Supreme Court rules Métis can control own membership

A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada underscores that the Métis are a people with a distinct identity and culture.

“I believe today’s judgment is a wonderful affirmation of the Métis Nation’s longstanding struggle to be recognized and dealt with as a distinct rights-bearing Aboriginal people,” said Audrey Poitras, president of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

While the ruling is specific to Métis settlements in Alberta, and in particular to the membership of the Cunninghams, its implications are widespread.

In the 50-page decision, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated, “The Métis have a right to their own culture and drawing distinctions on this basis reflects the Constitution and serves the legitimate expectations of the Métis people.”

“The Métis have the right to decide who they are themselves and to make those distinctions and to exclude individuals who are registered as Indians,” said Jason Madden, legal counsel for the Métis National Council.

The MNC, along with the MNA and Métis Settlements General Council, received intervener status in the Cunningham v. Alberta case that went before the Supreme Court in December 2010.

At issue was the membership of the Cunningham family in the Peavine Métis Settlement. Barbara Cunningham, John Kenneth Cunningham, Lawrent Cunningham, Ralph Cunningham, Lynn Noskey, Gordon Cunningham, Roger Cunningham and Ray Stuart were removed from the Peavine Métis Settlement’s membership roll in May 2001, because they chose to claim Indian status under the Indian Act. Cunningham et al chose Indian status because the family felt benefits for Indians outweighed benefits available for Métis. Sect. 75 of the Métis Settlement Act prohibits anyone with Indian status from obtaining Métis settlement membership, while Sect. 90 calls for the removal of membership from the settlement for individuals who have voluntarily registered as Indians under the Indian Act. The Alberta Court of Appeal struck down sections 75 and 90 of the MSA saying they were unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court, which released its decision July 21, said those sections of the MSA did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“People have a choice and there’s nothing wrong with that. But they can’t choose both,” said Madden.

However, at this point, there is no mechanism in place for the Cunninghams – or anyone else in their position – to de-register under the Indian Act.

“That is probably something that will likely be challenged in the future,” said Madden. “I could see people pushing for that.”

There are about 8,000 members on Métis settlements and about 80,000 Métis in Alberta. According to the 2006 census, 2,500 people self-identified as Métis and also have registered Indian status. Madden believes that proportion plays out on the settlements.

Madden noted that the Métis Settlements General Council could create a policy that grandfathered people in because registration under the Indian Act terminates membership in the settlement.

Alberta is the only province with a land base for Métis.
“What (the Supreme Court) clearly says in this decision is that it was a good thing for Canada to do it and it’s protected,” said Madden.

“With this decision, Alberta Métis will be able to have the peace of mind and ensure that the Métis settlements will always remain Métis lands. Owned by Métis. Governed by Métis,” said Poitras.

Madden also sees the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling helping with the MNA’s and other provincial Métis associations’ push to register their citizens.

“The decision says that Métis should be treated as rights-bearing people and you should create a system in order to do that,” said Madden.

The citizenship registry, said Poitras, is part of that system. The MNA applied for intervener status in the case because its new citizenship registry excluded registered Indians.

“This is a very strong tool that the Métis have now in their kits, to really stress ‘We’re not Indian, we’re not Inuit, but it doesn’t mean we’re less than. You’ve got to do something with us. It may not be identical with what you do for Indians and it may not be identical with what you do for Inuit, but you can’t be willfully blind to the fact we’re there and we’re an Aboriginal people,’” said Madden.

Also granted intervener status in the case were the Métis settlements of Gift Lake, East Prairie and Elizabeth.