“No… definition will be imposed”

In the years leading up to the landmark Métis rights case, R. v. Powley, being heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Métis Nation—through the Métis National Council (MNC)—undertook extensive consultations, discussions, and debates to reach a shared National Definition for citizenship in the Métis Nation. This work was led by the National Métis Rights Panel.

The National Métis Rights Panel was chaired by then-Métis Nation of Ontario President Tony Belcourt and included representatives from all MNC Governing Members, from Ontario to British Columbia.

Previously, under the 1993 Métis Nation Accord, the MNC had put forward a definition that narrowly described Métis as, “an Aboriginal person who self-identifies as Metis, who is distinct from Indian and Inuit and is a descendant of those Metis who received or were entitled to receive land grants and/or scrip under the provisions of the Manitoba Act, 1870, or the Dominion Lands Act, as enacted from time to time.” 

This definition, which solely relied on government-issued scrip records as proof of Métis ancestry, was inconsistent with the Métis Nation’s position depicted in the Métis Homeland map included in the MNC’s Charlottetown Accord Backgrounder, which included regions of Ontario in which neither the Manitoba Act, 1870 or the Dominion Lands Act applied due to exclusionary Government of Canada policies that prevented Métis in Ontario from obtaining scrip, despite recognition by Crown officials that Métis in Ontario should be entitled to Métis scrip like their Métis relatives in the prairies.

In 2000, the MNC was also intervening in support of the Powley family and historic Sault Ste. Marie Métis Community’s fight for recognition at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In the MNC’s factum, MNC legal counsel Clement Chartier directly rejected the Government of Ontario’s argument that Métis rights and the Métis people are constrained to the Red River, saying:

“As well, the Appellant [the Government of Ontario] is wrong in stating the Metis Nation Accord definition ‘defined Metis exclusively in terms of Red River descendants.’”

With R. v. Powley at the centre of the Métis Nation’s rights agenda, lingering inconsistences—most notably, relying on scrip eligibility, which excluded the historic Sault Ste. Marie Métis Community from the earlier definition of Métis—needed to be addressed, so that all MNC Governing Members could enact a single consistent definition of Métis. As noted in a paper entitled Count Me In!: A National Definition of ‘Métis’ for Enumeration and Registry, presented to delegates at a 1999 National Métis Rights Conference, led by the National Métis Rights Panel: 

“The MNC believes that since we are one Nation, we must have one definition. We must not let provincial boundaries split us up and weaken us in our struggle for our national rights.”

With these principles in mind, the Métis National Council recognized that “A National definition system will only work if all Métis are behind the idea” and committed to broad Métis Nation consultations toward a National Definition, so that, “Once these consultations have given the MNC enough information on a national definition, then the MNC will propose a national definition for approval by all the Provincial organizations. No Métis Nation definition will be imposed without agreement.”

See Our Sources

• National Métis Rights Conference Delegates Kit, 1999

• MNC Factum at ONCA in Powley

• 1993 MNC Backgrounder on the Charlottetown Accord

• MNC’s Supreme Court Factum in Powley

• Report from J. A. McKenna Regarding Half-Breed Claims

• Advancing Reconciliation with the Northwestern Ontario Métis Community

• 1905 Moose Factory Métis Petition

• Abitibi Inland Métis Community’s Submission to the MNC Expert Panel

• MNO Submissions to the MNC Expert Panel

• MNC Expert Panel Final Report

Mini Word Search

Have fun with the facts by completing today's mini word search.