This article argues that the legal definition that defines Metis people in opposition
to Indian detracts from the goal of recognizing the Metis as a distinct people. The
article argues that we ought to de-couple the definitions of Metis and Indian to
more strongly recognize Metis as a distinct people. This article considers three
intertwined concerns that arise from this dichotomous approach to Metis identity
The first concern is about the “hard line” created in the definition between Indian
and Metis, forcing one to be either Indian or Metis. The second concern is that
changes to the definition of Indian may impact the definition of Metis, making
the two identities contingent and inherently connected. The final related concern
is that defining Metis as “not Indian” leads to the question of how distinct Metis
culture needs to be from Indian culture for recognition. The article argues that we
need to re-centre the definition of Metis on being Metis people based on internal
characteristics (who Metis are) and move away from the legal definition of Metis
being contingent on the legal definition of Indian (who Metis are not).