Module 7: Métis Self Determination and Governance

Métis is a term originating in the Latin “miscere” (to mix) that was used to describe children of First Nations women and French fur traders in the 18^th century (Métis Nation of Alberta). Métis culture developed during the fur trade, as liaisons between European traders and Indian groups. A unique culture was cultivated, including language, trading technologies, legal and political practices and traditions. In 1763, the Royal Proclamation awarded the Crown responsibilities for Indigenous peoples and enshrined land protections. The Proclamation did not extend to Métis peoples or their political rights, as they were not recognized as a sovereign people that time. In addition to facing social stigmas, Métis peoples encountered much impoverishment despite efforts of the rebellion led by Louis Riel in the late 1800s to reclaim traditional territories and resources. It was not until the 1930s that lobby groups in Alberta, including Peter Tomkins, were able to appeal to the government for access to Métis lands.

Like First Nations, Métis People are not a homogenous group, as there are many local, regional, and cultural variations of groups who identify as Métis (Sawchuck 2001). There are, however, contentions between western “Red River” Métis groups and Métis populations in Ontario or Labrador about the definition of “Métis” in Canada and whom is eligible to use this label. The Métis Association of Alberta (now called the Métis Nation of Alberta) has offered historically evolving definitions of who can be considered Métis. Many provincial Métis organizations now have their own membership criteria which defines who is considered Métis, usually based upon criteria set by the Métis Nation Canada (MNC). However, unlike the parameters for identity set by the Indian Act for First Nations in Canada, there is no official federal governmental definition of “Métis”.

One of the most important developments in Métis rights history was the affirmation of Métis peoples as Aboriginal Peoples in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. The lobbying of Métis activists to have Métis People included in section 35 (2) of the Constitution Act 1982 was a significant political victory for Métis and non-Status Indian groups.

In 1983, the Métis National Council was formed, comprised of the Métis Nation British Columbia, Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, Manitoba Métis Federation, and Métis Nation of Ontario. The Métis National Council (MNC) and affiliates are the only recognized Métis political bodies by the federal and provincial governments in Canada. Because of this, the only recognized definition of “Métis” identity is also that provided by the MNC and this definition does not recognize all mixed-heritage Indigenous groups (for example, Labrador Métis people go by “Southern Inuit”, and have struggled to have their Aboriginality recognized by governments).

The Constitutional affirmation of Métis People’s Aboriginality was a huge political accomplishment, however a consequence of this achievement resulted in a splitting of a long-standing political union between Métis and non-Status Indian groups; section 35 (2) enshrined legal rights for the Métis Nation but not for non-Status Indians (Sawchuk 2001). The post-1982 cleavage between Métis and non-Status Indians reflects a growing awareness that these two groups are not the same, as most Métis organizations note that Métis Nationhood involves a distinct cultural, historical, and linguistic heritage. This was reflected in a 1990 definition of the Métis National Council that specific Métis were “an aboriginal people distinct from Indian and Inuit” (Sawchuk 2001). As discussed in Module 6, R. v. Sparrow (1998) provided a new legal definition of how Métis could be defined according to section 35 (2), as “a person of aboriginal ancestry; who self-identified as a Métis; and who is accepted by the Métis community as a Métis”. While this recognition is important in securing Métis Nationhood under section 35 (2), it has raised some concerns about the conflation of Aboriginal and Métis identities (Anderson 2011).

Chris Anderson explains that “Métis identity carries the freight of more than a century of official Canadian attempts to impose binary ‘truths’ (‘Indian’ or ‘Canadian’) onto Indigenous social orders” (Anderson 2011, 164). He resists defining “Métis” as “mixed-race people” as it reduces identity to racialized representations and also serves to diminish the complexity of historical, political, cultural, and linguistic distinctiveness that many Métis Peoples see as underpinning their identity. This perspective affirms not only the distinctiveness of the Métis Nation as a cultural identity, but also the inherent sovereignty that Métis People hold as a distinct Indigenous nation within Canada. In short, like other notions of Aboriginality, Métis identity is complex and there is a lack of consensus among those who self-identify as Métis about the appropriate ways in which this label (and membership in political organizations) should be applied. For many, being Métis is not simply having mixed heritage, but it is about a connection to a distinct politico-cultural heritage—for some, intimately connected with Louis Riel and the Red River resistance and for others, more broadly tied to a broader set of Métis community histories and geographies.

In 2003, the identification of Métis persons and their rights was refined based on a legal precedent set through a Supreme Court of Canada case. R. v. Powley was a case based on a 1993 illegal hunting charge laid on two Ontarian Métis males. After being found in possession of a moose out of season, the accused argued that provincial hunting laws violated their Aboriginal right to hunt. R. v. Powley does not provide a universal definition of who can be considered Métis, but did provide a precedent in legal recognition of Métis section 35 rights. Like R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Van der Peet, this decision spurred discussion on who could be granted these rights, and this case provided guidelines for who can be legally recognized as Métis. To be considered a claimant of section 35 rights, an individual must demonstrate their membership in a present-day Métis community, and this community must be able to trace its existence back to an historic Métis community with a distinctive culture.

The affirmation of Métis rights under section 35 has meant that Metis People have the opportunity to seek legal recourse should their section 35 (2) rights be infringed upon. However, this recognition did not specify the government take any further actions nor that the federal government had any special obligations to Métis Peoples.

To deal with the discrepancy that existed in federal treatment of Aboriginal peoples, Harry Daniels, a Métis activist from Saskatchewan, his son Gabriel Daniels, Leah Gardener (a non-Status Indian), and Terry Joudrey (a non-Status Indian), with the assistance of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), filed a case against the Crown (Daniels v. Canada), represented by INAC and the Attorney General of Canada. The plaintiffs sought for the Court to declare that Métis and non-status Indians should be considered “Indian” under section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This clause provides to Parliament the exclusive legislative authority over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” but does not stipulate any legal obligations or actions on the government behalf. In the Daniels case, the plaintiffs also demanded that the Crown owes a fiduciary duty to them and that they have the right to be consulted by the federal government on a collective basis as status Indians had been.

While the Court agreed to the first clause, it declined the second two. In 2013, the federal government appealed the ruling at the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court upheld the original decision, although it excluded non-Status Indians from the scope of application. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) heard a second appeal and ruled in favour of the original court decision that Métis and non-Status Indians should be considered “Indian” as the term applies in section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The SCC found that the secondary and tertiary demands relating to a fiduciary relationship and consultation had already been established in existing precedents under Delgamuukw v British Columbia (established fiduciary relationship) and Haida Nation v British Columbia, Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, and R. v. Powley that established contexts in which the Crown has a duty to negotiate as related to Aboriginal rights.

The exact ramifications about financial obligations and federal-Métis relations have yet to be established. Consider the next Learning Activity that explores some of these issues.

An interesting political consideration of the SCC ruling is that it was noted “there is no need to delineate which mixed-ancestry communities are Métis and which are non-status Indians. They are all ‘Indians’ under s. 91 (24) by virtue of the fact that they are all Aboriginal peoples” (Supreme Court of Canada 2016). The case explains that:

This stipulation is particularly interesting in relation to our required reading by Anderson about the distinctions between Métis and non-Status Indians and the challenges associated with equating Métis People with “mixed-ancestry” definitions.

Considering this overview of Métis political identity and history, governance practices of the Métis Nation(s) are a useful case study to explore issues in Indigenous Governance. As Métis People have been historically excluded from the Indian Act system, their path to self-governance and political management has taken a unique path. The remainder of this module will focus specifically on the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan government structures and issues faced with Métis governance in Saskatchewan.

The Métis population in Saskatchewan is made of individuals who self-identify with Métis ancestry and may or may not be members of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (MN-S). Estimates of the number of people vary from Statistics Canada estimates of 624,220 people, 62,800 of which live in Saskatchewan, who self reported as Métis on the 2021 census. Of these, 26,695 reported being members of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. The MN-S membership includes all members who have obtained Métis Citizenship cards through the MN-S citizenship registry, which was centralized from a previous system that also involved local Métis organizations in 2021. Most recent figures from the MN-S lists 28,704 registered citizens. The General Assembly of the MN-S includes all of these members.

The governance structure of the MN-S is depicted in Figure 7-1. The Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (MNLA) is the governing body of the MN-S. The MNLA is an elected organization that meets and enacts laws. The MNLA is made up of the Provincial Métis Council (PMC), Women and Youth Representatives, and elected Métis Local presidents.

The Provincial Métis Council (PMC) is made of:

• 12 Regional Representatives elected within their region by all citizens
• 1 Métis Youth Representative elected in their youth organization
• 1 Métis Women’s Representative elected in the women’s organization
• Elected Executive of the MN-S (President, vice-president, treasurer and secretary), elected province-wide by all Métis citizens. However, there are plans to phase out the role of treasurer and secretary once self-governance treaties are completed, as these are positions necessary in a corporate model (MN-S Secretariat Inc) but not in a government.

The Saskatchewan Métis Act also constitutes an MN-S Secretariat Inc. body, which deals directly with the provincial government. The secretariat is the administrative body by which policies and programs of the MN-S may be carried out and administered. Saskatchewan is divided into 12 different regions. Each region has a regional council, which is formed of each of the presidents of the Locals in that region, as well as a director for the region who is elected as the regional representative to sit on the Provincial Metis Council. These Métis Locals, which make up Regional Councils, operate separately and may also act as separate governing bodies for their particular territories when it comes to programs and grant acquisition.

You will see from Figure 7-1 that there are Local Representatives from various regions in the province: North Region (NR), West Region (WR), East Region (ER). These Locals comprise the Provincial Metis Council (PMC). The PMC, which includes the Youth and Women’s representatives and the elected Executive, make up the Metis Nation Legislative Assembly.

Figure 7-1: Governance Structure of the MN-S. Source: Rebecca Major, Department of Political Studies, University of Saskatchewan and Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Area Representative.

The Métis population has several affiliated bodies including the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan itself that acts as the political voice for all members and groups. MN-S is connected to the other Métis organizations. Each Métis affiliate is a separate corporation (including the MN-S which is under the Saskatchewan Non-Profit Corporations Act or the Business Corporations Act).

Affiliated Métis organizations include:

• The Clarence Campeau Development Fund, which incorporated in 1997 and reorganized in 2001 under an amendment to the Gaming Act to encourage Métis business development.
• SaskMetis Economic Development Corporation (SMEDCO), a Métis owned lending organization created to finance Métis business.
• Métis Family Community Justice Services of Saskatchewan Inc. (MFCJS)
• The Provincial Métis Housing Corporation (PMHC), which is a delivery agent for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Municipal Government Housing Division.
• The Gabriel Dumont Institute (GDI), which was incorporated in 1988 to meet educational and training needs.
• The Métis Addictions Council of Saskatchewan, which is a non-profit society. (MACSI)

Learning Activity 7-5

When considering that the Métis Nation does not receive the same type of funding arrangements as the federal government (INAC) has with First Nations, what are the advantages of having Métis-specific organizations that can assist the Nation in economic development, justice, housing, education, and health/addictions? List some of your ideas on the whiteboard below.

The Métis Act, which came into effect on January 28, 2002, is a piece of provincial legislation passed by the Saskatchewan Legislature. It establishes a framework for coordination and cooperation between the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan (MN-S) and the Government of Saskatchewan through a bilateral process, enabling the two parties to address important issues such as land, harvesting governance, and capacity building. While this legislation represents an unprecedented de facto recognition of the MN-S’s aspirations as a governance institution, it did not go so far as to legally recognize the MN-S as a government.

The MN-S Secretariat Inc., recognized under the Métis Act as the administrative body for implementing policies and programs, carries out these functions on behalf of the MN-S. Its board consists of members from the Provincial Métis Council of the MN-S, who control and direct all affairs of the Secretariat, formalizing decisions through resolutions and bylaws.

It is important to note that while the Métis Act is provincial legislation, the various ‘acts’ passed by the MN-S, such as those adopted by the MN-S Secretariat Inc., are not provincial or federal statutes. Instead, they are internal governance instruments that establish rules and guidelines for the MN-S’s own organizational structure and functions. Furthermore, the constitution of the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan further distinguishes the MN-S as a self-governing entity, separating its political existence as a Métis government (Metis Nation of Saskatchewan) from its role as a non-profit corporation (MN-S Secretariat Inc) responsible for delivering programs and services.

Although the Métis Act (2002) advanced the aspirations of the Métis Nation, there were several concerns regarding its limitations in the following years. According to the Métis Consultation Panel (2006), these concerns included:

• Provincial legislation was not sufficiently detailed concerning Métis rights and the responsibilities of the MN-S.
• Many Métis were unaware of the Act’s existence and/or relevance to the MN-S.
• Those who were aware of the Act’s existence believed that there were significant gaps in the detailing of the Métis Act. This means that there are not enough details to ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances of the board members.

Potential moves toward reforms of the Métis Act suggested by the panel in 2006 include the possibilities of:

• Directing the Government of Saskatchewan legal advisors to adjust the Métis Act and the Non-Profit Corp Act to allow more details concerning Métis rights and MN-S responsibilities.
• Developing a discussion paper on the possible suggestions for amendment.
• Asking a committee of the provincial legislature to hold similar public hearings on the same issue, so Métis people can share their opinions or proposed reforms.

However, these concerns and potential reforms have become less politically significant in recent years. The Métis Nation–Saskatchewan is increasingly focused on securing self-governance agreements with the federal government, rather than seeking to update provincial legislation. This shift reflects the broader impact of the Daniels v. Canada (2016) decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that Métis fall under federal jurisdiction as ‘Indians’ under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, negotiations concerning Métis rights and governance are now primarily a federal matter, diminishing the relevance of provincial legislation like the Métis Act.

The Preamble of the Constitution

Within the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Métis people are a distinct society, a cultural group different from the Indians and the Inuit. Having endured many hardships (social, political, and dispossession) since the 1800’s, Métis people have been struggling to restore their inherent rights: land base and resources, self-government, and government institutions. The Métis people have been pursuing this restoration through political, legal and constitutional recognition. As a result of these pursuits the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (MN-S) has emerged. This body has adopted a constitution (Constitution of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan) which outlines its objectives, mandates, and governance structure through various articles (1-16). The first asserts the right of all Métis to self-determination including to freely determine political status, and freely pursue economic, social and cultural development.

The constitution is organized into sections. In the preamble of the MN-S there are four points that the citizens of the MN-S declare, leading into 21 rights and responsibilities of the citizens. The following articles are noteworthy (Métis Electoral Consultation Panel, 2006):

• Article 1: Names the organization Métis Nation-Saskatchewan as of November 18, 2000.
• Article 2: Métis Nation Legislative Assembly. This article explains that the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (MNLA) is the governing authority of the MN-S. It is comprised of the Local Presidents, the Provincial Métis Council, four representative of the Métis Women of Saskatchewan, and four representatives from the Provincial Métis Youth Council. The MNLA, based on the recommendations of the Provincial Métis Council, can enact Legislation and appoint Commissions, Committees or other subsidiary bodies in order to effectively carry out the activities and functions of the Organization. Budgets are determined by the recommendation of the Provincial Métis Council.
• Article 3: Provincial Métis Council. The Provincial Métis Council (PMC) is made up of the Regional Representatives, the Executive, and one representative from each of the Métis Women of Saskatchewan and the Provincial Métis Youth Council. The Treasurer sits on the PMC. The PMC forms the cabinet and is responsible for the portfolios to be assigned and recommended (by the President) and is responsible for ensuring that the affiliates, departments, programs and services covered by their portfolios are running smoothly and have the necessary resources.
• Article 4: Executive. There are 4 executive members of the MNLA who are elected province-wide. They are elected for a term of three years. The President of the MNLA is the head of the Executive and chief political spokesperson for the Organization.
• Article 5: Regions. There are 12 regions represented. The regions are governed by a Regional Council composed of the Presidents of each Local and an elected representative elected from the region, to act as chair of the Regional Council, and bring regional matters the provincial table.
• Article 6: Urban Councils. Under this article, is the establishment of Métis Urban Self-Government Councils in Saskatchewan and supports for the North West Saskatchewan Métis Council to develop governance for northern Métis Communities.
• Article 7: Locals. The Locals in each community form the basic foundation of the Organization. Locals must have a minimum of nine members.
• Article 8: Elections. You must be 16 years of age to vote. Under this article, the terms of who is elected and by whom is outlined. It also states that the election must take place every four years.
• Article 9: Establishes the Head Office of the MN-S in Saskatoon.
• Article 10: Citizenship. Using the MNC’s definitions (below), the provincial registry is administered by the MN-S Secretary.
  • Métis means a person, who self identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and is accepted by the Métis Nation.
  • “Historic Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people then known as Métis or Half-breeds who resided in the Historic Métis Nation Homeland.
  • “Historic Métis Nation Homeland” means the area of west central North America used and occupied as the traditional territory of the Métis or Half-breeds as they were known.
  • “Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people descended from the Historic Métis Nation which is now comprised of all Métis Nation citizens and is one of the “aboriginal peoples of Canada: within the meaning of s.35 of the Constitution Act 1982.”
  • “Distinct from other Aboriginal peoples” means distinct for culture and nationhood purposes.
• Article 11: General Assembly. Local members that meet once a year convened by the MNLA to discuss, clarify, vote on and ratify amendments to the Constitution.
• Article 12: Senate, Women and Youth. The Senate is equally represented by male and female. Appointments to the senate are indicated. (There is a senate act, on MNS website). The youth and women seats at the PMC and MNLA are established.
• Article 13: States the Métis are seeking self-governance and sets out a requirement of all officers to swear allegiance to the Métis People and the Métis Nation, but also allows any Provincial Métis Council or Legislative member to seek office in the provincial or federal governments of Canada.
• Article 14: Affiliates. This section addresses affiliates within the MN-S and how the boards of the affiliates are comprised of the political body
• Article 14 (A): Secretariat. Non-profit incorporated body for the purpose of carrying out administrative duties of the MN-S. The board (PMC) that are elected are the directors of the Secretariat.
• Article 15: Amending Formula. This Constitution can only be amended by the majority of three quarters of the members of the MNLA and ratified by three quarters of the members of the General Assembly. Proposed amendments must be registered with the MN-S head office 30 days prior to the sitting of the MNLA. If registered, all proposed amendments must be registered 14 days prior to the first sitting of the MNLA.
• Article 16: How this Constitution takes effect and how it repeals previous legislation is articulated.
• Article 17: Special Election for 2007. This was a special previous added for this particular time. Since this time, and Elections Act has been enacted (passed and ratified at the MNLA).

Some Problems in Métis Governance Structures

The Métis Electoral Consultation Panel, headed by Maria Campbell, issued its report, Métis Governance in Saskatchewan for the 21st Century, on problems in the Métis governance structure in 2006.

The report identified four types of problems with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Governance Institutions which existed at the time. These included structural, functional, operational and financial. These problems affect the provincial, regional and local levels:

1. The Functional Problems in the MN-S focused on the Senate and General Assembly. The issues involving the Senate and General Assembly were whether they were performing their duties, and some participants believed that they were not providing a forum for the Métis to express their views.
2. The Operational Problems in the MN-S were found on all levels: provincial, regional and local. The 2006 report found participants were not following rules and regulations that had been set by the MN-S. Also, participants claimed that they were not given sufficient information regarding functions, regulations, decision-making processes of those institutions, and the roles and responsibilities of the elected.
3. There were communication problems identified between officials and the Métis People. It was noted that there were insufficient human and financial resources. The report identified that a needed reforms include (i) a well-advertised General Assembly to be held every year, (ii) more opportunities for Métis people to voice concerns, and (iii) clear rules for officials to abide by.
4. The last identified problem was the financial challenges in the MN-S. There were insufficient financial resources at the provincial, regional and local levels, but most of the financial resources were being largely distributed at the provincial level. It was recommended that increased funding from both federal and provincial governments needs to be distributed equally for the benefit of the Métis people.

These problems and others led to increasing dysfunction within the MN-S between the period of 2006 to 2015.

After years of political infighting, in March 2015 MN-S officially closed operations. Years of internal political strife within the institution had resulted in a failure of the Provincial Métis Council (PMS) to hold meetings, and a provincial legislative assembly had not been held since 2010. Due to a failure to uphold these institutional requirements for receiving funding (defined by hosting two legislative assemblies per annum), the federal government froze MN-S funding in November 2014. Without funding, the MN-S was unable to operate, and used the remainder of their financial resources to pay rent to the building that housed the registries of Métis peoples and citizenship records. This closure meant that Métis persons in Saskatchewan no longer had an official venue in which to apply for membership, a challenge for individuals who relied on membership proof to access particular benefits, such as scholarship or bursary opportunities.

In January 2016, federal representatives met in Saskatoon with MN–S leadership to discuss requirements for implementing a new funding agreement. A key component was the scheduling and implementation of an election to restore the legitimacy of Métis political leadership. In the interim, the federal government worked with a third-party manager to oversee the financial and operational components of the MN–S, including back payment of rent and the preservation of the registry of Métis citizens. Despite challenges, including many stemming from issues within the constitution, the MN–S worked to re-establish successful governing practices.

After delays in the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (MNLA), an election was eventually held on May 27, 2017. Eleven new representatives were elected out of a possible 16 positions, excluding the Women’s seat and Youth seat on the Provincial Métis Council (PMC), which are not determined during the regular election. The new executive included Glen McCallum as President. Shortly after the election, in June 2017, federal funding for the MN–S was restored. In the following months, the new leadership worked to rebuild and stabilize the governance structure of MN-S.

MN-S Self-Governance Agreements

The reconstituted MN-S worked towards signing agreements with the federal government towards advancing self-determination, including land claims, governance, and rights issues. In 2018, the MN-S signed a framework agreement with the federal government towards resolving these issues. A breakthrough occurred just one year after this, on June 27, 2019, when the MN–S (along with the Métis Nation of Alberta, and the Métis Nation of Ontario) signed the Métis Government Recognition and Self-Government Agreement with the Government of Canada. This agreement acknowledged the MN–S as the government of Métis people in Saskatchewan and set a path towards self-governance. Once it passed parliament, the new law would create new legal structures that would enhance the authority of the Métis nations involved. The bill number for the federal legislation that would make the formalize the agreement with legal changes was Bill C-53.

The agreement provided a framework for the MN–S to exercise jurisdiction in areas such as citizenship, leadership selection, and government operations. It marked a significant shift from reliance on provincial legislation like the Métis Act to a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. However, the MN-S would later withdraw its support for C-53, and as of October of 2024, the bill has not been passed into law. This will be explained.

On February 24, 2023, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and Canada signed an updated Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, which built upon an earlier framework agreement signed in 2018. This updated agreement established a roadmap for federal recognition of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan’s governance. The Agreement affirms that Canada recognizes the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan as the representative government of the Métis in Saskatchewan, with jurisdiction over citizenship, leadership selection, and government operations. It also commits to negotiating a future core governance treaty that will further formalize this jurisdiction through federal legislation.

To bring the treaty into effect, it must be ratified by Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, receive approval by Canada, and complete the development of an implementation plan with fiscal arrangements. Once completed, the treaty will replace the self-government agreement and take effect on a date set by federal Order in Council. Unlike the previous 2019 agreement (C-53) signed with Canada that included Metis nations in Alberta and Ontario, this agreement has yet to have any formal bill before parliament.

A year following this, the MN-S announced on April 17^th of 2024 that the MN-S provincial council had unanimously passed a motion to withdraw its support for Bill C-53, the Métis Government Recognition and Self-Government Agreement with the Government of Canada, the agreement that the MN-S had signed onto in 2019 along with the Metis Nation of Alberta and the Metis Nation of Ontario. MN-S president McCallum explained in public statements that:

As you can see from the statement, the MN-S is now pursuing a new stand-alone agreement, rather than being part of an agreement that encompasses multiple Metis nations. Although Bill C-53 had been signed onto by MN-S in 2019, it had stalled politically and failed to become law due to objections from other Indigenous groups, including other Metis nations as well as First Nations. These are the “…legal and political pressures due to outstanding issues in Alberta and Ontario” that President McCallum referred to in the statement, which will now be explored.

Issues with Citizenship and Identity

The question of identity and precisely defining what it means to be Métis has been a source of ongoing political struggle. Initially, the Métis were not legally recognized as Indigenous people by the Crown, a situation they actively fought to change. As you read earlier in the module, a series of recent court cases expanded existing definitions to include the Métis, affirming their rights and place within Canada’s legal structure.

One landmark case was R. v. Powley (2003), which established that Section 35 rights of the Constitution Act, 1982, apply to Métis individuals. While the case did not provide a single universal definition of who can be considered Métis, it did provide a definition of who can claim S35 rights. To claim Section 35 rights as a Métis person, an individual must demonstrate membership in a present-day Métis community that can trace its existence back to a historic Métis community with a distinctive culture. This meant that both personal identity and communal recognition are crucial components of Métis rights.

Another significant case was Daniels v. Canada (2016), where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Métis and non-Status Indians are included as “Indians” under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision meant that the federal government has constitutional responsibility for Métis and non-Status Indians. It established a fiduciary relationship and the obligation for the federal government to consult with Métis people on matters related to Aboriginal rights. The ruling did not, however, grant Métis people “Indian status” under the Indian Act, but it recognized their rights and affirmed their place within the constitutional framework.

These two rulings heightened the importance of establishing who is legally Métis. The Indian Act had long established the concept of “status” Indians—those individuals who were legally recognized as “Indian” under the Act—as well as maintaining a federally controlled system for covering this status on individuals. While the Powley and Daniels decisions expanded legal recognition of Section 35 rights and Section 91(24) to include Métis, it did not create a federally administered program to determine who is and who is not Métis, unlike the Indian Act and the concept of “Indian Status”.

However, it would be counterproductive for the Canadian state to recreate a paternalistic identification system for Métis identity, like that in the Indian Act. Therefore, the responsibility of determining citizenship falls upon the governments of specific Métis nations, such as the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan (MN–S). This means there are multiple political bodies that have authority for determining who and who is not legally Métis. There has been active political contestation over the definition of Métis identity between some of these actors, as you read in the article from Adam Gaudry.

MN-S Centralizes Métis Citizenship Registration

In response to these developments, the MN–S undertook significant changes to its citizenship registration process. Historically, local councils—geographically distributed organizations that operate separately and may also act as separate governing bodies for their particular territories when it comes to programs and grant acquisition (see figure 7.1)—played a significant role in recognizing Métis individuals within their communities. They sometimes issued membership cards or provided letters confirming Métis identity based on community knowledge and acceptance.

However, this decentralized approach faced criticism due to inconsistencies between the processes used by local councils. Critics argued that this lack of uniformity undermined the rigour needed for legal recognition and rights assertion at provincial and federal levels. Ongoing political battles over the precise definition of a Métis nation also created conditions that motivated centralized control over citizenship, along with centralized definitions of who was considered Metis, and thus eligible to become a citizen of the MN-S. With the push towards self-governance and legal recognition, particularly following the Métis Government Recognition and Self-Government Agreement(C-53) signed with the federal government in 2019, the MN–S centralized the citizenship registration process and limited voting in MN–S elections to only those formally registered as MN–S citizens.

This change occurred at the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (MNLA) held in February 2021, where amendments were made to the Saskatchewan Métis Elections Act (2007) and the MN–S Citizenship Act (1999). These changes established the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan Citizenship Registry as the sole body responsible for verifying and issuing Métis citizenship cards, formally ending the previous role of local councils in MN–S citizenship registration.

The centralization of the citizenship process led to a standardized system throughout Saskatchewan. The criteria for Métis citizenship follow the National Definition of Métis adopted by the Métis National Council in 2002, which states:

Applicants must provide records that demonstrate they meet these criteria, including genealogical evidence. The MN-S Citizenship Act (1999) defines acceptable records as including “…historical records, church records, archival records, census records, and oral history from Métis Elders.” The central registry verifies this information to maintain an accurate and authoritative citizenship list.

The shift to a centralized citizenship registry also accompanied amendments to the Saskatchewan Métis Elections Act (2007) which affected participation in MN–S governance. Previously, during elections to choose the Provincial Métis Council, individuals could vote if they self-identified as Métis and were recognized within their local communities. Now, to vote in MN–S elections or run for office, individuals must be registered with the MN–S Citizenship Registry and possess a valid Métis citizenship card issued by the MN–S.

This change was criticized by some at the time, such as former MNC President Clément Chartier, who alleged that it violated the MN–S Constitution, specifically Section 10(1), which states that “any Métis who is a member of a duly registered Local is a member of the Métis Nation—Saskatchewan.” However, a legal challenge to prevent the election from going forward failed. Furthermore, the constitutional reform process that the MN–S is currently undergoing—as of summer 2023—lists this deleting this section as one of the proposed amendments to the constitution. This change aims to ensure that only the centralized MN–S registrar, in accordance with the four requirements for Métis citizenship, can determine who is a citizen.

Before we progress, notice that the definition of Métis identity from the MNC does not have precise definitions of some of the terms it uses. The MN-S Constitution utilizes this definition, however, the next four clauses give more specific definitions to these terms, including a more precise geographical location of the historic Metis nation homeland:

Remember that there is no single, legally established definition of who is Métis – the existing framework leaves this to provincially based Métis organizations to make these determinations. But how to determine whether these decisions are “correct”? And what complications might arise if different provincially based Metis organizations use different definitions of what the “Historic Métis Nation Homeland” is?

Metis Nation Saskatchewan (MN-S) Withdraws from Metis National Council (MNC)

Recall that the Métis National Council was formed in 1983, with the three founding provincial Métis organizations from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, shortly thereafter admitting Métis organizations from British Columbia and Northwestern Ontario.

In 2021, the Métis Nation of Manitoba withdrew from the Métis National Council (MNC). Following this in September of 2024, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan also withdrew from the MNC. In public statements explaining this withdrawal, MN-S leadership stated that disfunction within the MNC, along with a desire to independently pursue self-governance negotiations directly with the federal government, were behind this decision. Part of the political motivations for this change were also connected to ongoing concerns with the perceived failure of MNC to address issues with Métis identity, particularly regarding the behaviour of the Métis Nation of Ontario, and its joint recognition with Ontario in 2017 of six additional historic Métis communities who legitimacy is disputed by other Métis Nations. They argue that these communities are not part of the legitimate historic Métis Nation homeland, and thus are not truly Métis.

Watch the following interview from APTN regarding MN-S’s withdrawal from the MNC.

Disputed Metis Identity, Political Clashes

The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) included several additional communities in its definition of historic Métis communities, which are disputed by other Métis organizations, particularly the Manitoba Métis Federation. Other Métis organizations, such as the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, have also voiced criticism. Furthermore, several First Nations organizations, including the BC Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), challenged the legitimacy of these communities. They argue that the communities identified by the MNO do not meet the criteria for historic Métis communities as established by the Métis National Council in 2002. These concerns were significant enough to prompt many First Nations organizations to formally oppose the federal government’s passing of Bill C-35, which involved an agreement signed by the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan in 2019, along with the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Nation of Ontario.”

The BC Assembly of First Nations did not mince words in its statement of opposition against C-35:

The Métis Government Recognition and Self-Government Implementation Act would grant Section 35 rights to so-called “Métis” groups, setting an alarming precedent for unsubstantiated claims to rights and title in the future. If passed, Bill C-53 would facilitate baseless claims to First Nations’ lands, waters, and resources asserted by illegitimate “Métis” groups across the country. Even prior to the introduction of Bill C-53, the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), the Métis Nation of British Columbia, and other parties have been asserting that they hold equal claim to First Nation lands under the Constitution, a stance that we find deeply concerning and unwarranted.

At the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Annual General Assembly (AGA) in July 2023, Chiefs in British Columbia joined their counterparts coast-to-coast in unanimous support of Resolution No. 44/2023, Protect First Nations Rights and Interests from Unfounded Métis Rights Assertions. This resolution demonstrates the shared concerns among First Nations leaders and communities regarding baseless “Métis” rights claims within their traditional territories. These false assertions hold extremely harmful repercussions for First Nations’ rights and title, undercutting vital laws, legal systems, systems of governance, and jurisdictions.

The BC Assembly of First Nations supports recognizing Indigenous groups with honest, well-founded claims to pre-existing rights and title. However, the MNO’s assertions fall significantly short of this standard. Extensive expert reports submitted to Canada provide compelling evidence that six of the alleged “communities” recognized by the MNO have never existed historically. Furthermore, the majority of MNO’s claims lack a factual or legitimate basis. Bill C-53 threatens First Nations’ inherent, constitutional, and human rights and title. (Sept 20^th, 2023)

Statements given by the Manitoba Métis Federation similarly disputed the legitimacy of Métis identity in eastern Ontario:

Ontario First Nation Leaders are taking a strong stand against Bill C-53 and its recognition of these communities. They say there are no Métis Communities in eastern Ontario. We have no reason to doubt them when they say they have never heard about eastern Métis communities in their territories. We have done our own studies and have come to the same conclusion. We support them as they stand up for their sovereignty against unfounded Métis rights claims.

“The MNO is attempting to use our Red River Métis culture, identity, flag and language, as well as their alliance with Métis Nation Saskatchewan and Métis Nation Alberta to camouflage their true nature,” said David Chartrand, President of the MMF. “Once they’ve gotten what they want from Canada, they will no longer need to use our symbols or our legitimacy to bolster their claims, which is a clear bait and switch tactic, with an ultimate result that will shock true Red River Métis Citizens across the Homeland and leave Canadians and our people paying the price for generations to come.”

On the other hand, the Red River Métis are well known throughout our Red River Métis Homeland. We are a distinct Indigenous People and Nation. The Red River Métis know who we are. Our First Nations neighbours and relatives throughout our Homeland also know who we are.

Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) represents many individuals not part of any historical or contemporary Indigenous community. They represent a patchwork or hodgepodge of identities. They take First Nations Ancestors and traditional territories, and mix these with our Red River Métis symbols, cultural heritage, historic milestones, and military events. MNO throws these together into a bizarre collection. This identity theft is disrespectful and impacts both us and First Nations. (Sept 20^th, 2023)

This opposition put the MN-S in a difficult political situation. Although MN-S was not the target of these criticisms, by virtue of having signed onto Bill C-35 with two other Métis nations, one of which was the Métis Nation of Ontario, the self-governance goals of the MN-S were now stalled due to factors beyond its control. It also risked the relationship the MN-S had with many First Nations, by associating the MN-S with the MNO. Thus, one can understand why the MN-S withdrew support for the passage of Bill-53 in April of 2024, when it had initially celebrated signing it in 2019 as a “…historic agreement [that is] a major step toward guaranteeing our rights to our land, our resources, our education, and our culture” (MN-S 2019).

The Métis National Council had been unable to mediate the ongoing schism between its members over the issue of Métis identity and the disputed communities in Ontario. When the MN-S withdrew from the Métis National Council in September of 2024, the move was praised by both the Manitoba Métis Federation, as well as the First Nations Chiefs of Ontario. With two of the founding Métis nations now absent, the Métis National Council is now in a precarious position.

These political issues are ongoing. Watch the following interview from APTN with Vice President Michelle LeClair, explaining the reasoning of the MN-S to withdraw from the MNC.

This speech was presented February 19, 2017 in Saskatoon to the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan AGM following the MNLA. In it, Métis leader Frank Tomkins (son of Peter Tomkins) discusses why section 35 rights are important to Métis People, and how he was sent to England to petition the inclusion of Métis in the 1982 Constitutional revisions.

Métis peoples are individuals and groups who claim ancestry to children of Aboriginal women and European fur traders. They have claim to Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution, and also possess connections to a unique cultural history.

MN-S is comprised of a General Assembly (all members of local and regional councils and represented through 12 regional directors), but the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (the main political organization) is comprised of the regional director representatives, the Métis Youth Council, the Métis Women Society, and the Executive. The MN-S Inc. is responsible for coordination with the provincial government, and program direction and funding coordination for local and regional groups happens through both local councils.

The Métis Act established the MN-S Inc. as the governing liaison body between the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan membership and the provincial government. The Constitution of the MN-S dictates the terms and mandates upon which the organization strives to govern.

Governance issues faced by the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan include concerns about management and leadership accountability, transparency, and communication with the general membership. Some of these issues are related to a lack of funding in administrative staff, vague management policies, and an overall lack of provincial and federal funding for this organization.

Legally, the R. v. Powely case set up precedent for whom can be considered Métis – it requires a claim to a modern Métis group with historical Métis cultural development and a recognition/acceptance from the group as a Métis member. This was established in 2003 as a mechanism for who could claim section 35 Aboriginal rights as a non-Status/Métis individual. The Daniels v. Canada Supreme Court of Canada ruling also affirmed that Métis People should be considered “Indian” as the term is used under section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.