I have left 2 comments , neither of which show up, so I guess I will adress you here, who claims the NonStatus and Metis who are not represented by their communities and CAP instead of MNC ?
sec 117 - Harry Daniels case describing the core group of MNSI as a group of native people who maintained a strong affinity for their Indian Heritage without possessing Indian status. 
sec 130 - Harry Daniels case describing the Metis represented. - It is the people described in section 117 above, who the Daniels case represents. Who will speak for these people. I will be waiting for your answer !! @nowtoronto
"MNC Intervenor in Daniels trial-Courts correctly concluded Metis are included in section 91-24." "MNC Intervenor in Daniels trial- CAP-MNC split due to fundamental disagreement about who the Metis are-serious dispute in definition." "Daniels decision Section 17 - No one
exclusive Metis people in Canada." - These people have been cut free from their nation, from the Federal gov through Indian Act legislation and from their nations themselves, who want nothing to do with them. Who will speak and claim these people, or is this the whole point?
So they won't be claimed.? / "www.dgwlaw.ca-2016 - Daniels Case"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
