Métis Right to Self-Government

Project Inquiry

There are 6 main topics of inquiry that will be pursued in this project.  They are:

• Understanding the history and circumstances on a global level of mixed-origin societies. 

• Moreover, what is the experiences of these other mixed-origin peoples in resisting colonization from others?   
• Are there factors or patterns common to the experiences of such peoples that can help explain Metis nation independence?
• How does a group become a people?

• Understanding traditional Métis governance customs from the prairie region of Turtle Island and from the Northwest Coast (Labrador Métis).

• How diverse were Metis community governance structures within the prairies? 
• What factors promoted or detracted from Metis community and national cohesion? 
• Is there levels of governance relevant to the Metis (local, regional, national) and what powers existed at these various levels traditionally?

• Understanding contemporary Métis governance and the degree of continuity between traditional practices and today.

• How do the existing political bodies of Metis peoples compare to traditional bodies? 
• If significant divergence exists between traditional and contemporary, what implications does such divergence have on asserting Metis claims to self-government?

• Understanding the Canadian normative order (Euro-Canadian understandings of Aboriginal rights) and how it applies to the governance facts of the Metis Nation of the Prairies and the Metis Nation of the Labrador coast. 

• Given the piece-meal nature of Aboriginal rights claims based on specific activities (notwithstanding an interpretation of the Campbell decision that suggest a more global claim) how would Metis Aboriginal rights claims to governance be proven under s.35 of the Constitution?  For example, how would a court deal with a claim by MMF for the governance right to issue their own hunting permits and to regulate the natural renewable resources exploited by MMF citizens? 
• What is the implication to Metis claims to governance by the creation of the Manitoba Act, as viewed as a treaty? As viewed as a constitutional Canadian matter? Etc..?  The NRTA?  Other relevant constitutional and federal/provincial legislation? 
• What is the implication of s.91(24) as it relates to the Metis? 
• Is this an appropriate legal strategy?  Is it appropriate to pursue any Aboriginal claim in a Canadian Court given the corrupt nature of Aboriginal rights doctrine as interpreted by the “Canadian” courts?

• Understanding the Indigenous normative order (Cree, Ojibway, Dakota in relation to the Metis ethnogensis on the prairies and Inuit in relation to the Metis of Labrador) and how Indigenous peoples customs and traditions would apply to the governance facts of the Metis of the Prairies and their ethnogenisis as independent peoples.

• Does Cree or Ojibway rules of community formation and separation have relevance to Metis ethnogenisis? 
• For example, what are the implications if Cree law held that a community still belongs to the Cree nation even if all members of the new community are mixed-blood from a European nation citizenry? 
• Understanding International law and its application to Metis governance facts and claims to self-government.
• Are the circumstances of Indigenous peoples internationally leading to the creation of an additional international normative order (within the discourse of human rights), and if so, what are the implications for the Metis peoples of Turtle Island?

Theme Relevance

Domain 1:         There is some relevance of this project to the first theme, particularly in regards to the 4th inquiry.  However, perspectives regarding the recognition of cultural identity and the organization of political power will be relevant to the 1st, 2nd and 5th inquiry.  The analysis of Metis governance rights under Canadian domestic law will only be a small aspect of the project since the critique of Canadian domestic Aboriginal rights is so overwhelming that the efficacy and legitimacy of applying Canadian Aboriginal rights doctrine is exceedingly suspect due to its corrupt and unjust fundamental principles. 

Domain 3:         There is considerable overlap between this domain and the current project due to the fact that the question of Metis governance will be examined from a critical perspective and also with the recognition that it is becoming increasingly important to not only appreciate how the English, French and Canadians approach the issue of Metis rights, but how the Cree, Ojibway and Inuit approach the question of Metis ethnogenisis and subsequent Metis claims to title and governance independence.  Moreover, it is anticipated that the appropriate normative order will not be exclusively English/Canadian, or Cree but rather an inter-societal/inter-national normative order.  Parallels will be made between this understanding and the discussion within the ethical sciences of the creation of “ethical space” when research is conducted between cultures with distinctly different understandings of responsibility to others. 

 

Haut de la page