1

TheEasternMétisandthe“Negationism”ofProfessorLeroux:“Aiabitawisidjikwimikakik”[1]SébastienMalette,Ph.D.TheoriginalFrencharticlewaspublishedinTrahir(October21,2017):LesMétisdel’Estetle«négationnisme»duprofesseurLeroux:«Aiabitawisidjikwimikakik»(https://trahir.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/malette-metis/)TranslatedbyRémyBiggs

“Bois-Brulés!Mixed-blood!ButatthecenterofthisbloodIhaveNativewordsthatIcanstillhear,anddesiresthatmoveandwhichlongtogobeyondyourfences.”

–Élodie,inLaDalle-des-MortsbyF.A.Savard,1965IntroductionOnSeptember27,2017,professorofsociologyDarrylLerouxoftheUniversityofSaintMaryofferedaconferenceattheUniversityofMontréal,entitled“HistoricRevisionismandIndigenization:thecreationof“EasternMétis”.Thesubjectofhisconference,linkedwithhisotherwork,questionedtheexistenceofMétisinEasternCanadianprovinces,whomLerouxaccusedofethnicfraudandhostileintentionsagainstthoseLerouxconsidered“true”Indigenouspeoples.Inshort,LerouxaccusedtheMétisoftheEasternprovincesofCanada(Quebecinparticular)offabricatinganIndigenousidentityinordertowashawaytheirguiltovercolonialism,or,insomecases,tosimplyobstructtherecognitionofIndigenouspeopleandtheirrights.Todothis,ProfessorLerouxrecycledstatisticsthatheandbloggerChelseaVowelpreviouslypublishedinthejournalTopia.LerouxassertedthatQuebechasseenariseinMétisself-identificationof258%.Lerouxsuggestedthatthisincreaseisnotincidental,explainingthatithastodowithsomesinistermotivationsthathehadnoticedintheEasternMétispeoples.Byisolatingandfocusinghisresearchonafewproblematicexamples,ProfessorLerouxresumedhistopicwithashockingdeclaration:hewasgoingtodemonstratethatQuébecoisMétispeoplessimplydonotexist.FortheMétisFederationofCanada(MFC),thisdeclarationwenttoofar.InalettersenttotheUniversityofMontréal,theMFCdenouncedProfessorLeroux’sproposedtalkas“negationism”andinvitedtheuniversitytoretracttheinstitutionalplatform

2

ithadofferedtoLeroux,followingtheargumentthatsuchaconferencepromoteshatredandcontempttowardsanentirepopulationofMétispeoplebasedontheirgeographicallocationandhistory.TheMFCdenouncedLerouxforhisabusivegeneralizations,steepedinalogicalfallacythatconsistedofcriticizinganidentitybasednotonthehistoricalevidenceputforwarddemonstratingitsemergence(orfacts),butratherbyattributingitsgenesistothemaliciousintentionsofthosewhoclaimthatidentity.Lerouxwentevenfurther:heassertedthatthesovereigntyofFirstNationswouldbemenaceddefactobytheincreaseofalltheseso-called“fake”Indigenouspeoples/MétisinQuebec.ThislaststatementbroughttheMFCtodenounceLeroux’sconferenceasprovokingahostileclimateindenigratingtheMétislivinginQuebec.ThedefenseofProfessorLeroux:theyarenot“real”MétisProfessorLerouxdefendedhimselfagainsttheseaccusationswithasimpleclaim:thatQuébecoisMétisarenot,accordingtohim,“real”Métis.Leroux’sacademicreputation,therefore,isheavilytiedatthispointwiththenegationsoftheidentityandhistoryoftheEasternMétisthathesetsinoppositiontothe“real”WesternMétis.Atthispoint,weshouldknowthatthisideathatonlyPrairieMétiswouldbethe“real”Métis,isattheheartofdebatesopposingMétisorganizationsforthelast35years.Historicallyspeaking,suchreificationofMétisidentityalongaWest-Eastdividewasmuchlesspronounced.Weknow,forexample,thatmultiple“Métis”familiesbecame“Indian”followingtheIndianactandviceversa,illustratingthefluiditybetweenidentitiesreferredtoasAboriginalinCanada.Wealsoknowcasesofindividuals,amongstmany,whoidentifythemselvesalternatelyas[French-]Canadians,MétisandIndiansduringtheirlives,showingthepresenceofmultiplemeansofarticulatingahistoricMétisidentity.Ithasonlybeensincethe1980sthatcompetingandopposingvisionsofMétisidentitybegantoclashinthebackgroundofnewconstitutionalbattles.Morepreciselyandparadoxically,theinclusionoftheterm“Métis”inarticle35oftheConstitutionalAct,1982putanendtotheunityofMétisandnon-statusIndiansthroughoutCanada,notablywhenagroupofWesternMétisdecidedtocreateaneworganizationin1983,calledtheMétisNationalCouncil(MNC),whichdistanceditselffromtheNativeCouncilofCanada,thendirectedbytheSaskatchewanMétisHarryDaniels.ConflictingVisionsontheMétisIdentitySincetheinclusionoftheMétisintherepatriated1982constitution,atleasttwovisionsofMétisidentityopposeeachotherquiteferociously.Ononehand,thereisthevisionexpressedbyHarryDaniels,whorecognizedthatallMétis,wherevertheirlocationinCanada,havetherighttoself-identifyasMétis,iftheybelieveitcorrespondstotheirwaysofrelatingtotheworld(basically,ifitmatchestheir

3

worldviewandculturalsensitivities).Ontheotherhand,theMétisNationalCouncilsupportsamuchnarrowerethno-nationalistdoctrine,restrainingtheMétisidentitytotheprovinceslocatedtothewestofQuebec(theso-called“Métishomeland”),andmorepreciselytodescendantsofMétisfromtheNorthwestthatweassociatewiththepoliticaleventsofRedRiver(suchas,forexample,theprincipalMétisleaderLouisRiel).AdoptinganevolutionaryandprimordialparadigminregardstotheMétisidentity,theintelligentsiawhoadoptedthisneo-nationalistvisionofMétisidentitygraduallydevelopedapoliticaltheoryaccordingtowhichonlypoliticaleventsofacertainmagnitudearecapableofcreatinga“proven”collectivenationalconsciousness,sufficiently“mature”,tohavetherighttolegitimatelyidentifythemselvesasMétis.Duetothisideologicalschismimposedonmétisness,the“otherMétis”havebeendescribedbypartisansofthisideologyassimply“mixed-blood”ormixed,butnotMétis,followingthenotionthattheirancestorsweren’tconsciousenoughoftheirMétisidentitytobeabletotransferittotheirdescendants,leadingtodaytoaccusationsofself-indigenizationagainstthese“other”Métis.ThistypeofaccusationisespeciallystronginMétisnarrativestargetingtheEasternprovincesofCanada(andparticularlyinQuebec),whoarestillbeingdeniedanykindofrecognitionbytheMétisNationalCouncil,thelattercurrentlylobbyinggovernmentsandtribunalstoaccepttheirMétisdoctrineofidentityasbeingtheonlyvalidone.Leroux’sconferencethusfounditselfattheheartofseveraltumultuousidentity-baseddebatesthathavebeenragingsinceatleasttheconstitutionaleraof1982-83.Therefore,Leroux’sfirstmistakeisperhapstobelievethatthephenomenonofMétisinQuébecisanewphenomenon.LerouxignoresthehistoricalaffirmationsofQuébécoisMétiscommunitiesandorganizations,which,accordingtothecommunitynewspaperL’Alliance,sentpoliticaldelegatestonegotiatetheirinclusionintheCanadianconstitutionin1981.HealsoignoresthetestimoniesthatwererecordedofEasternMétisduringtheRoyalCommissiononAboriginalpeoples(1996).AccordingtoLeroux,allofthesetestimoniesarefaulty:thesetestimonies,accordingtohim,arefromnon-statusIndians(or“whites”)usingtheterm“Métis”inconfusedways,ortodenoteabiologicalratherthanculturalstateofaffairs.InnegatingtheverypossibilityoftheexistenceofMétisinQuebec,Lerouxnotablyadoptsthepositionsdefendedbyneo-nationalistandMétissociologistChrisAndersenoftheUniversityofAlberta(amongothers),whodoesnothesitatetodescribeself-identifyingMétisthatarefoundoutsideofthetraditionalWesternMétishomelandasahodge-podgeof(perhaps)IndigenouspeoplesdeprivedoftheirrightsbytheCanadianstate,whichheopenlydescribestheeasternMétisasseekingtheirrightsbeforegovernmentsandcourts,muchlikethedowntroddenina“soupkitchen”,whennotusingthederogatoryterm“zombies”,todescribewhatwouldbefakeIndigenouspeopleclimbingoutoftheirgravestoassumeIndigenousidentities.TheAccusation’sFoundation:ExaggeratedandIndemonstrableStatistics

4

ForProfessorLeroux,thesimilar“novelty”whichbetraystheinstrumentalizationofMétisidentityinQuebecisillustratedbywhathebelievestobeanincreaseinself-identificationof258%between2001,2006,and2011[17].AccordingtoLeroux,thereisapsychologicalexplanationforsuchanincrease:theappropriationofIndigenousidentitybyFrench-Canadiansettlerscanbeexplainedbytheirwrongfulintentions.Butisthenumberreally258%?WhenconfrontedbytheMétisFederationofCanadaonthenatureofhiscalculations,andfurtherquestionedbyajournalistfromRadioCanada,Lerouxrespondedinitiallybystatingthatallofthenumbersanddatausedinhisconferencewerepublishedinpeer-reviewedjournals(includingthereviewTopiawheretheaforementionedfigureof258%waspublished)[18].However,afterverification,thepublishedstatisticaldatadidnotcorrespondtoanythingtangible.Probablyrealizingthefutilityofusingsuchanargumentofauthority,Lerouxthenattemptedtocorrectthesenumbersindescendingorder.Radio-Canadalaterreportedanincreaseof200%[19],beforeitbecameanincreaseof158%ontheTwitteraccountofProfessorLeroux[20].Notethatthislastnumberof158%canbevalidatedonlyifwetruncatetheresultsofthecensusesin2001and2006byexcludingthegroupofpeoplewhomentionedMétisancestrywithoutidentifyingthemselvesassuch(adistinctionwhichdoesnotappearintheresultsfrom2011)[21].IfwedonotminimizethenumbersasLerouxdid,andifwecomparethenumberofpeoplewhoidentifiedashavingMétisancestryandidentityin2001(35,325)andthetotalofpeoplewhoidentifiedasMétisin2011(35,465),thenweseeaevenmuchlessdrasticstatisticmodulationinQuebec[22].Beyondthisstatisticalerror,Leroux’smethodologyisquite:professorLerouxiscomparingnoneofthenumbersfoundinQuébectotheparallelgrowthsweseeinOntarioorintheCanadianWestfromthesamedataofferedbyCanadaStatistics(between1996and2006,forexample),whichtheinclusionthereofwouldhavesignificantlyreducedtheforceofhisargumentssolelytargetingQuébec’sMétis.Indeed,perthesenumbers,wecanthenseeanincreaseof80%forQuebec,andanincreaseof242%inOntario.ShouldwethenconcludethattheMétisinOntario,andelsewherewhereweseecomparablegrowth,sufferfromthesameidentitycrisisastheMétisinQuebec?Duringhisconference,itshouldbenotedthatLerouxproposedanotherestimateof46%forthisincreasebetween2006and2011[23].ItisthereforeverydifficulttonavigateaccordingtotheinconsistentnumbersthatLerouxhaspresented.CalledtoreacttothedenunciationsofLeroux’swork,theUniversityofMontréalrespondedlaconicallythathisworkissupportedandrecognizedbymultipleMétiscommunities,whileinterestinglyflaggingthesupportoftheonlyorganizationwhichopenlyopposestherecognitionofMétiscommunitiesinQuébec:theMetisNationalCouncil[24].GeneticFallacy#1:TheCruelIntentionsofQuébécoisMétis

5

Asidefromthepublicationofunverifiablestatistics,webelievethatamoreseriousmistakefromProfessorLerouxconsistsinhisattempttoexplainthesenumbersviasomekindofpsychologism,thefalseapplicationofpsychologytothestudyofsocialphenomena,ontheanalysisofMétisQuébécois,portrayedasreinventingthemselvesasIndigenouspeopleswithpresumedmaliciousintentonthebasisofstatisticsalone.Lerouxresumesthisphenomenonasa“politicalinstrumentalization”fromhostileandfakeMétisQuébécois,guiltyofculturalappropriationevenwhentheyarenotfullyawareofit,thusslammingthemwiththisdouble-ignoranceonwhatwouldconstitutetheirrealidentity:thatofmeresettlers,colonizersandFrench-Canadians[25].Todoso,Lerouximpugnsaseriesofsecretintentions,whichhereadsintothepsycheofallMétisofQuébec,leadinghimtoformulatetowhatwecallageneticsophism.TheeffectofsuchsophismbecomesvisibleinPh.D.studentKarinaChagnon’scommentariesaboutLeroux’sconference,whereshedismissesboththehistoricalandmoderncultureofQuébecMétiscommunitiesasbeingmerely“amythwealllove”[26].Lerouxthenhoneshisfear-inducingargumentsbyemphasizingthatifthese“millionsofFrench-Canadians”reinventthemselvesasIndigenous(noteheretheextrapolation,whichclearlygiveswaytohyperbole),thatthesituationwillrapidlygetoutofcontrol[27],posinganadditionalrisktoIndigenoussovereigntyofotherindigenouspeoples[28].Lerouxevenaddsananecdotefromhispersonallife,statingthathehimselfhasIndigenousancestors,butthatdoesnotmakehim“Métis”.Overtlyconfidentintheauthorityofhispersonalnarrativeandthelogicofhisself-identification,theprofessordismissesaswellthepossibilityofdivergentculturalpathsemanatingfromthesamefamiliallinessincethe1700s.AbusiveGeneralizationsandMisinformationonIndigenousSovereigntyAmidstallofthisconfusion,webelievewemustrespondtoLeroux’sstatements,which,inspiteoftheirimmediateweaknesses,threatentosabotagetherealeffortsofreconciliationbetweenMétisinQuébec,FirstNationsandInuitpeoples.Itisfirstusefultounderstandthatcraftinganexplanationabouttheoriginofethnicidentityviatheactofimpugningmotivestoallofitsbearers,constitutesadoublefallacy(i.e.abusivegeneralizationandgeneticsophism).Moreprecisely,whilecertainQuébécoisMétismayexpressideaswemightdisagreewith,thisdoesn’tallowustomoveondirectlytotheconclusionthatallMétiswithrootsinQuébechaveevilandsecretiveorevenignorantmotivations,furtherpositingthatthegenesisofallMétispeopleinQuébecisrootedinsuchfalseclaimsandevenmalice.Eachcasemustbeanalyzedseparatelywithoutprejudice.ThegeneralizationsfoundinLeroux’srhetoricseemabusive.Itisalsoimportanttounderstandthatnogenericattributionthatwouldhypotheticallyrecognizethe“Indigenous”characterofalargenumberofQuébécois(orFrenchCanadians)wouldharmthesovereigntyofotherIndigenouspeoples,

6

whichwillalwaysbespecificandcausasui.One’sindigenoussovereigntyisalwaysinrelationtoone’sspecificidentity;itisnotsubjecttobe“diluted”bytheinstrumentalizationofsomegeneralizinglabelssuchas“Indigenous”,“Indians”oreven“Métis”,especiallywhenthesearenotaccompaniedbyfurtherprecisions(theMétisofSault-Sainte-Marie,ofthesettlementofRedRiver,oftheSlaveLake,etc.).Inotherwords,thecoexistenceoftwoIndigenouspeoplesonthesameterritorydoesnotnecessarilynullifythesovereigntyofoneortheother.Hence,Leroux’spremiseofthissudden“unregulated”growthofMétisinQuébecdoesnotleadustoaccepthisconclusionabouttheendangermentofIndigenoussovereignty;thereissimplynologicalnecessitycausallytyingthetwopropositionstogether.Thathavingbeensaid,thefederalgovernmenthasadutytoconsult,and,persomespecificsfoundintheHaidadecision,accommodatetheAboriginalpeoples[29].Wemustalsotakenotethatgovernmentalandjudiciaryauthoritiesmustrespondtotheobligation,whenacaseispresented,ofconsideringthe[sometimesconflicting]interestsofvariousIndian,InuitorMétisparties.ThisdutyfurtherintersectswithanotherprincipleembodiedintheTsilhqot’inNationv.British-Columbiadecision,whichelaboratesthattherecognitionofAboriginalrightsmustbereconciledwithCanadiansovereignty,whichmayresultinpotentiallimitationsonIndigenousrights[30].Inotherwords,“becomingIndigenous”isnoguaranteethatsomeonewillbegrantedsomekindofabsoluteAboriginalrightssuddenlytrumpingotherIndigenouspeoplesandCanadiansorQuébécois.ProfessorLeroux’salarmistrhetoricstatingthattheincreasingself-indigenizationofMétisinQuébecisadangertorealindigenousnations,isthereforeunjustified—evenfromahypotheticalscenario.Quitesimply,thethreatofMétisinQuébecagainstFirstNationandInuitsovereigntyisexaggerated,anddoesnottakeintoaccountthecomplexityofthealreadyexistingjurisprudenceonthissubject.Clearly,therearealreadyjudiciaryprinciplesandmechanismsinplacefornegotiationsofdisputesbetweenIndigenouspeoples,whichdonotnecessarilyensurethevictoryofthelargerpopulation.AndeveninthescenarioofacompletelyindependentIndigenousjudicialsystem,whichwouldimplythecoordinationbetweenmultipleIndigenoussovereignties,negotiatingwithMétispeopleoraQuébecnation(whichdoesnotrecognizesitselfas“Indigenous”)wouldnoterodethepreexistingsovereigntiesofotherIndigenouspeoples;justasthesovereigntyofHuron-WendatdoesnoterodethatoftheInnu,evenincaseswherethetwoIndigenousnationsmayhaveconflictoverthesameterritory.FromthestandpointofIndigenoussovereignty,thepresenceofonenationorgroupidentity(indigenousornot)doesnotaffectorweakentheintrinsicstatusofanothernationalorculturalidentity.Finally,onemustseethatthesetypesofconflictscouldpotentiallyimplicatetheEasternMétisasmuchasthantheWesternMétis(forexamplethecaseofHiserkorn,wheretheSiksikaNationopposedtheRedRiverMétisnation[31]).ToskirtaroundsuchapossibilitytodemonizeonlyEasternMétisseems,again,one-sidedandexaggerated.

7

GeneticFallacy#2:the1%bloodquantumoftheQuébécoisMétisBeyondLeroux’sstatisticalerrors,exaggerations,impugningofmotives,andhisuseofgeneticsophism,wecanbetroubledbyLeroux’susageoffamiliarargumentshistoricallyknownfordenigratingMétisidentity.Tostateonecase,Lerouxdoesnotrefrainfromformulating“insufficientbloodquantum”argumenttodiscreditthevalidityofMétisidentityinQuébec.Formulatingyetanothergeneticfallacy,LerouxmaintainsthatthemajorityofQuébécoiswouldhavesolittle“Indianblood”(itissuggestedroughly1%),andfromsofarback,thattheexistenceof“real”MétispeopleinQuébecisvirtuallyimpossible.ThistypeofaccusationagainsttheFrench-CanadianMétisisnotwithoutprecedent,andcertainlyechoesthewordsofBenjaminSulte,who,desperatetoprotecttheracialstatusofFrench-Canadians,wrotethatallwecouldeversayisthat“afewdropsoftheMissourihavefallenintotheSt.Lawrenceriver[32].”Usingalogicakintotheinfamousbloodquantumargument,Leroux’spresentationonEasternMétissupportsasimilaridea,onlyinthereverse:itrevolvesaroundpromotingtheideathatallQuébécois(purelaines?)canbenothingmorethansettlers,andcanneverunderanycircumstancesreclaimaMétisidentity,pastorpresent.ItisimportanttonotethatmanyMétisinQuébecareverymuchawareofahistoricalbreak,followingwhichasizableportionoftheQuébécoispopulationcametoidentifythemselvessolelywiththeirFrenchroots.Butthatdoesnotimpede,asLouis“Smokey”Bruyereunderlines,thatasignificantnumberofpeopleinQuébecwere,andarestill,identifying,asMétis[33].HowcanwetheninterprettheoutcryofMétisinQuébec,describedbyNelsonAmos,whenprotestingin1981thetrumpingoftheirrightstotrapandhuntbyforestingcompanies[34],orthisMétishockeyclubexpelledin1985fromanIndigenoushockeyleagueforbeingMétis[35]?MustweconcludethatallofthesepeoplearenothingbutfakeMétis,sufferingfromsomekindofcolonialguiltorpureamnesia?MustweconcludethatMétisinQuébechavenohistoryorcultureoftheirown?LouisRiel’sResponsetothe1%RhetoricOntheaccusationofnotbeingIndigenous“enough”,ornothavingenough“Indianblood”,itisworthrememberingthatevenLouisRielwasforcedtodignifysuchargumentswitharesponseonwhatconstitutesMétisidentityin1885:

TherearelovelypeoplefromelsewherewhowillsaytoaMétisthat“youdon’thaveanairofahalf-breedatall.Surely,youdon’thavemuchIndianblood.Infact,youcouldpasseasilyforapurewhiteperson.”TheMétis,whoisoftenbotheredbythesetypesofremarks,wouldverymuchliketoembracehisorigins,andnotoneovertheother.Thefearofdisturbing

8

orneutralizingthesweetnessofhisinterlocutor’swordsandmannerrestrainshim.Whilehehesitatestochoosebetweenvariousanswersthatcometohismind,wordslikethesecompletetheassaultofhissilence:Ah!Well,youhavenexttonoIndianblood.Youreallyhavetosearchforit.HereishowMétisthinkofthemselves:ItistruethatourIndigenousoriginsarehumble,butitisonlyrightthatwehonorourmothersinthesamemannerthatwehonorourfathers.WhymustweoccupyourselveswithwhatdegreeofwhichwearemixedbetweenIndigenousandEuropeanblood?”[36],(emphasismine)

Weseethatthelowquotientof“Indianblood”hadneverperturbedthelegitimacyofanyMétisintheeyesofLouisRiel,andneitherhasitformodernMétisleaderssuchasHarryDaniels,hissonGabrielDaniels,GabrielDufault,MartinDunnorevenLouis“Smokey”Bruyere.ItshouldbenotedherethatalloftheseleadersarefromtheWest;yettheyhaveallrejectedtheimpositionofgeographiclimitsonMétisidentity.Assuch,theycontradictnotonlythedoctrinethatonlyPrairieMétiswouldbetheonly“true”Métis,butalsoitssociologically-derivedspieldisseminatedbyChelseaVowelonTwitter,orbyprofessorAdamGaudrythroughconferencesnowreachingAcadiatodenytheexistenceof“true”AcadianMétis.Clearly,thepropositionthatallWesternMétiswouldopposetherecognitionofMétisinQuébecortheMétisFederationofCanada,ashintedbyKarinaChagnon,seemstobeonemoreinaccuracy;aninaccuracythatgivestheimpressionthatMétisinQuébecarenothingbutanisolatedandmarginalincident.Ineffect,ifthegoalofDarrylLerouxorKarinaChagnonistomakeuslooklikewewouldsuggestthatallFrenchCanadiansorQuébécoisareIndigenous(somethingwearenotpositing,let’sbeclear),tothenamalgamateourworkwithsomecheapreductionistapproachtoquantifyingMétisgenetics,wemusttellthemthattheyhaveacaseofmistakenidentityintheiraccusations.TheirtargetshouldratherbeaprominentnationalistMétisnamedPaulL.A.H.Chartrand,whodidsuggestopenlythatFrench-CanadiansareanIndigenouspeople,butaresimplynotrecognizedassuchintheCanadianconstitutionof1982[39].Therefore,weinvitethemtoreframetheirdebatewithPaulChartrand,andnotgoforfacilestraw-manarguments.Forus,the“French-CanadianMétis”identityisdistinctfromthe“French-Canadian”nowQuébécoisidentitytout-court.TheformervalueitsdualFrenchandIndigenousheritageoftheformer,whichMétisdefinethroughkinshiptiesandsharedculturalpatterns.TheValueofbeing“Mixed”asaCulturalVectoramongst“French-CanadianMétis”ContrarytowhatLerouxstatesonthesubjectofMétisidentity[40],therecognitionofaFrench-Indigenous“mixed”heritagewasimportantandoftenrecognizedexplicitlyinMétisculture,eveniftheFrench-CanadianMétisidentitycannotbereducedtothatculturalmarkeralone.Thisisapointwhichseemstobelostwhen

9

weseeLerouxreducingeverythingaboutthisdebatetoancestryandbloodquantum.LouisRiel,amongothers,didconsidertheMétisculturetobetheresultof“mixing”,ormoreaccuratelytheoriginalsynthesisoftwopreexistingcultures,inhiscaseIndigenousandFrenchcultures,asynthesisthatemergedinthehistoricalcontextofthefurtrade:

MétishavepaternalancestorswhowereemployeesoftheHudson’sBayandNorthWestCompanies.Formaternalancestors,MétishaveNativewomenfromvariousnations.TheFrenchword,Métis,isderivedfromtheLatinword“Mixtus”,whichmeansmixed;theword’smeaningsuitsusverywell.ItisonlyappropriatethattheEnglishvariation,Half-breed,wasderivedfromthefirstgenerationofmixed-bloods;now,bloodofEuropeanandNativeismixedinustovaryingdegreesandthetermismoregeneral[41](Emphasisisours).

ThewritingsofRielarecrystalclearwhenitcomestotheexistenceof“French-CanadianMétis”culture,asarethesewordsofanotherMétisleaderGabrielDumontonthesubject:

1885wasnotthefirsttimethatFrench-Métiswererattled,andsolongaswehaveadropofFrenchandIndianbloodinourveins,wewillcontinuetoadvocatefortherightsthatwehavefoughtfor,andtheonesthattheyassassinatedLouisDavidRielfor[42].(Emphasisisours).

Fromthesequotes,itseemsthateventhehistoricleadersoftheMétisNationunderstoodtheircultureasonederivedfromaunique“mixed”heritage,aculturetheysurelyseeasspecifictoNorthAmerica.Butmostimportantly,itshouldbenotedthatthis“mixed”identityemergedandwasspreadacrossNorthAmericaviaevolvingkinshiptiesandsolidarity.Itisinterestingtosee,forexample,thata1979letterformtheBoardofDirectorsofL’Alliance,askingforthepardonofLouisRiel,alsomentionsthat“theMétisinQuébecin1885”werealreadyvocalinopposingthehangingofRiel[43].Valuingthe“mixed”aspectofMétiscultureshouldnotthereforebeturnedtoridiculeasmisinformedromanticorracistbiases,butratherasthisdistinctandhistoricalculturalexpressionofaMétisdiasporathatoperateslikearhizomaticentity.Assuch,Métisculturethriveswithoutauniquecenterorultimatebirthplace,itisexocentric,fulloffleetingpointsresistingwhatwouldbethereductionofitsessenceorfinalexpressiontoonegivenlocale:makingtheexperienceofmétissageasaculturalvectorforanemergingMétisidentity[44].Weshouldthereforeconsiderthefollowinghypothesis:iftheseQuébécoisMétisresorttoDNAtestsorcomplexgenealogicalmappingtoconfirmtheirMétisidentities,itmaywellbeinreactiontotheridiculetheyfaceintheirtheireffortstoexistobjectively,politicallyandculturally,asMétis—attemptsthatKarinaChagnonderidesbydiminishingthefruitofsuchstrugglesastheproductofmere“myths”andmisinformedattachments.Infact,thecontingencyandopennessassociated

10

withtheterm“Métis”cannolongerbedoubtedwhenreadingthispassagefromaletterwrittenbyLouisRieltohiscousinPaulProulxin1877:

It’sanamethatmeansmixed[Métis].Untilnowithasservedtodesignatetheracequestionofmixed-bloodsbetweenEuropeansandNatives,butitisequallyviableinitsusagetodesignatearaceofman,recruitedfromalltypesofmixturesofbloodbetweenthem,andwho,passingthroughtheFrench-Canadianmold,retaintheirmemoryoftheirheritageandcallthemselvesMétis.Thelabel“Métis”isonemostfindagreeable,becauseitisnotexclusiveandithastheadvantageofrecognizing,inthemostconvenientwaypossible,thecontingentthatderivesfromeachnationtocreatethisnewgroupofpeople[45](Emphasisours).

TheNegationofaPoliticalConsciousnessAmongstEasternMétisRefusingtorecognizehowtheterm“Métis”isnotexclusivetothewesternMétis,somewillreplythatthe“mixedbloods”ofeasternCanadaneverdemonstratedthesameunityofapoliticalpurposeaswasevidentintheclassicRedRiverhistoriography.Tomaketheirpoint,aseriesofprejudiceswillberhetoricallydeployed,eachonemoreinflatedthantheprevious,puttingforwardassumptionscreatingahomogenouscollectivewhichoverlooksnuanceandtheverydiversitywhichexistedinthe19thcenturyRedRiver.Toachievethis,theywillignorethefactthattheMétisspokedifferentlanguages,whilepositingthattherewasonlyasingleMétisnationallanguage,themixedbilingualFrench-CreeMichif.TheywillclosetheireyesontheFrench-speakingcharacterofthevastmajorityofthese“Bois-Brulés”includingthemajorityoftheMétisintheRedRiver,andthehistoricalstrugglesthatdefinedtheircommonexperienceagainsttheEnglish(lesAnglais)andtheOrangemen,whoconsideredthemtooCatholicandwaytoclosetothe“Indians”tobetrusted.Theywillforget,aboveall,theexistenceofMétisinQuébec.Inshort,theywillallowthemselvestograduallydestroytheculturalundergirdingofFrench-CanadianMétisbydiffusingwidelythisRedRiver-centricdoctrinelobbiedsince1983byapredominantlyAnglophoneWesternorganization,whichstilltothisdayrefusestogivetothedirectorsoftheoldestFrenchMétisorganizationinthecountry,L’unionnationalemétisseSt.JosephduManitoba,aseatatthenegotiationtablewiththegovernment.[46]SoimagineoursurprisewhenfacingtheclaimthatthewholeofWesternMétiswouldnotrecognizetheMétisFederationofCanada,eventhoughthepresidentoftheFederationishimselfaWesternMétiswhoseancestorsfoughtatBatochewithLouisRiel.ImagineoursurprisewhenwerecallthatGabrielDufault,ofL’UnionnationalemétisseSt.JosephduManitoba,hasmadeithispersonalmandatetoreconcilethefamiliesoftheEastandtheWest.[47]Atthispoint,weshouldperhapsinformDarrylLerouxandKarinaChagnonofwhatLouisRielhimselfwrotehimselfonthesubjectin1885:

11

AsfortheEasternCanadianprovinces,therearemanyMétiswholivetheredespisedwhileundertheIndianlabel.TheirvillagesareIndigenousvillages.TheirIndiantitleisjustasvalidastheIndiantitleofMétisinManitoba.[48](Emphasisours)

Onceagain,anddespitethecurrentdoctrineoftheMetisNationalCouncil,itseemsclearthatthepoliticalprojectthatLouisRielclearlyincludedtheMétisfromtheeasternprovincesofCanada,whopossessed,accordingtohim,equalrightsasthoseinManitoba.

(Caption:ExtractofaletterfromLouisRiel.Creatorofimageunknown.Originaldocument.ArchivesandLibrariesofCanada.“ReginaPrison,1884.“TotheCaptainandMr.E.B.Dean”.Folio1280(7)RecordsrelatingtoLouisRielandtheNorthWestUprising–1229,microfilm1229,C-1229,122991,202861,RG13ANascentHistoriographyfortheEasternMétis[49]ThetestimonyofLouisRielinthisregardseemsrathercredible,giventhathespentroughlyfifteenyearsinexile,includingsometimeinQuébecwherehesoughtprotectionamongkinandMétisfamilies.Interestingly,avividandvibrantoraltraditionamongMétiseldersfromtheOutaouaisregion(Québec’sOttawaRegion)suggeststhatLouiswasprotectedbyMétisfamiliesresidingthere,MétisfamiliesthatincludedsurnamessuchasRiel,McGregor,Nault,Lépine,Beaulieu,Paul,David,McDougallandmanyothers.Onthisparticularsubject,avisittothenationalarchivesallowustoseehowMétisinthisregionwerecollectivelyanddistinctivelyidentifiedasMétifs,Métis,HalfbreedsandBois-Brulés,this,welloveraperiodof80years,includesthisnotefromFatherBellefeuillein1838:

She[Flora]isabout45yearsoldandhasbothhernameatBaptismalongwithaNativename,shealsohasthenameofL’Eveque,thenameofherlateCanadianvoyageurfatherwhowasMétis.Thereisalso,inthissameoutpost,IndiansandMétiswiththenamesofGaucherandothersofthenameofChénier.AsinTemiskamingthereisalargefamilywhoarethedescendantsofanoldvoyageurbythenameofLeduc.Andinallthese

12

differentpost,therearemétifdescendantsofvoyageurs,clerks,orCanadianBourgeoisandScottishforthemostpart.TheseMétisareusuallysmarterthantheothers,butarealsomoresusceptibleofbothgoodandbadimpressions.[50](Emphasisours).

Thereplyweusuallyhearatthispointisthis:thehistoryofEasternMétisisbasedsolelyonanecdotes.AndthatthedocumentarysourcesweprovideprovenothingabouthowtheseMétispeoplewereself-identifying.Butthen,howtomakesenseofthecorrespondenceoffatherNédélec,seekingtobringtheMétistheOutaouaisregion(“frombelow”)intotheTemiscaminguereservein1896,thisbyaskingthattwoseatsbereservedfortheMétisonthecouncil?Howcanweinterpretthegovernment’sresponsetoNédélec,whichthenrefusedtoletaMétiscommunitybecreated?[51]WhatdowesayoftheletterswrittenbyagentsMartinandBensenfromtheManiwakireserve,openlycomplainingoftheMétisagitatingattheoutskirtsthereof,identifiedbothin1895and1909asdistinctfromtheFrenchCanadiansandtheIndiansonthereserve?Anddowemakesenseofthehuntingpermitssoldin1942,withpricesdependingonifthebuyerwasMétisorIndian?[54]AretheseelementnotsufficienttoshowtheexperienceofadistinctMétisconsciousnessinQuébec,highlightedbydiversepracticesthattargetspecificallythis“classofpeople”,toemploytheexpressionusedbythesurveyorBouchettewhenhereferredtothe“Bois-Brûlés”squattingsouthofwhatisnowtheGatineauPark?[55]Shouldwesimplystopresearchingthesemicro-historiesbecausesomesuggestallMetisinQuébecamounttocasesofethnicfraud?Asarchivalsourcesshow,MétispeopledidroamandevenoccupytheterritoryofQuébec.ThishelpstoexplainthecontextbehindapassagequotedbyKarinaChagnonfromoneofourpreviouspublications,inwhichwecriticizedthePaquettedecisionforneglectingthemobilityofMetisbetweenQuebecandOntario:

Whycan’taQuébécoisconsiderthemselvesbothMétisandQuébécois,especiallywhentheyaresteepedinasocietywheremétissagewascommonandresultedinadistinctwayoflife?HowdidwecometoacceptthattheMétisNationofOntariotakesawaycertainrightsfrommemberswithancestralrootsinQuébecasaresultofthePaquetteruling?Accordingtothisdecision,aMétispersonmayclaimAboriginalrightsonlyiftherearestrictelementofcontinuityandterritorialrelationshipbetweena“Métiscommunity”thatexistedpriorto“effectivecontrol”ofthecolony,andtheindividualwhoseancestorsthenneededtoliveinthatcommunity.However,couldnotallofQuébecbeconsideraterritoryhistoricallytravelledandinhabitedbyMétis,aswellasseveralotherplacesinNorthAmerica?IsitnotthetimetoliberateMétisidentityfromsuchterritorialenclosure?[56](Emphasisours)

13

FreemanFrancoisNaudandtheMétiswomanElizabethMcPherson.Creatoranddateunknown.TakenfromGuillaumeMarcotte’sbook,“FrancophonesandthefurtradeinGrandTemiscamingue,abiographicaldictionary,1760-1870,Québec,GIDEditions,2017,pg.302.Itshouldbeclearbynow:attemptstoarrogatetheterm“Métis”onlyforRedRiverdescendantsmakenosensefromahistoricalstandpoint.Itdoesn’tevenmakesensefromaculturalorjudicialstandpoint,either.Métishaveinhabited,travelled,andevenmaintainedsettlementsintheterritoryofQuébecaccordingtothewritingsofLouisRiel,thoseofFatherBellefeuille,Nédélec,theaccountsofBensenandMartin,andthesurveyorBouchette.ItisthereforethewholepremisesupportingLeroux’sargumentthatMétisinQuébechavenohistorythatfalls.TheevidencesfurthersuggestthattheexperienceofMétispoliticalconsciousnessdoesn’thavebetheexpressionofsomegrandiosenationalisticnarrative.Otherwise,howcouldwesuggestthatthePaspebiacuprisingbythe“AcadianMétis”in1886,whereMétis-AcadiansaredescribedcollectivelyanddistinctlyfromtheMi’kmaq,FrenchCanadiansandEnglish,wasnotapoliticalact?[57]HowcanweinterprettherepressionenduredbytheAcadianMétis,comparedintheNewYorkTimestotheRedRiverMétisin1886,ifnotasapoliticalanswerfromthecolonialauthorities?[58]Isitnecessarytohaveanationalanthem,aflag,amartyroraPowleycertificationtobeviewedasasufficientlymature?Conclusion:AnEthicalandProfessionalReframingofaPublicDebateWeneedtofindthecouragetosayitclearly:thepromotionoffear-mongeringargumentsbasedonexaggerations,generalizations,impugningmaliciousmotives,andgeneticsophismisunacceptable.FanningadiscreditingcampaignagainstEasternMétisbyusingsuchfallaciesisunworthyofauniversityconference,wheretheprivilegeoffreedomofspeechandprotectionagainstcensorshipmustbebalancedbytheresponsibilitytopromoteintegrityandobjectivityasmuchaspossible.

14

AfterourcarefulanalysisofLeroux’sarguments,wedosharetheconcernsexpressedbytheMétisFederationofCanadainregardstotheargumentsinsistingthattherearenoEasternMétis.Inanimprudentandhastymanner,ProfessorLerouxappearstohaveengagedinthenegationofeventhepossibilityofaspecificanduniquehistoryoftheMétisinQuébec.Fromanethicalstandpoint,itisalsoregrettablethatsuchnegationtargetspeoplesalreadyinpositionofvulnerabilityduetoconflictsbetweenMétisfactions(since1983really),thelackofrecognitionbythegovernmentofQuébec,nowbeingaccusedbyLerouxofbeingessentiallyignorant,fraudulentandwithoutarealhistoryoridentityasMétis.WeareequallystunnedtohearLerouxattackingthereputationsofcolleaguesandstudentsinhisconference,includingprofessorsDenisGagnon[59],EtienneRivard[60],andstudentGuillaumeMarcotte[61],byinsinuatingthathedoesnotunderstandhowtheworksofthesescholarsonsuchsubjectcouldbepublishedinpeer-reviewedjournals.Yet,alltheseauthorshavepublishedinrespectedjournals,andmadesignificantcontributionstothefieldofMétisstudies.ItisthusnecessarytocallintoquestionwhatappearstobenotonlyanadhominemattackagainstthereputationoftheseacademicsbyLeroux,but,intheabsenceofanyargumentsofsubstanceontheirwork,adisconcertinglackofrigoronthepartofProfessorLeroux[62].BeforeenteringthedebatesonMétisidentity,wethussuggestthatthosewhointendtodososhouldtakesomeprecautions,includingtakingstockofthevastdiversityandcomplexityoftheMétiscultures.Workingonthissubjectrequirestimeandpatience.Itrequiressensibilitycoupledwithseriousresearch,supportedbydocumentationandrigoroussourcing,aswellasaresearcherexperiencedintheintricaciesofMétispoliticsandtheoriesofethnogenesis,whichcouldbelimitingforaculturewhichissouniquelyrhizomatic.ResearchersmustalsotakeintoaccountthevulnerabilityofanIndigenouspopulationthathasbeensubjectedtomanyattemptsaterasure.WemustfinallybecautiousasweanalyzethediscoursesofcontemporaryMétis,whocanbereadassymptomaticoftheseobjectifyingpressuresofthelegalandsociologicaltype,which,especiallyinmattersofIndigeneity,tendtoobsessivelyaskusforouridentitypapersaccordingtothis"civilstatusmorality".WehopethatProfessorLeroux,aswellasthedoctoralstudentKarinaChagnonwhoreportedhisconferenceaddingdenigratingcommentsofherown,willtakeheed.Notes:[1]Inthetitle,“Aiabitawisdjikwimikakik”isanAlgonquinexpressionwhichmeans“theMétiswillfight”or“theMétisarereadytofight””,whichweuseheretomean“theMétisarereadytofightfortheirrighttoexist”.ThisexpressionsuggeststhattheAlgonquinsthemselveshadatermfordescribingsustainedandcollectiveMétispresenceintheEast.ThisexpressioncanbefoundinJeanAndreCuoq’s“LexiconoftheAlgonquinLanguage”,Montréal,J.Chapleau,1886,p.8

15

[2]ArticlebyKarinaChagnonontheTrahirreviewwebsite,publishedonOctober9,2017,titled“Revisionismordenial?ThemythofQuébécoisMétis.”Henceforthcitedas[Chagnon2017].[3]ChelseaVowelandDarrylLeroux,“WhiteSettlerAntipathyandtheDanielsDecision,Topia:CanadianJournalofCulturalStudies36(fall2016),pp.30-42[4]Ibid.[5]DarrylLeroux,Historicrevisionismandself-indigenization:thecreationof“EasternMétis”.[6]TheletterisnowavailableontheMétisFederationofCanada’sTwitterAccount:https://twitter.com/metisfederation/status/909810328095150081. [7]ReadmoreonthesubjectofJoeSawchuk’sworks:“Negotiatinganidentity:Métispoliticalorganizations,theCanadiangovernment,andcompetingconceptsofIndigeneity”,TheAmericanIndianQuarterly25,no1(2001),pp.73-92.[8]WethinkofthePowleyfamilyinparticularhere,especiallyintheaffairofRv.Powley[2003]2R.C.S.207,2003CSC43,whichleadustothefirstMétisjudicialvictoryinregardstosection35.Thehistoryofthisfamily,citedduringtheproceedings,demonstratedthenon-linearityofMétisidentitytransmission,andthenumerousidentitiescitedbythisfamilyincludingIndian,French-Canadian,andwhite.InspiteoftheeffortsoftheCrowntodiscreditthePowleys,byillustratingamongstothersthepresenceofasingleIndigenousancestorwithinsixgenerations,thePowleyswerevictoriousinfrontoftheSupremeCourtofCanada.WenoteequallyherethatthePowleyfamily,descendedfromaFrench-Canadianvoyageurandan“Indian”womanfromWisconsin,isthereforeafamilywhoserootsarelinkedtoDetroitandhasnolinkwiththeMétisofRedRiver.SeeCanada,FactumoftheAppellant,HerMajestytheQueen,inR.v.Powley[2003],2003,andthefollowingtranscriptsareavailablebydemandfromtheSupremeCourtofCanada:R.v.Powley,[2003]2S.C.R.207,2003SCC43.TestimonyofH.Armstrong,transcriptsinvol.4,pp.56-57,64-65,67-71,73-74,82-86,119,125,132-133,155,157,160-161,169-171(AAR,vol.I,tab33).[9]SeeforexampletheworksofGeraldEnsinregardstothis,including“MetisEthnicity,PersonalIdentityandtheDevelopmentofCapitalismintheWesternInterior.TheCaseofJohnnyGrant”,inFromRupert’sLandtoCanada,editedbyTheodoreBinnema,GerhardEnsandR.C.MacLeod,Edmonton,UniversityofAlbertaPress,2001,pp.160-177[10]SeethewritingsofHarryDanielshere,particularlyDeclarationofMétisandIndianrights,Ottawa,NativeCouncilofCanada,1979.AlsonotetheimportanttestimonyofMétiswomanJoyceGreenin“Don’tTellUsWhoWeAre(Not):ReflectionsonMétisIdentity”,AboriginalPolicyStudies1,no2,2011,pp.166-170.[11]SeethearticlethePresidentoftheNativeCouncilofCanadawrote,titled“Workingfortheinterestofourpeopleisouronlyreasonforbeinghere”,TheAllianceJournal,December1983,p.7[12]HerewereferencetheletterHarryDanielssenttoKirbyLethbridge(February17,1994),reproducedintheAnnexes[5F]inregardstotheRoyalCommisiononAboriginalPeoples.RoyalCommissiononAboriginalPeoples,ReportoftheRoyalCommissiononAboriginalPeoples,Vol.5:Renewal:ATwenty-YearCommitment,

16

dansForSevenGenerations:AnInformationLegacyoftheRoyalCommissiononAboriginalPeoples[Electronic],Ottawa,Libraxus,1997.Danielsdeclaredhere:Inresponsetoyourquestion“Whatdidtheterm‘Metis’meanwheninsertedintotheConstitutionofCanada?”[…]Firstly,letmestatethatatthetimeIwasPresidentoftheNativeCouncilofCanadawhichwasaFederationofMetisandNon-StatusIndianOrganizationsrepresentingMetisandNon-StatusIndiansfromtheYukontoNewfoundland.[…]Onthe30thofJanuary,1981whentheagreementwasreachedthatIndians,InuitandMetisbespecificallyidentifiedasAboriginalPeople,inwhatisnowSection35(2)oftheConstitutionAct,1982,itwasatmyinsistencethattheabove-mentionedwereincluded.Withspecificreferencetotheterm“Metis”itwasunderstoodatthetimethatit(Metis)includedthememberorganizationsandtheirconstituentswhoself-identifiedasaMetisperson.Thenotionbeingthatself-identityisarightthatcannotbeusurpedbyanymeans.ItwasalsounderstoodthatthetermMetiswasnottiedtoanyparticulargeographicarea,keepinginmindthatAboriginalpeoplefromcoasttocoastidentifiedwiththetermMetisastheirwayofrelatingtotheworld.(Emphasisours).[13]Goingbythisreasoning,exemplifiedbycriticsoftheMétisNationalCouncil,itisenoughthatapersoncanfindatleastoneancestortohavetaken“Half-breed”scrip,forexample,orhavingbeenapartoftheNorthwestResistence[1816-1885]tobeconsidereda“true”Métis,beingapartofthatwhichtheMétisNationalCouncildefinesasthe“Métisnation”.[14]SeemoreontheworksofChrisAndersen,particularlyMétis:Race,Recognition,andtheStruggleforIndigenousPeoplehood,Vancouver,UBCPress,2014.[15]Leroux2017,at00:10:02[16]LookatthefollowingexcerptofChrisAndersen,whichwefindinMétis:Race,Recognition,andtheStruggleforIndigenousPeoplehood,Vancouver,UBCPress,2014,p.24:DespitetheracializationthathasshapedMétispolitics,however,thecategory“Métis”isnotasoupkitchenforIndigenousindividualsandcommunitiesdisenfranchisedinvariouswaysbytheCanadianstate(seeAndersen2011):howevervolatileourMétiscitizenshipcodeshavenecessarilybecomeintheracializedcauldronofCanada’scolonialism,theydeservetoberespected.(Emphasisours).[17]SeeChrisAndersen,WhoisIndigenous?Indigenousancestry,whitepossessivenessandthetyrannyofself-identification,openingconferenceannouncedatWesternUniversityonNovember7,2016,London(Canada),2016.YoutubelinklastusedMay24,2017:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSc4YfYEfSU.[18]SeeChelseaVowelandDarrylLeroux,“WhiteSettlerAntipathyandtheDanielsDecision”,Topia:CanadianJournalofCulturalStudies,no36,Fall2016,p.35.[19]“TheMétisofQuebecaccuseaspeakerinvitedtotheUniversityofMontrealofdenialofhistory”.Radio-Canada,IndigenousSpace,September26,2017.LinklastusedOctober13,2017:http://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/a-la-

17

une/document/nouvelles/article/1058058/metis-quebec-accusation-darryl-leroux-universite-montreal-negationnisme-historique.[20]“AprofessorputstheincreaseofMétisinQuébecintoquestion”,Radio-Canada,IndigenousSpace,September27,2017.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/a-la-une/document/nouvelles/article/1058312/un-professeur-remet-toujours-en-question-laugmentation-du-nombre-de-metis-au-quebec.[21]Seeheretheconfirmationofanincreaseof158%,whichhassincestrangelydisappearedfromLeroux’sTwitteraccountbutcanstillbefoundontheTwitteroftheMétisFederationofCanada,datedOctober13,2017:https://twitter.com/metisfederation/status/918923970514124801?s=07[22]:Seechart1.7(p.12),aCanadianstatisticalspreadsheetgeneratedbytheInstituteofStatisticsofQuébec,wherewecanseethenumbersdividedintothecategories“growth”and“identity”,fortheyears2001and2006respectively.WepresumethatthesearewhereLerouxgothisnumbersfrom.Thesourcesofthelastfiguresremainobscure.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/economie/comparaisons-economiques/interprovinciales/chap1.pdf[23]Lookattable13,“SizeandGrowthoftheMétisPopulation,Canadianprovincesandterritories,1996and2006”,issueofareporttitledCanadianStatistics,CensusesofthePopulation,1996and2006.Accordingtothisreport,Québecdidnotatallhavethehighestincrease,andinfactonlyhadanincreaseof80%comparedtothe242%ofOntarioandthe132%increaseinBritishColumbia.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:2017:http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-558/table/t13-fra.cfm.[24]Leroux2017,at11:30[25]See“TheMétisofQuebecaccuseaspeakerinvitedtotheUniversityofMontrealofdenialofhistory”.Radio-Canada,IndigenousSpace,September26,2017.LinklastusedOctober13,2017:http://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/a-la-une/document/nouvelles/article/1058058/metis-quebec-accusation-darryl-leroux-universite-montreal-negationnisme-historique.[26]Leroux2017,at54:00:00.[27]SeeChagnon2017[28]Leroux2017,at1:15:00[29]Lerouxassertsinthesummaryofhisconference:“WedemonstratehencehowthesestatementsinQuébeccreateathreattowardstherightsandsovereigntyofrealIndigenouspeoples”[Leroux2017][30]HaidaNationv.BritishColumbia(MinistryofForests)(2004)3.R.C.S.511.2004CSC73.WereferencetheexcellentpointsmadebySebastienGrammondonthesubjectofjudicialprincipleinrelationtotheHaidadecision.SebastienGrammond,TermsofCoexistence:IndigenousPeoplesandCanadianLaw,Toronto,Carswell,2013,p.314etsqq.[31]Tsilhqot’inNationv.BritishColumbia,2014CSC44,[2014]2R.C.S.256,paragraph125.

18

[32]SeeRv.Hirsekorn,2012ABCA21.SeealsoRv.Hirsekorn,2010ABPC385,paragraph97,forthementionofconflictbetweentheRedRiverMétisandtheBlackfeetConfederation.[33]BenjaminSulte,“TheCanadianslave”CanadianReview,newseries,Vol.VII,Montréal,MontrealReviewPublicationCompany,1911,p.324.[34]L’Alliance,“PresentationoftheNativeCouncilofCanadatotheSpecialParliamentaryCommissiononAboriginalAffairs”,TheAllianceJournal,1-(6).December1983,p.6.[35]SeeNelsonAmos,“Wemusttakecontrolofourselvestogoagainstthecurrentofdispossession”,TheAllianceJournal8(1),June1981,p.14.InthisarticlefromTheAlliance,it’sinterestingtonotehowAmosemphasizesthattheMétisdemandtherighttobeconsultedontheusageoftheirterritory.Notably,theformulationiscollectiveandcertainlydistinctivehere.Mr.Amosexplainsthatevenifthe“Métis”fromthePontiac-Labelleregion(therefore,theOutaouaisregion)controlledthetrappingzonesuntil1945,thedisturbancesthereofwerebeingincreasinglyrelatedtotheforestryandlumberindustries.[36]TheAlliance,“DiscriminationbetweenIndigenouspeoples:aMétishockeyclubforcedtopullitselfoutofthecompetition”TheAllianceJournal,12(2)April1st1985,p.17[37]LouisRiel,“3-156TheNorthwesternMétis[Régina].85/10-11”inTheCollectedWritingsofLouisRiel/LesécritscompletsdeLouisRiel,editedbyGeorgeStanley,RaymondHuel,GillesMartel,GlenCampbell,ThomasFlanaganandC.Rocan,vol.3,Edmonton,TheUniversityofAlbertaPresspp.278-294,foundonpages278-279.[38]SeethemediacoverageofProfessorAdamGaudry’s[UniversityofAlberta]conference,arguingsimilarlytoDarrylLeroux,butinregardstoAcadianMétis.TheSignal,«CriticsrejectclaimMétisexistonlyintheWest»,February92016.LinklastopenedonOctober13,2017:http://signalhfx.ca/critics-reject-claim-metis-exist-only-in-the-west/.[39]WeconsultDenisJeanonworksconcerningtheAcadianMétis,specifically“TheroleofMétisinthehistoryoftheAcadiancolony”NotesonthehistoricAcadiansociety,vol.48,#2(June2017)pp.54-72,aswellastheexcellentthesiswrittenbyK.K.MacLeod,Displacedmixed-blood:anethnographicexplorationofMétisidentitiesinNovaScotia,ProQuestDissertationsPublishing,2013.SeealsotheworksofVictorinN.Mallet,EvidenceofMétisCommunitiesaroundtheBayofChaleurs,Marquis,ShédiacCape(N-B.).[40]PaulL.A.H.Chartrand,“UnderstandingtheDanielsCaseons.91(24)ConstitutionAct1867”,Aboriginalpolicystudies,vol.3,no3,2014,p.128:Asmentionedinmyearliercommentonthetrial-leveldecision,thisapproachperformsthefunction,probablynotcontemplatedbytheCourt,ofdistinguishingMétispeoplefromFrench-Canadians,whoarealsoIndigenoustoCanadabutarenotoneoftheAboriginalpeoplesrecognizedins.35oftheConstitutionAct1982.(Emphasisours)[41]Leroux2017,1:22:15[42]LouisRiel,“3-156TheNorthwesternMétis[Régina].85/10-11”inTheCollectedWritingsofLouisRiel/LesécritscompletsdeLouisRiel,editedbyGeorgeStanley,

19

RaymondHuel,GillesMartel,GlenCampbell,ThomasFlanaganandC.Rocan,vol.3,Edmonton,TheUniversityofAlbertaPresspp.278[43]DenisCombetandIsmèneToussaint,GabrielDumont:MemoriesofresistanceofaWesternimmortal,Québec,Cornac,2009,p.238[44]ExecutiveforTheAlliance,“LetterSenttoOttaLang”,TheAllianceJournal6(1),January1979,p.6[45]RobertFoxcurran,MichelBouchardetSébastienMalette,SongsUpontheRivers:TheBurriedHistoryoftheFrench-SpeakingCanadiensandMétisfromtheGreatLakesandtheMississippiacrosstothePacific,Montréal,BarakaBooks,2016,pp.378-383.[46]SHSB,HistoricSocietyofSaint-Boniface,Winnipeg,LetterfromLouisRieltoPaulProulx,RomanCatholicArchiepiscopalCorporationFundofSt.Boniface,0075,AlexanderTachéSeries.Correspondence.52987-52990,1877,p.3.[47]WeconsultherethefollowingarticlesformeasuringtheextentofexclusionofFrench-speakingMétisintheNationalMétisUnionofSt.JosephinManitobabytheMétisNationalCouncil:BernardBocquel,“LouisRieldoesnotappearattheMMF”,Liberty,publishedNovember30,2016.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:https://www.pressreader.com/canada/la-libert%C3%A9/20161130/281573765303614;“NationalMétisUnionandtheMMF,adisputewhichdidnotstartyesterday”.CBCManitoba,May25,2017.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1034746/coffre-souvenirs-130e-anniversaire-union-nationale-metisse;“TheNationalMétisUnionisnotwelcomeatthenegotiationtable,saystheMMF”,CBCManitoba,February10,2017,linklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1016176/union-nationale-metisse-st-joseph-pas-bienvenue-table-negociations-mmf-ottawa-gouvernement-federal-manitoba;“AnopenlettertoMinisterBennettinregardstotherightsofFrench-speakingMétisfromRedRiver”,CBC,February8,2017.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017::http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1015633/une-lettre-ouverte-a-la-ministre-bennett-au-sujet-des-droits-des-metis-francophones-de-la-riviere-rouge[48]SeethisarticlewhichexplainsreconciliationeffortsundertakenbyMonsieurDufault:“TheGreatDisturbanceofMétisatYamachiche”,TheEchoofMaskinongé,July16,2008.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://www.lechodemaskinonge.com/communaute/2010/1/27/le-grand-derangement-metis-a-yamachiche-582540.html.[49]LouisRiel,“3-072LettertoR.B.Deanne,EdgarDewdney,andJohnAMacdonald.Regina,7/6/1885”inTheCollectedWritingsofLouisRiel/LesécritscompletsdeLouisRiel,editedbyGeorgeStanley,RaymondHuel,GillesMartel,GlenCampbell,ThomasFlanaganandC.Rocan,vol.3,Edmonton,TheUniversityofAlbertaPress,1985,pp.117-129,page121.[50]WewouldliketothankMr.GuillaumeMarcotteforthenumerousarchivalsourcesthathegraciouslysharedwithusonthissubject.AnarticleontheoralhistoryofMarie-LouiseRielandotherMétisfamiliesfromOutaouaisispresentlyinprint.[51]NationalLibrariesandArchivesofQuébec,Rouyn-Noranda,DiaryofaMissionintheSummerof1838,attheTemiskamingLake,attheAbitibilake,attheGreatLakeandattheAllumetteFort[copied],1838,Folio6,MartineauDonationFunds,P10,S3,

20

SS3,D4,P29;citedinGuillaumeMarcotte,FrenchspeakersandthefurtradeofGreaterTemiskaming,aBiographicalDictionary,1760-1870,Québec,GIDEditions,2017[52]CanadaLibraryandArchives,NorthTemiscamingueAgency–Correspondenceregardingthelandoccupiedbyhalfbreeds,thehospital,theschoolsontheTemiscamingueReserve,1892-1896,RG10,volume2654,file132,413.[53]JamesMartin,“RiverDesertAgency,Maniwaki,OttawaCo.,Que.,11thAug.,1894”,inAnnualReportoftheDepartmentofIndianAffairsfortheYearEnded30thJune1894,editedbytheDominionofCanada,31-32,Ottawa:S.E.Dawson,1895.[54]CanadaLibraryandArchives,RiverDesertAgency–Maniwaki–ReportsofinspectorJ.A.MacRaeandMartinBensenrespectingschoolsintheagency,conditionofthebandmembersandvaluationoflands.1901-1909,RG10,volume3048,piece237,660.[55]CanadaLibraryandArchives,QuebecFurConservation–Correspondenceandaccountsregardinghuntingandtrappinglicences.1942=1943.RG10,volume6752,piece420-10-2.[56]JosephBouchette,TheBritishDominionsinNorthAmerica;oraTopographicalandStatisticalDescriptionoftheProvincesofLowerandUpperCanada,NewBrunswick,NovaScotia,theIslandsofNewfoundland,PrinceEdward,andCapeBreton.IncludingConsiderationsonLand-GrantingandEmigration.ToWhichareAnnexed,StatisticalTablesandTablesofDistances,&c.Vol.1.London.Longman,Rees,Orme,Brown,GreenandLongman,Paternoster-Row,1832,p.190.[57]SébastienMalette,“TheMétisidentityinQuébec:thecordofthesashrediscovered”,PolicyOptionsPolitiques,November2,2014.LinklastopenedOctober13,2017:http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/lidentite-metisse-au-quebec-le-fil-du-fleche-retrouve/.[58]ConsultthefollowingarticlesforadescriptionoftheeventsandthedescriptionoftheriotersasAcadianMétisdistinctfromtheMicmacs,theFrenchandtheEnglish:TheStandard,onFebruary18-191886,TheCanadianonFebruary191886,JusticeonFebruary18,1886,TheMorningChronicleonFebruary19,1886.Usethiswebsite,wherethereproductionsofthearticlesareallsaved.LinklastconsultedonOctober13,2017:https://metisgaspesie.weebly.com/journal-leacutetandard-et-le-canadien.html.[59]Seethedescriptioncomparingthe“PaspebiacHalfbreeds”totheNorthwesternMétishere:“Thedestitutefishermen:moretroubleanticipatedprojectstorelievethepoorfamilies”,NewYorkTimes,Feb17,1886,p.5.[60]ForasamplingoftheworksofProfessorGagnon,seeD.Gagnon,H.Giguère,MétisIdentityinQuestion:StrategicIdentityandCulturalDynamisms.Québec,UniversityLavalPress,2012;H.Giguère,D.Gagnon,“PresentationontheMétisasaSocialCategory:FlexibilityandSocialIssues”AnthropologyandSocieties,38(2),2014,pp.13-26;D.Gagnon,“theMétisNation,theotherMétis,andMétis-ness:theparadoxofidentitycontingence”,AnthropologyandSocieties,30(1),2006,pp.180-186.[61]ForanexcellentlectureonthejudicialsituationofQuébecMétis,seethebilingualarticleavailableforfreeonline:ÉtienneRivard,“TheIndefinableIn-BetweenortheSpatiolegalArbitrarinessofQuébecMétis”,SpatialJustice,#11,

21

March2017(http://www.jssj.org).ForasamplingoftheworksofÉtienneRivard,wecanlookatÉ.Rivard,“MétissageinNewFranceandCanada1508to1886”,AboriginalResearchinQuébec,39(3),2009,p.130;É.Rivard,“BeyondPowley:theTerritorialandIdentityHorizonfortheMétis”AboriginalResearchinQuébec,37(2/3),2007,p.97.[62]SeemoreoftheexcellentworkofGuillaumeMarcotte:G.Marcotte,“IntemperanceandChristianPiety:theCanadianvoyageursandtheimplantantationofCatholicmissionsintheIndigenousterritoryofAbitibi-Temiscaminguein1836-1863”,Rabaska,EthnologicalReviewofFrenchAmerica12,2014,pp.57-87;G.Marcotte,“A‘traceofgreatvalor’:Cameron’sIndiancardanditspotentialinrelationtothegreaterOutaouaisarea,1760-1870”,AboriginalResearchinQuébec,XLV(2-3)2015,pp.77-91.G.Marcotte,“FrenchspeakersandthefurtradeinGreaterTemiscamingue.ABiographicaldictionary,1760-1870,Québec,GIDEditions,2015.[63]Leroux2017,between00:27:30and00:30:00,1:12:15