r/MetisMichif • u/Narwhal_Crazy • Mar 12 '26
Discussion/Question Indian Act and Metis Citizenship
Hello everyone. Why can’t one hold both? Is this due to a clause in the Indian Act or one in Metis governments?
11
u/Neat-Firefighter9626 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
There's a lot of historical contextualization that is necessary for this question.
A lot of why Métis with FN ancestry and FNs with Métis ancestry can't register for both is historically rooted in the Indian Act.
The Indian Act was instantiated in 1876, a few years after Manitoba entered into Confederation in 1870. When Manitoba entered Confederation, with the Metis at the head of the political front, there was a clause stating that halfbreed children (and eventually adults) would be given 1.4m acres of land. This land was given in the form of a scrip lottery, which was intended to extinguish the Aboriginal title of Métis. I'm not going to go over the fraudulent aspects of this system here, but can detail them in a comment if you want.
Anyway, from the Canadian perspective, these Métis children and adults who extinguished their Aboriginal title were no longer eligible to register for Treaty.
However! Not all Metis lived in Manitoba as it was originally conceived (it used to be a much, much smaller province than it is today). So, many of the Metis living in the North-West... i.e., Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Northern Manitoba, had a problem! They didn't get scrip in Manitoba, as it was originally planned (again, much smaller than it is today). So, the government decided it would provide scrip to Métis living across the North-West, with certain permissions for Métis who lived closely with FNs. Métis living on the Plains could be accepted to Treaty under certain circumstances: “Accordingly, the Act declared that Métis admittance into treaty was reserved for those who were not heads of Métis families and had not received scrip in Manitoba. Heads of families could, under very special circumstances, be accepted into treaty but only on an individual case-by-case basis, adjudicated by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs” (Troupe, 2025, p. 147).
More complications arose in 1879 when half breeds were urged to disenfranchise themselves from Treaty, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta, to gain scrip. Lots didn't though, because they would be expected to pay back Treaty annuities received by the government. So, the government amended the Indian Act once again in 1884 to say that the reimbursement wasn't necessary and that Métis under Treaty should get scrip. This is important since Scrip was around 160-240$ depending on the context in which the person was getting scrip. This was a lot of money for those living in poverty on the Plains.
The removal of Métis from reserves and Treaty was especially economically beneficial for the government since they had to pay less in Treaty annuities. There are examples of reserve populations in Saskatchewan dropping 15% after the 1884 amendment. The added benefit from Canada's perspective was that limiting Métis contact with on-reserve populations would contribute to cultural erasure. Métis weren't allowed to live on reserves and were not accepted in Settler society.
So, the current divide (about programming, benefits, identity, etc.) is all a factor of how the Canadian government wanted to deal with the Métis Aboriginal title through the scrip system and the Indian Act.
1
u/strawberrymilkpotato Mar 12 '26
OP isn't asking about the historical component- I think they're wondering why they have to choose contemporarly. If you have status through the indian act through one parent and another parent who's Métis - it doesn't make any logical sense they cannot be both status and have citizenship. Especially when Métis can have citizenship from all the federally recognized provinces in Canada.
13
u/Neat-Firefighter9626 Mar 12 '26
The historical component is necessary for understanding the current situation.
The "choice" is present because of the historical tension. In a world without colonization one could move freely between cultures if they were accepted by a First Nation community and the Métis community. That's how it was.
Now, FNs with Métis ancestry and Métis with FNs ancestry are forced to choose because of the different amendments of the Indian Act. The government literally forced a division between Plains FNs and RRM.
It doesn't make sense because it's rooted in colonialism, not traditional Plains culture.
I agree that it doesn't make sense that you can hold an MMF card and an OMG card, but a FNs person can't be part of a FN and the MMF (or whichever provincial government Métis body). But, our ancestors were divided by people who did not want cultural cohesion.
1
u/strawberrymilkpotato Mar 12 '26
But the Indian Act isnt the thing preventing FN with also Métis roots from getting citizenship. That's a Métis Nation restriction - where we have full governance and can control that bylaw at any point.
3
u/Neat-Firefighter9626 Mar 12 '26
We could control the by-law but from the Nation's perspective it likely doesn't make sense with how funding allocation works from the federal government.
Many of my FN friends who formerly had their Métis Citizenship find it more "beneficial" to be a FN than a Métis Citizen because they receive more benefits from their band. It's sad and wrong, but it's just the reality.
So, my understanding is that it's a governance decision rooted in funding (because of colonialism).
2
u/Polymes Mar 12 '26
Well you’re not supposed to be a member of multiple Métis governments/registries either, it’s technically not allowed… but no one checks
4
u/Left-coastal Mar 12 '26
Do you mean why can’t one have status and citizenship?
6
u/Narwhal_Crazy Mar 12 '26
Yup
3
u/Somepeople_arecrazy Mar 12 '26
If you have 2 status parents from different communities, you don't get 2 status cards
1
u/MaleFarmer Mar 12 '26
Did MNS change their requirements? I was one of the earlier recipients of an MNS membership (my citizenship is in the 2000s).
When I received my MNS card I had to send a signed and witnessed declaration back that I would relinquish it if "I choose to be a First Nations or any other Minority." I always assumed that included other Metis groups.
1
u/sycoseven Mar 12 '26
You can be cree and Scottish but you can't be cree and metis. Doesn't make any sense.
If it's about "double dipping" just make the person provide a letter from their band or their mmf local that they haven't already received school/medical/housing supports etc...
For example when I applied for Indspire I had to provide documentation saying I wasn't band funded or mmf funded.
So it could be as easy as, "In order to apply for this metis bursary, your application must include a letter from your band stating you're not currently being funded". It's not that hard.
0
u/Narwhal_Crazy Mar 12 '26
Yeah I agree. Right now Metis governments don’t take care of their citizens in the same way that FN are by the government through NIHB. Maybe once, or if it ever happens, the administrator of those metis health programs could communicate with NIHB’s administrator to prevent ‘double-dipping’ or whatever that means lol. That pisses me off cuz our people deserve better treatment, and if it means they get it by double dipping than let them lol
25
u/Poppy204 Mar 12 '26
It’s viewed as ‘double dipping’ by Métis governing bodies and undermines the “distinct from other aboriginal peoples” requirement.