Skip to content

How the Métis confront the challenges of the Canadian legal system

|Written By Chris Coppin

Canadian Lawyer recently named Jason Madden to its list of Top 25 influential figures in Canadian law for his work on behalf of the Métis people. The Métis are a distinct cultural group of native peoples who are descendants of mixed First Nation and European heritage.

As the chief editor of the Conference of Western Attorneys General’s American Indian Law Deskbook, I wanted to learn about the challenges the Métis faced in using the legal system in Canada to gain recognition and the differences between how the United States and Canadian governments treat indigenous peoples. I asked Madden to speak with me about his work on behalf of the Métis people, and he graciously agreed.

One challenge to gaining legal rights for the Métis was to have a legal definition of who is a Métis, according to Madden. In R. v. Powley, in which Madden was counsel for the interveners Métis National Council and the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Supreme Court of Canada described the term Métis as “distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears. A Métis community is a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life.”

Thus, Métis are not considered to be Indians (First Nations), but are a separate cultural group. One of the problems presented by this distinction, as described by Madden, is that the Métis people have found it difficult, if not impossible, to get the federal government or provincial governments to engage the Métis in negotiations to resolve Métis claims to lands, harvesting rights, self-governing rights and compensation for past wrongs.

It is clear under the Canadian Constitution that the federal government has authority to legislate regarding “Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians,” as referenced under S.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, unlike in the United States where the federal government owns a majority of the lands in the west, the Canadian provinces were given ownership of the public lands. Thus, the provinces are a necessary party in the negotiation of the land claims of Métis as well as other native groups. Madden explained that the federal government denies it has responsibility to address the Métis claims while, at the same time, the provinces also deny any responsibility. Thus, the Métis have been denied a place at the negotiation table to address their grievances.

That may all change with the case of Daniels v. Canada. In that case, where Madden represented the intervener Manitoba Métis Federation, the plaintiffs did not challenge any laws or government action, but sought a resolution of the issue as to which government – federal or the provinces – has jurisdiction for the Métis people under the Constitution (i.e., are the Métis, who are culturally distinct from “Indians,” still included within the meaning of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867?).

The Federal Court found that over the years, the federal government had a flexible policy toward the Métis that at times treated the Métis as under federal jurisdiction and at times not under federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court concluded that the Métis are included as a group under the term “Indians” as it is used in the Constitution Act, 1867. The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the Federal Court, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. A decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear this appeal is expected soon.

I found in speaking with Madden, who is Métis, that native peoples in both the United States and Canada face many of the same legal obstacles in dealing with their respective federal governments. Although the federal governments have enacted laws to recognize and restore native peoples’ rights, it is through the courts that those rights are enforced.

Chris Coppin is the legal director for the Conference of Western Attorneys General. This post originally appeared on Thomson Reuters' Legal Current blog.

  • RE: How the Métis confront the challenges of the Canadian legal system

    Faddy Smelly
    A major issue with the metis group concept of 'ethno genesis' is that it could be perceived as both sexist and racist and ultimately an example of white male patrimony. There is no other nation in the world where a white male can create a 'nation' by being with an Indian woman. Having said that, one must also ask if 'being with' an Indian woman was a totally consensual act in fact. It would be telling to know how many of these white men set aside their country wives, partners when the 'real' wife arrived in Canada from Great Britain.

    It is also telling that the Ontario metis group assume that wherever there was a trading post, there are metis. It's been said that some marriages with Indian women were for economic considerations e.g. access to First Nation territories, obtaining economic information. One can say the apple does not fall from the proverbial ancestral family tree.
  • RE: How the Métis confront the challenges of the Canadian legal system

    Tony Belcourt
    I am Metis. I am not descendant of "mixed First Nation and European heritage", I am descendant of Metis people. I am 100% Metis. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents and further were all Metis. True, there was a union of First Nation women, French and Iroquois Voyageurs when they first arrived in Alberta in the late 1700's, but distinct Metis communities emerged immediately. I am offended by the perpetuation of the idea that Metis are somehow of mixed heritage. If that were the case, then the vast majority of First Nations who are also of mixed heritage would be classified as Metis. And so too would everyone else of mixed heritage. It's way beyond the time when scholars and legal advisors should know the distinctions and, in future, refer to the Metis for who we are "a people", one of those peoples whose Treaty and Aboriginal Rights are protected by Canada's Constitution.

SPECIAL REPORTS



Save

SUBSCRIBE TO LEGAL FEEDS

BY EMAIL

AWARDS

  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT