Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Aboriginal identity matters

  • Print

When Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867, powers were divided between the federal and provincial governments, with Ottawa assuming responsibility for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" under section 91 (24) of the British North America Act.

The idea of identifying one group of people for special treatment would be regarded as racist today, but aboriginals and Canadians have been stuck with their unhappy, dysfunctional relationship, which seems to get more complicated with time.

The BNA did not spell out who was an Indian or how one lost or gained such an identity, but over time certain aboriginals -- the Métis and non-status Indians, defined as those not registered with a specific band -- were deemed to be someone's else's responsibility.

On Tuesday, however, the Federal Court ruled after 13 years of legal wrangling that those groups are all Indians under Sect. 91 and therefore a federal responsibility. The reasons in the case of the Métis are complicated, but not in the case of non-status Indians, where the very name answers the question.

For their part, the plaintiffs, led by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, define non-status Indians as Indians "to whom, from time to time, the Indian Act did not apply but had either maternal or paternal ancestors who were Indians, or any person who self-identifies as an Indian and is mutually accepted by an Indian community, or branch or council of an Indian association or organization."

What's unclear and equally complicated is how the ruling will affect the roughly 600,000 aboriginal people who are not associated with a particular reserve.

The plaintiffs also wanted the court to rule the federal government owed non-status Indians a fiduciary duty, and that they had the right to be consulted and negotiated with on matters affecting their interests.

The court wisely ruled against such declarations, saying only that it was up to Ottawa to recognize its responsibilities and to negotiate or consult on specific issues that might come forward in the future.

Federal lawyers argued the case should be dismissed because it would resolve nothing, and would merely lead to new rounds of legal wrangling. But Ottawa did not present a strong case to support the idea status Indians are the only Indians with constitutional protection.

Ottawa doesn't need to do anything at this point but, if the court's ruling is not appealed, the implications of the decision should become clear once aboriginals without status and the Métis demand the rights, privileges and benefits enjoyed by their brethren on reserves, as well as the right to be consulted on relevant issues, and to enjoy a special, fiduciary relationship with the federal government.

Resolving those questions, including who represents non-status aboriginals, could take years, if not decades, but a possible outcome could easily include new funds for education, health-care services, hunting and fishing rights, and possibly housing allowances and other services.

The question of who is an Indian will then take on greater significance. It could result in millions of dollars being invested in urban aboriginal communities, such as Winnipeg, and uplifting a group that has traditionally been left to fend for itself.

Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board, comprising Catherine Mitchell, David O’Brien, Shannon Sampert, and Paul Samyn.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 9, 2013 A6

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes


  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.


Make text: Larger | Smaller


Winnipeg police comment on two officers that resuscitated baby

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • Bright sunflowers lift their heads toward the south east skies in a  large sunflower field on Hwy 206 and #1 Thursday Standup photo. July 31,  2012 (Ruth Bonneville/Winnipeg Free Press)
  • MIKE APORIUS/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS BUSINESS - cow on farm owned by cattle farmer Lloyd Buchanan near Argyle Wednesday afternoon -see Larry Kusch's story  January 04/2006

View More Gallery Photos


Are you in favour of relocating Winnipeg's rail yards and lines?

View Results

Ads by Google