In recent years, defining Metis peoples has become an ever increasing issue, due to the recent court decision, -in the Daniels vs. Canada case- that now defines Metis and non-status Indians as “Indians”. Rosalie Abella-  a judge that is a part of the Supreme Court of Canada- believes that;

“Metis” can refer to the historic Metis community in Manitoba’s Red River  Settlements  or it can be used as a general term for anyone with mixed European and Aboriginal heritage…There is no consensus on who is considered Metis or non-status Indian, a non-status Indian, nor need there be. Culture and ethnic labels do not lend themselves to neat  boundaries.

-Rosalie Abella

this court decision alters what it means to be Metis. No longer are the Metis considered to be their own unique group, they are now considered to be Indian. Abella take into consideration the previous definitions of Metis but then alters that by noting that there is no one way to define people. Abella most likely has based her definition of Metis people in legal context, but also recognizes that it is very hard to define such unique culture

Another definition of Metis that is interesting to take into consideration is the definition that the Metis Nation of Alberta has. They believe that,

‘Métis means a person who self-identifies as a Métis, is distinct from other aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the Métis Nation.’ Historic Métis Nation ‘means the Aboriginal people then known as Métis or half-breeds who resided in the Historic Métis Nation Homeland.’ Métis Nation ‘means the Aboriginal people descended from the Historic Métis Nation, which now comprised of all Métis Nation peoples and is one of the “aboriginal peoples of Canada” as defined in s.35 of the Constitution Act 1982.’

This definition is different then the one that has now been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada because, where the supreme court of Canada is saying that there is no consensus on the definition of Metis, the Metis Nation of Alberta is saying that to be Metis you must be a part of a Historic Metis Nation. Another aspect where the previous definition differs from the  one that Abella presented is that this definition addresses the fact that Metis people are unique from all other culture groups. This means that Metis people are only suppose to be a part of the Metis Nation Alberta- they are a unique group within themselves- which segregates them from other cultures.  These two different experts define what “Metis” is in completely different wayside beliefs that there is no one definition on what Metis is whereas one believes that there is a single definition that can define Metis people.

Another individual that is influential in defining Metis people is Chelsea Vowel- a Metis women from the Plains Cree speaking community of Lac Ste. Anne.  This alternate definition of who and what Metis people are is presented in her blog âpihtawikosisâ and is as follows,

If you ask anyone who they are and what it means to be that person, you’re not going to get a clear-cut simple answer.  Do not assume that the lack of a clear-cut summary means the person you are talking to doesn’t know who they are.  Don’t assume that having a nice clear definition makes things simpler.

Being is a verb, it’s a process.  Being Métis is something you can spend a lifetime trying to understand.  Most of us just live it, however, and when we do reflect on it, we don’t let it paralyze us.

Vowel presents a completely different approach to defining people then the two previous definitions. This way of defining people is considered controversial because it disregards the boxes that much of society likes to place people in.  Vowel goes farther then Abella in expressing that individuals do not fit within neat boundaries and should not be subjected to them.  Vowel expresses the complexities that surround the word Metis and the Being of Metis. She disregards societies  need to define a people, and focuses rather on the individual define themselves