The
Daniel’s supreme court judgment April 14, 2016 made a very important ruling. Something consistantly overlooked
by proponents of the Powley decision:
“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.
The Royal Proclamation 1763 was annexed into the Niagara Treaty 1764. All rights in the Proclamation are therefore treaty rights. Canada Constitution Act 1982, protects all treaty rights. No treaty right, may be abrogated or derogated. The Proclamation declared the Indigenous right that all lands North of the Ohio river etc., were Indian Reservation Lands. Canada recognized separate Metis Aboriginal Land title in 1899. Despite First Nations transferring their land rights after 1763, most of Canada has never been ceded by the citizens of the Metis Nation of Canada.
ReplyDeleteSCC effectively stated that : an Indigenous "community" CAN be a "place" as demanded by the Red River Group......Or, a community can be a "thing", as in a group of people with a common interest. The common interest being an Indigenous ancestry; without borders & without discrimination.
ReplyDeleteA Metis community can be a place as demanded by the Red River Group;.....Or, a community can be a thing, as in a group of people with a common interest, (like a modern internet community consisting of Metis individuals).
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Proclamation 1763 ordered all settlers to leave every hamlet, encampment, village, town etc. Therefore, all legally inhabited communities after 1763 were Indigenous Metis communities, since only Indigenous people were legally allowed to remain immediately after the Proclamation 1763 & before the First Nations ceded their portion of Aboriginal Land Title.