Government on the Métis Settlements: Foundations and Future Directions

• Author: Catherine Bell and Harold Robinson
• Pages: 437-474

437

  

Gov ernment o n the Méti s Se ttlement s:

Foundations and Future Directions

                 

A. INTRODUCTIO N

e Métis Settlements of Alberta are Canada’s only legislated, land-based

Métis government. About  Métis live on eight Métis settlements

in central and northern Alberta. Together, settlement la nds total ap-

proximately . million acres (or   ha). Understanding the unique

landholding and governance struc ture on the settlements requires con-

sideration of the historical, legal, and political contexts for negotiation;

settlement government and justice objectives; and the ultimate goal of

creating a prac tical, ex ible, and f unctional regi me in which govern-

mental institutions respond to the experiences and needs of t he people.

Similarly, the strengths and weaknesses of this system of government are

best measured by the extent to which institutions and policies of Métis

settlement government promote the well-being of the settlements aect-

ed. However, the Métis sett lement scheme and histor y of its develop-

 e approach advocated is sim ilar to the “well-being” approach appl ied to an early

analysis of set tlement legislation by Tom Pocklington. In t hat analysis, he als o

discusses t he impact of the model on other citiz ens of the province. He considers

not only issues of politic al autonomy, but also specic areas of well-bei ng, such as

political hea lth, administr ative skills, and sel f esteem. See, for example, Tom C.

Pockling ton, e Government and Politics of the Albe rta Métis Settlement s (Re-

gina: Canad ian Plains Research C entre, ). See also Catherine E. Bel l, “Métis

Self-Government: e A lberta Settlement Model,” in John. H . Hylton, ed., Aborigi-

nal Self-Gover nment in Canada, d ed. (Sask atoon: Purich, ) at . For a more

438      

ment also oer interesting lessons for others engaged in self-government

negotiation and implementation.

e foundational principles and framework for transfer and allocation

of Métis s ettlement lands and resources, protection of settlement lands ,

and executi ve, legislative, and jud icial branches of government a re found

in the  Albert a–Métis Settlements Accord (the Accord) — a bilateral

agreement between the government of Alber ta and the then Federation

of Mét is Set tlement s. Leg islat ion was e nacted in  t o impleme nt nego-

tiate d agree ments in t hese ar eas and , as ack nowledged in amend ments to

the origina l legislation, “for the pur pose of enabling the Métis to attain

self-governance under the laws of Alberta.” Although settlement leaders

advocated recognition of Métis Aboriginal rights to land and government

at constitutional con ferences and deal ings with the province, t his rights-

based strategy was eventually set aside: they wanted to avoid provincial

negotiations being mired i n the complex legal issues that resu lted in the

failure to reach a national agreement on the existence a nd scope of Mé-

tis constitutional rig hts. Negotiating a unique, results-oriented, made-

in-Alberta approach to self-government was seen as t he most practical

means to achieve concrete results for settlement members.

At the core of the se ttlement model is an understanding t hat what is

important is not that “ideal institutions are created ” but that the Métis

Settlements and Alberta government are committed “to the ideal of con-

tinued co-operation in adapting instit utions to meet new challenges.”

Unlike rights-based ag reements, certainty a nd extingu ishment of Ab-

detailed di scussion of matters raised i n this chapter, including Métis Set tlement

government, land rig hts and administrat ion, historical and politic al context,

self-government justice objec tives, and the Metis Set tlements Appeal Tribunal and

decisions, see Cat herine E. Bell, Albert a’s Métis Settlem ent Legislation: An Over-

view of Owners hip and Management of Settlemen t Lands (Regina: Canad ian Plains

Research Centre, ); and Cat herine E. Bell & the Met is Settlements Appeal

Tribunal, Contemporar y Métis Justice: e Settlem ent Way (Saskatoon: Native Law

Centre, ).

 Métis Settlements Amendmen t Act, S.A. , c. , s.  (Assented to  May  ,

with sect ions applying to the Appeal Tribunal awa iting proclamation. ese a re ss.

(b), (d), –, –, and .) [MSAA].

 Alberta, Task Force to Review t he Mandate of the Metis Sett lements Appeal

Tribunal, Metis Set tlements Appeal Tribunal Mandate Rev iew Task Force Report by

Co-chairs D enis Ducharme and Fred V. Martin (Alber ta: Intergovernmental and

Aborigina l Aairs and Metis Set tlements General Counci l, ) at .

       439

original constitutional rights is not central to the agreement reached.

Indeed, only with the  amendments was the goal of self-governance

clearly ar ticulated. Due to concern about issues of jurisdiction and po-

tential impact on Aboriginal rights, a paragr aph was included in the

Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act, , to clarify that the Métis

Settlements legislat ion is not to be construed so as to abrogate or dero-

gate f rom Aboriginal rights. Despite this intent, t he legislation raises

complicated constitutional questions. Furt her, although certain pro-

vincial mechan isms are adopted to protect the settlement land base a nd

ensure the continued existence and makeup of the Metis Set tlements

General Council (MSGC or General Council), the binding eect of these

mechanisms on future governments is debatable. us, the success of

this system is largely dependent on its exibility and the cooperation and

goodwill between the pa rties aected.

Paradoxically, one of the key ingredients for the success of this

model — its ability to adapt to experience, change, a nd the needs of t he

settlements — is also a fundamental wea kness. As provincial statutory

entities with delegated authorities, t he institutions of Métis govern-

ment are vulnerable to unilatera l change. However, settlement members

have adopted a pragmatic response to this by achieving what is possible

within a delegated framework and looking to new opportunities for in-

creased protection and control. As with any relationship, the partnership

between MSG C and A lberta has had its ups and downs, but generally,

intergovernmental relations have been positive and respectful of Métis

political autonomy in negotiated elds of jurisdiction.

Over the past een years, government institutions for regional and

local Métis set tlements have assumed jurisd iction in a wide r ange of ar-

eas. Signicant progress has been made on t he ground in the areas of

community, and socia l and economic development. Jurisdictions of the

MSGC have been expanded and the oce of t he Métis Settlements Om-

budsman (MSO) has been established. Some proposals to expand Me-

tis Settlements Appeal Tribunal (MSAT) jurisdiction a nd the creation

of the MSO resulted from a joint initiative to review MSAT’s mandate

(MSAT Task Force). Other changes are in response to the continuing

demand for good government by settlement members a nd t he natural

 R.S.A.  , c. .