difficulty  in  of the Metis establishing  population an  across  ongoing  Metis  c o l l e c t i v i t y s i n c e 1870 and a s t a t i c view o f a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e a r e all  reasons  t h a t can be employed  t o deny  sufficient  coherence,  permanence o f s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o q u a l i f y as an o r g a n i z e d group. The  coherence  recovery  but  o f t h e p l a i n t i f f group should n o t be a b a r t o  i s more  properly  taken  into  c o n s i d e r a t i o n when  d e t e r m i n i n g t h e mode o f compensation.  L i k e o t h e r a b o r i g i n a l groups  who have been d i s p o s s e s s e d o f t h e i r  l a n d s , t h e M e t i s o f t h e Red  R i v e r can n o t show a c o n t i n u a l l i n k t o a g i v e n t e r r i t o r y  t o the  e x c l u s i o n o f o t h e r s up t o t h e p r e s e n t day. Assuming d i s p o s s e s s i o n was i n v o l u n t a r y , i l l e g a l o r wrongful i n some o t h e r way, i t i s o n l y just  that the c r i t e r i o n  date  o f d i s p o s s e s s i o n r a t h e r than t h e p r e s e n t day.  aboriginal  group e x i s t e d  s u f f i c i e n t coherence for  an e x i s t i n g  Rather,  land  a t t h e time  as a t t h e  Assuming an  o f d i s p o s s e s s i o n but lacks  t o be c a l l e d a group today, a l a n d s e t t l e m e n t  group  compensation  individual  f o r e n t i t l e m e n t be determined  o f descendants  may  grants  be  may  i n t h e form  coupled  with  n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e . o f cash  cultural  payments o r centres  s c h o l a r s h i p s t o compensate f o r d e s t r o y i n g t h e c o l l e c t i v e o f t h e group.  I f a c l a i m can n o t be brought  and  identity  because an e x i s t i n g  c o l l e c t i v i t y can not be i d e n t i f i e d , t h e r e s u l t i s t o deny t h e l e g a l e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h e r i g h t s o f an i n d i v i d u a l members o f a group  48  t o share the  i n a group's c o l l e c t i v e t i t l e .  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e group and the mode o f compensation i s  i l l u s t r a t e d through contemporary examples o f l a n d c l a i m s  agreements  and s e t t l e m e n t schemes d i s c u s s e d i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h i s  i  between  thesis.  49 CHAPTER 1 ENDNOTES  1.  Canada A c t . 1982  (U.K.), 1982, c . l l .  2.  W.F. Pentney, The A b o r i g i n a l P r o v i s i o n s i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n Act. 1982 ( Saskatoon: N a t i v e Law Centre, U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan, 1987) a t 100; 45-51.  3.  See, f o r example, A.G. o f O n t a r i o v. Bear I s l a n d Foundation (1984) 15 D.L.R. (4th) 321 a t 330 (Ont. H.C.J.) ; Hamlet o f Baker Lake v. Min. o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and Northern Development (1979) 107 D.L.R. (3d) 513 a t 542-543 (F.C.T.D.); B. S l a t t e r y , "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " (1987) 66 Canadian Bar Review 727 a t 756-7.  4.  See, f o r example, R. v. Simon (1985) 24 D.L.R. 390 (S.C.C.); Sparrow v. Regina (1987) 2 W.W.R. 577 (B.C.C.A.). But see A.G. o f O n t a r i o v. Bear I s l a n d , i d . , which r e f e r s t o a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s as communal r i g h t s . This interpretation a r i s e s from a view t h a t a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e synonymous t o , or a r e i n some way d e r i v e d from a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . Similar views a r e g i v e n by S l a t t e r y , i d . a t 744.  5.  G u e r i n v. R.  6.  D. Sanders, " P r e - E x i s t i n g R i g h t s : The A b o r i g i n a l Peoples o f Canada" (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y of Law, 1988), 35, photocopied, 1.  7.  F o r an i n t e r e s t i n g discussion on d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s see D. Ahenakew, " A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e and A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s : The Impossible and Unnecessary Task o f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and D e f i n i t i o n " i n The Quest f o r J u s t i c e , eds. M. B o l d t , J.A. Long and L. L i t t l e Bear (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1985) 24 a t 25-26.  8.  R e p r i n t e d i n The Quest f o r J u s t i c e ,  9.  See, f o r example, D. Opekokew, The F i r s t N a t i o n s : I n d i a n Government and the Canadian C o n f e d e r a t i o n (Regina: F e d e r a t i o n of Saskatchewan Indians, 1980); Ahenakew, s u p r a . note 7; Report o f t h e S p e c i a l Committee on I n d i a n Self-Government i n  [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335.  i d . a t 359.  50 Canada, by K e i t h Penner, Chairman (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r f o r Canada, 1983) . 10.  T. Berger, Northern F r o n t i e r Northern Homeland Douglas and M c l n t y r e L t d . , 1988) a t 40-41.  11.  R.E. Gaffney, G.P. Gould and A . J . Semple, Broken Promises: The A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conferences (New Brunswick: New Brunswick A s s o c i a t i o n of M e t i s and Non-Status I n d i a n s , 1984) a t 62.  12.  The M e t i s Betterment  13.  D. Sanders, "A L e g a l A n a l y s i s o f the Ewing Commission and the M e t i s Colony System i n A l b e r t a , " Paper prepared f o r the M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n o f A l b e r t a (Edmonton: A p r i l 4, 1978) Photocopied, a t 19.  14.  For a d i s c u s s i o n on the h i s t o r y o f the M e t i s s e t t l e m e n t s see, f o r example, M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n of A l b e r t a , P. Sawchuk and T. Ferguson, M e t i s Land R i g h t s i n A l b e r t a : A P o l i t i c a l H i s t o r y (Edmonton: M e t i s Assoc. of A l b e r t a , 1981) a t 187-214; A l b e r t a Federation o f M e t i s Settlement A s s o c i a t i o n s , M e t i s i s m : A Canadian I d e n t i t y (Edmonton: A l b e r t a F e d e r a t i o n of Metis Settlement A s s o c i a t i o n s , 1982) a t 5-11; D. P u r i c h , The M e t i s (Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, P u b l i s h e r s , 1988) a t 133150.  15.  Bill 1988  16.  For a summary o f academic o p i n i o n note 2 a t 182-188.  17.  A b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s t r e a t e d as a communal r i g h t o f a t r i b e of I n d i a n s . See, C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C. [1973] R.C.S. 313 and supra. note 3.  18.  D. Sanders, "Prior Claims: Aboriginal People in the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f Canada" i n Canada and the New C o n s t i t u t i o n : The U n f i n i s h e d Agenda,, V o l . I, eds. S.M. Beck and I. B e r n i e r (Montreal: I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1983) a t 241.  A c t . R.S.A. 1980,  c. M-14,  64, M e t i s Settlements A c t . 3d. Sess., s. 1(1) h. see W.F.  (Vancouver:  s.2(a).  21st Leg.  Alta.,  Pentney,  supra,  51 19.  L. Oppenheim, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law. 18th ed. (London: Longman's, Green and Co., 1963) a t 136; D r a f t D e c l a r a t i o n o f P r i n c i p l e s f o r the Defence of the Indigenous N a t i o n s and Peoples of the Western Hemisphere, a r t i c l e 1, p r i n t e d i n N a t i o n a l Lawyers G u i l d , ed. R e t h i n k i n g I n d i a n Law (New Haven: Advocate P r e s s , 1982) 137-138; F. Snow, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (Washington, Gov't P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1985) a t 19.  20.  See d i s c u s s i o n i n M.F. L i n d l e y , The A c q u i s i t i o n and Government o f Backward T e r r i t o r y i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law (Longman's, Green & Co. L t d . , 1926; r e p r i n t , New York: Negro U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969) a t 19.  21.  See, for example, R. Coulter, S o v e r e i g n t y " i n R e t h i n k i n g I n d i a n Law,  22.  See, f o r example, D. Redbird, We are M e t i s : A M e t i s View of the Development o f a N a t i v e Canadian People (Willowdale: O n t a r i o M e t i s and Non-Status I n d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1980) a t 5; Tremaudan, A.H., Hold Your Heads High: H i s t o r y o f t h e M e t i s N a t i o n i n Western Canada, t r a n s . E. Maguet (Winnipeg: Pemmican P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1982) a t 8.  23.  See, f o r example, G. S t a n l e y , The B i r t h o f Western Canada (Great B r i t a i n : Longmans, Green and Co. L t d . , 1936; r e p r i n t , Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto P r e s s , 1960) a t 11; A.S. Morton, "The New N a t i o n : The M e t i s " i n The Other N a t i v e s , v o l . 1., eds. A. L u s s i e r and D.B. Sealey (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n P r e s s and E d i t i o n s B o i s - B r u l e s , 1978) a t 28.  24.  Tremaudan, i d .  25.  For a d i s c u s s i o n of the v a r i o u s l i f e s t y l e s among the M e t i s see, f o r example Sealey, D.B. and L u s s i e r , S., The M e t i s : Canada's F o r g o t t e n People (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n P r e s s , 1975) a t 17-30; M. Giraud, The M e t i s i n the Canadian West, t r a n s , G. Woodock (Edmonton: U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a P r e s s , 1986); E. P e l l e t i e r , A S o c i a l H i s t o r y o f the Manitoba Metis: The Development and Loss of A b o r i g i n a l Rights (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n 1987). T h i s s u b j e c t i s d i s c u s s e d i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l i n chapter 4 o f t h i s t h e s i s .  26.  See, f o r example, S t a n l e y , supra. note 23 a t 107-125; D i a r y kept by the Reverend F a t h e r N.J. R i t c h o t when n e g o t i a t i n g the e n t r y of Ruperts Land i n t o C o n f e d e r a t i o n i n 1870, t r a n s . B e r l i t z T r a n s l a t i o n S e r v i c e , P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada, Ottawa, photocopied 14; D. Sanders, "Metis R i g h t s i n the P r a i r i e P r o v i n c e s and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s : A L e g a l  "Contemporary Indian supra. note 19 a t 117.  52 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " i n The F o r g o t t e n People: M e t i s and Non-Status Land Claims i n A l b e r t a by H. D a n i e l s (Ottawa: N a t i v e C o u n c i l of Canada, 1979) a t 10. There i s some disagreement on whether R i t c h o t went beyond h i s d e l e g a t e d powers d u r i n g the course o f the n e g o t i a t i o n s . The development o f the M e t i s as a d i s t i n c t s o c i e t y and the n e g o t i a t i o n s l e a d i n g t o Manitoba joining c o n f e d e r a t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter 4 o f t h i s thesis. 27.  D. Sanders, i d . a t 8.  28.  See, f o r example, d i s c u s s i o n o f e a r l y M e t i s s e t t l e m e n t i n P r i n c e A l b e r t , White F i s h Lake, S t . A l b e r t , Lac l a B i c h e , Lac S t . Anne and S t . Laurent (Batoche) i n S t a n l e y , supra. note 23 a t 178-192; Tremaudan, supra. note 22 a t 112-114; M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n o f A l b e r t a , supra. note 14 a t 14-16; S e a l e y and L u s s i e r , supra. note 25 a t 91-109;  29.  The s o u r c e s on M e t i s h i s t o r y i n the North West T e r r i t o r i e s a r e numerous. See, f o r example, S t a n l e y , supra note 23 a t 243265 and 295-326; Sealey and L u s s i e r , supra. note 25 a t 111132; Tremaudan, supra. note 22 a t 112-159. Thomas Flanagan c h a l l e n g e s the reasons f o r the 1885 i n s u r r e c t i o n a r g u i n g t h a t the M e t i s wanted money, not l a n d , and v i o l e n c e was not n e c e s s a r y t o r e s o l v e M e t i s g r i e v a n c e s . See, T. Flanagan, R i e l and the R e b e l l i o n : 1885 Reconsidered (Saskatoon: Western Producer P r a i r i e Books, 1983) a t 14-74.  30.  See,  31.  Arguments f o r the l e g i t i m a c y o f the p r o v i s i o n a l government a r e o u t l i n e d i n chapter 4 of t h i s t h e s i s .  32.  Manitoba A c t . S.C.  33.  Sanders, supra.. note  34.  These i s s u e s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l i n Chapter  35.  See, f o r example D e c l a r a t i o n on the G r a n t i n g o f Independence t o C o l o n i a l C o u n t r i e s and T e r r i t o r i e s . 1960. article 2 ; I n t e r n a t i o n a l Covenant on C i v i l and P o l i t i c a l R i g h t s , a r t i c l e I (1) ; I n t e r n a t i o n a l Covenant on Economic. S o c i a l and C u l t u r a l R i g h t s . a r t i c l e I (1) a l l r e p r i n t e d i n UNIFO, I n t e r n a t i o n a l  f o r example, Flanagan i d . , a t 80-81;  1870,  c. 3; see a l s o , supra. note  26.  26. 3.  53 Human R i g h t s Instruments o f t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s ( P l e a s a n t v i l l e : UNIFO P u b l i s h e r s , L t d . , 1983).  1948 - 1982  36.  Western Sahara  (1975) I.C.J. Reports 6.  37.  M. Davies, " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law: Human R i g h t s " , Chapter 13 i n A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and the Law: I n d i a n . M e t i s and I n u i t R i g h t s i n Canada by B.W. Morse (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1985) a t 756.  38.  A r t i c l e 2, D r a f t D e c l a r a t i o n o f P r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e Defence o f Indigenous Nations and Peoples o f t h e Western Hemisphere. supra. note 19.  39.  I n d i a n law Resource Centre, I n d i a n R i g h t s - Human R i g h t s : Handbook f o r Indians on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Human R i g h t s Complaint Procedures (Washington D.C. : I n d i a n Law Resource Centre, 1984) a t 14.  40.  M. B o l d t and J.A. Long, " T r i b a l T r a d i t i o n s and European Western P o l i t i c a l I d e o l o g i e s : The Dilemma o f Canada's N a t i v e I n d i a n s " , i n The Quest f o r J u s t i c e , supra. note 7 a t 344.  41.  M e t i s Assoc. 216-222.  42.  See f o r example, D. Sanders, supra. note 18 a t 263-267; R. Romanow, " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P r o c e s s " i n The Quest F o r J u s t i c e , supra. note 7 a t 73-82; R. Dalon, "An Alberta Perspective on Aboriginal Peoples and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n " i n The Quest f o r J u s t i c e supra. note 7 a t 107112.  43.  See, f o r example, Dalon, i d . a t 96 and 105; Sanders, i d a t 236; and f o r a d i s c u s s i o n on v a r i o u s academic views see Pentney, supra. note 2 a t 181-188.  44.  I t i s n o t unusual f o r tribes of different origins or r e g i s t e r e d I n d i a n bands t o be r e o r g a n i z e d i n t o a s i n g l e band f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r o t h e r reasons. An example i s t h e Saddle Lake Band i n A l b e r t a which was r e o r g a n i z e d i n t o a s i n g l e band t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e payment o f a n n u i t i e s .  o f A l b e r t a , supra. note  14 a t 16-17; see a l s o  54 45.  P. Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law o f Canada. C a r s w e l l , 1985) a t 340-342; 657-659.  (2d)  (Toronto:  46.  Dumont e t a l v. A.G. o f Canada (17 June 1988) Winnipeg 152/87 at p 6-7 (C.A.) d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n .  47.  S h o r t e r Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y . 3d, V o l s . I and I I (Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1975) a t 67, 1055 and 1386.  48.  See, f o r example, Re Eskimo [1939] S.C.R. 104 a t 118 per Kerwin J ; a t 119 and 121 p e r Canon J . where the term " I n d i a n s " i n s. 91(24) o f the B r i t i s h North America A c t . 1867 i s d e f i n e d as " a l l p r e s e n t and f u t u r e a b o r i g i n a l n a t i v e s u b j e c t s o f the proposed c o n f e d e r a t i o n . . . and R. v. Gueriny s u p r a note 5 a t 376 per Dickson J . who w i t h the concurrence o f t h r e e o t h e r judges s t a t e s the Crown's f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t o I n d i a n peoples has i t s " r o o t s i n the concept o f a b o r i g i n a l , native or Indian t i t l e . " 1 1  f  49.  Supra, note 3 a t 757.  50.  S. Weaver, " F e d e r a l D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s Demands" i n The Quest f o r J u s t i c e , supra. note 7 a t 146.  51.  I d . a t 146-147.  52.  T. Flanagan, "The Case A g a i n s t M e t i s A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " (1983) IX Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 314.  53.  I d . a t 321-322.  54.  B r i t i s h North America A c t . 1867,  55.  B. Schwartz, F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s : C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform w i t h Respect t o the A b o r i g i n a l People o f Canada. 1982-84 (Kingston: Queens U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e o f Intergovernmental R e l a t i o n s , 1985) a t 228.  56.  See, f o r example, d e s c r i p t i o n s i n B. Sealey, "One P l u s One Equals One" i n The Other N a t i v e s . supra. note 23 a t 7-8; P u r i c h , supra. note 14 a t 10-12. E. P e l l e t i e r , supra. note 25 a t 15-90.  30 & 31 V i c t . , c. 3.  55 57.  Cherokee N a t i o n v. Georgia. 8 L. ed. 25  (1831) a t 26-27.  58.  Id. a t  59.  Worcester  60.  See, f o r example, d i s c u s s i o n s of Canadian a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e s D. Jenness, The Indians of Canada. 7th ed. (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto P r e s s , 1977).  61.  I n d i a n A c t . R.S.C. 1979,  62.  R. v. L a p r i s e [1978] 6 W.W.  63.  See, "Who  64.  Re Eskimo, supra. note 48. D e s p i t e the Eskimo d e c i s i o n , the f e d e r a l government has argued t h a t 91(24) o n l y a p p l i e s t o s t a t u s I n d i a n s . See f o r example H. D a n i e l s , " L e g a l B a s i s of M e t i s Claims: An I n t e r v i e w w i t h Doug Sanders" i n The F o r g o t t e n People: M e t i s and Non-Status Land Claims i n A l b e r t a . supra. note 26 a t 94 and Chapter 2 o f t h i s t h e s i s .  65.  Id.  66.  K. Lysyk, "The Unique C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P o s i t i o n of the I n d i a n s " (1967) 45 Canadian Bar Review 513 a t 515.  67.  H. D a n i e l s , We Are The New o f Canada, 1978) a t 7-8.  68.  C. C h a r t i e r , In the Best I n t e r e s t of the M e t i s Child (Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan N a t i v e Law Centre, 1988) a t 46-49 and 31-32.  69.  K. M c N e i l , "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A c t , 1982, [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 1 a t 4.  70.  See, f o r example, R. v. P r i t c h a r d (1972) 9 C.C.C. (2d) 488 (SK. D . C ) ; R. V. Generaux [1982] 3 C.N.L.R. 95 ( S K . P . C ) ; R. v. L a p r i s e , supra note 62.  27. v. Georgia, 8 L. ed. 483  c. 1-6, R.  85  (1832).  s. 2 ( 1 ) . (Sk. C.A.).  f o r example, Sanders, supra. note 26 a t 20; A. I s An I n d i a n ? " [1977] 1 C.N.L.R. 22.  Nation.  (Ottawa:  Jordan,  Native Council  S e c t i o n s 25 and  35"  56  71.  Sanders, supra. note 18 a t 257.  72.  D i c k V. R. (1985) 2 S.C.R. 309.  73.  Re. Eskimo,  74.  See, f o r example, Sanders, supra. note 18 a t 232 r e g a r d i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l atmosphere i n which s. 35 came i n t o b e i n g ; Schwartz, supra. note 55 a t 288.  75.  See, f o r example, C h a r t i e r , s u p r a note 68 a t 21; D. Sanders, "An U n c e r t a i n Path: The A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conferences" a t 69; M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l , Statement on M e t i s S e l f I d e n t i t y . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e " F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Meeting o f M i n i s t e r s on A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l M a t t e r s " , Toronto, O n t a r i o , 13-14 February, Doc. 830-143/016; Gaffney, supra. note 11 a t 22-25.  76.  Manitoba A c t , S.C. 1870, c. 3; Dominion Lands A c t s . 1879, 42 V i c t . , c. 31; 1883, 46 V i c t . , c. 17.  77.  F o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n on whether M e t i s a r e s. 91(24) I n d i a n s see Chapter 2.  78.  P u r i c h , supra. note 14 a t 13; M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l , supra. note 75.  79.  Redbird, supra note 22 a t 1; M e t i s A s s o c i a t i o n supra. note 14 a t 2.  80.  See, f o r example, J . P e t e r s o n and J . Brown, eds., The New Peoples: Being and Becoming M e t i s i n North America (Winnipeg: U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba P r e s s , 1985) a t 5; T. Berger, F r a g i l e Freedoms: Human R i g h t s and D i s s e n t i o n i n Canada (Toronto: I r w i n P u b l i s h i n g Inc., 1982) a t 33; J . E. F o s t e r " , The M e t i s : The People and t h e Term" (1978) 3 P r a i r i e Forum 79 a t 86-87.  81.  Pentney,  82.  M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , supra, note 14 a t 10.  supra, note 48.  f  supra. note 2 a t 96.  of Alberta,  57 83.  J.E. F o s t e r , "Some Questions and P e r s p e c t i v e s on the Problem o f M e t i s Roots," i n The New Peoples: Being and Becoming M e t i s i n North America, supra. note 80 a t 73.  84.  M. Dunn, Access t o S u r v i v a l : A P e r s p e c t i v e on A b o r i g i n a l S e l f Government f o r the C o n s t i t u e n c y o f the N a t i v e C o u n c i l of Canada. A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform S e r i e s (Kingston: Queens U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e o f Intergovernmental A f f a i r s , 1986) a t 6.  85.  J . Brown, " M e t i s , " The Canadian (Edmonton: H u r t i g , 1985) a t 1124.  86.  M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l , The M e t i s N a t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d t o the " U n i t e d N a t i o n s Working Group on Indigenous P o p u l a t i o n s , " August 1984 quoted i n P e t e r s o n and Brown, supra. note 80 a t 6.  87.  There a r e numerous r e f e r e n c e s on the q u e s t i o n o f s c r i p distribution. See, f o r example, N.O. Cote, "Grants t o the H a l f - B r e e d s o f the P r o v i n c e o f Manitoba and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s " (Department o f the I n t e r i o r , 1929) P.A.C. RG 15 V o l . 227; M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , supra. note 14 a t 118-151; D.N. Sprague "Government Lawlessness i n the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f S c r i p " (1980) 10 Manitoba Law J o u r n a l (no. 4) 415; Sanders, supra. note 26 a t 9-19. The s c r i p system i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5.  88.  See, f o r example, A. M o r r i s , The T r e a t i e s o f Canada w i t h the I n d i a n s o f Manitoba and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s (Toronto: Bedford, C l a r k e and Co., 1880) a t 294-195; Chapter 5.  89.  See, f o r example, the I n d i a n A c t . 1876, 3 ( c ) ; 1951, s. 1 2 ( l ) a .  90.  Sanders, supra. note 18 a t  91.  Pentney,  92.  See, f o r example, R. v. Thomas (1891) 2 Ex. Ch. 607; I n d i a n A c t . 1879, s. 3 ( e ) ; Sanders, supra. note 13 a t 11-16; c h a p t e r 5 of t h i s t h e s i s .  93 .  C h a r t i e r , supra. note 68 a t  Encyclopedia.  39 V i c t . ,  vol.  c. 18,  2  s.  254.  supra. note 2 a t 97.  3-4.  58 94.  Dunn, supra. note 84 a t  5-6.  95.  Id. at  96.  C h a r t i e r , supra, note 68 a t 22-23.  97.  M. Dobbin, The One-and-a-Half Men: The S t o r y o f Jim Brady and Malcolm N o r r i s (Vancouver: Newstar Books, 1981) a t 61.  98.  P u r i c h , supra. note 14 a t  99.  A. L u s s i e r , "The M e t i s : Contemporary Problem o f I d e n t i t y " i n The Other N a t i v e s . V o l . 2 (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n Press and E d i t i o n s B o i s B r u l e s , 1978) a t 190-191; Manitoba Federation Inc., Manitoba Metis Rights Position Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the "Manitoba, 11 March 1983 a t 11; J . Sawchuk, The M e t i s o f Manitoba: R e f o r m u l a t i o n o f An E t h n i c I d e n t i t y (Toronto: P e t e r M a r t i n Assoc. L t d . , 1978) a t 48.  100.  Lussier, i d . at  101.  Sawchuk, supra. note 99 a t 12-13.  5-8.  14.  191.  102. J . Brown, supra. note 85 a t  1125.  103.  16.  C h a r t i e r , supra. note 68 a t  104 . Id. a t 23. 105.  Dene/Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement i n (Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and Development, 1988) s e c t i o n s 3.1.9, 4.1 and 4.2.  106.  Supra. note 17 a t  107.  R. v. G u e r i n . supra, note 5 a t  108.  See,  328.  f o r example, supra. note  376. 3.  Principle Northern  59 109. S l a t t e r y , supra  r  note 3.  110. Supra. note 3, a t 332. 111. S u p r a  r  note 46.  112. Dumont e t a l v. A.G. Can, and A.G. Man. 4 a t 4 (Q.B.). 113. Supra. note 46 a t 15-16 p e r Twaddle J . 114. I d . a t 9-10. 115. I d . a t 7. 116. I d . a t 6 p e r O ' S u l l i v a n J . 117. I d . a t 7. 118. I d . a t 14.  (1987) 48 Man. R. (2d)  60 CHAPTER 2  J u r i s d i c t i o n Over M e t i s Claims  I  Are M e t i s s. 91(24) Indians? Section  91(24)  of  the  BNA  Act  provides that  the  federal  government has j u r i s d i c t i o n over "Indians and l a n d s r e s e r v e d f o r Indians." the  Although the f e d e r a l government has g e n e r a l l y  exercise  reserves,  i t s jurisdiction  to  status  Indians  living  on  i t i s c l e a r t h a t the r e f e r e n c e t o I n d i a n s i n s. 91(24)  encompasses included  of  limited  a  larger  under  jurisdiction  the  federal  extends  interpretation,  group  to  historical  of  aboriginal  Indian Act the  regime.  metis  evidence,  peoples  is  a  than  Whether  those federal  question  which  pre-and-post c o n f e d e r a t i o n  s t a t u t e s and p o l i t i c a l p r a c t i c e can be used p e r s u a s i v e l y t o support two c o n t r a d i c t o r y c o n c l u s i o n s - the metis are s. 91(24) I n d i a n s o r o n l y those m e t i s who  l i v e d the way  of l i f e  o f the I n d i a n s a r e s.  91(24) I n d i a n s . In t h e i r attempts t o address t h i s i s s u e , academics approach  adopt the  taken by the Supreme Court o f Canada i n the Re.  Eskimo  1  decision.  In t h i s d e c i s i o n h i s t o r i c a l evidence i n c l u d i n g o f f i c i a l  documents, government documents and p u b l i s h e d t e x t s be  expected  t o be  known t o the  fathers  r e l i e d upon t o conclude t h a t Hudson's Bay  of  (which  c o n f e d e r a t i o n ) were  Company o f f i c i a l s ,  Canadian and E n g l i s h p a r l i a m e n t a r i a n s regarded Eskimos a t the time o f c o n f e d e r a t i o n .  might  and  as Indians  A l l o f the judges p l a c e d emphasis  on ajCensus taken by the Hudsons Bay Committee c o n t a i n e d i n an  1857  Report  This  t o the  Select  Committee  o f the House o f Commons.  61 census l i s t e d  "Esquimaux" peoples  listed  and h a l f - b r e e d s  whites  i n enumeration o f Indians and  together  i n a separate  category.  B r i a n Schwartz argues t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n o f h a l f - b r e e d s from t h e Indian  category  committee were  and t h e o r a l  i s evidence  used  testimony  t h a t t h e terms  historically  given  t o the select  " h a l f - b r e e d " and " I n d i a n s "  t o c h a r a c t e r i z e two d i s t i n c t  groups o f  2  people. of  He argues t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c l a i m  t h e M.N.C.  nationalism  and a  number  o f h i s t o r i a n s who  t o t h e Red R i v e r  area.  He  trace  concludes  Metis  that the  "development o f d i s t i n c t i v e behaviour and e t h n i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s among the h a l f - b r e e d s would have been a matter o f which a Hudson's 3 Bay Governor would be w e l l aware." On the o t h e r hand, Clem C h a r t i e r p o i n t s out a m b i g u i t i e s i n the Report and s e l e c t s passages from the o r a l testimony officials  t o support  under t h e term Eskimo case  o f Hudson Bay  an argument t h a t h a l f - b r e e d s were i n c l u d e d  Indians.  Recognizing  t h a t t h e evidence  i s n o t concerned w i t h metis  i n the  i s s u e s and i s capable o f  s u p p o r t i n g o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n s , C h a r t i e r argues t h a t o t h e r sources must  be c o n s u l t e d  Additional 1837  historical  Select  half-breeds  t o determine evidence  Committee from  cited  Report  Indians  the intention of by t h e author  on A b o r i g i n e s  parliament. includes the  which d i s t i n g u i s h e s  b u t a l s o i n c l u d e s them under t h e term  " I n d i a n " , r e p o r t s and correspondence which i d e n t i f y h a l f - b r e e d s as part  of the t r i b e  Parliament trading  concerning  license  reference historical  with  which  whom  t h e renewal by  t o half-breeds. evidence  they  favours  their He  reside,  and statements i n  o f t h e Hudson content  concludes  the i n c l u s i o n  Bay Company's  logically that  include  a  t h e weight o f  of half-breeds  i n s.  62 91(24).  5  The weakness o f C h a r t i e r ' s a n a l y s i s l i e s i n h i s f a i l u r e  t o address the emergence of the M e t i s N a t i o n as a d i s t i n c t economic c u l t u r a l group who  i d e n t i f i e d themselves as s e p a r a t e from  both I n d i a n and white s o c i e t y , o n l y those persons  socio-  6  h i s t o r i c a l evidence t h a t  of mixed a n c e s t r y who  t r e a t e d as I n d i a n s f o r l e g a l purposes,  7  lived  suggests  l i k e I n d i a n s were  and f u r t h e r evidence t h a t  t h o s e mixed b l o o d s who d i d not l i v e as I n d i a n s may have been viewed by P a r l i a m e n t as h a v i n g no g r e a t e r r i g h t s than the o r i g i n a l s e t t l e r s i n Ruperts Land (Manitoba) (including  Saskatchewan  and  white  and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s  Alberta).  Viewed  8  h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t , C h a r t i e r ' s evidence may  in this  broader  a l s o support the view  t h a t the h a l f - b r e e d s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r the M e t i s N a t i o n , were seen as a d i s t i n c t those who  people  except  f o r the l i m i t e d purpose  of allowing  l i v e d l i k e Indians t o be t r e a t e d as I n d i a n s .  C h a r t i e r addresses the argument t h a t the M e t i s were a d i s t i n c t people i n a l a t e r p u b l i c a t i o n e n t i t l e d "In the Best I n t e r e s t o f the Metis  Child."  He  p o i n t s out  that  the  distinctiveness  of  Metis  c u l t u r e can not be r a i s e d a g a i n s t the M e t i s as t h e r e i s no t h i n g as a s i n g l e d i s t i n c t I n d i a n people.  He  such  argues:  While i t i s t r u e t h a t the M e t i s developed as a d i s t i n c t a b o r i g i n a l people, i t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t the I n u i t were d i s t i n c t a b o r i g i n a l peoples as w e l l . In f a c t , i t i s beyond debate t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s among the d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n s o r t r i b e s of peoples commonly r e f e r r e d t o as I n d i a n s . The M e t i s d i d develop i n t o a d i s t i n c t n a t i o n , v i s - a - v i s the Cree n a t i o n and the Ojibway n a t i o n . B a s i c a l l y , t h i s can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a new n a t i o n o r group a f f i l i a t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l / n a t i v e / I n d i a n p e o p l e s . 9  In support o f t h i s argument, C h a r t i e r r e f e r s t o correspondence  to  Nor'Wester W i l l i a m M c G i l l i v r a y r e f e r r i n g t o Cuthbert Grant, l e a d e r of  the M e t i s  a g a i n s t the  development of the  employee o f the North West Company:  Selkirk  colony  and  63 Nor'Wester W i l l i a m M c G i l l i v r a y admitted i n a l e t t e r o f 14 Mar 1818 t h a t Grant and t h e o t h e r s were l i n k e d t o t h e N.W.C. by o c c u p a t i o n and k i n s h i p . "Yet", he emphasized, "they one and a l l l o o k upon themselves as members o f an independent t r i b e o f n a t i v e s , e n t i t l e d t o a p r o p e r t y i n the s o i l , t o a f l a g o f t h e i r own, and t o p r o t e c t i o n from the B r i t i s h government." F u r t h e r , i t was w e l l proved " t h a t t h e h a l f - b r e e d s under t h e denominations o f b o i s b r u l e s and m e t i f s [ a l t e r n a t e form o f M e t i s ] have formed a separate and d i s t i n c t tribe of Indians for a c o n s i d e r a b l e time back. 10  Although  the  Eskimo  decision  c o n f e d e r a t i o n s t a t u t e s , subsequent  did  not  consider pre-  case law has h e l d t h a t they a r e  r e l e v a n t t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the B.N.A. A c t .  11  C h a r t i e r argues  that the i n c l u s i o n of half-breeds i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f "Indians" i n p r e - c o n f e d e r a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e f e d e r a l government t o i n c l u d e them i n t r e a t y i s f u r t h e r evidence t h a t they were viewed by t h e government as I n d i a n s .  12  Of p a r t i c u l a r  interest  are An A c t f o r t h e B e t t e r P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e Lands and P r o p e r t y o f the I n d i a n s i n Lower Canada, 13 & 14 V i c t . Encourage t h e Gradual  Civilization  (1850) and An A c t t o  of the Indian T r i b e s i n the  P r o v i n c e and t o Amend t h e Laws R e s p e c t i n g I n d i a n s 20 V i c t .  (1857).  S e c t i o n 5 o f t h e 1850 l e g i s l a t i o n d e f i n e s " I n d i a n s " as f o l l o w s : . t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a s s e s o f persons a r e and s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as Indians b e l o n g i n g t o t h e T r i b e o r Body o f Indians i n t e r e s t e d i n such l a n d s : F i r s t - A l l persons o f Indian blood, reputed t o belong to a p a r t i c u l a r Body o r T r i b e o f I n d i a n s i n t e r e s t e d i n such l a n d s , and t h e i r descendants. Secondly - A l l persons i n t e r m a r r i e d w i t h any such Indians and r e s i d i n g amongst them, and the descendants o f a l l such persons. T h i r d l y A l l persons r e s i d i n g among such I n d i a n s , whose p a r e n t s on e i t h e r s i d e were on are I n d i a n s o f such Body o r T r i b e , or e n t i t l e d t o be c o n s i d e r e d as such: And F o u r t h l y - A l l persons adopted i n i n f a n c y by any such I n d i a n s , and r e s i d i n g i n t h e V i l l a g e o r upon t h e lands o f such t r i b e o r Body o f I n d i a n s , and t h e i r descendants. In  1851, t h e d e f i n i t i o n  was changed  t o exclude  males m a r r i e d t o I n d i a n women and t h e i r descendants.  13  non-Indian  The emphasis  64 on p a t r i l i n e a l but  descent  i s modified  by  I n d i a n women who was  carried  Vict. the  c o n t i n u e s under the  the p a s s i n g  of B i l l  f e d e r a l Indian  C - 31 which r e i n s t a t e d  l o s t s t a t u s through marriage.  i n t o An  (1868) Cap. Department  Act Respecting  regime  Indians  The 1851 and  definition  Indian  Lands.  31  14 and An A c t P r o v i d i n g f o r the O r g a n i z a t i o n of of  Secretary  of  State  of  Canada  Management o f I n d i a n and Ordinance Lands. 31 V i c t .  and  for  the  (1868) Cap.  42  w i t h minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s . A s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n i s found in  the  Act  For  Gradual  Civilization  of  Indian  Tribes,  S e c t i o n one p r o v i d e s the f o l l o w i n g persons are t o be  supra.  covered:  . . . s h a l l apply o n l y t o Indians o r persons o f I n d i a n blood or intermarried with Indians, who shall be acknowledged as members o f I n d i a n T r i b e s o r Bands . . . ; and such persons and such persons o n l y s h a l l be deemed Indians w i t h i n the meaning o f any p r o v i s i o n o f the s a i d A c t o r of any o t h e r A c t or Law i n f o r c e i n any p a r t o f t h i s P r o v i n c e by which any l e g a l d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f I n d i a n s and those of Her Majesty's o t h e r Canadian s u b j e c t s . The be  used  problem w i t h r e l y i n g on these  s t a t u t e s i s they can  also  to  not  were  considered legislation living  support Indians  the  argument  because  a r e reputed  a l l half-breeds  half-breeds  t o belong  referred to  to a p a r t i c u l a r t r i b e  The  term i s not  a racial  depends on an I n d i a n way  of l i f e and  f a m i l i a l and c u l t u r a l  This  among them.  the  that  argument  Morris'  gains  account  of  greater the  i f one  negotiations  s h o r t l y a f t e r Confederation. who  force  of  term, but  considers  the  numbered  in  the  and  are  one  ties.  Alexander treaties  He s t a t e s t h a t o n l y those h a l f - b r e e d s  l i v e d as Indians c o u l d d e c l a r e themselves as I n d i a n s and  treaty.  1 5  Consequently  that  without  considering  further  take  archival  evidence, arguments based on p r e - c o n f e d e r a t i o n evidence are e q u a l l y p e r s u a s i v e t o support two  opposite conclusions.  65 The given The  r e s o l u t i o n to the  to  a g r e e m e n t s may  post-confederation  importance  placed  contemporaneous  depend upon t h e  legislation,  by  the  historical  judges  evidence  p r a c t i c e and in  the  to  a  d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e t e r m " I n d i a n " i n s. 91(24) s u g g e s t s is  limited  evidence,  historically the  less  in  i t s scope  relevant  i t is.  and  the  I f , on  case  Eskimo  derive  law.  case  on  historical  that the  later  the  weight  term  i n time  other  the  hand,  one  p l a c e s more e m p h a s i s on t h e f i n d i n g t h a t I n d i a n s a r e a l l a b o r i g i n e s within  the  territories  construction  of  s.  t o be  91(24) may  become more r e l e v a n t . b r e e d s were c a l l e d aboriginal The lies the 1883  included i n confederation,  The  be  p o s s i b l e and  question  "Indians",  i s not  later  but whether they  may half-  were c o n s i d e r e d  i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the half-breed claim to Indian t i t l e Manitoba Act and  their  Indians, and  of  1870  ability  those  o f who  a d o p t e d t h e way  t h o s e who buffalo  an  s t r o n g e s t argument f o r m e t i s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d a b o r i g i n a l s  w e r e s e m i - s e t t l e d and  and to  the  Dominion Lands A c t s  take  lived had  treaty.  1 6  At  the  hunt. of  Canada w i t h o u t  1 7  The Louis  as  the  l i v e d by h u n t i n g ,  two  groups  and  of  the  distinct  lived  with  who  freighting;  and  t r a p p i n g and  the  joined together  opposed t h e  i n government. Metis  1879  those  Nation.  This  under  t r a n s f e r of Manitoba  p r o t e c t i o n of c e r t a i n r i g h t s i n c l u d i n g  participation  historians  and  four  of the white s e t t l e r s ;  l i v e d by t h e b u f f a l o h u n t and  Riel  time  i n M a n i t o b a : t h o s e who  of l i f e  latter  of  in  p e r m a n e n t homes c l o s e t o t h e t r a d i n g  were s e m i - s e t t l e d and  leadership  and  evidence  people^  h a l f - b r e e d p o p u l a t i o n s who  post  broader  s o much w h e t h e r  t r a n s f e r o f M a n i t o b a t o Canada, t h e r e were a t l e a s t  the  a  group  Although  to  provincehood  i s referred to  the  the  question  of  by the  negotiation matter a  of land  to aboriginal  dispute,  the negotiations  t o a l l half-breed  treaty i n satisfaction  extended similar and  protection  o f academic  grant  take  of a  i t st e r r i t o r i e s  scrip  The  system  redeemable  provisions  Those  treaty or scrip. the Indian  treaty  and take  limited  A c t regime  t h e Northwest  Territories,  scrip.  through  developed i n  t h o s e who  were  d i dnot  When C a n a d a  as Indians  Later,  resulted i n  i n t h e D o m i n i o n Lands A c t o f 1879  o r money  lived  clearly  given  the provision pursuant  their  scope  within were  but  Manitoba  given  accepted  scrip  of  provisions Indian  given that at  title  of the Indian i n t h e above  t o half-breeds they  were  the time  of  t o take  considered  of  those were  and t h e  the option  t r e a t y and  the option  T h o s e who r e c e i v e d  to  to fell  t o opt out of  remained  outside  18  the  i s a  to title.  t o a l l half-breeds  who  i n land  i n M a n i t o b a who  claims  of distribution  initially  extended  Northwest.  under  t o include  i n land  were  eventually  take  of their  p r o v i s i o n s were i n c l u d e d  1883.  people  rights  •  A c t and t r e a t i e s .  The  recognition  l e g i s l a t i o n coupled  with  the option  treaty  i s consistent  an a b o r i g i n a l people  with  t h e view  by t h e government  confederation.  S c h w a r t z a r g u e s t h a t s. 31 o f t h e M a n i t o b a A c t does l i t t l e t o help  resolve the issue. He s t a t e s : The o p e n i n g w o r d s o f s. 3 1 , t a k e n a t f a c e v a l u e , provide some s u p p o r t f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e M e t i s w i t h i n s . 91(24). Having "Indian title", however, i s not n e c e s s a r i l y t h e same t h i n g a s b e i n g a n I n d i a n . I ti s necessary to examine the purposes of assigning jurisdiction over "Indian" to the federal level of g o v e r n m e n t . T h e same s . 31 t h a t r e f e r s t o " I n d i a n " title of half-breeds a l s o contemplates e x t i n g u i s h i n g i t . That done, t h e r e w o u l d be no need f o r P a r l i a m e n t to retain j u r i s d i c t i o n over Metis and Metis lands. 1 9  67 The i n h e r e n t weakness o f Schwartz's argument i s he f a i l s t o consider  that  jurisdiction  the  over  federal  t h e metis  government after  continued  1870.  They  to  exercise  legislated  metis  r i g h t s t o l a n d , money s c r i p and l a n d s c r i p by s t a t u t e and o r d e r s m - c o u n c i l u n t i l as l a t e as 1921. government  In December o f 1895 t h e f e d e r a l  established a reserve  f o r metis  people  along  similar  l i n e s o f t h e p r a i r i e I n d i a n r e s e r v e s except c o n t r o l and management of t h e l a n d s was g i v e n t o t h e Roman C a t h o l i c c h u r c h . lasted  approximately  1905.  S i n c e then,  10 y e a r s  provide  Indians  limited  through  opened  The r e s e r v e  f o r settlement i n  the f e d e r a l government has s i g n e d l a n d c l a i m s  agreements w i t h metis people also  and was  21  i n the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s .  financial  funding  support  of p o l i t i c a l  t o metis  and  They  non-status  organizations; grants f o r  e d u c a t i o n , housing and b u s i n e s s v e n t u r e s ; and c o r e f u n d i n g f o r the Urban Indian-metis  friendship centres.  2 2  The system adopted by the f e d e r a l government can a l s o support the  argument  that  reference  to  Indian  title  in  l e g i s l a t i o n was simply a matter o f p o l i t i c a l expediency.  the  above  The M e t i s  were viewed by the f e d e r a l government as having t h e same r i g h t s as other scrip.  original 2 3  white s e t t l e r s who  were a l s o e n t i t l e d  to receive  T h e i r c l a i m a r i s e s from b e i n g o r i g i n a l s e t t l e r s whose l a n d  h o l d i n g s were t h r e a t e n e d by government p l a n s f o r s e t t l e m e n t .  This  argument g a i n s f u r t h e r support when one c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e f e d e r a l government towards Indians was t o r e s e r v e l a n d s f o r their  use  as  collectivities  individual allotments. t o t h i s argument  24  and  not  to  extinguish  claims  by  S e v e r a l p o i n t s can be r a i s e d i n response  including:  1.  The M e t i s N a t i o n understood  they were t o be granted  land  as i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t t h e l a n d granted was t o be assembled i n t o M e t i s townships o r r e s e r v e s ; 2.  I n d i v i d u a l g r a n t s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e government's Indian p o l i c y of " c i v i l i z i n g " taken as evidence  3.  25  so t h e system can n o t be  t h a t t h e metis a r e n o t I n d i a n s ;  The government was l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e p o l i c y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s government a t t h e time t o breakdown t r i b a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s through i n d i v i d u a l l a n d a l l o t m e n t s ;  4.  The f a c t  that  settlers  scrip  was  available to original  does not mean t h e metis  white  are not Indians, i t  means t h e system used t o d e a l w i t h t h e i r c l a i m s was not unique; and 5.  The f e d e r a l government d i d attempt t o s e t up a r e s e r v e i n 1895 f o r h a l f - b r e e d s when i t r e a l i z e d t h e s c r i p system had  failed  (St. Paul de M e t i s  i n n o r t h e r n A l b e r t a ) and  c r e a t e d separate h a l f - b r e e d r e s e r v e s under the h a l f - b r e e d adhesion Once again,  t o T r e a t y No. 3.  the r e s u l t  i s two p e r s u a s i v e  arguments  support  two  contradictory conclusions. T h i s ambiguity case  f o r c e s t h e academic t o l o o k a t l a t e r s t a t u t e s ,  law and p o l i t i c a l  practice.  Once again,  both  Schwartz and  C h a r t i e r a r e a b l e t o sue i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I n d i a n A c t t o support  t h e i r case.  26  Adopting  t h e C h a r t i e r a n a l y s i s , two r e c e n t  lower l e v e l c o u r t d e c i s i o n s have h e l d t h a t t h e metis and one has h e l d t h a t they a r e n o t . on  27  a r e Indians  A d d i t i o n a l case law f o c u s i n g  I n d i a n l e g i s l a t i o n w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l e g i s l a t i v e g o a l such as  69 prevention  of  selling  intoxicants to  Indians  and  p r o t e c t i o n of 28  h u n t i n g and  f i s h i n g r i g h t s , a l s o vary i n t h e i r f i n d i n g s .  A second argument can be made t h a t " I n d i a n t i t l e "  i n s.  31  r e f e r s t o c l a i m s by Indians, as d i s t i n c t from metis, and the c l a i m s of  the  half-breeds  surrender  of  lands  are  collateral  by  the  claims  Indians.  resulting  The  foundations  c o l l a t e r a l c l a i m are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 4. is  h e l p as they tend t o adopt the exact wording o f the  the  Dominion  problem  Lands  arises.  Act  is  Section  different,  125(e)  reads  Although the  same  "To  e x i s t i n g i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the extinguishment p r e f e r r e d by the h a l f - b r e e d s  . . .".  little  legislation:  "And whereas, i t i s expedient, towards the extinguishment ..."  a  interpreted in  R e f e r r i n g t o the b r d e r s - i n - c o u n c i l i s o f  T i t l e t o the l a n d s i n the P r o v i n c e  for  the  At t h i s juncture i t  s u f f i c i e n t t o p o i n t out t h a t s e c t i o n 31 can be  d i f f e r e n t ways.  from  of Indian  t h e wording i n interpretation  satisfy  any  claims  o f the I n d i a n t i t l e ,  However, i t i s c l e a r i n the  s t a t u t e s and s u b o r d i n a t e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t whatever the b a s i s o f the c l a i m , the i n t e n t i o n of the f e d e r a l government i s t o e x t i n g u i s h i t . II  Lands Reserved For  Indians  S e c t i o n 91(24) g i v e s Parliament and  "lands r e s e r v e d  Even though the  j u r i s d i c t i o n over  f o r I n d i a n s " as two  f e d e r a l government has  d i s t i n c t heads of power. denied  the metis, c e r t a i n metis p o p u l a t i o n s may  "Indians"  responsibility for  have been brought w i t h i n  the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the f e d e r a l government by the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  of  c o l o n i e s o r s e t t l e m e n t s modelled on s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s as  reserves  particular  established  under  the  federal  i n t e r e s t are the h a l f - b r e e d adhesion  Indian  Act.  t o T r e a t y No.  Of 3,  70 St.  Paul de M e t i s , the farm c o l o n i e s i n Saskatchewan and the metis  settlements i n A l b e r t a . Professor Slattery within  the  scope  of  suggests s.  "aboriginal reserves."  t h e r e a r e two  91(24).  The  types o f r e s e r v e s  first  type  he  labels  An a b o r i g i n a l r e s e r v e i s d e f i n e d as l a n d  t h a t has become permanently a t t a c h e d t o a n a t i v e group by  virtue  of  second  o r i g i n a l a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o those s p e c i f i c l a n d s .  type he l a b e l s "granted r e s e r v e s . " reserves similar  stems  from  instruments  and  i s not  associated with  the  granted  or  29  Both types  other  common  An example o f such lands are  aside f o r d i s p l a c e d Indian groups.  fall by  T i t l e t o l a n d s forming  s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , Crown g r a n t ,  d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . set  The  of  law  lands  reserves  w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n of "lands r e s e r v e d f o r I n d i a n s " g i v e n  the  P r i v y C o u n c i l i n the  St. Catherine's  Milling  case.  The  Court h e l d t h a t "the words a c t u a l l y used a r e , a c c o r d i n g t o  their  n a t u r a l meaning, s u f f i c i e n t t o i n c l u d e a l l l a n d s r e s e r v e d , upon any terms o r c o n d i t i o n s , f o r I n d i a n  occupation."  30  I f the term " I n d i a n " i s taken t o i n c l u d e a l l a b o r i g i n a l s , f o u r groups  of  creation  metis of  would  be  reserves.  i n v o l v e d i n the Adhesion  brought  The  first  under  s.  group  are  t o T r e a t y No.  3.  91(24) those  through  half-breeds  On September 12,  a group o f O n t a r i o metis n e g o t i a t e d e n t r y i n t o the t r e a t y from the I n d i a n s i g n a t o r i e s and were a l l o t t e d However, i n 1876,  the  1875,  separate  separate reserves.  the metis a t Couchiching, O n t a r i o were f o r c e d t o  j o i n a nearby I n d i a n band and c l a i m as Indians i n o r d e r t o r e c e i v e t r e a t y a n n u i t i e s . In 1967 the h a l f - b r e e d r e s e r v e s were amalgamated with  the  Indian  reserve.  31  Having brought  the  half-breed  under r e s e r v e s as d e f i n e d i n the I n d i a n A c t , however, p r i o r t o  lands 1967  the  basis  for jurisdiction  was  s.  91(27)  and  the federal  government's t r e a t y w i t h t h e h a l f - b r e e d s . The  second r e s e r v e c r e a t e d by t h e f e d e r a l government was S t .  Paul des M e t i s . found  A f t e r t h e metis i n s u r r e c t i o n o f 1885, many metis  3 2  themselves l a n d l e s s and p o v e r t y  stricken.  Reverend  Father  A l b e r t Lacombe p e t i t i o n e d t h e f e d e r a l government t o e s t a b l i s h f o u r townships i n t h e B u f f a l o Lake area o f A l b e r t a t o h e l p t h e h a l f breeds become s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g . The s t r u c t u r e was s i m i l a r t o Indian reserves i n that the designated  lands were i n a l i e n a b l e and v e s t e d  in  excluded  t h e Crown  reserve  and whites  areas.  reserves  were  However, t h e metis  i n that  administrative  from  beneficial  reserve d i f f e r e d control  was  with  use o f  from a  Indian  Board  of  Management composed o f Roman C a t h o l i c Bishops  ( r a t h e r than a band  council)  to  and  Corporations  the  townships  were  leased  the  o f t h r e e Roman C a t h o l i c d i o c e s e s . .  F o r some, t h e  33  r e s e r v e was seen as "another Canadians t r e a t e d t h e i r  Episcopal  example o f t h e s u p e r i o r way i n which  native races."  r e s e r v e , f a v o u r a b l y and unfavourably,  3 4  Others looked  as a humanitarian  upon t h e scheme.  35  The r e s e r v e operated p r i m a r i l y as a farm c o l o n y and metis c h i l d r e n were educated lasted  i n C a t h o l i c schools  approximately  10 y e a r s  on t h e r e s e r v e .  and was opened  The r e s e r v e  f o r settlement i n  1905.  Although  reasons  f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e r e s e r v e a r e s u b j e c t t o debate, i t  i s undisputed  the intentions of the oblate  is  and t h e  t h a t t h e f e d e r a l government c r e a t e d t h e r e s e r v e and  then a b o l i s h e d i t 10 y e a r s The  fathers  metis  recognition  later.  3 6  argue t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e above two r e s e r v e s of  the existence  o f metis  aboriginal  A c c o r d i n g t o S l a t t e r y ' s theory, t h e i n t e n t behind  title.  the creation of  72 the r e s e r v e and i t s l i n k t o the d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s not n e c e s s a r y f o r the r e s e r v e t o f a l l w i t h i n s. 91(24). regardless reserves,  of  the  acceptance  of  the  metis  Consequently,  perception  they c o u l d f a l l w i t h i n s. 91(24).  of  these  Based on the Supreme  C o u r t s d e c i s i o n i n R. v. G u e r i n . S l a t t e r y argues t h a t t h e r e significant  legal  reserves  the  Indian  and  difference  St.  reserves  Paul  de  aboriginal  and  granted  Crown's f i d u c i a r y o b l i g a t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d of  a l l s o r t s by  except t o the Crown. to  between  their  and  Slattery's definition  with  inalienability  I f the metis e s t a b l i s h a u s u f r u c t u a r y  37  Metis  v i r t u e of  of  right  a reserve  accepted, the f e d e r a l government c o u l d be l i a b l e t o c l a i m s from i t s  i s no  arising  disestablishment.  Reserve-like  colonies  provincial  governments  settlements  i n Alberta  Population  Betterment  have  in are  also  been  Saskatchewan created  Act.  The  established and  pursuant  metis  by  the  Alberta. to  argue  the  that  The  1938 the  Metis Alberta  s e t t l e m e n t s were e s t a b l i s h e d i n r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e the  government  argues  they  were  created  welfare  scheme.  use  g i v e n t o the A l b e r t a metis and  was  Regardless of the  39  p r o v i n c i a l government.  Professor  s e t t i n g a s i d e these lands was  as  part  have  settlements  fallen were  under  of  a  and  general  i n t e n t , a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of t i t l e was  r e t a i n e d by  Sanders argues t h a t the  a r e c o g n i t i o n of metis  r i g h t s which c o u l d not be ended by the P r o v i n c e . would  is  s.  91(24)  established  through  prior  to  usufruct  1982.  negotiation,  of  usufructuary This  40  act  the  As  the  arguably  the  agreements l e a d i n g t o the A c t are t r e a t i e s as t r e a t i e s do not have to  be  called  Consequently, the  "treaties" settlements  or may  take be  on  a  protected  particular under s.  form.  35(1)  of  73 the  Constitution  Act  1982.  f  Even  i f the  treaty  r e j e c t e d , the u s u f r u c t u a r y i n t e r e s t i s p r o t e c t e d right."  argument  as an  "aboriginal  4 1  In h i s d i s c u s s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l and g r a n t e d r e s e r v e s , does  is  not  address  the  question  of  which  government  Slattery  creates  the  r e s e r v e t o b r i n g the r e s e r v e w i t h i n s. 91(24) , but one would expect from the  r e a s o n i n g of h i s argument the  Once the  r e s e r v e i s granted, by  91(24). bring The  q u e s t i o n i s not  relevant.  whatever means, i t f a l l s  within  Consequently, S l a t t e r y ' s a n a l y s i s of s. 91(24) would a l s o  the A l b e r t a  metis s e t t l e m e n t s under f e d e r a l  problems a s s o c i a t e d  with t h i s conclusion  are  jurisdiction. discussed  4 2  later  i n t h i s paper. S i m i l a r arguments can Saskatchewan under L e b r e t which was in  be made t o b r i n g the  federal  jurisdiction.  Metis.  Ten  With the  exception  in of  f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d by the O b l a t e s , the M e t i s Farms  Saskatchewan were s e t up  residential,  farm c o l o n i e s  t r a i n i n g and were  communities  between  1939  Improvements  Districts  established and  Relief  1953  the government of Saskatchewan  economic development p r o j e c t s  farms  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act.  by  1969 Act.  R.S.S., c.  in  predominantly  pursuant 1940  245.  for  s.s., The  to c.  Local and  farms are  the  metis  the 128  as  the  operated  by m e t i s f a m i l i e s and u n t i l r e c e n t l y were owned and operated by  the  provincial  was  government.  43  In  1986,  title  to  the  Lebret  farm  t r a n s f e r r e d t o L e b r e t Farm Land Foundations Inc. which i s owned and operated  by  Lebret.  On the eve of the 1987  44  Grant D i v i n e  metis  and  indicated  non-status  Indians  in  the  district  of  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e , Premier  his willingness  to  transfer t i t l e  to  the  74 remaining e x i s t i n g c o l o n i e s t o the metis and non-status peoples and t o share r e s o u r c e revenues w i t h the p r o v i n c e .  4 5  The c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n o f the f e d e r a l government i s t h a t  they  do not have j u r i s d i c t i o n over metis and non-status I n d i a n s but they are  willing  to  assume  disadvantaged people.  some  responsibility  for  them  as  The p o s i t i o n of the P r o v i n c e s v a r i e s .  a  Both  Saskatchewan and A l b e r t a have designed s p e c i f i c schemes t o b e n e f i t them, but o n l y A l b e r t a has i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under t h e i r p r o v i n c i a l  full  jurisdiction.  Ill  J u r i s d i c t i o n and the Question of A b o r i g i n a l  1.  Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n s  Title  I t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t the powers g i v e n t o p a r l i a m e n t under s. 91(24) are p e r m i s s i v e and not mandatory.  Consequently,  u n l e s s t h e r e i s p o l i t i c a l w i l l t o a s s i s t the metis, the r e s o l u t i o n o f the  jurisdictional  debate  may  not  get the metis  any  ahead i n t h e i r demands f o r l a n d , b e n e f i t s , programs and a f f o r d e d t o o t h e r a b o r i g i n a l peoples under the I n d i a n A c t Certain  factions  o f the M.N.C. and  they  feel  the  federal  services regime.  the N.C.C. have p r e s s e d  f e d e r a l government t o accept j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e i r because  further  government  is  the  constituents  generally  more  sympathetic t o n a t i v e i s s u e s and i s more l i k e l y t o adopt a broad national  view.  46  In a d d i t i o n ,  the  federal  government can  raise  revenues by a v a r i e t y o f means - a matter o f p a r t i c u l a r concern t o m e t i s l i v i n g i n a have-not p r o v i n c e .  4 7  The assignment o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o the f e d e r a l government g i v e s r i s e t o t h e argument t h a t the metis are e n t i t l e d t o equal treatment  as a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s . the  D e l i a Opekokew argues t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f  f e d e r a l government t o r e f u s e  status  peoples has r e s u l t e d  j u r i s d i c t i o n over metis and non-  i n a f a i l u r e o f both t h e f e d e r a l and  p r o v i n c i a l governments t o r e c o g n i z e t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s and has created  inequity  aboriginal  i n t h e p r o v i s i o n o f programs and s e r v i c e s t o a l l  peoples.  The d e c i s i o n  exclude c e r t a i n a b o r i g i n a l s affected the protection often all  of  government t o  from t h e I n d i a n A c t regime has a l s o  o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s by t h e c o u r t s  l i m i t protection persons  of the federal  of Indian Act Indians.  aboriginal  ancestry  whose  which  She contends ancestors  that  lead  an  a b o r i g i n a l way o f l i f e should have equal r i g h t s and suggests t h a t the  controversy surrounding a claim  to aboriginal  M e t i s N a t i o n may r e s u l t i n t h e i r l o b b y i n g band under t h e I n d i a n A c t . The  significance  aboriginal  title  base beyond  t o be r e c o g n i z e d as a  4 8  o f Opekokew's argument  i s equity  that  title  equality  t o other claims  negotiations.  However, even i f t h e f e d e r a l they  peoples, the  (example through l a n d  and  jurisdiction  in  base, a r e s o u r c e  disadvantaged  negotiations)  have  i n the context of  o f access t o a l a n d  available  process of negotiating  r i g h t s by the  the  results  a r e not l e g a l l y  of  land  claims claim  government does not  obliged  to treat a l l  a b o r i g i n a l s t h e same and may not n e c e s s a r i l y be shamed i n t o doing so.  I n support o f t h i s argument one c o u l d p o i n t t o t h e p e r m i s s i v e  n a t u r e o f s. 91(24), s e c t i o n 25 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n which that  the equality  provision  of the charter  does  states  not apply t o  a b o r i g i n a l peoples, and t h e common law which r e c o g n i z e s a b o r i g i n a l rights  based  aboriginal  on t h e unique h i s t o r i e s and c u l t u r e s  groups.  49  of d i f f e r e n t  Although t h e r e has been some d i s c u s s i o n o f  76  equal  treatment  resolved.  of  Rather,  Indian  Act  Indians,  the  matter  i s f a r from  the c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n of the f e d e r a l government  i s t o d e a l w i t h p r o p o s a l s f o r l a n d s e t t l e m e n t s on a t r i b a l b a s i s . The c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l l metis and non-status s.  91(24) I n d i a n s  does not  prevent  the  Indians are not  federal  government  from  p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e t o c o n s t i t u e n t s of the M.N.C. and N.C.C. under other  heads  of  constitutionally  federal possible  a b o r i g i n a l , disadvantaged provinces.  power. as  Shared  the  metis  jurisdiction  can  be  is  classified  as  or o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s o f Canada and  the  Assuming the main concern o f the p r o v i n c e s i n r e f u s i n g  t o a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the s h i f t o f focus from  a  jurisdictional  provincial  debate  to  the  establishment  c o s t s h a r i n g arrangements may  of  federal-  do more t o f u r t h e r the  g o a l s of the metis and non-status I n d i a n s .  The f e d e r a l government  i s a l r e a d y p r o v i d i n g l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and, as d i s c u s s e d above,  are  willing  to  "disadvantaged people." may a  provide  assistance  Consequently,  to  the  metis  one s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem  be t o guarantee e x i s t i n g l e v e l s of f e d e r a l e x p e n d i t u r e s "no-off  loading" rule  acceptance  as  of  shared  with  jurisdiction  e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f mechanisms f o r t r i p a r t i t e l a n d c l a i m s  and  settlement  negotiations. The q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n cannot be completely through affect  c o s t - s h a r i n g as the  determination  implementing  land claims  the of  answer t o a  this  question  constitutionally  agreements.  sidestepped  valid  If bilateral  will  also  method  of  negotiations  are e n t e r e d w i t h p r o v i n c i a l governments, the s e t t l e m e n t o f c l a i m s reached hand,  through bilateral  n e g o t i a t i o n s may negotiations  be  with  ultra the  vires.  federal  On  the  government  other may  produce the same r e s u l t i f n e g o t i a t i o n s i n v o l v e the c r e a t i o n of a new  l a n d base as l e g i s l a t i v e powers do not c a r r y p r o p e r t y r i g h t s  w i t h them. by  50  expanding  claims. the  Consequently, existing  metis l a n d c l a i m s a r e b e s t d e a l t w i t h  land  claims  practices  N e g o t i a t i o n s f o r self-government  same  time.  Settlements  51  would  to  include  metis  c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a t  be  implemented  through  t r i p a r t i t e agreements, such as the proposed Dene/Metis l a n d c l a i m and  t h e James Bay  legislation  to  legislation  then  Agreement,  the  or perhaps  provinces with  being  passed  by  any  through necessary  parliament."  " d e l e g a t i o n of complimentary As  52  tripartite  n e g o t i a t i o n s are cumbersome and n e c e s s a r i l y l e n g t h y , n e g o t i a t i o n s c o u l d be c o n c e n t r a t e d w i t h one  o r the o t h e r government  depending  on whether more than simply a l a n d base i s b e i n g n e g o t i a t e d (eg. self-government)  and  the powers a f f e c t e d ,  but  leaving  access to  the t a l k s open t o both governments. The main problem w i t h i n s i s t i n g on f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y i s the p o t e n t i a l a f f e c t t h i s c o u l d have on e x i s t i n g m e t i s programs and  settlements.  As  an  example,  l e t us  consider  the  metis  settlements i n Alberta.  U n l i k e the c o l o n i e s i n Saskatchewan, the  metis  created  settlements  specifically  are  a t the metis  as  pursuant  a distinct  to  legislation  class  aimed  of people.  The  government of A l b e r t a has advocated a made-in-Alberta approach t o r e s o l v i n g q u e s t i o n s of metis t i t l e  and metis self-government.  On  J u l y 6, 1988  S o l i c i t o r General Ken Rostad i n t r o d u c e d two b i l l s i n  the  legislature  Alberta  designed  at  transferring  title  in  the  A l b e r t a m e t i s s e t t l e m e n t s t o the metis people and d e l e g a t i n g s e l f governing  powers t o  individual  s e t t l e m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n s and  M e t i s S e t t l e m e n t s General C o u n c i l composed o f e l e c t e d  the  councillors  78  from t h e s e t t l e m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n and independently e l e c t e d o f f i c e r s . B i l l 65, t h e M e t i s Settlements Lands A c t , a u t h o r i z e s t h e i s s u e s o f l e t t e r s p a t e n t f o r metis s e t t l e m e n t lands t o t h e M e t i s General  Council with  Crown.  Bill  of  ownership  of minerals  Settlements  remaining  with the  64, t h e M e t i s Settlements A c t , g i v e s t h e two  government s p e c i f i c  by-law and revenue r a i s i n g  t o those o f a m u n i c i p a l government.  powers  levels similar  The by-law making powers a r e  subject t o t r a n s i t i o n a l M i n i s t e r i a l approval f o r a s p e c i f i e d period of time and t h e M i n i s t e r r e t a i n s e x t e n s i v e r e g u l a t o r y powers. o r d e r t o g i v e metis lands c o n s t i t u t i o n a l proposes  entrenching  Alberta Act.  metis  title  In  p r o t e c t i o n , t h e government  through  an  amendment  of the  5 3  There a r e two problems w i t h t h i s "made i n A l b e r t a " approach. The  failure  constitutional in  to  entrench  the  Metis  of  the p r o v i n c i a l  government  t e r m i n a t e what they have e s t a b l i s h e d . question of j u r i s d i c t i o n . Metis  Act  in  a  accord, schedule o r through some o t h e r means r e s u l t s  the a b i l i t y  present  Settlements  Betterment  to  The second  unilaterally  relates  t o the  I f t h e metis a r e s. 91(24) I n d i a n s , t h e A c t and proposed  legislation  c o u l d be  c h a r a c t e r i z e d as l e g i s l a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o I n d i a n s and thus u l t r a vires.  Arguably  would be i n v a l i d . from t h i s  any a c t i o n s taken  pursuant  legislation  F o r those metis i n A l b e r t a who a r e b e n e f i t t i n g  system and have n e g o t i a t e d t h e proposed s e l f - g o v e r n i n g  scheme, a r e f e r e n c e o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o u l d cause s i g n i f i c a n t establishment under  to this  federal  problems.  of settlement jurisdiction  reserved f o r Indians,  54  lands  question t o the courts  Arguments can be made t h a t t h e places  pursuant  t h e metis  to their  power  settlements over  lands  b u t even i f t h i s argument were accepted i t  79 would not have the e f f e c t o f v a l i d a t i n g p r o v i n c i a l legislation.  self-government  Rather i t would have t h e o p p o s i t e e f f e c t .  One can  o n l y assume t h a t the c o u r t would attempt t o f i n d some way t o uphold a system agreed t o by the p r o v i n c e and the m e t i s and unopposed by the f e d e r a l government. the  federal  However, t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n would be f o r  government t o endorse  jurisdictional  the existing  scheme t o a v o i d  problems.  Recognizing t h i s  dilemma,  the following  draft  amendment t o  d e a l w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n was p u t forward by the M.N.C. a t t h e 1987 F i r s t M i n i s t e r s ' Conference on a b o r i g i n a l matters: 35(6) The Government o f Canada and t h e P r o v i n c i a l Governments are committed t o e n t e r i n g i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s directed towards concluding agreements with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l Peoples r e l a t i n g t o the l a n d and r e s o u r c e s , j u r i s d i c t i o n and f i n a n c i a l arrangements for aboriginal self-government.(7) Notwithstanding Clause 24 o f s e c t i o n 91 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867; the P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada and the l e g i s l a t u r e o f a P r o v i n c e s h a l l have t h e competence t o enact laws w i t h i n t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s r e q u i r e d f o r the implementation o f the agreements w i t h the M e t i s people as r e f e r r e d t o i n S u b - s e c t i o n (6) , 55  The f e d e r a l government responded w i t h a more expansive c l a u s e which would n o t a s s i s t the metis i f they were found not t o be s. 91(24) Indians.  The  representatives.  clause  was  rejected  by  the  aboriginal  5 6  C h a r t i e r e x p l a i n s the i n t e n t o f the proposed M.N.C. amendment as  follows: The i n t e n t behind t h i s amendment i s t o overcome t h e impasse, as w e l l as a l l o w the p r o v i n c i a l members o f t h e M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l an o p p o r t u n i t y t o pursue e i t h e r t r i p a r t i t e o r b i l a t e r a l agreements o r both, p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e p r o v i n c i a l governments. T h i s , f o r example, would have made i t p o s s i b l e f o r the M e t i s o f A l b e r t a t o pursue r i g h t s under the A l b e r t a government's p r e f e r e n c e f o r a made-in-Alberta agreement. I t would a l s o have accommodated t h e A l b e r t a M e t i s Betterment A c t and i t s successor l e g i s l a t i o n . 5 7  80  An  agreement  on  jurisdiction  has  not  been  reached.  In  A l b e r t a , the p r o v i n c i a l government i s c o n t i n u i n g w i t h i t s approach of  bilateral  negotiations  legislation.  implementation  In Manitoba, the  negotiations.  2.  and  metis are  through p r o v i n c i a l  involved  in  tripartite  5 8  Land Claims L i t i g a t i o n The  question  of  jurisdiction  has  little  effect  on  the  s e l e c t i o n o f a defendant i f the compensation sought i s l a n d as province  will  n e c e s s a r i l y be  involved.  Further,  5 9  relief  the will  l i k e l y be c l a i m e d based on a c t i o n s of the f e d e r a l government, such as the  half-breed  distribution  land grants  program.  i n the Manitoba A c t  If l i a b i l i t y  of  the  and  Federal  the  scrip  Crown i s i n  i s s u e d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , the F e d e r a l Crown must be j o i n e d as a party.  I f the a c t i o n r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of  6 0  a f e d e r a l o r p r o v i n c i a l enactment o r the q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , most  provinces  Attorney  have  legislation  that  requires  General f o r Canada and the r e l e v a n t  The  question  selecting  the  of  proper  jurisdiction  may  court.  general  The  notice  province.  become  to  the  61  significant  rule  is  that  in the  P r o v i n c i a l S u p e r i o r Courts have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l matters s u b j e c t to  the  federal  power  to  establish  courts  for  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the "laws o f Canada" under s. 101 A c t . 1867. within  62  the  better  o f the B.N.A.  T h i s phrase has been i n t e r p r e t e d t o i n c l u d e any matter  Parliament's  interpretation  has  legislative been  competence.  altered  j u r i s d i c t i o n as l o n g as the l i a b i l i t y  to  allow  However provincial  this court  o f the F e d e r a l Crown i s not  81 at  issue.  Consequently, u n l e s s the a c t i o n i s based on a c t s o f the  6 3  f e d e r a l government, i t may be necessary t o b r i n g a m e t i s t i t l e in  t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s i f the f e d e r a l government c o n t i n u e s t o deny  jurisdiction. 35(2),  this  Given the r e c o g n i t i o n o f metis a b o r i g i n a l i t y i n s. may  be  a  p u r e l y academic  point  u n l e s s the  government a s s e r t s t h a t t h e r e i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l aboriginal position  rights  that  matters.  the  metis  Given  are  the  not  s.  federal  o v e r l a p i n some  F e d e r a l Crown's c u r r e n t  91(24)  Indians,  they  u n l i k e l y t o a c c e p t t h a t a l l a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s matters f a l l s. 91(24) u n l e s s they deny " e x i s t i n g " metis a b o r i g i n a l  political  "fluff"  because  the  metis  do  not  have  are  within  rights.  T h i s approach t r e a t s the i n c l u s i o n of the term " M e t i s " i n s. as  case  6 4  35(2)  aboriginal  rights. It  is  advantages  beyond and  sittings.  with  scope  disadvantages  p r o v i n c i a l courts. associated  the  of of  this  thesis  proceeding  to  federal  and  The main concern f o r the l i t i g a n t i s the d e l a y the  federal  court  because  of  less  Jurisdiction  and compensation.  The  risks  f i n d i n g one government l i a b l e t o the e x c l u s i o n o f the o t h e r are out  litigation  above. and  This the  is  reason  the why  major  concern  associated  n e g o t i a t e d s e t t l e m e n t s are  advantageous t o the metis i n a d d i t i o n t o the s t a n d a r d of  frequent  G e n e r a l l y speaking, the q u e s t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s of  i s relevant to questions of l i a b i l i t y  set  the  i n the  l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the realm o f c i v i l procedure.  of  examine  c o s t , expediency and p u b l i c  relations.  with more  advantages  82 IV  Conclusion Although  much o f t h e debate has focused on a r c h i v a l  evidence  s u p p o r t i n g t h e meaning o f t h e term " I n d i a n " i n s.91(24), t h e author submits t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n may not be one o f h i s t o r i c a l  definition  so  historical  much  as  constitutional  interpretation.  The  development o f I n d i a n c u l t u r e s , customary and contemporary r u l e s o f membership, r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l i d e n t i t y i n t o s t a t u s and non-status  I n d i a n s , e x t e n s i o n o f l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n s t o i n c l u d e non-  aboriginal  groups  and p o l i t i c a l  provincial  governments  suggests  practice  o f t h e f e d e r a l and  the d e f i n i t i o n  91(24) i s n o t a c l o s e d category.  of "Indians" i n  This position  i s supported  by  the Re. Eskimo d e c i s i o n which a n t i c i p a t e s a p r o s p e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n by d e f i n i n g I n d i a n s  as " a l l p r e s e n t  and f u t u r e a b o r i g i n a l n a t i v e  s u b j e c t s o f t h e proposed c o n f e d e r a t i o n o f B r i t i s h North America." The  contemporary  foreseen  term  "Indian"  by t h e F a t h e r s  65  has taken  on many dimensions as  of Confederation.  These dimensions a r e  r e f l e c t e d i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l peoples i n s.35(2) o f t h e 1982  C o n s t i t u t i o n , a p r o v i s i o n which  identifying federal jurisdiction. to  exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n  s.35(2)  does  n o t mean  over they  should  n o t be i g n o r e d i n  The f a c t P a r l i a m e n t chooses not  certain cease  groups  t o be  of aboriginals i n  s.91(24)  Indians  as  P a r l i a m e n t cannot a l t e r the c o n s t i t u t i o n by l e g i s l a t i o n o r p o l i c y . 6 6  It  simply  means t h e e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n  i s p e r m i s s i v e , not  mandatory. The attention  question by  of  jurisdiction  t h e M.N.C.  has  and N.C.C.  received However,  considerable r e s o l v i n g the  j u r i s d i c t i o n debate w i l l not p l a c e a p o s i t i v e o b l i g a t i o n on e i t h e r government t o respond t o metis g r i e v a n c e s .  Such an o b l i g a t i o n w i l l  83  have t o have  a source  i n law (eg. f i d u c i a r y  obligation  F e d e r a l Crown towards Indians) o r a r i s e from s p e c i f i c (eg. M e t i s Betterment Act) t o be e n f o r c e a b l e . little upon,  impact on c i v i l  procedure,  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  litigation.  debate  Unfortunately,  of the  legislation  As j u r i s d i c t i o n has  i f o b l i g a t i o n s can n o t be agreed will  not create  litigation  an impasse t o  may be i n e v i t a b l e  i f the  f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments c o n t i n u e t o a s s o c i a t e o b l i g a t i o n w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e f u s e t o share j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e metis as a b o r i g i n a l  citizens.  For t h e metis, a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Supreme Court i s o f l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e i f i t d e a l s o n l y w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n and f a i l s t o address the  question  of obligation.  Even  so, l i t i g a t i o n  because i t may have n e g a t i v e r a m i f i c a t i o n s .  i s dangerous  Nevertheless,  i t is  u n l i k e l y shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i l l occur u n l e s s a d e c i s i o n i s made about  the  validity  e x t i n g u i s h i n g metis  of  scrip  rights.  government has i n d i c a t e d  distribution  The reason  i twill  accept  o n l y i f they a r e g i v e n p r o v i n c i a l justified intended  this  position  t o exclude  provinces.  6 7  lands.  by s a y i n g  Indian  lands  as  for this  a  method  of  i s the federal  jurisdiction  over  metis  Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau  the fathers of confederation when Crown  lands  went t o t h e  However, t h e i s s u e i s not t h a t simple as metis c l a i m s  were d e a l t w i t h  on a d i f f e r e n t  b a s i s than  other  Indian  Arguably, the p r a c t i c e o f i n d i v i d u a l l a n d a l l o t m e n t through  lands. federal  l e g i s l a t i o n s a t i s f i e d metis c l a i m s p r i o r t o Manitoba, A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan o b t a i n i n g ownership o f Crown l a n d s .  These p r o v i n c e s  could  t o be  argue  t h a t metis  lands  were not intended  because they d i d n o t e x i s t i n t h e eyes o f t h e law and, the  federal  government b e l i e v e d metis  excluded  i f they d i d ,  c l a i m s were e x t i n g u i s h e d .  84  Consequently, t h e q u e s t i o n have t o be r e s o l v e d can  be  reached.  jurisdiction addressed  o f " e x i s t i n g " metis t i t l e  by t h e c o u r t s  before  I t i s the w r i t e r ' s  i s best  left  out  i n t h e settlement  of  land  claims  opinion  the  will  that  agreements  the issue  of  process  and  litigation  p r o c e s s once t i t l e  likely  i s s u e s have been  resolved. Given the c o s t , with aboriginal t i t l e the  metis  to  have  l i t i g a t i o n process.  length  and e v i d e n t i a r y problems  litigation, title  associated  i t would be i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of  questions  resolved  outside  of  the  However, the Dumont l i t i g a t i o n suggests t h a t  the f e d e r a l government, p r o v i n c i a l government o f Manitoba, o r both are p l a c i n g s i g n i f i c a n t emphasis on the r e c e i p t o f s c r i p i n c u r r e n t •  •  Manitoba l a n d c l a i m s  •  •  •  68  negotiations.  •  •  As i n d i c a t e d by Mr. J u s t i c e  Twaddle, t h e purpose o f t h e c u r r e n t  litigation  i s Manitoba i s t o  •  69  h e l p t h e Manitoba metis reach a l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t . Twaddle b e l i e v e s more than l e g a l addressed  to  resolve  metis  considerations  claims  and  determination  o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y  will  determinative  not  be  in  land  claims  will  thus  However, have t o be  decides  the  o f the s c r i p program negotiations.  d e c i s i o n o f Mr. J u s t i c e Twaddle i s c u r r e n t l y under  appeal.  The  85 CHAPTER 2 ENDNOTES  1.  See, f o r example, Clem C h a r t i e r , " I n d i a n s : An a n a l y s i s o f the Term Used i n s. 91(24) o f the B r i t i s h North America A c t , 1867," (1978-79) 43 Saskatchewan Law Review 39; B. Schwartz, "The M e t i s and s. 91(24): The L e g a l H i s t o r y " and "The M e t i s and s. 91(24): P o l i c y A s p e c t s " c h a p t e r s i n F i r s t P r i n c i p l e : C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform w i t h Respect t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l Peoples of Canada, 1982 1984 (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental R e l a t i o n s , Queens U n i v e r s i t y , 1985).  2.  Schwartz, i d . a t 205-210.  3.  Id. at  4.  C h a r t i e r , supra. note 1 a t 42-49.  5.  I d . a t 51-59.  6.  See, f o r example, M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l , Statement on M e t i s S e l f - I d e n t i t y . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Federal-Provincial Meeting o f M i n i s t e r s on A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l M a t t e r s " Toronto, O n t a r i o , 13-14 February, Doc. 830-143/016; F.G. S t a n l e y , The B i r t h of Western Canada (Great B r i t a i n : Longman's Green and Co. L t d . , 1936; r e p r i n t , Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1960) a t 48-49; A.S. Morton, "The New N a t i o n : The M e t i s " i n The Other N a t i v e s . V o l . 1., eds. D.B. Sealey and A. L u s s i e r (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n P r e s s and E d i t i o n s B o i s B r u l e s , 1978); D. Bruce S e a l e y and A. L u s s i e r , The M e t i s : Canada's F o r g o t t e n People (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n P r e s s , 1975);E. P e l l e t i e r , A S o c i a l H i s t o r y of the Manitoba M e t i s : The Development and Loss o f A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n , 1974) ; H. Adams, P r i s o n of Grass (Toronto: General P u b l i s h i n g , 1975) a t 48-50.  7.  See, f o r example, A. M o r r i s , The T r e a t i e s of Canada w i t h the I n d i a n s of Manitoba and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . (Toronto: Bedford, C l a r k e and Co. 1880) a t 294-295; W. F. Pentney, The A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s P r o v i s i o n s i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t . 1982 (Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan N a t i v e Law Centre, 1987) a t 88; Schwartz, supra. note 1 a t 218-220.  8.  See, f o r example, T. Flanagan, "The Case A g a i n s t M e t i s A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s , " (1983) i x Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 314 a t 318-319.  209.  86 9.  C. C h a r t i e r , In the (Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y 1988) a t 40-41.  10.  I d . a t 41 q u o t i n g J . Brown, " M e t i s " i n The Canadian E n c y c l o p e d i a . V o l . 2 (Edmonton: H u r t i g , 1985) a t 1126.  11.  A.G.  12.  C h a r t i e r , supra. note 1 a t 57-63.  13.  An a c t t o r e p e a l the 1850 c. 59.  14.  Schwartz,  15.  N o r r i s , supra note 7; see a l s o E. F o s t e r "The M e t i s : People and the Term" (1978) 3 P r a i r i e Forum 79 a t 83.  16.  Manitoba A c t . S.C. 1870, c. 3, s. 31. Dominion Lands A c t . 1879, 42 V i c t . c. 31, s. 125(e). Dominion Lands A t . 1883, 46 V i c t . c. 17, s. 81(e) & 83. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the h a l f - b r e e d adhesion t o T r e a t y No. 3. They n e g o t i a t e d s e p a r a t e l y from the I n d i a n s and had s e p a r a t e r e s e r v e s a l l o t t e d t o them but i n 1876 they were f o r c e d t o j o i n a nearby I n d i a n band.  17.  See, f o r example, S e a l e y and L u s s i e r , The M e t i s : Canada's F o r g o t t e n People, supra. note 6 a t 13-73; M o r r i s , supra. note 7; F o s t e r , supra. note 15 a t 80-87; D.B. Sealey, S t a t u t o r y Land R i g h t s o f the Manitoba M e t i s (Winnipeg: Manitoba M e t i s F e d e r a t i o n Press, 1975) a t 4-50; G.H. Sprenger, "Metis N a t i o n : B u f f a l o Hunting v. A g r i c u l t u r e i n the Red R i v e r Settlement" i n The Other N a t i v e s , supra, note 6 a t 115-125.  18.  C h a r t i e r , supra, note 1 a t 64; D. Sanders, "A L e g a l A n a l y s i s of the Ewing Commission and the M e t i s Colony System of A l b e r t a " , Paper prepared f o r the M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , Edmonton, A l b e r t a , A p r i l 14, 1978, a t 11-15.  19.  Schwartz,  Canada v. A.G.  Best I n t e r e s t o f the M e t i s Child o f Saskatchewan, N a t i v e Law Centre,  O n t a r i o [1896] A.C.  supra. note  definition,  348  at  351.  14 and 15 V i c t .  (1850)  7.  supra. note 1 a t  222.  The  87 20.  L e g i s l a t i o n i n c l u d e d the Dominion Lands A c t o f 1879 and 1883, supra. note 16 and v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s i n e a r l y I n d i a n Act legislation. There are numerous o r d e r s - i n - c o u n c i l - passed pursuant t o the Manitoba A c t and Dominion Lands A c t . Some are quoted i n t h i s t h e s i s . An e x c e l l e n t summary can be found i n D. Sanders, "Metis R i g h t s i n the P r a i r i e P r o v i n c e s and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s : A L e g a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " i n H. D a n i e l s , The F o r g o t t e n People: M e t i s and non-status I n d i a n Land Claims (Ottawa: N a t i v e C o u n c i l o f Canada, 1979) a t 10-13.  21.  P.C. No. 37233, 28. Dec. 1895. The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f S t . Paul de M e t i s i s d i s c u s s e d i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r .  22.  D. P u r i c h , The M e t i s (Toronto: P u b l i s h e r s , 1988) a t 176.  23.  Flanagan,  24.  Schwartz, supra. note 1 a t  25.  Dumont e t a l v. A.G. o f Canada and A.G. o f Manitoba (17 June 1988) Winnipeg, 152/87 a t 10 (C.A.); G.F. S t a n l e y , "Canada's H a l f - B r e e d Reserve, S t . Paul des M e t i s " i n The Other N a t i v e s . V o l . 2, supra. note 6 a t 78. See a l s o the d i s c u s s i o n of consensual extinguishment i n Chapter 5, S e c t i o n I I , 2 ( b ) .  26.  Schwartz, supra. note 1 a t 225 and C h a r t i e r , s u p r a 60-61.  27.  R. v. Generaux [1982] 3 C.N.L.R. 95 (SK P . C ) ; O n t a r i o P u b l i c Employees Union v. O n t a r i o M e t i s and Non-Status I n d i a n Assoc. [1980] 3 C.L.R.B. 328 (Ont. L.R.B.); c o n t r a . R. v. Rocher [1982] 3 C.N.L.R. 124  28.  See, f o r example, R. v. Howson (1984) 1 T e r r L.R. 492; R. v. P r i t c h a r d (1972) 9 C.C.C. (2d) 488 ( S K . D . C ) ; R. v. V e r d i (1914) 23 C.C.C. (N.S. Co. C t . ) . Contra.. R. v. Hughes (1906) 12 B.C.L.R. 290; R. v. Budd [1979] 6 W.W.R. 450 (SK.Q.B.); R. v. L a p r i s e [1978] 6 W.W.R. 85 (SK.C.A.)  29.  B. S l a t t e r y , "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l Canadian Bar Review 727 a t 769 - 774.  supra. note  James Lorimer  and  Company,  8. 222.  Rights"  f  note 1 a t  (1987)  66  88 St. C a t h e r i n e s ' M i l l i n g and Lumber v. R 59 (P.C.).  (1888) IX A.C.  46 a t  N a t i v e C o u n c i l o f Canada, A statement o f Claim Based on the A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e o f M e t i s and Non-Status Indians (Ottawa: N a t i v e C o u n c i l of Canada, 1980) a t 12; P.A.C. R.G. 10, V o l . 2313, F i l e 62509-2. Supra. note  21.  For a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e and o p e r a t i o n of the r e s e r v e see G.F. S t a n l e y , supra. note 25 a t 75-707; M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , J . Sawchuk and T. Ferguson M e t i s Land R i g h t s i n A l b e r t a : A P o l i t i c a l H i s t o r y (Edmonton: M e t i s Association of A l b e r t a , 1981) a t 159-185; Lacombe, "A P h i l a n t h r o p i c P l a n t o Redeem the H a l f - B r e e d s of Manitoba and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s " 27 March 1985, P.A.C, R.G. 15, V o l . 708, f i l e 360-530. The Globe, a t 84.  Toronto,  12 February 1896,  quoted  i n Stanley, i d .  S t a n l e y , i d . a t 84-85. See, f o r example, M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , supra. note 33 a t 172-182. G u e r i n v R [1984] S.C.R. 335; S l a t t e r y , supra. note 29 a t 771. The M e t i s P o p u l a t i o n Betterment c. 6  A c t . S.A.  1938  (2nd S e s s . ) ,  See, f o r example, M e t i s Assoc. o f A l b e r t a , supra. note 33 a t 187-214; A l b e r t a F e d e r a t i o n of M e t i s Settlement A s s o c i a t i o n s , M e t i s i s m : A Canadian I d e n t i t y (Edmonton: A l b e r t a F e d e r a t i o n of M e t i s Settlement A s s o c i a t i o n s , 1982) a t 57; P o l i c y and P l a n n i n g Branch, N a t i v e A f f a i r s S e c r e t a r i a t , Government of A l b e r t a , Background Paper No. 6 The M e t i s Betterment A c t : History and Current Status (Edmonton: Native Affairs S e c r e t a r i a t , 1985) a t 1-6. A t t o r n e y General f o r Quebec v. A t t o r n e y General f o r Canada. (1921) 1 A.C. 401; D. Sanders, "Metis A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e " , Appendix I i n M e t i s i s m . i d . a t 58-63.  89 41.  Canada A c t . 1982  (U.K.), 1982,  c. 11  42.  S l a t t e r y , supra. note 29 a t 773.  43.  " C e n t r a l Farm i s E s t a b l i s h e d t o Help M e t i s " , Leader Post. Regina, 14 September 1940; Glen B e n e d i c t , S e n i o r N e g o t i a t o r , Lands, T r e a t y E n t i t l e m e n t and Resources, Government o f SK. t o C. B e l l , Oct 28, 1988; Sealey and L u s s i e r , The M e t i s : Canada's F o r g o t t e n People, supra. note 6 a t 153-154.  44.  Saskatchewan I n d i a n and N a t i v e A f f a i r s S e c r e t a r i a t , " L e b r e t Farm T r a n s f e r t o M e t i s and Non-Status", news r e l e a s e , 18 August 1986.  45.  Supra. note 22 a t 200.  46.  I d . a t 177; Schwartz, s u p r a note 1 a t 184-185; N a t i v e People and the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f Canada: The Report o f the M e t i s and Non-Status I n d i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Review Commission, by H.W. D a n i e l s , Commissioner (Ottawa: O n t a r i o Mutual P r e s s , 1981) a t 30-31; R.E. Gaffney, G.P. Gould and A . J . Semple, Broken Promises: The A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conferences (New Brunswick: N.B. Assoc. o f M e t i s and Non-Status I n d i a n s , 1984) a t 60.  47.  Schwartz,  48.  D. Opekokew, The Political and L e g a l I n e q u i t i e s Among Aboriginal People in Canada, Aboriginal Peoples and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform S e r i e s (Kingston: Queen's U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e o f Intergovernmental A f f a i r s , 1987). See a l s o Schwartz, i d . a t 187-188; Gaffney, supra note 46 a t 71; C h a r t i e r , supra. note 9 a t 52-53.  49.  Schwartz, i d .  50.  Opekokew, supra. note 48 a t 33-34.  51.  See, f o r example, p r o p o s a l s i n M e t i s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l , Options f o r t h e Implementation o f M e t i s Self-Government. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the " F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Meeting o f O f f i c i a l s on A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l M a t t e r s " , Working Group 3, Ottawa, O n t a r i o , 14-15 December 1983, a t 4.  f  i d . at  186.  90 52.  Schwartz,  supra. note 1 a t  184.  53.  B i l l 65, M e t i s Settlements Land A c t . 3d. Sess, 21st Leg. A l t a . , 1988; B i l l 64, M e t i s Settlements A c t 3d., Sess, 21st Leg. A l t a , 1988; Don Thomas, " B i l l s Give New Hope t o M e t i s " , Edmonton, The Edmonton J o u r n a l , 6 J u l y 1988, B . l . f  54.  Sanders,  supra. note  40.  55.  Quoted i n C h a r t i e r , supra. note 9 a t 47-48.  56.  Chartier,  57.  I d . a t 48.  58.  P u r i c h , supra. note 22, a t 200-201; i d . a t 58-59.  59.  Supra, note  60.  Crown L i a b i l i t y A c t . R.S.C. 1970,  61.  See, f o r example, J u d i c a t u r e A c t . R.S.A. 1980,  62.  Northern P i p e l i n e Agency v. Perehinec [1983] 2 S.C.R. s.13 a t 521-522; R. v. Thomas F u l l e r C o n s t r u c t i o n Company 1958 L t d . [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695 a t 173; A.G. Canada v. Law S o c i e t y of B r i t i s h Columbia [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307 a t 328-329. Note t h a t t h e F e d e r a l Court A c t . R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2d) Supp., s. 17(1) g i v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o the F e d e r a l Court where r e l i e f i s claimed against the federal Crown. However, the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h i s s e c t i o n has been c h a l l e n g e d and P a r l i a m e n t i s i n t e n d i n g t o amend the s e c t i o n t o a l l o w c i v i l s u i t s a g a i n s t the F e d e r a l Government i n P r o v i n c i a l S u p e r i o r Court.  63.  Minister of J u s t i c e (S.C.C.).  64.  A c c e p t i n g t h a t metis are s. 91(24) I n d i a n s , S l a t t e r y argues a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s are w i t h i n s. 91(24) as they are " i n t i m a t e l y connected w i t h the s p e c i a l s t a t u s and c a p a c i t i e s o f I n d i a n p e o p l e s and the p o s s e s s i o n and use o f t h e i r l a n d s . " S l a t t e r y ,  i d . a t 48 - 49.  50.  v.  Berowski  c.  C-38.  [1982]  c. J - l , s. 25;  1 W.W.R. 97  at  99  91 supra no