A REMINDER THAT METIS IDENTITY WAS CONFIRMED April 14, 2016 BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA!

The Daniel’s supreme court judgment April 14, 2016 made a very important ruling. Something consistantly overlooked by proponents of the Powley decision:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do

“Held: The first declaration should be granted: Métis and non‑status Indians are “Indians” under s. 91(24) . The appeal should therefore be allowed in part. The Federal Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the first declaration should exclude non‑status Indians or apply only to those Métis who meet the Powley criteria, should be set aside, ……..”

Some Metis and academic leaders, as well as many Metis group members, continue to mislead the public by misinterpreting the reality and legal precedence of the Daniels decision. What is more simply said than “…should be set aside,…” The judgement clearly rejected the “Powley criteria” as the only definition of “Metis”.

Again, to make this judgement more clearly stated,  in the Background summary section 17 of the Daniels decision:

[17]                          “There is no consensus on who is considered Métis or a non-status Indian, nor need there be. Cultural and ethnic labels do not lend themselves to neat boundaries. ‘Métis’ can refer to the historic Métis community in Manitoba’s Red River Settlement or it can be used as a general term for anyone with mixed European and Aboriginal heritage. Some mixed-ancestry communities identify as Métis, others as Indian:

     There is no one exclusive Metis People in Canada, anymore than there is no one exclusive Indian people in Canada. The Metis of eastern Canada and northern Canada are as distinct from Red River Metis as any two peoples can be. . . . As early as 1650, a distinct Metis community developed in LeHeve [sic], Nova Scotia, separate from Acadians and Micmac Indians. All Metis are aboriginal people. All have Indian ancestry………”

While this decision did not specifically define who can identify as a Metis person, it was specific in stating another stand alone condition in addition to that set out in the Powley decision: “…..‘Métis’ …can be used as a general term for anyone with mixed European and Aboriginal heritage……” rejecting the premise that “Cultural and ethnic labels” cannot by itself define the Metis identity in “neat boundaries”. 

“Anyone with mixed European and Aboriginal heritage….” are legally allowed to self identify as Metis as well as associate  with any community that is willing to accept them. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) Evidence of “Aboriginal heritage” is assumed to specific criteria established by each Metis community unless or until further court directives provide otherwise.  

The eastern Metis are organizing both as self identified Metis and modern/historical groups challenging government assertions that reconciliation and consultation is constitutionally limited to section 35 rights dealing with land and harvesting rights. Governments in Canada have yet to be challenged on rights other than land and harvesting. While the Daniels decision was clear in it’s definition of who is Metis some Canadian leaders continue to disparage self identified Metis and their legal right to self identify, as well as seek government recognition as a rights bearing people.

Professor Darryl Leroux, a French Canadian patriot, denies Quebecers (as well as other Canadians) the right to pursue or rediscover their Metis identity, reiterating the view that there are no Metis people or original Metis communities in Quebec. His supporting arguments include accusations’ of anti First Nation activity and opportunism, as well as court failures illustrating the ineligibility of self identified Quebec Metis. He further denigrates Metis self identification, in his view, to an insignificant distant washed out, dubious, indigenous ancestry.

 The Daniels decision specifies “aboriginal ancestry”, without limitation, contradicting Darryl Leroux’s racist, derogatory view that he labels “race shifting”. Unfortunately, he is referenced by an increasingly hostile proactive following in both “western” Metis and some Canadian First Nation communities----and possibly poisoning the the views of non indigenous Canadians.

Self identifying as Metis through aboriginal ancestry is a legal Canadian right passed by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 14, 2016. It is incumbent on each Metis individual to access benefits, if needed, that are available to all other indigenous persons in Canada.