Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 34 - Evidence - March 20, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine and report on the legal and political recognition of Metis identity in Canada.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web. My name is Senator Vern White from Ontario, and I am chair of the committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters related to Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Today we will continue to explore Metis issues, particularly those relating to the evolving legal and political recognition of the collective identity and rights of the Metis in Canada.
This evening we will hear from two witnesses: academic Jean Barman and former senator and always Honourable Gerry St. Germain, P.C. Both are from British Columbia.
Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to take this opportunity to have the members of the committee present this evening introduce themselves. I will start with the deputy chair.
Senator Dyck: I am Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. Welcome to you both. You are such wonderful people; we are glad to have you here.
Senator Sibbeston: I am Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Demers: Senator Jacques Demers, Quebec.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Seth: Senator Asha Seth, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, Dryden, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Senator Nancy Greene Raine, from B.C.
The Chair: I know I speak for all the members of the committee in saying that I am greatly looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses this evening, both appearing as individuals. Again, we welcome Jean Barman, Professor Emeritus and Metis scholar, to assist us from the British Columbia perspective.
We are also delighted to have with us again the former chair of this committee and our friend, former Senator Gerry St. Germain. You are greatly missed in the Senate in general and this committee in particular. No one wears a hat like you do. We look forward to hearing you share your personal perspective as a Metis person.
As you have chosen the order in which you will speak, please go ahead.
Jean Barman, Professor Emeritus, as an individual: I want to thank everyone for the invitation to share my understanding of British Columbia, which encourages me to look backwards and forwards. I was mindful in the most recent census for which information is available — 2006 — that almost 60,000 British Columbians describe themselves as Metis. That is over twice as many as a decade earlier, even though the term itself has become contested in many ways.
Following on the insertion of Metis in the Canadian Constitution, 1982, as among ``the aboriginal peoples of Canada,'' the Powley decision defined the Metis in the context of harvesting rights around Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, but in general terms. The decision, despite its geographic and economic specificity, has been interpreted to equate Metis identity with, and only with, persons rooted in Central Canada. As the committee heard, the Canadian government recognizes and funds, for the purpose of registering rights bearers, six ``official Aboriginal representative organizations,'' all of which exclude British Columbia origins.
So why am I here? The committee also heard a counter-perspective looking at ``the existence of other historically Metis communities,'' one that expressed concern about depriving ``people of the identity they give themselves'' and of ``repeating the discriminatory practices of the Indian Act.'' To my mind, an opening to doing so might lie in the Daniels declaration handed down on January 8, now under appeal. Daniels goes further, both backwards and forwards in time, than Powley in declaring that ``the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada'' for ``Indians and lands reserved for Indians'' in the British North America Act, 1867, extends both to Metis and non-status Indians. Daniels defines Metis alongside non-status Indians as ``native people who maintained a strong affinity for their Indian heritage without possessing Indian status.'' Daniels appears to broaden the discussion beyond externally imposed geographic bases of exclusion.
In order to understand why 60,000 British Columbians self-identify as Metis, we need first of all to amend the inference left in lawyer Jean Teillet's testimony before the committee. She said, ``We know Metis were children of the fur trade,'' a statement with which I agree, but not her geographic limitation. She went on to say:
We have three different economies of the Metis: the boreal forest that runs up the Upper Great Lakes to the Great Slave Lake across northern Ontario, northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, up that way. That is where all the fur traders were.
She evokes a way of life that is premised on regional features, notably the buffalo:
The pemmican from the buffalo was the gasoline — that is the way I think of it — that ran the fur trade.
Her claim is at odds with the realities of the past.
British Columbia too emerged out of a fur trade, one that began in 1805 and was the sole non-indigenous economy in the broader Pacific Northwest until 1846 when the region, previously without external governance, was divided between the United States and Britain, later Canada. Up till 1858, when the last part, being the British Columbia mainland, acquired official status as a consequence of a gold rush, the majority of the 2,200 men who arrived with the fur economy were French Canadians. Their staple food was dried salmon as opposed to pemmican, but all other aspects of their lives were similar to those elsewhere. The French Canadians who remained any length of time, as did two thirds of those who were not soon sent out across the Rockies in the course of their employment, had families with local indigenous women and most often settled down near where they last worked.
Metis scholar Mike Evans and I have spelled out factors related to Metis identity in British Columbia, some of which are perforce different than on the prairies due in the first instance to the distinctive environment. Under 3 per cent of the land in British Columbia is arable, or potentially so. The 1858 gold rush, which attracted thousands of mostly unattached men from across North America, including Chinese and Mexicans earlier working in California, expanded and redirected Metis formation by virtue of those opting to stay very often partnering with either an indigenous woman or a Metis daughter of the fur economy. Among other factors encouraging distinctive communities as defined by Powley were the gendered Indian Act of 1876, separating offspring from their maternal kinfolk; racism, extending from schooling to everyday life; low levels of literacy, limiting occupations to the ongoing fur economy and the resource sector; and an inward turn in daily life often occurring at the edges beyond government control. Such families were among the 3,500 British Columbians enumerated in the 1901 census as ``Halfbreeds,'' a category that elsewhere in Canada is almost always linked to Metis status.
The numerically larger source of Metis in British Columbia is not, however, the fur economy or the gold rush, but rather prairie migration, initially to the northeast on the far side of the Rockies, as at Kelly Lake, and beginning with the Great Depression across the province. By 1971, the number of prairie-born had exploded to one in five British Columbians.
My larger point is that there is no single best way of determining who is Metis, at least in British Columbia. ``Harvester identification systems'' in the form of enrollment lists genealogically constructed — which cost to date, the committee was told, $35 million in federal funding to the six organizations, all of which exclude British Columbia — needs to be reconciled with self-identification. In British Columbia, with its 60,000 self-identified Metis, just 275 harvesters have so far been registered. To the extent the inclusion of Metis in the Canadian Constitution incorporates an element of reparation for historical harms, to dismiss self-identification is a contradiction.
As the director of the highly respected Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatoon pointed out to the committee:
``Metis identity'' and ``Metis definition'' are not the same thing. ``Metis identity'' has been the one constant when we look at what's important for successful Metis education programs.
Her goal, as she spelled it out, is ``to find a way to deal with Metis identity for young kids in school, for post-secondary students, for adults, to really affirm and strengthen and validate that identity.'' In her view, and I could not agree more:
There must be a practical way to mitigate the definition-versus-identity debate to ensure that educational, economic, and social inequities of Metis people can be alleviated.
Daniels seeks by its declaration to ``accord a further level of respect and reconciliation.'' This is, to my mind, also the committee's task.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain, P.C., former senator, as an individual: Thank you, and good evening to everyone. It is a pleasure for me to be back with you in this storied room. I have many fond memories of the work that we accomplished together at this table during my time as a senator and member of this great committee. I must admit the view is a bit different from this end of the table, but regardless, it is an honour for me to be sitting here. It was always a great honour for me to sit at the other end. It is just as big of an honour for me to be here as a witness. I will make my presentation as brief as possible. I want to touch on a few key points that I believe are critical to the committee's topic of study.
Before I begin, I want to take an opportunity to recognize former Senator Thelma Chalifoux from Alberta, who is aged now and is suffering from many health challenges and who for many years was a member and served as chair of this committee. Her work contributed greatly to advancing issues important to the Metis peoples of Canada and deserves recognition. She is a great Metis person, and I think we should spend more time praising our people as we go forward.
Honourable senators, let me preface my presentation this evening by stating that in no way, shape or form do I claim to be an expert in this area. I am just here as Gerry, a little Metis guy from Manitoba who has a bit of experience as a result of being a senator, a member of Parliament in the House of Commons and a cabinet minister. I am sitting by a lady here who is an expert in her field. I just wanted to make certain that all senators were aware of this.
I come before you to share my life experiences and observations and to put on the record my account of the facts that I believe constitute the identity of the Metis in Canada.
I was born and raised in a small Manitoba town near the city of Winnipeg in the parish of St. François Xavier. To the locals in the area, this place was known as Grant Town, named after the Metis leader Cuthbert Grant, of who I am a direct descendent. For historical context, Grant led the Metis in the Battle of Seven Oaks against the Hudson's Bay Company in 1816. He was the leader of our people who were located along the Assiniboine River. This is where my family originated and the location of where I grew up as a child.
My father was a Metis trapper. He hunted beaver and muskrat to assist in putting food on our table. We lived partly off the land and held a special connection to it. In turn for acting as caretakers, the land gave us life. It also gave us our identity. From our identity stemmed our culture and way of life, our language, history and our traditions. That is why I so proudly wear the vest I wear tonight. It was made by a Metis woman in Winnipeg, a great lady, great artist.
My lineage belongs to a collective group called the Metis. I do not take issue with this. What I do take issue with is the present-day broad application of the term ``Metis.'' When I was growing up, we did not refer to ourselves as Metis. We were half-breeds or Michif. We either spoke Michif or, on the anglophone side, Bungee. As Michif, we spoke our own language and celebrated a distinct culture. We were settled in a defined geographic location within Western Canada.
The present-day term ``Metis'' does not properly recognize nor does it seek to define the rich history of our people. Presently, if you have some degree of Indian blood in your ancestry, you can self-identify as Metis, regardless of the geographical boundaries. This is the crux of the problem, I believe.
Who are the original Metis people in the traditional sense of the term? In conducting my research for this presentation, I asked the Library of Parliament to try to locate when the word ``Metis'' was first used. The library could not find an exact date of origin as to the first use of the term. Historical papers indicate ``Metis'' became a mainstream term during the 1930s. It is a French word meaning ``of mixed ancestry.'' Prior to 1930, English speakers referred to us as ``half-breeds.'' I recall being called a half-breed and much worse as a young child, and this discrimination followed me into adulthood. It built a lot of character.
Being Metis during this period of time was not something people proudly advertised, including some of the members of my own family, for they feared that the community would look down upon them if they showed any pride for their heritage. This stigma stayed with some of them for many years.
I recall a time when I was a member of the House of Commons and we were engaged in a debate on a bill to recognize Louis Riel. I spoke to the bill and for the first time publicly referenced my Metis heritage. Some of my family got wind of the speech and called me to say I had embarrassed them by making this declaration. Unfortunately, there are many people, including certain members of my family, who are still hesitant to declare their heritage. The implication of this reluctance further complicates the question of who comprises the true Metis identity.
As I stated earlier, I do not claim to be an expert on the minutia or the varying legal opinions on this topic, but I can speak as someone raised in the Michif culture. Understanding the term ``Michif'' is key to understanding who is and who is not part of the original Metis peoples. Michif is much more than a term; it is a language spoken by the people of a particular geographic area in Western Canada. Michif identifies the people of mixed Indian and European blood who populated the Red River settlement in Manitoba. This location, I believe, is the nucleus of the original Metis people.
The geographic location of origin, the language and the culture are the key elements that distinguish the Metis from all other Aboriginal groups in Canada. We must remember that at one time in history the people of this distinct identity formed a provisional government in response to Canada's attempts to take away their territory and colonize their people. Louis Riel was their leader, the leader of the Metis people who formed this government.
There exist other examples in law, and on the public record, that support my position. This committee heard many of these legal and historical examples from lawyer Jean Teillet, to whom my colleague referred, during her appearance as a witness last May. I fully support her findings. I told her that when I came here I would plagiarize her, copy her and emulate her, because I believe that she is as accurate as it is possible to be on this issue.
Her presentation included scrip records, scrip being handed out by Canada to the Metis in an effort by the Crown to deal with the Metis in the establishment of title and rights to the land. Scrip records are important because they clearly indicate the geographic location of the original Metis people and their settlements.
Though the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings in Powley and Daniels stopped short of providing absolute clarity on who is and who is not Metis, I believe that these rulings were a step in the right direction. Both court rulings assist in pointing to a Metis identity in Canada that is distinct and separate from the identities of other Aboriginal groups. In Powley, the Supreme Court said that in order to self-identify they have to have an ancestral connection to a distinct Metis community and they have to be accepted by the community.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court upheld the claim by the Manitoba Metis Federation that the federal government is at fault for failing to live up to the intent of the provisions of the Manitoba Act, 1870. This act guaranteed a tract of land, some 1.4 million acres, to the Metis people who populated the original Red River settlement. This guarantee was never delivered upon.
In closing, senators, let me state that I believe the term ``Metis'' defines a people of a distinct culture who settled in a certain part of our country. There exists a language, a culture, a history and an entire people's identity that has been misunderstood and misrepresented for far too long.
I wanted this study done when I chaired this committee because I had a feeling that these decisions would come down in the way in which they have. In 1982 when section 35 was established, no definition was given of to whom ``Metis'' referred. They just added ``Metis'' to section 35. This is a must for legal and policy purposes now driven by these Supreme Court decisions. It is critical that this committee come up with recommendations that clarify who the Metis people are and how they are to be treated. Powley, Daniels and the Manitoba Metis Federation all indicate the need for clarification on identity. It is my hope that the deliberations of this committee will provide some much-needed clarity to the complex issue of Metis identity in Canada.
I would like to thank each one of you for your attention and for giving me this opportunity to be with you and to share my views. I know that they are not the views of everyone. They are my own personal views, and I have these views because I lived the life. I know what it was to be called maudit sauvage. That is what they called us; bloody savages, and worse. In northern Montana they were referred to as ``bush'' and the ``N-word.''
Now is the time to make it right. You have the opportunity to write a report that the government cannot ignore, that no one can ignore.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator St. Germain.
Senator Dyck: Welcome again. You make a very interesting witness panel. Not only are you male and female, but you have somewhat different views on the definition of ``Metis.''
My question will somewhat reveal my ignorance. Senator St. Germain, you talked about Powley, Daniels and the Manitoba Metis Federation decisions. Powley was related to a prairie-based case, was it not?
Mr. St. Germain: No, it was from the Sault Ste. Marie or Great Lakes area.
Senator Dyck: Daniels and the Manitoba Metis Federation are prairie-based. Maybe we need a decision on B.C. history. Is there any talk of a legal case from B.C. in order to get a legal opinion on whether the Metis in B.C. also fit some kind of legal definition? Perhaps they evolved into a distinctive culture. Having a separate geography, perhaps they would fit your definition, Senator St. Germain.
Ms. Barman: There was a B.C. case on part of the Okanagan, the Willison case, but the evidence was presented very badly. The Okanagan Metis were arguing it, and in the first instance it was upheld and then overturned.
It goes beyond whether you win or lose. The difficulty with court cases is that they require a lot of money, and most people I know who define themselves as Metis, be they from the Prairies, British Columbia or Manitoba, are not rich people who can afford to put cases before the courts. The federal government is currently funding the Métis National Council and Métis Nation British Columbia. I believe that Métis Nation British Columbia agrees with Senator St. Germain's definition.
Many of the people who self-identify, be they from British Columbia or elsewhere, live lives not unlike Senator St. Germain's life, but they do not have the ability to go to court. They do not have the time to go to court because they are busy trying to make a living.
I think the Daniels case is interesting because in its decision it groups together non-status Indians and Metis people. Many of the people, again in British Columbia, will vary as to whether they are non-status or Metis. A lot of that depends upon what is happening in the newspapers and elsewhere. I think one of the difficulties is the law. Daniels goes back to the British North America Act. It goes back to the right of Parliament to make a decision. If that is upheld, you folks are ready to go.
Mr. St. Germain: There is no question that there is no simple solution to the complexity of this entire question. There is no grey area in court cases. You either win or lose, and that is not necessarily the best way to settle something. When you are dealing with something like this, you have to have compromise positions.
My argument goes back to what Jean Teillet said. We had a language, a culture, our music, and a provisional government. These were the things that determined us. Take a country like Poland or France. The people speak, and they have their culture, music, traditions and customs. These are the things that determine what a group of people is. That is why I feel comfortable in putting forward the argument that I do. The thing is that the cases would be in your hands, and it will be your wisdom that will determine what comes out of this study.
The Chair: I have just one question, Ms. Barman. Sometimes the path to finding out ``who is'' is simpler than the path to determining ``who is not.'' When it comes to Metis, would you agree that that has become a bit of a reality for us as well?
Ms. Barman: Mr. St. Germain's comment about being thought of as a half-breed and then becoming a Metis is fundamental to what we are talking about. In British Columbia, as well as having 60,000 people who define themselves as Metis, we have another 80,000 people who define themselves as having some Aboriginal ancestry. Most of those people, in practice, in private, will think of themselves as being half-breeds. We are basically talking about a status that nobody wanted to have, but people acknowledged that they had. We are talking about how you validate that status. One of the ways to validate that status at the present time is to be Metis, because being Metis has become good for certain reasons and being half-breed is still bad.
The Chair: We had a number of witnesses who would have self-identified as Metis. Mr. St. Germain was here for some of those witnesses. A number of people around this table were challenged based on what we would have seen as being Metis, or possibly what we have been educated about what is Metis, and it does make it difficult at times for us. We heard groups who I felt absolutely expressed to us and provided evidence of Aboriginal heritage, but based on what we consider to be Metis, we were challenged by whether we would define them as Metis. Is that also what you are referring to?
Ms. Barman: Yes. When the clerk tried to persuade me to come here, she said, ``Go read through the past testimony.'' I read through every word of the testimony of the committee to date. I absolutely agree with you, based on my reading of it in the last five days. Yes, I think it is difficult. There is no right answer, and there may be no answer, as to what do you do. One of the real difficulties is this whole other group of people in Canada who are essentially called non-status. Those are the people who have certain flexibility. They can move from one category to the other category, I think.
The Chair: Mr. St. Germain, did you have a response or a comment as well?
Mr. St. Germain: It is easier, I think, to determine ``who is'' than ``who is not.'' That is a fairly astute observation. I have read the testimony and I was here. I came to give my own personal testimony here tonight as to who I am, but the reason I really wanted this study done is that as the legal and policy requirements evolve as a result of court cases and rights and benefits that will flow to people, I think it is critical that if you are the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs or the interlocutor, like we have, where do you go? Who gets what?
It is like the Harvester Cards. When the Harvester Cards came out, a litany of people declared themselves Metis because they wanted to benefit from Harvester Cards. That was as a result of the Powley decision. The identification is critical.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chair, I do not see myself as an expert in this area, but I do have opinions because I lived the experience. I have no regrets. I am proud of the fact of where I came from and I am proud of the fact that my ancestors are part of the history of this country. However, it is a challenge. It is easier to say ``who is'' than ``who is not.''
Ms. Barman: One of the interesting pieces of information I gained from reading through the past testimony is that most of the provinces use the census as their basis. When they came and talked to you and said there are 80,000 Metis, or there are so many Metis, and if you look at the census numbers for 2006, that is what they were talking about. The census numbers are based on self-identification. They are not based on any of these other criteria. It is really interesting, at least for a lot of the witnesses you had, as to how self-identification has become their basis for who qualifies and who does not.
The Chair: In your research in British Columbia, what percentage of those 60,000 people would meet the definition of Powley?
Ms. Barman: Where they come from? I agree with Mr. St. Germain. I would think that most of them probably have their origins in the prairies. A lot of them have their origins in the prairies from a long time ago, from the 1930s and 1940s, which is an interesting aspect of how Powley works itself out.
I had a student who was finishing her bachelor's degree and deciding what she was going to do. She asked me, ``What should I do?'' Then she said, ``I have the idea. I went home and said to my parents, 'What should I do?' and they said to become a Metis.'' Her family was from the prairies. She said, ``I became a Metis, so now I have all these qualifications and advantages for getting into law school,'' and she did.
There is a certain kind of flexibility in all of this. She has prairie origins that went back three or four generations, but she had not been back there since she was three or four. She had never been back there herself as a child. It sort of explodes the Powley definition in terms of a continuing connection. She said, ``I am going back there on my holidays; I will be okay,'' and she did.
Mr. St. Germain: When I was going through the transcripts, one of the witnesses said that in Quebec some Haitian people are checking off ``Metis'' when it comes to the census.
Ms. Barman: Exactly.
Mr. St. Germain: As a result, the numbers can be skewed considerably. However, for them, they are answering with all sincerity that they feel they are of mixed blood, Metis.
The Chair: Mixed-blood francophone.
Mr. St. Germain: That is it.
Ms. Barman: It is a mess.
Mr. St. Germain: It is a mess. It is not an easy one to sort out.
Senator Sibbeston: Whenever we have had experts appear before us, I always ask them whether the courts are moving towards eventual recognition of Metis under section 91.24 on the same basis as Indian people. The response has always been uncertain. They are not willing to say, ``Yes, it is coming to that.'' However, there have now been a number of decisions, particularly the Daniels decision —
Ms. Barman: If it helps, yes.
Senator Sibbeston: — which recognize that the Metis are a federal responsibility and should fall under section 91.24 on the same basis as Indians in our country. Our report deals with essentially the identity of Metis. However, I note there is a section that deals with the Metis relations with the federal government.
Regardless, do you think it is important that in our report we should recommend that the federal government begin to deal with the inevitability that the Metis will come under section 91.24 and that they ought to prepare, because it will cost more money and will involve more programs for the Metis? Do you think that would add significantly to this report?
Ms. Barman: Say ``yes.''
Mr. St. Germain: You want me to say ``yes''? I think he said you are the expert.
I think they should be thinking about it. I do not know whether the case will hold when it goes before the Supreme Court. I think some thought should be put into it, but until a decision comes down from the Supreme Court, it is really hard to say. The government has enough things to do. There are enough things to be done that I think some thought should be given, but I would leave it at that until the court decision comes down.
Ms. Barman: Again, I know more about British Columbia than anywhere else, but Mike Evans and I have done a lot of looking around and probing. A lot of the programs for Metis, which involve money for health and education, are based on self-identification now. If you go into some place and you want funding, you will get it.
The difficulty for the Metis Nation and the Métis National Council groups, like Métis Nation British Columbia, is that they have become the holders of those kinds of dollars, but they have a much more severe restriction, in theory.
Therefore, there are contradictions in terms of what is happening and who is deciding who can be a Metis from the point of view of getting assistance for schooling, child care and other kinds of programs that do exist.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. St. Germain, you are Metis. You are one of those that the case in Manitoba deals with; that the Metis were not properly granted all the lands that they should have been way back in the 1800s. What is your view with respect to what the federal government ought to do with respect to the Metis and the question of land in Manitoba?
The result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision is significant and recognizes that the Metis were not properly dealt with. What are your expectations and what do you think the government should do?
Mr. St. Germain: First, for economic reasons, I moved farther west; I had to leave my home province. However, my view is that there is a responsibility, and I think we should focus on the people who have remained in the homeland. I would like to see a focus on education for young people. We have a lot of challenges as a Metis people in Canada, and education is one of them. That is where I would like to see a focus.
The other area is economic development. I would like to see whatever responsibility the government has focused in a way that benefits everyone but that it is done to maximize the value of the dollars or whatever will be involved in the award.
``You cannot legislate wrongs back into rights; you should only seek to do justice in your own time.'' I am paraphrasing somebody who will shock you, and that is Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I was in the House of Commons when he said that. It is important that we should seek to do justice in our own time, and you cannot legislate wrongs back into rights. However, there is an opportunity now. I have to commend David Chartrand and those who led the court case and who persisted and persevered through all of this.
In my case, I have been blessed. I feel that there are many people in that homeland, such as young children, who deserve opportunities for education, health care and economic development as they progress through their educational process.
Ms. Barman: Can I add something?
The Chair: Please.
Ms. Barman: There is a difficulty. I think the Manitoba Metis Federation court case is an amazing and great outcome, which a lot of people did not expect, and it came. It is talking about a specific wrong and a very big wrong. That is conflated with whatever is meant by being Metis. I think that also conflates with whatever it means not to be Metis. Many people who are self-identified Metis have been affected by the same kind of wrong, and they were affected by those wrongs through the Indian Act, which limited status as an Indian person, whatever that might mean, to only men who were Indians at that time and only to women so long as they were not married to White men.
The entire class of Metis and the entire class of non-status Indians comes out of the same pool in a biological sense in that these are people who, in practice — whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada — got the worst of every bargain because they were not wanted on either side. They might have French-Canadian, European, Chinese or Mexican fathers — all in the case of British Columbia. However, they were marginalized in the sense that they were excluded. They could not live with their maternal kinfolk and were out in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes their fathers were there and sometimes their fathers were not there.
These people may or may not be Metis, but they are living in the same kinds of circumstances very much as the people who you want to call ``legitimate Metis.'' That is where I think the Daniels case is interesting; it puts together non-status Indians and Metis to some extent as being part of this same group. That is talking about needing remediation.
The question is whether, when you are dealing with Metis, you are dealing with remedying past wrongs or dealing with people who come from a particular historical phenomenon that happened in Manitoba with Louis Riel or in Saskatchewan with Louis Riel. That is a really important distinction. That one gets expanded to people with similar experiences in Alberta. It gets expanded to people in certain parts of Ontario.
As I was trying to explain, Jean Teillet is equating it with the fur trade. She argues there is no fur trade west of the Rockies because these are all children of the fur trade. If you say they are children of the fur trade, then families in British Columbia had very much the same kind of experience due to the discrimination that arose from French- Canadians, mainly, and also some Englishmen marrying indigenous women. The same thing happened with the gold rush in British Columbia. What is it you are doing? Who is it you are talking about? Where do you draw that line, or is there a line that wants to be drawn?
Senator Tkachuk: I want to go back to the addition of the Metis in the Constitution Act, 1982. Is there literature as to what they expected or what they thought ``Metis'' was at the time? Do we have evidence or writings of people who were there at the time who may give us some enlightenment as to what they were talking about and what they meant by it?
Ms. Barman: The story that goes through academic circles is that it goes back to the same Harry Daniels who is in the Daniels case — that in the afternoon he cornered the people who were to draft the law and said, ``Just stick in Metis; I like it,'' and they did.
Mr. St. Germain: I have heard the same thing. I concur with what Ms. Barman says on this. It was a last-minute negotiation and it definitely was Harry Daniels. I believe he was the head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples at the time, was he not?
Ms. Barman: Yes, I think he was the head at the time.
Mr. St. Germain: It was a back-room negotiation and it was just one of those things. This is why the Senate is so important. Many deals are made in the House of Commons at the last minute in partisan battles.
Senator Tkachuk: There were a lot of people in the room to just throw something into the Constitution and not know what they were doing.
Mr. St. Germain: I was not there, but I honestly believe they did. That is a good reason that we should have a house of sober second thought.
Senator Tkachuk: You both talked about what a Metis is. Ms. Barman, you mentioned the lady in British Columbia who said she was Metis so she could get certain benefits. It is important that we have a definition before there are economic incentives on the table because people who have never thought of themselves as Metis before will claim they are Metis.
Ms. Barman: They already have.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sure they have. The definition of ``Metis'' should be the same as for or any cultural group, that is, that their ancestry can be identified and traced to where the Metis came from; otherwise, the Metis came from nowhere. If my son married an Aboriginal woman, would his children be Metis? I do not think so. I think they would just be Canadian citizens because there is no ancestry, no heritage.
Mr. St. Germain: There is a geographical area, and it is the Red River Valley. It is like Poland; Poland is a geographical area. They speak a language; they have their own music; they have their own culture. The Metis were hunters, fishermen and, to a degree, farmers. They were different from the First Nations people and from the Inuit. They were more nomadic. A language emerged from that area. The Michif language, or the Bungee language, whichever you prefer, defined them as a people.
Ms. Barman says that she wants the broader concept that emerged out of the Daniels case. You have to draw the line somewhere. If you do not, it goes on forever. That is why I believe that in the identity process we must give serious consideration to an established geographical area where there was a culture, music and a unique way of life.
The Metis also established an economy based on pemmican. Cuthbert Grant, my ancestor, was the captain of the hunt. My father spoke very little and very softly. I asked him what he recalls the most. He recalled my mother's family going on the last buffalo hunt. I remember my dad telling me that that was the last time they would go and that it was likely they would not find anything. They went with Red River carts.
That is an indication. There were symbolic things about them. They had the Red River carts, their sashes, and other things that defined them as a distinct culture, a distinct group of people in a designated geographic area.
There are genealogical records in St. Boniface that you can research. If your ancestry is from there, there are fairly accurate records that can provide your identity, if you want to go that route.
Senator Raine: It is great to have you both here and to have the two different viewpoints.
Senator St. Germain, I found it interesting that when you stood up in the House of Commons and declared yourself to be Metis some of your family were upset. You obviously went through a period where you did not want to identify as a Metis. Can you tell us what that was like?
Mr. St. Germain: No, I never went through that. I have always been proud of who I am. I fought my way through grade school and never backed down. I was what I was. I love my father; I love my grandfather. You have been in my office and seen the pictures of my grandfather in his moccasins. I was proud of them and I am still proud of them. I would never, ever say that I am not a half-breed or a Michif. That is what I am; that is what I grew up as.
You have to be proud of who you are; you have to be proud of your ancestry. If your ancestors need defending, you should stand up and fight for them, defend them. There is nothing greater than defining who you are, especially in a society that is unaccepting. It builds character, Senator Raine.
Senator Raine: Thank you. I thought that is what you would say, but at the same time you say you have to draw the line. Somewhere along the line some people's forebears went underground due to racism and discrimination, and people were not proud of their heritage. Now they are finding pride again.
How do we reconcile the geographic and the close contact with the culture and those people who want to be connected to the roots that they might just be discovering?
Mr. St. Germain: Various churches in the St. Boniface area have clear records of the people who were there, the children who were baptized, the people who were married, and the people who came into the area. They indicate a French male marrying a Michif woman or an Indian woman.
Cuthbert Grant had three wives, according to the books. I do not know how accurate that is. He had a Sioux Indian wife. Apparently he had a wife in Pembina, one in Grant Town, and possibly one somewhere else. I think you can identify them, Senator Raine, but it is not easy.
As to where you draw the line, the Metis were not only a group of people; they had a culture, an economy and a provisional government. They were a recognized people. They established their own music and had their own customs and traditional dress. I do not know how much more ``defining'' you can be. Just like the French, the Poles and the Czechs, the Metis have a uniqueness that has to be recognized.
I am supported by experts such as Jean Teillet. I go back to her because she had done a lot of work on this. She was involved in the Powley case. She did a tremendous amount of research. I look to her for guidance to a great degree, as I look to others. That is how I have formed my opinion. As I clearly pointed out at the beginning, I am no expert. Ms. Teillet is the expert in the field, much more than I am. I just happen to be one who has had a lot of exposure to a lot of things.
Ms. Barman: I agree with absolutely everything that Mr. St. Germain has said, in the sense that it is a very distinctive group within Canada and within Canada history. The real question is the elements of what makes them unique apply more generally. A lot of groups in Canada have had very distinctive histories as well that come from a particular part of Canada and live in a certain kind of way. Again with the French Canadians and the fur trade on the West Coast, they had Chinook, which was a jargon and which was comparable in the sense of having indigenous and French words in terms of how it was constructed as a jargon, less than Michif which is a language. The music is similarly French Canadian in its base. I think the music for the Metis, defined in the narrow sense, is very French Canadian in its base and continued to be French Canadian-like for a very long time.
I think all of those things fit, but I think there is another question. If we recognize this group as a group, then will other groups want to be recognized for creating distinct subgroups within Canada at different points in historical time?
Senator Raine: I guess we are looking at two things: identity, which is how you personally feel connected to your cultural heritage; and definition or identification by an external agency for some reason. That is what our governments need to look at, because when you are looking at restricting entitlements to only certain people, they have to define who gets what. I think that is the hardest thing we have to deal with. Personally, I think that entitlements should not be race-based but needs-based. If we could look at it that way, we might get past this issue of who is what. Maybe what we need is hyphenated Metis.
Mr. St. Germain: We have enough problems.
Senator Meredith: Mr. St. Germain, it is always refreshing to hear you speak so passionately about your past and how proud you are of who you stood for. It comes across clearly in your presentation.
I will just go back to how the national council holds a definition of a Metis who self-identifies and that of also ancestry and then acceptance as well. You bring up the fact of there being a distinct culture here, a group. How do we then get to that point of identifying that group and accepting its language, its culture, the sash, the way they hunted and so forth? How do you define that, given the fact that some self-identification has already been made for those who self-identified as Metis, and then you are bringing this new way of identifying Metis because they already have their culture? How do you bring that together to gain consensus, given the fact that there are those who hold those other views?
Mr. St. Germain: I think it is a complex issue, Senator Meredith, and I do not take it lightly. I hate to be exclusionary. I would sooner be inclusionary. However, somewhere you have to draw the line. For those who self- identify, you have to go back to something. If you are Jamaican —
Senator Meredith: I am West Indian.
Mr. St. Germain: — or West Indian, whatever you want to be.
Senator Meredith: I am self-identifying.
Mr. St. Germain: You are self-identifying as a Metis. Okay. We will accept you.
If you are going to self-identify, that is one aspect of it. In the Powley case, self-identification was important, but ancestral connection to a distinct Metis community was also important in that decision, as well as you have to be accepted by that community. These are the three aspects.
The jurisprudence on this far exceeds my ability to clearly define. All I can say is that when you live the life I did and saw how the Metis lived, especially on my father's mother's side, what I am talking about today I can visualize was there in the past. That is really what drives me to my decision.
When you talk about self-identification, it is important, but I think it goes further than that. There is the ability to test this through the genealogy and various other aspects. Some things were very unique, such as the buffalo hunt, Captains of the Hunt. This was unique to them. Logically, they were trappers. They did various things. They fished, farmed, trapped and hunted, and they were nomadic. This is how they fell victim to some of the losses of their properties when scrip was issued.
Senator Meredith, I do not know if that answers your question, but if you look at the Powley case, I think it gives as close a response as you will get on this issue.
Senator Meredith: You talk about education and economic development. In your opinion today, where is the Metis Nation in terms of advancement? Economically, you talked about education. You know that I am very passionate about our youth and finding ways to engage, encourage and empower them. What is the leadership doing with those who have self-identified as Metis to engage these young people positively and around economic development in terms of opportunities?
Mr. St. Germain: In British Columbia, the MNBC does a tremendous job with young people. They have their meetings and they bring their young people in. They do have speakers who inspire them.
In Manitoba, where the court case took place, the Manitoba Metis Federation, David Chartrand, has various programs, such as health, social and educational programs for the children.
I responded to Senator Sibbeston when he asked how this will be managed now that there is an award. My understanding of the award — there was an injustice, and it should be corrected — is there was nothing prescriptive in it; there was nothing in it that indicated what should be done. I think the court was being cautious because historically we have told Aboriginal peoples what they should do as opposed to asking them what their opinion is and working from that direction rather than from the top down, or from the government down. That is maybe why they left it.
I think the question will be asked, and it will be asked by several people, about what will happen. If there is a cash settlement, or whatever settlement it is, how will it be managed to the best advantage given the situation that we live in today? As I say, you cannot turn the clock back. You can only do what is right at the present time and into the future.
Ms. Barman: My response to Mr. St. Germain is that I think everything he is saying is that these are people we should honour for everything they have done as Canadians. It is very important, and it is an important part of the history of Canada, which we are coming to recognize and acknowledge in a bunch of different ways. They did the Louis Riel opera at UBC a couple of years ago, and it was an amazing way to turn everything on its head.
There is another question, one that Senator Raine raised: What does this have to do with entitlements? A lot of groups have persevered. Think of the Blacks who came up after the American Revolution and strived, survived and struggled. They lived in similar circumstances. The people who came during the fur economy in British Columbia lived with similar kinds of adversity, but does that give them entitlements? The question is, to whom are we giving entitlements and who are we honouring as part of what is central to Canadian history?
Certainly the Manitoba Metis Federation decision is in fact righting a wrong. It is not giving an entitlement. It is righting a wrong, which is a different kind of circumstance, the same way that people who were Chinese would pay a head tax. That was righting a wrong. There is a line between the two things. The question is, which groups in Canada deserve entitlements because they happen to have a certain kind of inheritance? There are not many, apart from maybe people who are status Indians. That was done in a totally sexist kind of way initially and it continues to be sexist, which is why we have these other problems. Maybe we should be righting that wrong, and if we right that wrong, then we are looking at non-status people and Metis people together, because that was a really big wrong in 1876.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. St. Germain, how do your children see themselves?
Mr. St. Germain: Metis. Even my great grandson says, ``Pa, I am a Metis.'' You know the ceremonial headdress I had in my office? He put that on and started dancing around the table. I said, ``Tanner, what are you doing, sweet pea?'' He says, ``Pa, I never dreamt you would have something like this.'' They identify as Metis.
Senator Raine: It struck me that when you talk about entitlement, it does muddy the waters. We really need to be looking at identity and bringing Metis history into the Canadian mainstream.
When I was going to school, and I do not know if it is much different today, and all they knew is that Louis Riel was a Metis and he had a rebellion. They had no idea how the mixture of Aboriginals and Europeans affected settlement across Canada.
I think we have a big education job to do. Rather than spending money on individual entitlements for education, I think it might be better to educate everyone.
Mr. St. Germain: The only thing I will say is that it is about time Canadians start celebrating their heroes. Whether it is Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or whoever, the Americans celebrate these people as their heroes, as well as all the rest of them who fought and defended and opened the country of America.
What did we do with Riel? To me, Riel was a hero because he and his people actually opened the west and allowed Canada to develop into the great country it is. They were a major contributing factor. Rather than being critical of what they had done, we should look at the positives more, be proud of who we are, start studying Canadian history and know our Canadian history better than anything.
The Chair: I take it you would agree that includes a negative because some of the people who opened this country up left negative feelings behind them as well.
Mr. St. Germain: That is right, but when Riel set out to improve the plight of not only the Metis, he was fighting for the rights of our First Nations people that were being detribalized, ghettoized on reserves and then put into residential schools to be brutalized. Then in 1876 came the Indian Act, the most horrific piece of legislation that has gone through this country in dealing with people. I think we need to take a good look at things, and I think we should start being proud of who we are and proud of the people who opened this country up and developed it. Whether it was Thompson or Fraser, all of those people, they are important and they are recognized. Let us start recognizing people of Aboriginal extraction as we go forward.
Senator Seth: It is nice to see you here, Mr. St. Germain. I did not realize you would be a witness.
I do not have much knowledge about this, so I might be repeating the same things. What are the historical, legal, political or cultural implications that would separate the western Metis community from the rest of Canada?
Mr. St. Germain: Would you repeat the last part of the question again? What are the implications?
Senator Seth: What are the historical, legal, political and cultural implications that would separate the Metis community from the rest of Canada?
Mr. St. Germain: I think it is quite obvious. It is there; the history, political and cultural implications are all on record. It just needs to be recognized. Up until now, it has been ignored. There was no recognition of Metis people until 1982, senator. They were just a people that were out there. In a lot of cases, they were being discriminated against for who they were. It was not until 1982 that Harry Daniels, who was one of the leaders at the time, insisted the Metis be recognized as Aboriginal people under section 35. That began the change.
The other crucial action that took place was the Powley case. The Powley case triggered something; it was a sleeping giant. No one was talking about it. They were trying to do things, but nothing definitive was being done. When the Powley case came out, it clearly defined the people. Then it came out that if you self-identify, if you come from a distinct Metis community and you are accepted by that community, then you are a Metis person. Until then, we were in no man's land.
When I was a child, the Indians would not play with us and the White people would not play with us because we were in between. There was discrimination, and it carried on into the 1960s.
I can tell you a personal story — I do not want to belabour this — of where actual discrimination took place. I was in a friendly relationship with a person, a young lady, and she was told to sever her relationship with me because of my ancestry. I ended up with Margaret, 52 years later, who has been a perfect wife, so it was a good deal.
Ms. Barman: I have worked with families of mixed descent — which is what I am used to calling them — in British Columbia for about 25 or 30 years. The difficulty of the story Gerry tells about not being able to marry is that it has been repeated to me by every one of those families. There was an uncle that had a White girlfriend who could not marry him and so he committed suicide. These stories are typical of what the Indian Act did by separating families, by Canada not acknowledging all of these people who are non-status or Metis of mixed descent. It is not particular to being Metis. The history needs to be honoured, but the situation in which people live their everyday lives is very similar across much of Canada.
Senator Seth: What happens if your son marries my daughter?
Mr. St. Germain: What happens if my son marries your daughter? The offspring would be Metis if they sought to self-identify. My son's genealogy goes through me right back through the genealogical records in St. Boniface, Manitoba.
Senator Seth: What I am asking is, do you have this feeling —
Mr. St. Germain: No. I would be proud if my son married your daughter. I would be happy because the thing is, if you are Metis, I think you become colour-blind, if there is such a thing.
Senator Seth: If I am not Metis, this is what I am asking.
Senator Tkachuk: You secretly want to be Metis.
Mr. St. Germain: In any case, no, there certainly would not be any hesitation. I would bless whatever they chose.
The Chair: Seeing no more questions, I want to thank both of you for finding the time to come here this evening. It was, as we thought, enjoyable and at times verbose, so I appreciate that as well. I thank both of you.
We will suspend the meeting and go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)