Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud Report-October 2022 1
 
 
 
 
Indigenous Identity Fraud
A REPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN 
by Jean Teillet, IPC, OMN, MSC
October 17, 2022 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 2
Table of Contents 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 4
A. TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................................7
SECTION ONE: INDIGENOUS IDENTITY FRAUD...................................................................................................... 9
A: WHAT IS IDENTITY? ...................................................................................................................................................9
B: INDIGENOUS IDENTITY FRAUDSTERS ............................................................................................................................12
1. Who Are the Fraudsters? ...............................................................................................................................12
2. Encouraging Indigenous Identity ...................................................................................................................13
3. It’s an Old Story..............................................................................................................................................14
4. Why do they do it?.........................................................................................................................................15
5. Why Don’t We Recognize Indigenous Identity Fraud? ...................................................................................17
6. Red Flags - How to Recognize Indigenous Identity Fraud ..............................................................................19
(a) Shifting Indigenous Identities.....................................................................................................................................19
(b) Conflicting Facts and Stories ......................................................................................................................................20
(c) Vague Claims...............................................................................................................................................................20
(d) Métis referring to Treaty as their home territory ......................................................................................................21
(e) Indigenous Organizations...........................................................................................................................................21
i. Pan-Indigenous Organizations.................................................................................................................................22
ii. Unassociated Métis Organizations .........................................................................................................................23
iii. Eastern “Métis” Organizations...............................................................................................................................24
(f) Reliance on Past Institutional Recognition..................................................................................................................26
(g) Repeated References to Ceremony............................................................................................................................27
(h) Family Stories and Family Secrets ..............................................................................................................................27
(i) Lateral Genealogical Claims.........................................................................................................................................28
(j) Reliance on DNA..........................................................................................................................................................29
(k) Stereotypes.................................................................................................................................................................30
(l) Grooming Elders..........................................................................................................................................................30
(m) The Adoption Passport Fantasy.................................................................................................................................31
(n) “Native” Names..........................................................................................................................................................34
(o) Recent Identification ..................................................................................................................................................35
C. HARM CAUSED BY INDIGENOUS IDENTITY FRAUD ...........................................................................................................36
D: SELF-IDENTIFICATION AND ANCESTRY ..........................................................................................................................39
1. Self-Identification...........................................................................................................................................39
2. Ancestry .........................................................................................................................................................41
3. Indigenous Peoples are not a Race ................................................................................................................44
E: INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ..............................................................................................................................................45
1. Indigenous Ways of Knowing Indigenous Identity .........................................................................................45
(a) First Nations Traditional Identification.......................................................................................................................45
(b) The Métis Nation Identification System.....................................................................................................................46
(c) Inuit Identification Systems ........................................................................................................................................46
(d) Identifying Indigenous peoples from outside Canada................................................................................................47
F. GOVERNMENT THEORY OF INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ..........................................................................................................47
G. FIRST NATION WOMEN AND SELF-IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................50
H. THE COURT’S THEORY OF MÉTIS AND NON-STATUS INDIAN IDENTITY ................................................................................53
I. THE DISCONNECTED ..................................................................................................................................................58
J. UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ..........................................................................59
K. THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ....................................................................................................................61
SECTION TWO: UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES................................................... 63
A. INDIGENIZATION & USASK CULTURE ...........................................................................................................................63
B. POLICY & PROCESS AMENDMENTS..............................................................................................................................67 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 3
1. deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy...................................................................67
2. Application Processes.....................................................................................................................................68
3. Applicant Declarations..................................................................................................................................69
4. Embedded Indigenous Identity Fraudsters in Faculty and Staff....................................................................71
5. Indigenous Identity Fraud Complaints Process .............................................................................................72
6. Collective Agreement....................................................................................................................................72
7. Safe Disclosure Policy....................................................................................................................................73
8. Privacy...........................................................................................................................................................73
9. Educating Human Resource Staff & Faculty Search Committees..................................................................74
SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 75
A. WHAT WAS HEARD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................75
B. ONGOING CARE FOR USASK’S INDIGENOUS MEMBERS ...................................................................................................76
C. PARTNERSHIPS WITH INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................77
D. EDUCATION............................................................................................................................................................77
E. POLICY AMENDMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................77
F. COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT...........................................................................................................................................77
G. COMMUNICATIONS..................................................................................................................................................77
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................. 78
A. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESS.........................................................................................................................................78
B. LAND CLAIM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS......................................................................................................83
C. REPORTS................................................................................................................................................................83
D. UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN STATEMENTS, POLICIES & AGREEMENTS ..........................................................................84
E. STATUTES & DECLARATIONS ......................................................................................................................................84
F. INTERVIEWS & CONVERSATIONS .................................................................................................................................85
G. CASE LAW..............................................................................................................................................................85
  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 4
Introduction This is a report about individuals who falsely take on Indigenous identity with the intention of 
gaining material benefits at USask. The report was commissioned in June of 2022. The research 
and writing of this report took place during a time of tremendous change in the academy. Stories
in the press about a famous writer, a film maker, a lawyer, and several academics, all with 
questionable Indigenous identities, were appearing regularly. Calls for action from Indigenous 
people had been mounting from all sectors, all demanding that institutions take steps to stem the 
tide of individuals who are claiming, with questionable or no evidence, an Indigenous identity in 
order to gain access to jobs, money, awards, and prestige. 
Several universities across Canada were beginning to examine their hiring practices for
individuals who claimed an Indigenous identity. The past practice of self-identification combined 
with an honour system characterized by an absence of verification was virtually gone at most 
universities by the time the report was in its early drafts. Universities across the country set up 
internal Indigenous advisory committees to determine best practices moving forward. First 
Nations University called a virtual gathering in March of 2022 and subsequently produced a 
What Was Heard Report (FNU, 2022). The FNU report contained important recommendations. 
Murray Sinclair, Chancellor of Queen’s University, summed up the problem and urged inclusion 
of Indigenous people when looking for solutions. 
It is clear that self-identification of Indigeneity no longer works. Self-declaration is an important 
part, but it is just the beginning. We must go beyond an honour system and include voices from 
Indigenous communities across Turtle Island. (Sinclair, FNU, 2022). 
USask had already begun to take steps to address this issue. Among many other steps, that 
included retaining the author as an external and independent investigator to prepare this report. 
This report, then is presented while substantial positive changes are already in motion at USask. 
For example, on August 20, 2021, USask was gifted the first Indigenous strategy that was
created exclusively “by Indigenous people at a Canadian U15 research institution.” The strategy 
was the culmination of work begun in 2018 and represents the collaborative work of the Office 
of the Vice-Provost Indigenous Engagement, and USask’s Indigenous community of students, 
staff, faculty, and leaders, Elders, Traditional Knowledge Keepers, and Language Teachers. The 
strategy embeds principles into USask’s University Plan 2025.
(Ohpahootan/Oopahootaan/Indigenous Strategy, 2021)
So, what then is the point of this report when USask has already identified the problem and 
initiated policies and procedures to move forward? The report rests on the proposition that it is 
important to understand the history of this issue and that understanding the how and the why of 
this problematic pattern of behaviour will teach us how to learn from our mistakes. The report 
proposes that the Indigenous identity problem has arisen for two main reasons. First, because 
Canadians generally and the academy specifically, were ignorant about the complexities of 
Indigenous identity. Second, because the academy seriously underestimated the fact that so many 
individuals would seek to exploit that ignorance for their personal gain. As a consequence there 
were few checks and balances to detect or deter Indigenous identity fraud. 
There are other issues that it is important to set out, including whether the current focus on 
ancestry and membership/citizenship are unproblematic with respect to determining whether an  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 5
applicant is Indigenous. The common reaction with respect to harm must also be addressed 
because many appear to believe the false assumption of Indigenous identity to be either a benign 
practice or a rare situation. Many also believe that excellence in performance of the job excuses 
the impersonation. For example, many Canadians dismiss Indigenous outrage at the dubious 
Indigenous identity claims of Joseph Boyden because he is a good writer. There is a general 
failure to recognize the serious harm caused when Indigenous identity is falsely assumed. These 
attitudes also mean that individuals will continue to assume an inappropriate Indigenous identity
because there is meager deterrence or consequence, and much to gain. 
So, it is helpful to examine the root causes of the problem, provide an analysis of why non￾Indigenous people do it, and set out red flags that can help identity future questionable claimants. 
Those who falsely claim Indigenous identity for their own material advantage cause significant 
harm to the academy and Indigenous people. This is an undisputable fact. The report documents 
these harms. The report also investigates the complexities of Indigenous identity in Canada and 
seeks to aid USask in its quest to understand the issues. This is necessary so that future 
questionable claimants do not slip through the cracks. The report then looks specifically at 
USask policies and procedures with a view to making recommendations for the future. 
One of the policies the report examines is the move to Indigenize USask. Since 2015 the 
University of Saskatchewan (USask) has made a great effort to Indigenize the university. The 
move to Indigenize the university provided incentives for Indigenous people to apply for student 
placements, scholarships and grants, faculty positions, and staff employment. Unfortunately, as 
we now know, some applicants seeking to take advantage of these opportunities were making 
false claims to Indigenous identity. 
To put it bluntly, an individual who relies on deception to achieve a material advantage – who 
intentionally and falsely identifies as Indigenous to obtain a faculty or staff position, funding, or 
a student placement – is engaged in Indigenous identity fraud. There are two kinds of Indigenous 
identity fraud. The first kind – the fabricators – are individuals who fabricate an Indigenous 
identity out of thin air. The second kind – the embellishers – are individuals who embellish their 
connection to Indigeneity, either by exaggeration or misstatement, when they don an Indigenous 
identity based on illusive hearsay or rumors (family stories), or miniscule evidence (an ancestor
from the 1600s, or a DNA test that reveals a small percentage of Native American ancestry). The 
advantage they gain is stolen, causes harm, and breaches our trust. These individuals are said to 
be “wannabees” or “pretendians.” They are donning “redface” or “playing Indian.” (Deloria,
1999) In this report these fabricators and embellishers are collectively called fraudsters.
USask’s Department of Community Health and Epidemiology released the following statement:
False claims to Indigenous identity are inextricable from the Indigenous-focused scholarship built on 
them. We cannot teach integrity to future generations of scholars and leaders if we do not also model 
this in our own work. We also cannot expect society to value the knowledge we produce if we cannot 
demonstrate it has been built on a foundation of integrity. (USask, CH&E Statement, 2021)
This is an excellent acknowledgment of the problem and the tentacles of harm that spread from 
the false claimant to scholarship and the integrity of USask. Fraud, like all societal violations, 
generates harm that spreads like poison. The poison taints the integrity of academy, the  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 6
scholarship built on the deception, and the Indigenous staff, students, and faculty of the 
university. The poison also spreads into the Indigenous community where, because of a pre￾existing trust deficit, it multiplies exponentially. The residential school system attacked the 
foundations of Indigenous societies – families, communities, customs, laws, traditions, religions, 
and whole peoples. Residential school also destroyed Indigenous peoples trust in western 
education. USask has made great efforts to gain the trust of Indigenous peoples and build a new 
relationship. It is most unfortunate that Indigenous identity fraud undermines the very 
foundations of these newly built bridges. 
USask also understands that whatever actions it takes with respect to Indigenous identity fraud 
must be done in partnership with the Indigenous community. Provost Airini released the 
following statement of USask’s commitment in this regard.
USask continues to be a part of larger conversations happening across Canada as they relate to 
Indigenous identity and hiring processes…We will continue to refine our own processes and work 
with applicants, and with Indigenous and community partners, to honour and support Indigenous 
sovereignty and self-determination. We remain firmly committed to building trust and relationships 
with Indigenous communities. (USask, Airini Statement, 2021)
There are many reasons why the Indigenous community must be a partner in any USask actions 
with respect to Indigenous identity fraud. The fundamental reason is that the right and 
responsibility to identify its Indigenous members vests in the distinct Indigenous nations. Each 
Indigenous nation determines its members according to its own customs, traditions, and laws. 
While there are basic similarities in most Indigenous membership customs, traditions, and laws, 
they are not all the same. Indigenous identity is also layered with centuries of ongoing 
colonialism, which includes legal Indigenous definitions determined by colonial governments
and the courts according to their colonial laws, the most notable of which are the Indian Act and 
the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 decision in Daniels. Self-governing Indigenous nations 
have codified membership and beneficiary laws that are also Canadian law. There are many 
nuances to Indigenous identity and navigating this complex world is not easy. 
Indigenous identity fraudsters take advantage of this complexity when they seek access to the 
academy. Until recently, they knew they could easily assume an Indigenous identity because the 
academy relied primarily on an honour system of self-identification, especially for faculty 
positions. This means that some individuals with questionable Indigenous identities continue to 
be embedded in the academy. They obtained their positions and funding by intentional 
dishonesty for their own material advantage – by fraud.
This report is generally divided into two sections. The first section addresses the issue of 
Indigenous identity fraud. It begins with a discussion about who Indigenous identity fraudsters 
are and how to identify them. The report looks at the harm caused by Indigenous identity fraud to 
the academy’s reputation, to the staff, faculty, and students, and to the Indigenous community. 
This section of the report is generic and while it is applicable to USask it is also applicable to all 
institutions who are hiring and engaging Indigenous people. 
The second part of the report is specific to USask. There is a review of USask policies with 
respect to Indigenous identity fraud. Finally, there are recommendations about how USask, in  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 7
partnership with Indigenous communities, can move forward to solve this problem in a good 
way.
The author acknowledges that USask is moving forward on this issue. USask has embraced the 
need to work with Indigenous communities and is moving quickly to implement new policies 
and agreements. If this story has some good news, and it does, it is that this is not a problem in 
search of an unknowable solution. The solution is readily apparent – education about Indigenous 
peoples. This is good news because USask, as an educational institution that has demonstrated its 
desire to learn about and work with Indigenous communities, has in its hands all the tools needed 
to solve this problem.
Other than specifically named individuals nothing in this report is intended to be associated with 
a particular person. Though reference is made to other individuals whose stories were reported in 
the press, this report relies primarily on the stories of Michelle Latimer and Joseph Boyden to 
illustrate the issues. They are used as examples because they both published detailed public 
statements about their Indigenous identity claims. 
In preparation for this report, the author conducted sixty interviews with Indigenous and non￾Indigenous students, staff, and faculty at USask, experts in Indigenous identity, Indigenous 
professors at other universities, and elders who have experience with USask. I give my thanks 
and appreciation to all who so graciously gave of their time, thoughts, experiences, and wisdom. 
This report is richer because of their many contributions. The author also wishes to thank Nigel 
Baker-Grenier for his assistance with the interviews.
A. Terminology Used in this Report
The choice to use a specific term does not reflect the author’s intention to diminish or ignore the 
serious issues that may exist with the use of each term. The terms chosen are used in service of 
the greater theme of the report, which is Indigenous identity fraud.
“Aboriginal” and “Indigenous” are basket terms that refer to the Indigenous nations who lived 
in Canada before it became a state. Both terms are intended to include the “Indian (First 
Nations), Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada.” This report uses Indigenous and Aboriginal 
interchangeably. 
“citizenship” and “membership” are the terms used to describe an individual’s relationship to a 
collective. Many Indigenous peoples wish to emphasize their existence as nations. Those who 
emphasize their nationhood, generally prefer to use the term citizenship. That said, the United 
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples uses the term membership. This report 
uses both terms interchangeably.
“community” is a particularly confusing concept. In essence there are two uses of community: 
(1) communities that are bounded with a physical geographic location such as a settlement, 
village, or city; and (2) communities composed of associated people, which can include virtual 
communities, identity-based, or organizational communities. This report uses community in both 
senses as the context indicates.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 8
“Indian” while a regrettable term, is virtually inescapable when referring to Canada’s laws and 
history. The term is used when necessary.
“Métis” means individuals who self-identify as Métis, are distinct from other Aboriginal 
peoples, are of Historic Métis Nation ancestry, and are accepted by, or eligible to be accepted by 
the Métis Nation. In this report “Métis” does not mean individuals who have mixed ancestry.
“peoples”, “nations” and “polities” are used interchangeably in this report. The author 
appreciates that they are different concepts, but in the context of this report they are used to 
convey the idea that Indigenous collectives are ethnic/cultural and political entities. These terms, 
as used in this report, are not intended to be equated with states.
“race-shifting” is a term applied to those who shift their identity from one race to another. 
Unless quoting another reference, this report does not use this term because the author takes the 
position that Indigenous peoples are not a race. 
“settler-colonial” is used in this report to describe the dominant Canadian culture. That said, 
there are several quotes where the term “white” is used as a shorthand reference to the dominant 
culture. As with the misapplication of “race” to refer to the multiple cultures of Indigenous 
peoples, the use of “white” inappropriately uses a racial concept to apply to the dominant 
Canadian culture. The author does not agree that there is a “white” culture.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 9
Section One: Indigenous Identity Fraud 
A: What is Identity?
1) This is a report about identity, specifically about Indigenous identity and the assumption 
of that identity by those who are, by definition, not Indigenous. Before delving into the 
intricacies of Indigenous identity and the problems created by false claimants, it will be helpful 
to make some preliminary observations about identity.
2) Tallbear cautions us to think carefully about how we understand the term “identity” 
Identity as a concept in popular usage does not necessarily imply ongoing relating. It might imply
discrete, biological conjoinings within one’s genetic ancestry. Genetics can spur alliances but 
identity can also exist as a largely individualistic idea, as something considered to be held once 
and for all unchanging within one's body. Whether through biological or social imprinting, identity 
is often considered as one's body's property. I don't want us looking too much within our own 
persons, our own individual persons, including our genetics, for a definition of who we are.
Rather, I want us to remember that we are always becoming in relation not only to genetic and 
cultural ancestors, but to one another, continuously and in relation to the geographies of political 
economies we inhabit whether by choice, or by circumstances we may have had little choice in. If 
we remember that we are what we become as much or more than we are who our biological 
properties determine us to be I suspect that will help us focus on more carefully with one another 
as beings in the world. (FNU, 2022)
3) Tallbear here is warning about popular misconceptions of identity, specifically that 
identity is usually understood only as the personal property of an individual who chooses that 
identity and that once chosen is fixed “once and for all.” She cautions us not to look too much at 
genetics for a definition of identity. She wants us to remember that identity must also be 
understood as having other levels of meaning. One level is indeed the individual’s relationship to 
“genetic and cultural ancestors.” But another level is an individual’s ongoing relationship with 
“the geographies of political economies.” Finally, Tallbear rings a loud bell about two facts –
that identity is “always becoming” and that identity is always in relationship. 
4) Identity has now become a contested term. Some propose that it is subjective and a social 
and psychological discussion which is distinct from the subject of Indigenous 
membership/citizenship. The author agrees that identity is subjective if understood only from a 
western liberal perspective as an individual’s chosen personal property. However, identity is not 
solely subjective if it is understood to be, as Indigenous peoples believe and as Tallbear reminds 
us, always “in relation to” others. Relationships necessarily imply recognition from both parties 
to the relationship. Indigenous identity exists only if it is in relation to cultural ancestors and to
existing Indigenous societies. If Indigenous identity is understood as a relationship, it is not 
distinct from the subject of Indigenous membership/citizenship. Indeed, self-identification is
necessary because no one individual is forced to identify as Indigenous. It is a choice, and it is 
the first step in confirming a connection to an Indigenous community, but it is not sufficient. The 
second step is for the community to acknowledge that individual as one of theirs.
5) This report uses the term “identity” because it is precisely the reliance on self￾identification that has led to the problem with Indigenous identity fraud. The author does not 
believe that the solution to the problem of Indigenous identity fraud is to avoid using the term 
identity. The author also cautions against shifting from reliance on self-identification to reliance  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 10
on ancestral connection as the solution to Indigenous identity fraud. It is tenuous ancestral 
connections that embellishers rely on, which also leads to Indigenous identity fraud. 
6) It is an understatement to say identity is complex and hard to define. We know that it is a 
social construct. We know that individuals have multiple ways of identifying. We know that 
collectives and groups have identities. Individuals and collectives construct and reconstruct their
conscious identities, at least in part, by meeting with, and reacting to the different forms of other
individual and collective identities. The roles we play throughout our lives shape many of our 
identities. The forms of identity include, but are certainly not limited to, gender, ethnic, cultural, 
and religious identities. These may change over an individual’s lifetime.
7) With Tallbear’s caution in mind, in this report identity is considered in multiple ways. An 
individual generally identifies at three different levels, which might be better seen as nesting 
inside each other, which can be broadly classified as individual, social, and collective. None of 
these levels of identity are constructed in isolation. All identity is constructed in relationship 
with others. An individual identity is constructed with others who are generally close – such as 
family. Individual gender identity is “the beginning of a self-definition in relation to others.” 
(Hoppers, 2009) Social identity can be a religion, for example. Collective identity can be one’s 
association with a cultural/ethnic group and/or a political group, both of which may be local, 
regional, or national in nature. (Légaré, 2007) Collective identity requires more than merely 
claiming to be or self-identifying as a member. It requires recognition of the individual by the 
collective to establish the relationship. Absent that collective recognition, there is no relationship 
and thus no validated identity as a member of that collective.
8) Using the term identity may be confusing but at least some of the confusion arises 
because the term identity is often used in a manner that conflates one or more of these levels and 
because it is not generally understood that there is a relationship aspect for every level of 
identity. Many are confused about Indigenous identity because they mistakenly believe that it is 
solely defined by an individual choice to identify and miss the necessary ethnic and political 
relationships, which require acceptance or recognition by an Indigenous collective.
9) An individual’s relationship to a collective can take, for example, two different forms –
ethnic identity and political identity. The first, ethnic identity, refers to an individual’s 
connection to a specific ethnic/cultural group, for example the Mohawks, the Inuit, or the Métis 
Nation. The second, political identity, refers to an individual’s connection to a political unit. For 
Indigenous people in Canada this will be at the local or regional level. For example, the 
Manitoba Metis Federation is a political regional entity that represents members of a cultural and 
a larger political national entity – the Métis Nation. Or to give another example, the Tzeachten 
First Nation is a local political entity that represents members of a regional cultural/ethnic group￾the Ts’elxwéyeqw tribe, which is in turn part of a larger cultural/ethnic group the Stó:lō. Both 
cultural and political collective Indigenous identities are founded on historical, cultural, and 
political characteristics at the local or regional level. 
10) To some Indigenous individuals we must also add a legal identity. This is because a legal 
identity is externally imposed on some Indigenous individuals and local collectives by Canadian 
laws such as the Indian Act. The Act creates a legal identity for individuals called “Indians” and  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 11
it creates a local political collective called a “band”. For many years this state-created identity 
was not a self-chosen identity for the thousands of individuals who were registered as Indians. 
But this is patently not the case in the 21st century. Many First Nation individuals cherish their 
Indian identity. Others pursue state recognition of their identity with vigour, and some have gone 
to court to be re-instated as legal Indians. Band local identity for First Nations is also very 
important, as are tribal affiliations.
11) Indigenous collective identities are also continually redefined as the Canadian state 
negotiates treaties, land claim agreements, and self-government agreements. These agreements 
create new political units that are also legal identities. These agreements forge Indigenous groups 
into new political alignments but do not affect their cultural identities. For example, if six Stó:lō 
Bands elect to enter into a Treaty with Canada, that does not mean they are no longer Stó:lō. The 
Treaty would create a new political and legal identity for those six Stó:lō Bands. The Treaty may 
also establish new rules for membership of individuals in those Treaty Bands. So, the Treaty 
codifies the rules for individual memberships in the Treaty Bands and the collective’s political 
identity. It has no effect on their cultural collective or individual identities as Stó:lō.
12) How one individual identifies in relation to all three levels, for example, might be as a 
Poitras family member, a member of an Indigenous culture - the Métis Nation, and a member of 
a political entity - the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. This is individual, cultural, and political 
identification.
13) It is worth repeating that all levels of identity are about relationships. This is especially 
so with respect to Indigenous identity. With two large exceptions (colonial court and government 
created Indigenous identities) there must be a reciprocal recognition by the relevant Indigenous 
collective of a relationship with an individual who self-identifies as an Indigenous member. 
Absent the collective’s recognition of the relationship, individual Indigenous self-identification 
is questionable. The reference here to the collective’s “recognition” of an individual claimant 
rather than “community acceptance” is deliberate. The Indigenous collective may recognize a
connection with an individual but still may not confer membership to that individual. 
14) Identity is a word tool. We use it to understand how humans see themselves and how they 
relate to each other. The word ‘identity’ can be used for many purposes, and as this report 
explores, some of its uses are unethical and harmful.
  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 12
B: Indigenous Identity Fraudsters
15) What is an Indigenous identity fraudster? The term refers to individuals who make false 
claims to Indigenous identity, usually for personal material advantage. It has been called the 
“pernicious phenomenon of white scholars claiming an “Indigenous” identity.” (Leroux, 2019)
Another name is “ethnic fraud.” (Cook-Lynn, 1993) It has also been called “inaccurate self￾identification…by persons applying for faculty positions at mainstream colleges and universities, 
or for admissions into special programs, and for research consideration.” (Pewewardy, 2004)
16) Indigenous identity fraudsters do not merely make claims to Indigenous identity. This is 
not about “folks like your white uncle who tells you they think they are part Native while 
cooking the hotdogs on the grill.” (Keeler, 2020) This report is not concerned with mere 
claimants. The concern is with those who are using false claims to gain a material advantage. 
They don’t just claim Indigenous identity, they “dress up and act out their ideas, making them 
material and real, and shape new identities in the process…Pretendians build lives and careers on 
ethnic fraud.” (Deloria, 1999) Those lives, and careers, are gained at the expense of real 
Indigenous peoples.
17) The press has recently documented several high-profile cases of this ‘reverse passing’. 
Unfortunately, these Indigenous identity fraudsters are becoming more common and the numbers 
of those passing as Indigenous in Canada now number in the tens of thousands. Their numbers 
are growing quickly. (Leroux, Distorted, 2019) They are becoming so numerous that there is 
even a “Pretendian List” circulating on the internet that includes Canadians and Americans. This 
report takes no position on whether it was appropriate to publish such a list and no position on 
whether the individuals on the list should be on it. But the fact that there is such a list is an 
indication of the rising importance attached to the issue of Indigenous identity fraud. The list 
draws our attention to the personal profit to be gained by assuming an Indigenous identity. 
According to the author, “everyone on this list has made public claims through interviews, in 
books authored, documentaries, and even in Congressional testimony.” She insists that “these are 
people who have monetized the claim and personally profit from it.” (Keeler, 2020)
18) There is one important caveat to the following discussion about Indigenous identity 
fraud. There is no intention in this report to suggest that Indigenous people seeking reconnection 
with family and their nation should be included in the ranks of the fraudsters. The 60s scoop, 
Indian Act exclusions, the scrip system, Inuit relocations, and residential schools are just some of 
the colonial enterprises that intentionally uncoupled individuals from their lands, communities, 
families, nations, and their Indigenous identities. Disconnected individuals have a right to 
reconnect. USask faculty and staff have a history of aiding such disconnected students as they 
seek to better understand their Indigenous identity and to reconnect with their peoples. That aid 
should not be stopped. Nor should the issue of legitimate reconnection be confused with the false 
claims of Indigenous identity fraudsters. 
1. Who Are the Fraudsters?
19) Who are these fraudsters? Overwhelmingly they are settlers. In the academy, they are 
mostly women. In the hunting and fishing rights realm, they are mostly men. While the 
phenomenon of Indigenous identity fraud is also rampant in the United States, this report focuses
on the situation in Canada and will not deal with those who are claiming hunting and fishing  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 13
rights. The focus will be on USask, although much of it would be readily applicable to other 
universities and government. 
2. Encouraging Indigenous Identity 
20) Indigenous identity fraud was enabled for five reasons: 
(1) Recognition by the courts of Indigenous rights and the move to Indigenization 
created many new opportunities.
(2) The academy did not anticipate and were not prepared for the fact that so many 
non-Indigenous individuals would try to, inappropriately, take advantage of these 
new opportunities. 
(3) There was an absence of verification processes and an over-reliance on the honour 
system and self-identification accompanied by a failure to ensure honesty in those 
who claimed an Indigenous identity. 
(4) There was a general failure to recognize the fraudsters.
(5) There was a great deal of ignorance about how to identify Indigenous peoples. 
These five factors have encouraged “late-onset Indigenous identity claims” in the academy. 
(Andersen, 2021) 
21) It is unfortunate but the academy is playing a major role in producing these Indigenous 
identity fraudsters. Leroux notes that they
have made headway in institutional settings ripe with post-TRC indigenization strategies. Hired as 
“Aboriginal” advisors at universities, colleges, and school and hospital boards; as “Indigenous” 
faculty hires in Sociology, History, Geography, Law, or English departments; and as “Aboriginal” 
consultants by a range of public, private, and non-profit boards and governing bodies, the[y]…are 
busy replacing actual Indigenous peoples and serving the interests of white society…In this 
context, it is conceivable that even well-meaning professors and teachers use work gleaned from 
…studies in their classrooms, contributing to harm to actual Indigenous peoples. (Leroux, Eastern 
Métis, 2019)
22) Several people interviewed for this report stated that they had been told that if they just 
ticked off the Indigenous identity box, the placement, scholarship, or job would be theirs. Some 
fraudsters begin to construct their new Indigenous identities as students in university. They take 
an Indigenous Studies course, get intrigued, and over time begin to identify with the subject of 
their studies. Others do a genealogy, discover an ever-so-great Indigenous ancestor, and decide 
this entitles them to identify as Indigenous. Some start after a DNA test reveals a small 
percentage of Native American ancestry. Some see that there is an advantage to be gained if they 
identify as Indigenous and this encourages them to do that genealogy or DNA test or resurrect an 
old family story.
23) Over time the new identity is honed, and the performance of that identity is practiced.
Meanwhile the fraudsters are provided with opportunity and funding because the academy 
believes that it is furthering the new social goal of Indigenizing. 
24) Some of these Indigenous identity frauds don’t do it on their own. Some are encouraged 
to claim an Indigenous identity and then to polish it for the public. Joseph Boyden’s ex-wife 
provided some insight into the collusion that took place with his publisher to manufacture an 
Indigenous identity. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 14
I actually don't believe that he was solely responsible for the mythology of the Great Joseph 
Boyden. Years and years ago, when the machine began spinning his myth-story for his dust 
jacket it included the word Metis, I asked him why he'd let them say that. He categorically didn't 
know that could be the case about his heritage but explained that the word Metis meant "mixed," 
and that he didn't fully know his genetic history. I called him out on the false advertising, but he 
ignored my advice. (Jackson, 2020)
3. It’s an Old Story
25) The first step in understanding the assumption of Indigenous identity is to understand that 
the practice is not new. It began when Europeans arrived in North America and has continued 
ever since. Americans dressed up as Indians during the Boston Tea Party. (Deloria, 1999) That 
was in 1773. This has been going on for a very long time. Archibald Stansfield Belaney, aka 
Grey Owl (1888-1938), was an early Canadian practitioner of this artform. His falsified legacy
lives on in many ways, including, ironically, as a “white” paint colour. (Benjamin Moore Paints, 
2022)
26) When Europeans arrived in Canada, they wanted to shed their past histories and take on 
new identities. If the newcomers had a case of “identity indeterminacy,” they could try on new 
Indigenous identities and shrug it off as fun, or at least benign. After all, they were confident that 
Indians would soon disappear one way or another – by the reserve system, outright slaughter, 
starvation, disease, or assimilation. This is the “logic of elimination.” (Deloria, 1999)
27) It is not possible, and there is no intention here to recount the full history of the 
imposition of colonialism in Canada. But for the purposes of this report, it is important to 
emphasize that the ongoing colonial assault was not merely with respect to lands and resources. 
The assault was very much centred on Indigenous identity. Thus, we have the statement by 
Duncan Campbell Scott that, 
I want to get rid of the Indian problem…Our objective is to continue until there is not a single 
Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, 
and no Indian Department… (LAC)
28) Indigenous peoples in Canada fought long and hard against this assimilationist policy and 
to protect their identities. For a very long time it seemed that colonialism had been successful in 
gradually erasing them. The tide began to reverse in the 20th century after the second world war. 
Then the resistance of Indigenous people began to gather strength. (RCAP Report, 1996) Their
resistance was deeply connected to a vigorous assertion of their own distinct identities. 
Indigenous peoples erected cultural walls to protect their collective existence and identities as 
peoples and nations–identities that could not be taken away by the state. They began to fight 
back in the courts, in the press, and on blockades. The assertion of their right to be distinct and 
their right of self-determination is, by definition, anathema to Canada’s multiculturalism policy 
and the American melting pot. This was Indigenous “pushback to white appropriation” of the 
collective identities of Indigenous peoples. (Tallbear, Colonial Theft, 2021)
29) The Indigenous pushback continues, as does the colonial assault on Indigenous identity. 
So too continues the colonial willful ignorance about, and undermining of, Indigenous identity. It 
is a project that is aided and abetted by a parallel public perception that Indigenous peoples were,  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 15
by the 20th century, an anachronism. Jeffery Hewitt, an Indigenous professor at Osgoode Hall 
Law School, recounted his shock when his son returned from school with an announcement that 
the children were to dress in costumes of “fairies, elves, Indians, and other mythical creatures.” 
(Hewitt, circa 2002)
30) “Every generation seeks to both inherit and produce its own distinct ways of playing 
Indian, creating a long and unbroken chain of…performance.” (Deloria, 1999) And so it was
when the New Agers arrived in the 1970s. Here was appropriation of Indigenous cultures and 
identities on a grand scale. New Agers commodified and romanticized Native American culture
into something virtually unrecognizable but marketed as authentic and traditional. They 
promoted the individual right to construct one’s own identity in the absence of relationship and 
regardless of cultural boundaries. In the North American liberal culture that prioritizes individual 
rights, the right to construct a new identity, which was held to be the essence of individualism, 
could not be challenged. If one felt Indian or wanted to be an Indian, one could shift identities
and real Indigenous people had no say in the matter. 
31) Those who engage in Indigenous identity fraud freeride on individual rights and 
individual freedom. Their claim includes the assumption that they can get away with it and 
suggests that no one is morally or legally capable of objecting. The idea that Indigenous 
communities have the right to determine who is one of their members, or would object, is
considered an attack on an individual’s right to their own personal and spiritual journey.
(Gaudry, 2018) It is a claim that individual identity is a personal property right, which once 
proclaimed is unassailable. But the fraudulent Indigenous identity claims are squatters. Theirs are
self-identification claims wedged into the gaps and misinterpretations of the law and the 
ignorance of Canadians. 
4. Why do they do it? 
32) Personal gain and material advantage are the most obvious answers to the question of 
why individuals falsely assume an Indigenous identity. They gain an education, funding, access 
to professional programs, jobs, prestige, and money, and there are a lot more of these 
opportunities available now than in the past. Tallbear says “greed and ambition are probably the 
simplest reasons why people commit Indigenous identity fraud. But those aren’t the only 
reasons.” (Tallbear, Harmful, 2021)
33) Smith offers a guilt-justifies-appropriation reason, which she wrote long before she was 
exposed for knowingly passing herself off as Cherokee for years. 
When white ‘feminists’ see how white people have historically oppressed others and how they are 
coming very close to destroying the earth, they often want to disassociate themselves from their 
whiteness. They do this by opting to ‘become Indian.’ … Of course, white ‘feminists’ want to 
become only partly Indian. They do not want to be a part of our struggles for survival against 
genocide. (Smith, 1991)
34) Tuck and Wang call these shifts in identity “settler moves to innocence” where colonizers 
position themselves as Indigenous and thereby absolve themselves of any complicity in 
colonialism’s relentless march. (Tuck and Wang, 2012) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 16
35) Falsely assuming an Indigenous identity is a deeply colonial act. Those who do it are
laying “claim to the cultural power of Indianness in the white imagination.” It is a relentless 
practice, this “logic of appropriation.” (Deloria, 1999) 
36) Tallbear calls these false claims “a final act 
of theft in a long history of multiple layers and 
strategies of theft.” She illustrates this with a chart 
that sets out the “Eight Stages of White Settler￾Colonial Denial.” In the chart “self￾indigenization” is the 8th step in the colonial 
march. (Tallbear, Colonial Theft, 2021; Chart 
courtesy of @pazuzumycete)
37) Huhndorf says that “going native, [is] an 
act that both articulates and denies white 
America’s history of conquest, [and] remains an 
integral performance of national identity.”
(Huhndorf, 2013)
38) The “charitable explanation” for embellishers is that they begin by “genuinely believing –
and repeating – romantic childhood stories.” They build a web of stories on this base and when 
their deception is uncovered, they are already trapped “in a false narrative that became 
increasingly difficult to deny without consequences” they are unwilling to pay. (Kimber, 2017)
39) In the settler colonial imagination Indigenous identity did not belong to Indigenous 
people. It was seen as common property and could be claimed by anyone for their own self￾actualization. It was a free commodity readily available in the market. Self-identification became
the means to an Indigenous identity and the agreement of the actual Indigenous people was not 
sought or required.
40) Canada’s official policy of multiculturalism aided and abetted this self-identification-as￾a-right claim because under that policy state identity was distinguished from cultural identity. 
One didn’t have to be simply Canadian/non-Canadian. State identity was no longer binary. In 
Canada an individual can be a hyphenated Canadian – Ukrainian-Canadian or French-Canadian
for example. No one verifies such identity claims. More recently the move to eradicate binary 
gender identification has added fuel to the claims of Indigenous identity fraudsters. Many are 
now asking why the Indigenous/non-Indigenous identity is strictly preserved as binary when 
gender is no longer binary. 
41) Deloria writes that “playing Indian is simultaneously a swaggering assertion of power 
and a furtive admission of uncertainty.” He proposes that those who falsely acquired an 
Indigenous identity were “healing a wounded Self.” (Deloria, 1999) Tallbear agrees with this and 
points to the rhetoric and defenses in these fraudulent claims. (Tallbear, Dead Ancestors, 2021)
42) One might also add that there is an element of cunning that underlies such claims. These 
people construct and use their new identity for their own benefit. They take advantage of 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 17
affirmative action and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) protections. If they presented as 
applicants who were simply Canadian, they might not be accepted into law school or medical 
school, perhaps could not beat the competition. 
43) There should be no illusions that this is accidental. The people who falsely assume an 
Indigenous identity have agency. They make a choice to start down this path and they choose, 
again and again, often over decades, to continue the fraud. They choose to use their settler 
colonial privilege to seek personal gain when they take on and repeat their performances of an 
assumed Indigenous identity. This is so despite working with or for Indigenous communities. 
44) Huhndorf notes that in the academy “white women” are the primary practitioners of this 
“culture crossing.” In her book, Going Native, she writes that it is through cross-cultural gender 
identification that these women participate in the process of conquest even as they deny their
complicity.
The ability to journey into another culture for the purposes of redefining oneself and bettering 
one’s own position—is most certainly a privilege of whiteness...it is white women who benefit from 
these acts; it is they (rather than Native women, for example) who gain “mobility, more social 
prominence, and more economic participation” in their own cultures. Thus, this act itself 
comprises an act of dominance by inventing an “other” to serve one’s own needs. Such a 
compulsion to transcend social boundaries, “to coordinate the differentiations of the world into a 
single ideology,” in one critic’s words, “is intimately linked to its capacity to subordinate other 
peoples to its values.”
…
Not only do the European-American characters occupy center stage in the drama to “own” Indian 
culture, but they do so because of their superiority—stunningly, their superior knowledge of the
Native world. (Huhndorf, 2013)
5. Why Don’t We Recognize Indigenous Identity Fraud?
45) All of this provokes us to ask, especially at this moment in time, why everyone accepts
these impersonators so readily. Why didn’t we “notice what was going on under our noses all 
along?” (Deloria, 1999) Perhaps a few preliminary words on recognition are in order. Charles 
Taylor reminds us that,
identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and
so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society
around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves.
(Taylor, 1992)
46) There are many layers of recognition at stake with these performances. The fraudsters 
enact stereotypes they know will be recognized by the non-Indigenous audience. There is often 
silent and resentful recognition by Indigenous people that the performance is a stereotyped image 
of themselves. And finally, there is an absence of recognition on the part of the settler colonial 
audience in that they do not recognize this as a performance or an act. They do not recognize the 
demeaning picture they are consuming. They do not recognize their own complicity in the 
performance.
47) There is grave danger in the combined effect of the recognition and misrecognition of and 
by these performances. This is because so many people read the fraudsters’ work, listen to them  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 18
teach, watch them online, or go to hear them speak. These fraud artists are at work creating a 
distortion they want the world to recognize as Indigenous reality. When the performance crashes
out of the mirror, people become incapable of recognizing facts or the truth. 
48) There are several reasons why Canadians look at these performances but don’t see the 
performance. First, Canadians don’t see the performance because they are ignorant. They have 
no idea what Indigenous people are like. They have no base of knowledge to work from. They 
accept what they see because they don’t know enough to spot the fake. 
49) Second, the performance feeds into pre-existing beliefs about Indigenous stereotypes. 
Some of these fraudsters play heavily on Indigenous stereotypes of family violence, racism, and 
poverty. Despite the audacity of their performance, “the success of ethnic impersonators depends 
in large part on their manipulation of others’ essentialist beliefs about race and ethnicity.”
(Browder, 2000)
50) Third, Canadians see the success of an Indigenous person who made it – think Joseph 
Boyden – and they think of it as their success. After all, Boyden succeeded because of Canada’s 
institutions and systems, because Canada gave him the opportunity. Their success also reinforces
one of the myths we usually attach to the American dream – the belief in the power of the 
individual to rise above the circumstances of birth.
51) Fourth, the success gives Canadians some comfort. If Canada has a sad history in its 
treatment of Indigenous peoples, well here is proof that things have changed. We aren’t so bad 
now, and this successful person proves it. The success allows Canadians to feel better about their 
past.
52) Fifth, the performance feeds into Canadian’s saviour complex. Canada stepped up when 
it was needed and provided the opportunity for betterment. And look, the fact that this 
Indigenous person has risen to the top, this shows how good Canadians are for enabling such
success. The success also shows Canadians that Indigenous people depend on colonial systems, 
such as the academy, for resurrection. The performance demonstrates the benefits of 
‘civilization’ because it portrays an Indigenous success story as a beneficiary of civilization. 
These performances assure Canadian institutions of their necessary role in Canadian society. 
53) Finally, Canadians don’t see the performance because they are not very good at 
identifying the structure of colonialism. It is mistaken for a past event. But it is necessary to
acknowledge and understand colonialism as a structure, in order to recognize the constant 
renovations required to maintain it and to recognize its cyclical nature.
Seize the continent from Indigenous people; find rituals to claim indigeneity for yourself. Move 
Native people to the margins; watch the margins resist and create anew. (Deloria, 1999)
54) Understanding why the performance has eluded detection for such a long time reveals a
starting point – a place to begin combatting this fraud. If there is any comfort to be found, it is 
that the recent exposure of these impersonators across the country offers Canadians the 
possibility of being liberated from fixed ideas about the meaning of being Indigenous. Education, 
therefore, appears to be the best way to counter essentialist beliefs about Indigenous people. The  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 19
most effective way to combat fraud is to know who and what to look for, watching out for 
telltale signs or red flags, digging deeper to gather the facts when fraudulent activity is 
suspected, asking questions, and taking swift action when fraud is detected.
55) As an institution dedicated to learning and education, the academy is well situated to 
educate itself about Indigenous identity, tackle Indigenous identity fraud, and take a leadership 
role nationally.
6. Red Flags - How to Recognize Indigenous Identity Fraud
56) Having noted what this fraud is, we must acknowledge that the academy, as an 
institution, has been unable, and until recently has made no attempt to recognize it. As noted 
above, this is a performance. An examination of many such performances reveals certain 
behavioural patterns that can be recognized. If the academy knows there are red flags to look out 
for, that can help with the identification of future fraud. 
57) There may be some worry about setting up identity police. This appears to be based on 
the belief that personal identity cannot be challenged. But it is “a particular form of individual 
based rights thinking to conclude ‘Who am I to tell another person who they are or not.’” 
(Shorter, 2018). This is also not consistent with Indigenous practices. Indigenous people believe 
they have a responsibility to inquire. “When someone says they are my relative, I have an 
obligation to find out how.” (FNU, 2022, p. 22)
58) This is not a proposal that the academy begin to police identity. It is a proposal that the 
academy educate itself about Indigenous identity fraud performance patterns and take steps to 
eliminate the fraudsters.
59) This section builds on a publication by Tallbear where she sets out some red flags to 
watch for. (Tallbear, Red Flags, 2021) Red flags are not automatic indicators of Indigenous 
identity fraud, but they mean questions should be asked and more information is required.
(a) Shifting Indigenous Identities
60) Many fraudsters shift their Indigenous identity claims over the years. Joseph Boyden, for 
example, claimed many different Indigenous identities from 2005-2016. He variously identified 
as Nipmuc, Ojibwe, Mi’kmaq, Métis, Woodland Métis, Cree, Anishinaabe, or Ojibway-Métis.
(Barrera, 2016)
61) There may be justifiable reasons for shifts in Indigenous identity claims. For example, a 
60s scoop survivor may know they are Indigenous, but may not know much or anything about 
where they come from. They may make inaccurate statements if they are beginning their journey 
to find their people. It may also be that newly acquired knowledge changes an identity claim. For 
example, an individual may be raised in a Cree community and belatedly learn that her birth 
mother was Algonquin. Not all changes to identity are indicative of a false Indigenous identity 
claim. But they should be explainable.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 20
(b) Conflicting Facts and Stories
62) The fraudsters weave a web of stories that tend to become more elaborate over time. 
They also contain many contradictions. Joseph Boyden provides an example of contradictory 
statements. He claimed that he had knowledge of his Ojibway ancestry through his mother. In 
another statement he said that his mother and his father both had “sacred stories of who we are 
that they carried and still carry.” (Boyden, 2017) But his mother said, “I don’t know much 
myself…Joseph proved it and he got the papers.” (Barrera, 2016) Despite the obvious 
contradictions, no one seems to have questioned Boyden’s claims. 
63) In the United States, a well-known artist, Lewis Anthony Rath, recently confessed to not 
being Indigenous, though he had previously identified as a member of the San Carlos Apache 
Tribe. He was well known for his wood carvings, especially his totem poles. Rath was charged 
with violating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act by selling “totem poles, in a manner that falsely 
suggests they were Indian produced, an Indian product, and the product of a particular Indian and 
Indian tribe.” (Agoyo, 2021) But with a little bit of attention to detail and some basic knowledge 
about Indigenous peoples, conflicting facts in his stories could have been identified. As Hayden 
Taylor noted, “the simple fact the Apache are not exactly known for their totem-pole work 
should have alerted somebody.” (Hayden Taylor, 2021)
64) Hayden Taylor’s wry comment is something of an understatement. Totem poles are the 
work of Indigenous peoples on the northwest coast. They are not Apache creations or pan￾Indigenous items. But the non-Indigenous world is ignorant of this. Once again it points to the 
importance of education. Some basic knowledge about Indigenous peoples could go a long way 
towards identifying Indigenous identity fraud. Conflicting facts in any situation should be 
questioned. Indigenous identity claims are not an exception.
(c) Vague Claims
65) When Indigenous people introduce themselves in a traditional way, they state their 
identity in relationship to family and place. They usually begin by linking to named relatives. 
Métis Elder Maria Campbell reminds us of the importance of your relatives in Indigenous 
identity. “Who are your people and where do they come from?” (FNU, 2022)
66) One of the red flags that can indicate a false claim is the lack of specifics with respect to 
their people and where they come from. They often seem to be completely lacking in family 
relations. They claim a general place, but not family. The fraudsters have good reasons for being 
vague. If they name families or specific communities, Indigenous people from those families or 
communities ask questions. Michelle Latimer provides a good example. It was not until 2020 
that she named Kitigan Zibi, an Anishinabeg community in Quebec. (NFB, 2020) Prior to that, 
for about twenty years, Latimer’s Indigenous identity claims were vague. When she named 
Kitigan Zibi, Elder Claudette Commanda demanded that Latimer answer the community’s 
questions – “Who are you? And prove to me who you are.” Commanda was angry about 
Latimer’s false claim to membership in her community, saying "it’s an insult and it's an 
exploitation and an appropriation of our culture, identity, community…That is what Michelle is 
doing and she is one of many.” (Deer and Barrera, 2020) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 21
67) If a claimant never names their Indigenous relatives or a specific community but vaguely 
claims to be from Treaty 4, or claims to be Algonquin, Anishinabeg, or says they have Cree
ancestry, without more specificity, that is a red flag indicating that more questions should be 
asked. The absent identity markers here are their individual relationship to a named family and 
their relationship to place on the local level.
68) Many First Nation people will begin by referring to a regional place such as a treaty 
territory, but then will usually go on to name their relationship in more local terms, such as to 
their Band. One example comes from University of Victoria law professor, Dr. Val Napoleon, 
who introduces herself by stating that she is “from northeast British Columbia (Treaty 8) and a 
member of Saulteau First Nation.” (UVicLaw, 2022)
69) It is also a red flag to vaguely refer to membership in a clan without reference to the 
Indigenous culture associated with the clan. Many Indigenous peoples, like the Métis Nation, do 
not have clans. So, if someone says they are Métis from the Métis Nation and of the Eagle Clan, 
that is a red flag. 
70) Improving the university’s knowledge about Indigenous cultures is necessary to identify 
false claims. That said, at a minimum, repeated vagueness with respect to family and home 
community is a red flag. Someone should ask some questions.
(d) Métis referring to Treaty as their home territory
71) It is highly unusual for a Métis person to refer to a Treaty territory when they link to 
place. Métis collectives are signatories to only two treaties – Treaty 3 in Ontario and the Sahtu 
Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement in the NWT. Métis collectives were not 
signatories to Treaties 1-11. There are individual Métis who were treaty beneficiaries. But 
generally, Métis call their traditional territory their motherland or their homeland. When asked 
about their Métis background most Métis will refer to a Métis region (e.g.: Red River or the 
Qu’Appelle Valley) and then refer to a specific Métis community (e.g.: St. Norbert or Lebret). 
72) That said, many Indigenous people claim both First Nation and Métis ancestry, and they 
may refer to a treaty territory. But usually, they are happy to explain their relationship to both 
peoples and provide details. 
73) The failure to understand the relationship between the different Indigenous peoples and 
treaties is another indication of the need for education.
(e) Indigenous Organizations
74) Fraudsters often claim membership in an Indigenous organization as proof of their 
Indigenous identity. Joseph Boyden supplied a card from the Ontario Woodlands Métis Tribe, 
which he described as “a community thousands strong who recognize me as one of them.” 
(Boyden, 2017) This is not what Indigenous people mean when they refer to community. 
Indigenous people usually call their community the bounded geographic community they live in 
or come from - a settlement, village, city, band, or traditional territory. Boyden is referring to an 
organizational community composed of individuals from across Canada whose only 
commonality is their unverified claim to be either Métis, Inuit or Indian, who have paid a fee and  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 22
who have joined the organization. Such pan-Indigenous organizations are not Indigenous 
nations.
75) Some people reference a Métis local when asked about their home community. The 
reference to an organization as a home community is highly unusual because Indigenous people 
usually name the band, city, town, settlement or traditional territory that is the community their 
family is from, not an organization. This is another red flag.
76) The Supreme Court of Canada in Powley made an important observation with respect to 
membership in an organization, noting that membership “may be relevant to the question of 
community acceptance, but it is not sufficient in the absence of a contextual understanding of the 
membership requirements of the organization and its role in the Métis community.” (Powley, 
par. 33, emphasis added)
77) There is now a substantial body of case law in eastern Canada that reinforces the need to 
exercise caution with respect to organizations that purport to represent Indigenous people and the 
need to look at their context. (Eastern Métis cases, 2002-2018) There are dozens of Indigenous 
organizations in Canada that represent or provide services to Indigenous peoples. They are 
formed for a myriad of reasons, and many provide cards. Parsing out which cards can be reliably 
used to verify Indigenous identity can be very confusing.
78) Admittance, hiring personal, and search committee members at the University must 
become familiar with the many kinds of organizations, and/or they must seek advice and 
guidance from the Indigenous community. Some basic guidelines are provided here to assist in 
the assessment of organizations. The guiding principle is that the organization must require 
objectively verifiable evidence for identifying its members. 
i. Pan-Indigenous Organizations
79) Cards should not be accepted if issued by a pan-Indigenous organization, a program and 
service entity, or a sectoral organization. Pan-Indigenous means that they accept First Nations, 
Métis, and Inuit into their organization. Examples of national pan-Indigenous organizations 
include Friendship Centres and the Native Women’s Association of Canada. These organizations 
do not purport to identify their members, require objectively verifiable evidence of Indigenous 
identity, or distinguish which Indigenous people they provide services to. 
80) But there are pan-Indigenous organizations that do provide identity cards. An example of 
one such national body is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which was previously known as 
the Native Council of Canada and the Confederation of Aboriginal People of Canada. An 
example of a provincial pan-Indigenous organization is the OMAA-Woodland Métis Tribe in 
Ontario Boyden referred to. This organization does not require objectively verifiable evidence to 
support a member’s claim of Indigenous identity. A quick look at the OMAA-Woodland Métis 
Tribe’s application for membership form reveals that it is based on self-declaration. The 
applicant declares their Aboriginal ancestry, their Aboriginal status, and pays an annual fee. 
Applicants that are eligible for full membership are “any person of Aboriginal descent within the 
meaning of s. 35(2) of the Canada Act, 1982 but NOT a band member residing on a reservation.”
[emphasis in original] (OMAA, 2022) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 23
81) A few things stand out in the OMAA-Woodland Métis Tribe’s application form. First, 
there is no evidence required to verify the information. Second, despite calling itself a “Métis 
Tribe”, applicants can be Métis, Inuit, status, or non-status Indians. It appears that they are taking 
the word “Métis” to mean any Indigenous person with mixed ancestry. Third, because the 
applicants can be from any of the different Indigenous nations in Canada, the “Woodlands Métis 
Tribe” appears to be an organization untethered to any specific grounded Indigenous community
or traditional territory. It purports to create an association of Indigenous individuals from 
anywhere in Canada. It is in this sense that Boyden referred to it as a community. Fourth, it is 
clearly not a tribe, at least not in the common understanding of what a tribe is. A tribe is usually 
considered to be a social collective consisting of families or communities that are linked by 
common social, blood, cultural, language, economic, or religious ties.
82) The common feature of these organizations is that they do not require objectively 
verifiable evidence of their members’ Indigenous identity claims. That being so, they cannot be 
relied on as verification of any individual’s Indigenous identity. Indeed, the Friendship Centres 
and the Native Women’s Association do not purport to do so. However, individuals belonging to 
the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples have been known to claim that membership in their 
organizations is proof of Indigenous identity. This is what happened in one of the many cases 
brought by the Castonguay family in New Brunswick. 
Mr. Castonguay, in his closing remarks, said he is not asking the Court to recognize him as an 
aboriginal member of the Grand Falls community, but to acquit him because he is an aboriginal 
according to the card issued by the Confederation of Aboriginal People of Canada that attests to 
his status. (R. v. Stanley, R. Castonguay, 2012 NBPC 19 (CanLII), para 67 – Selected Eastern 
Métis Cases – 2002-2018)
83) Pan-Indigenous organization cards are not proof of Indigenous identity. 
ii. Unassociated Métis Organizations
84) Some Métis organizations, specifically on the prairies, call themselves locals. The use of 
the term ‘local’ began back in the 1930s when Jim Brady and Malcolm Norris were organizing 
the Métis in Alberta. They borrowed the tactics and organizing methods of labour unions. Hence 
the name that is still used on the Prairies to describe the local Métis organization. 
85) Prior to the establishment of province-wide registries after 2003, many Métis Nation 
locals issued their own identification cards. Their rules varied and often cards were issued to 
non-Métis friends. Many of these people are still members of a Métis local, many are active 
participants. 
86) It is exactly these old practices that the Métis Nation wanted to change when it adopted 
its national definition and provincial registries. They wanted to establish credible registries based 
on objectively verifiable evidence that could be reliably used to identify Métis citizens. There are 
still some of those old Métis locals that continue to issue membership without verification and 
have members, sometimes many members, who are not Métis. These are the reasons why
unassociated locals are not affiliated with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. This is not to say that 
many of the members of these unassociated locals are not Métis, because many are. In fact, many  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 24
of these individuals are also registered under the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. But not all 
members are Métis. 
87) Caution must be exercised with all cards issued by Métis locals. These cards cannot be 
accepted at face value. They would require additional evidence to support the Indigenous identity 
claim.
iii. Eastern “Métis” Organizations
88) Self-declared organizations are appearing almost daily. Their existence does not, by 
itself, provide proof of community or Indigenous identity. One might be tempted to suggest that 
their very establishment, and their members claims that the organization is important to them,
may be taken as an indication of a coherent Indigenous collective. That said, we face the same 
issue here as with individual self-identification claims. Without more, we simply cannot place 
undue reliance on the authority of the self-declarant. 
89) As we have seen, putting too much stock into self-declaration encourages questionable 
claims. Many of these organizations come into existence to take advantage of what they perceive 
to be Aboriginal rights. This is exactly what happened in Nova Scotia after the Supreme Court of 
Canada recognized a Mi’kmaq treaty right to trade in the products of its traditional fishing.
(Marshall, 1999) Almost immediately, organizations sprang up that issued cards granting 
membership. The new groups included the Acadian Métis-Indian Nation, the East Coast First 
People Alliance, and the Rising Sun Community Restigouche West/Communauté Soleil Levant.
90) Individual members of these groups were usually able to provide evidence of their recent 
Aboriginal self-identification. Many had a distant Aboriginal ancestor. They all relied on 
community acceptance by the card-granting organization. Numerous court cases denied their 
claims to Aboriginal rights because they could not prove the existence of an historic or a modern 
Métis community. (Selected Eastern Métis Cases, 2002-2018) This was a clear statement by the 
courts that the mere establishment of an organization will not be taken as evidence of an 
Indigenous community. 
91) Many of these new organizations were relatively candid about the reason for their 
existence, which was often about exploiting resources. These organizations were asserting 
Indigenous identity because they saw it as an access key that would allow them to hunt, fish or 
engage in forestry activities in locations or at times where they would not be ordinarily allowed 
access. The fact that dozens of courts have denied their claims 
hasn’t stopped groups from popping up to claim Native ancestry and identity in misguided 
attempts to board this mythical gravy train. The Mikinaks are one such group—a self-proclaimed 
Aboriginal community based in Quebec’s Montérégie region, it requires $80 and proof of any 
Indigenous ancestry in order to bestow membership. In exchange, recipients [are] given a photo 
ID that looks similar to government-issued Indian Status cards. Mikinak “Chief” Lise Brisebois has 
said that even if a member’s Native ancestor is “eight generations back, that’s okay. The most 
important thing is that you feel it inside you.” This method of ascertaining tribal citizenship relies 
on romanticized stereotypes and emotions in place of actual acceptance by an Indigenous 
community. (Lefebvre and Elliott, 2022) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 25
92) In one court case in New Brunswick, the court expressed its scepticism about the 
organization the defendant claimed represented a Métis community.
The only tangible expression of self identification apart from his assertion is his membership in 
Soleil Levant Community…It would seem that Soleil Levant came into being in the year 1999. 
They did gain some type of official status by filing a Certificate of Business Name and Style with 
the Department of Justice of the Province of new [sic] Brunswick on September 8th, 2000. 
Curiously, in Box 2 of this application where it requires the Applicant to identify the Business 
Activity or service to be carried on, in or identified by the Registered Name, the following appears: 
"Exploitation forestière et pêcherie". There is a complete absence of any mention of any Métis 
connection, which I find to be significant. (Castonguay J-D, 2002, Selected Eastern Métis Cases, 
2002-2018)
93) Andersen has argued that court decisions should not be taken as “objective sources of 
validation…somehow free of the racialized/colonial logics that shaped previous official 
documentation, historical analysis, or even ethnohistory.” (Andersen, 2015) This is a valid point 
and the case law referred to in this report is not provided as proof of Indigenous personal or 
community identification. The cases are included to show that other institutions – the courts –
have raised legitimate concerns. Everyone should have similar concerns. 
94) With Andersen’s caveat in mind, the purpose for creating these organizations is very 
relevant to their credibility. Leroux draws our attention to the catalysts relevant to the creation of 
the Communauté métisse du Domaine-du-Roy et de la Seigneurie de Mingan (CMDRSM) in 
2005. 
The organization’s incorporation, and the subsequent creation of the regional “métis” community, 
was directly tied to white, French-Québécois opposition to the negotiation of a comprehensive 
land claim in the area between the federal and provincial governments and an organization 
representing a few of the Innu communities in the region. The opposition came together in the 
four years immediately prior to the Powley decision (from 2000 to 2003), after which time much of 
the leadership of the anti-Indigenous, white rights movement shifted into a nascent “métis” 
identity. (Leroux, 2019)
95) The opportunistic claim of Indigenous identity combined with the deliberate 
manipulation of the Powley decision and the revelation that these organizations were established 
to subvert Indigenous land claims is deeply troubling. It is also troubling to see the blatantly 
racist members of some of these new organizations.
Another of the founding board members and the “chief” of one of the “métis clans” associated 
with the CMDRSM was adamant that Powley was a turning point in the region: Before his sudden 
transformation into a “métis” leader after Powley, this board member was the founder, president, 
and spokesman for a white rights organization called l’Association pour le droit des blancs 
(Association for White Rights), which was created in 2002 to oppose land claim negotiations with 
the Innu. A newspaper article in January of the same year described him as “the first defender of 
white rights” in the region. (Leroux, 2019)
96) Leroux has a website that may be of some assistance as a starting point when there is a 
need to verify a claimant from one of the organizations in eastern Canada. The Raceshifting 
website describes itself as,  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 26
a resource for people who are concerned 
with or want to find out more about the rise 
of the so-called “Eastern Metis” in the 
eastern provinces (Ontario, Québec, New 
Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) and in New 
England (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine). 
The actual Métis are a western-based 
Indigenous people whose culture grew out of 
kinship relations with the Plains Cree, 
Saulteaux, Assiniboine, and Dene. The so￾called “Eastern Metis” are instead an 
example of what is referred to as race￾shifting or self-indigenization, a process that, 
in the case of this research project, involves 
white French-descendants inventing and 
claiming an “Indigenous” identity, often in 
opposition to actual Indigenous peoples.
97) The website lists 93+ organizations in 
eastern Canada and provides some information 
about the origins of each organization, its 
membership rules, its stated purpose, whether it 
is active or not, court cases it has been involved 
in, and other information. A page on the Eastern 
Woodlands Métis Nation Nova Scotia from 
Leroux’s Raceshifting website is provided here 
as an example of how these organizations can be 
understood. Each organization page contains 
multiple links to further information. 
98) The Raceshifting website is a valuable 
source that can be accessed for information on 
these Eastern Métis organizations. One further 
note, while Leroux calls them “Métis” 
organizations, some call themselves Abenaki, Algonquin, or Anishinabek.
99) The confusion and concerns about the many questionable Indigenous organizations 
provide strong reasons for inquiring fully into Indigenous organizations when verifying the 
honesty of Indigenous identity claims. 
(f) Reliance on Past Institutional Recognition 
100) Some of the fraudsters have moved through many academic institutions over their 
careers. They use previous acceptance of their Indigenous identity by another institution as 
verification of their Indigenous identity. Institutions have assumed that some other institution 
along the line must have verified the applicant’s claim to be Indigenous. The combination of the 
assumption of previous verification and the acceptance of self-identification created a gap that 
the fraudsters exploited. But each institution is responsible to do its own verification of 
Indigenous identity and should never assume that a previous institution has verified the 
applicant.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 27
(g) Repeated References to Ceremony
101) Many fraudsters make repeated reference to their participation in ceremony. They believe 
this makes them appear more authentic. Joseph Boyden, when questioned about his Indigenous 
identity, and wanting to authenticate his claims, stated he that had “participated in many 
ceremonies performed by traditional elders and healers across the country.” (Barrera, 2016) 
Wheeler calls this “using ceremony as a club” to beat others into accepting their Indigenous 
identity. (Wheeler Interview, 2021) Tallbear notes that constant referral to ceremony is a red 
flag.
Do they…brag or make a huge to-do about the ceremonies they say they’ve been privy to? Do 
they speak with much authority and little humility or discretion on ceremonial matters? In general, 
making ceremony-talk into dinner-party conversation is not viewed as appropriate, especially in 
mixed Indigenous/non-Indigenous company. (Tallbear, Red Flags, 2021)
102) Be wary of individuals who make repeated references to ceremony or references that 
make ceremony sound overly mystical, romantic, or magical. 
(h) Family Stories and Family Secrets
103) Embellishers use family stories to justify their Indigenous identity claim. They relate 
family stories about a long-ago ancestor who was “native” or an ever-so-great Indian or Native 
granny. Formerly a curator at Simon Fraser University, cheyanne turions resigned after being 
accused of misrepresenting herself as having Indigenous ancestry. She justified her claim on 
family stories. (Chan, 2021) Michelle Latimer rested her claim in the “oral history” of her 
maternal grandfather. (Deer and Barrera, 2020) The founding president of the Communauté 
métisse du Domaine-du-Roy et de la Seigneurie de Mingan justified his Métis identity by saying 
“my mother would say that there was Indian [blood] in our family.” (Leroux, 2019) 
104) Boyden’s family stories surround his uncle. Erl Boyden, aka “Injun Joe” freely admitted 
that he was playing Indian, and that “as far as he knows he hasn’t a drop of Indian blood.” Erl 
was equally frank about why he was playing Indian – to make a profit. He delighted in scamming 
tourists who came to Algonquin Park. 
They come here and buy armfuls of stuff marked ‘Algonquin Park,' they take pictures of what they 
idiotically believe to be a real live Canadian Indian and away they go into the wide blue yonder, happy 
as larks. Who am I to spoil their fun? (Sangster, 1956)
105) Boyden, somewhat ironically, fabricated his Indigenous identity, at least in part, based on 
an uncle who also fabricated an Indigenous identity. Though it does not make the claim in either 
case excusable, at least the uncle admitted that he fabricated his Indigenous identity. 
106) Keeler dismisses family stories when she says the problem with Indigenous identity 
claimants does not lie in “folks like your white uncle who tells you they think they are part 
Native while cooking the hotdogs on the grill.” (Keeler, 2020) Idle statements like this may not 
cause immediate harm. But these are the family stories that Boyden, Latimer and turions claim
they heard as children. These are exactly the kind of family stories embellishers hold on to and  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 28
later use to justify their Indigenous identity claim. The truth is that these are not idle stories, nor 
are they “oral histories.” (Kimber, 2017) They do have consequences.
107) Embellishers can also be fabricators. Latimer claimed that her ancestry from the 1600s 
was enriched by intermarriage over subsequent generations. But an examination of her 
genealogy reveals no intermarriage in any generation. (Leroux, 2021) In the Corneau interviews, 
the founding president of the Communauté métisse du Domaine-du-Roy et de la Seigneurie de 
Mingan claimed that one of his ancestors was a “pure” Innu and went on to add that he had at 
least thirty Indigenous root ancestors. His genealogy in fact revealed only one Abenaki ancestor
from the 1600s. (Leroux, 2019)
108) Stories are not proof of Indigenous identity. Even if these stories have some small basis 
in fact, they cannot be taken as evidence of Indigenous identity. In fact, they are evidence of no 
living connection to an Indigenous people or to a community. They are stories and as Salutin 
says, 
The basis of community isn’t storytelling. The basis of community is community in which stories 
make sense – not the reverse. Any claim that stories are the basis of it all, is just self-promotion.
(Salutin, 2017)
109) Another disturbing trend is for fraudsters to claim their mother or grandmother had an 
affair with a “native” man and that this accounts for their Indigeneity. It is surely suspicious 
when anyone is so ready to slander their mother or grandmother’s reputation and integrity, 
especially when there is no evidentiary basis for such claims. Sometimes other family members 
hotly dispute such stories. In the absence of any proof, there should be no automatic acceptance 
of alleged “family secrets.” 
110) Reliance on family stories or secrets as evidence of Indigenous identity is another red 
flag. 
(i) Lateral Genealogical Claims
111) Some Indigenous identity fraudsters claim their Indigenous identity via lateral descent,
which involves
mobilizing a long-ago ancestor as the sole basis of one’s Indigenous identity, in addition to 
inventing indigeneity in the past. The practice of lateral descent varies, though, in that it entails 
moving into an “Indigenous” identity on the strength of sharing a family name (patronym) or 
relationship with an actual Indigenous person. (Leroux, 2019)
112) Indigenous identity does not vest in lateral claims to an ancestral aunt or uncle who 
married someone who was Indigenous. Indigenous identity does not vest in the mere fact of 
having an ancestor who shares a well-known Indigenous name. For example, there are many 
Riels in Quebec who are not Indigenous.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 29
(j) Reliance on DNA 
113) Both Elizabeth Warren and Joseph Boyden eventually resorted to DNA tests that they 
offered as proof of their Indigenous ancestry. There are several problems with DNA tests being 
used in this regard. 
114) First, the concept that one can locate a claim to Indigenous identity in a DNA marker 
inherited from a long-ago ancestor is a settler-colonial racial understanding of what it is to be
Indigenous. (McMaster, 2018) Indigenous peoples’ own definitions of legitimate Indigenous 
identity do not focus on long-ago ancestors identified through a test. Indigenous identity is based 
on a living community made up of one’s relations – one’s family, community, and nation. The 
companies that do these DNA tests are marketing a manufactured racial identity for their clients.
(Marks, 2006)
115) Second, while a DNA test may be technologically sophisticated it is epistemologically 
very primitive. (Kramer, 2015) Such a test purports to affirm some Indigenous ancestry, but it 
does not reveal a specific Indigenous people. Tests generally state that one has a certain 
percentage of “Native American ancestry.” This could mean one is Inuit, Hopi, or Tlingit. Just as 
it does not distinguish Native American ancestry from a specific Indigenous people, it also does 
not separate ancestry from identity. 
116) Third, even if one has a DNA test that confirms “Native American ancestry”, the data 
must be read and understood correctly. There are three types of DNA tests. One test uses markers 
inherited from both parents. The second kind of test, samples only mitochondrial DNA, which
means they sequence your mother’s, mother’s, mother’s line. The third test samples the paternal 
Y-chromosome test. The second and third tests are the most common ones and follow the DNA 
of only one ancestor in each generation. They examine less than 1% of the DNA. So, if the test 
says you have 15% Native American ancestry, it means that you have 15% of less than 1% 
Native American ancestry. This is a thin needle to rest an Indigenous identity on. (Tallbear, 
DNA, 2013; Leroux, Distorted, 2019; Kramer, 2015)
117) Fourth, DNA testing can only infer ancestry based on its sample database. This means 
that the statement about your percentage of Native American ancestry is only relevant to the 
ancestry of others who have taken the test. It has little or no relevance to a currently existing 
Indigenous people.
118) Fifth, the use of DNA testing rests on an assumption that there was a moment in time that 
can be used to pinpoint a pure Native American. (Tallbear, 2013) But such concepts of purity 
have long haunted science which purports to be neutral and value-free. (Leroux, 2019)
119) Finally, resorting to DNA to prove Indigenous ancestry means one is relying on “a 
material-semiotic object” and giving it the “power to influence Indigenous livelihoods and 
sovereignties.” (Tallbear, 2015)
120) Resorting to a DNA test to prove Indigenous identity is a last-ditch effort to confirm a 
pre-existing belief by means of the “technology of belonging.” (Kramer, 2015) The use of these  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 30
genetic tests is grasping at a last straw to try to achieve an identity that was lacking. (Marks, 
2006) This is exactly what Elizabeth Warren and Joseph Boyden did. 
121) To paraphrase Jago, one won’t find Indigenous identity in a test tube of spit. (Jago, 2017)
(k) Stereotypes
122) Indigenous identity fraudsters often play heavily on stereotypes of alienation from their 
culture and heritage, intergenerational trauma, family violence, addictions, racism, and poverty. 
The fraudsters doing this are “marketing trauma” using “stolen trauma and stolen valour.” 
(Farrell Racette, 2021)
123) Why do Indigenous identity fraudsters use these stereotypes? It is an attempt to take on 
the role of the victim, which is how they understand Indigenous people’s lives. They are eager to 
show that they are not the colonizer, the oppressor. They use pain to do this because “pain is the 
token for oppression, claims to pain then equate to claims of being an innocent non-oppressor.” 
(Tuck and Wang, 2012)
124) Andersen also notes that Indigenous identity fraudsters “dine on Indigenous trauma” and 
draws our attention to the way in which they narrate their false identity by relying on “people’s 
stereotypical understandings of the ways in which trauma informs our lives as Indigenous 
peoples”. They know which buttons to press “in terms of white people’s liberal guilt and they get 
away with it”. In Andersen’s opinion these fraudsters know exactly what they are doing. He 
suggests that this is one of the ways in which this kind of “below the water line racism” buoys 
their identity. It is a fact, Andersen says, that “white people [are] all too willing to believe that 
our identity is ineffably and always tied into these trauma narratives.” (Andersen Interview, 
2022)
125) Repeated references in public settings to life experiences of Indigenous trauma are a red 
flag.
(l) Grooming Elders
126) One of the more troubling patterns revealed in Indigenous identity fraudsters’ behaviour
is their use of Indigenous elders. One Métis trauma counsellor noted that some fraudsters are 
predators and that they groom elders to accept them. (Pruden, 2022)
127) Maria Campbell agreed and stated that this happens a great deal. She noted that elders are 
carefully chosen and can be knowledge keepers that have standing in the community. Often these 
elders are poor, and the fraudsters pay them, take them to conferences and ensure they receive 
attention. (Campbell, 2022)
128) Fraudsters spend a great deal of time cultivating a relationship with respected elders. The 
names of elders are dropped into casual conversation. They assume that these elders prove their 
authenticity and belonging. But this is elder abuse, and many elders do feel abused by this 
behaviour. They are grateful and relieved when the fraudster is finally exposed. (Farrell Racette, 
2021) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 31
129) It is one thing to quote an elder as a reference. It is quite different to drop repeated 
references to elders in public statements, especially to illustrate a close relationship. This is 
another red flag.
130) Another troubling trend that has emerged has to do with questionable “elders.” Some of 
the “elders” used by Indigenous identity frauds to bolster their authenticity are just as inauthentic 
as the fraudsters. Some are unknown to the Indigenous community until shown off by the 
fraudsters. Others are New Agers who pass themselves off as Indigenous “elders”. 
131) Questions should be asked if elders are used in this way, especially with a view to 
protecting vulnerable elders from abuse. 
(m) The Adoption Passport Fantasy
132) Indigenous identity fraudsters often resort to adoption to justify their Indigenous identity. 
These claims come in two main patterns. The first is to claim that one of their parents or 
grandparents was Indigenous by birth and subsequently adopted into their Euro-Canadian family. 
The second is a claim that they were adopted by an Indigenous individual or family. The resort to 
adoption as a means of justifying an Indigenous identity claim is so common that it has been 
called out as one of the “settler adoption fantasies.” (Tuck and Wang, 2012) Under this fantasy,
adoption is a passport into a new Indigenous identity. Boyden and many other Indigenous 
identity claimants have pulled out their adoption passports. (Andrew-Gee, 2017)
133) Before diving into the adoption fantasy, there are three important distinctions to be made. 
First, we need to distinguish adoption by a family from being granted membership/citizenship in
an Indigenous nation. Second, there is a distinction between adoption pursuant to Canadian law 
and adoption pursuant to Indigenous customary law. Finally, some Indigenous peoples with land 
claims or self-government agreements have codified their adoption practices.
134) The Inuit of northern Quebec and Labrador, and the Inuvialuit have codified adoption 
under their land claims and self-government agreements. The James Bay and Northern Quebec 
Agreement states that the adopted child of a beneficiary of the agreement is eligible for 
enrolment. (JBNQA, Eligibility, s. 3.2.4(c)) The Nunatsiavut Agreement deems an individual 
who was adopted as a minor by a beneficiary to be “a lineal descendant of his or her adoptive 
parents and to have the same ancestry that he or she would have had if he or she were a natural 
child of the adoptive parents.” (LILCA, Eligibility and Enrolment, s. 3.3.5) The Inuvialuit Final 
Agreement includes as a beneficiary, the children adopted “under the laws of any jurisdiction or 
according to Inuvialuit custom” of people qualified for enrolment under the agreement.
(Inuvialuit Final Agreement, s. 5(2)(d))
135) Adoption into an Indigenous family does not mean that the adoptee is a member of the 
Indigenous community. This is illustrated by the case of Josiah Wilson, a young boy from Bella 
Bella, BC. Josiah is black, born in Haiti, and adopted as a baby into a Heiltsuk family. 
(Trumpener, 2017; CBC DOCS, 2022) He was subsequently made a member of the Heiltsuk
nation under Heiltsuk law according to their ancient ǧvíḷás. But it was not Josiah’s adoption that 
made him a member of the Heiltsuk First Nation. It was the fact that the Heiltsuk First Nation 
took the additional step to make him a member of their nation pursuant to their traditional law. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 32
136) Does membership in the Heiltsuk First Nation make Josiah Indigenous? The issue arose 
when Josiah wanted to play basketball with the All Native Basketball organization. The 
organization had a 1/8th First Nation blood quantum requirement. But this was contrary to the 
Heiltsuk ǧvíḷás which accepted him as a member despite having no First Nation blood. 
137) This story raises the question of whether being Indigenous requires any quotient of 
Indigenous blood or whether one becomes Indigenous when granted membership in an 
Indigenous nation. Josiah’s story does not resolve the question because the All Native Basketball 
organization subsequently scrapped its blood quantum rule and now relies on First Nation 
membership. (Trumpener, 2017; CBC DOCS, 2022)
138) But the question is very relevant to our discussion. Clearly one does not have to be 
Indigenous to be a member of an Indigenous community. This is evident from the membership of 
many “white” women who married First Nation men prior to 1985. They hold status Indian cards 
and are members of many First Nations. But are they Indigenous by virtue of their membership?
According to the experts, no. The experts were emphatic and unanimous on three points:
a) Adoption by a family or an individual does not turn a non-Indigenous individual into an 
Indigenous person.
b) Adoption by a family or an individual does not turn a non-Indigenous individual into a 
member an Indigenous nation. 
c) Being granted membership/citizenship in an Indigenous nation does not turn a non￾Indigenous individual into an Indigenous person. 
139) Membership/citizenship is political identification and being Indigenous is ethnic/cultural 
identification. They are two different things. As Métis Nation elder, Norm Fleury put it, “you 
cannot take a pill tonight and tomorrow morning you’ll be a Métis.” (Fleury, 2021)
140) Adoption as an adult by an individual or a family is common in First Nation 
communities. The adult may be Indigenous or non-Indigenous. McDougall stated that adult 
familial adoption for the Métis Nation was a traditional practice originating in the fur trade and 
that, 
it’s one of the ways we built alliances…That means that that person is that family’s person…It 
doesn’t mean that you have gained nationality inside, or citizenship within the collective. But it 
does mean you have a kinship relationship and obligation to those other people in that 
family…This is one of the things that white people say all the time when they get brought in. You 
know, Boyden has done it, Latimer did it…like somehow that gives you a pass for your 
behaviour…[But you] don’t get to speak on behalf of all Métis people because [this Métis] family 
likes me. (McDougall, 2021)
141) Farrell Racette noted that when Métis Nation families adopt adults it does not equate to 
citizenship. 
I’m not aware…of any kind of formal adoption of adults that would give someone citizenship…you 
know, you bring someone in…they become part of your family. But that doesn’t mean they can go 
and vote in the next election. You bring them into your family...It’s not citizenship. There is no  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 33
formal process for doing that. I’ve never come across it. I’ve never seen anything like it…I’m not 
aware of a single case. (Farrell Racette, 2021)
142) According to Coburn, adoption by an Algonquin family is an honorific, like an honorary 
doctorate, and honorifics do not make one a member or a citizen.
It has to be the nation itself that recognizes the adoption…if I was to adopt somebody, I would 
have to have it approved through the nation…It shows a disrespect to Indigenous nationhood,
sovereignty, whenever they want to sidestep it through their…secret ceremonies…They don’t 
acquire that political membership which entails a set of political rights…Individuals who do it 
unilaterally do not have the legitimacy of the polity, of the demos, of the people. (Coburn, 2021)
143) Wheeler stated that for the Cree, adult adoption is “about making family…you become a 
member of that family. But that doesn’t make you a member of the Nation.” (Wheeler Interview, 
2021)
144) Campbell stated that “adoption has nothing to do with blood. It has nothing to do with 
kinship. It has to do with making a place for somebody in your family.” (Campbell Interviews, 
2022)
145) Adult adoption by the Métis Nation, which is distinguished from familial adoption, is 
unknown. Elder, Norman Fleury stated unequivocally that in the Métis Nation adult adoption by 
the nation is not the practice.
We’ve never ever had that adult adoption…I’d be breaking my laws. There’s no such thing as 
adult adoption. It’s not a Métis custom. (Fleury, 2021)
146) Sinclair agreed stating that “people can be customarily adopted, usually into families but 
it doesn’t change their ethnicity.” (Sinclair, 2021)
147) Tallbear, a citizen of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate in South Dakota, said that adult 
adoption means that, 
they’re in a familial relation. It formalizes your obligations for life to one another. But it would not 
be appropriate for them to say they are Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate. The tribal nation does not 
adopt people. Families adopt people or individuals adopt people…It’s got nothing to do with the 
tribe itself. (Tallbear Interview, 2021)
148) All experts agree that there is an accepted protocol with respect to acknowledging the 
adoption. In other words, if a non-Indigenous individual has been adopted as an adult by an 
individual or a family, they would never say they are Indigenous or a citizen/member of the 
community or nation. That is because adult adoption by an individual or family does not equate 
to citizenship in the Indigenous nation. Only if a person has been granted membership in a 
formal ceremony by the nation would they be able to say that they are a member of that nation. 
149) When Métis experts were asked if they could recall this ever happening in the Métis 
Nation, some recalled that there was only one instance where an individual had been brought into 
the Métis Nation. None called it an adoption, but they recall that the late historian Lawrence 
Barkwell was made an honorary member of the Manitoba Metis Federation in recognition of his  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 34
long years of service to the Métis Nation. While Barkwell was made an honorary member, the 
Métis never considered him to be Métis and he did not consider himself to be Métis.
(McDougall, 2021; Farrell Racette, 2021)
150) The Métis Nation has strict membership rules. Only those who are ancestrally connected 
to the Métis Nation and accepted by the Métis Nation are considered Métis and granted 
membership in the Métis Nation. There is no opportunity for a non-Indigenous individual to 
become a member of the Métis Nation. This is quite different from many First Nations who have 
members who are not ancestrally connected with some who are non-Indigenous.
151) Several experts noted that there is a common misunderstanding by non-Indigenous 
people that adult adoption by an Indigenous family equates to Indigenous identity and that this is 
an indication of their ignorance about Indigenous history and traditions. The experts and elders 
stated that adoption into an Indigenous family was a private matter and usually would not be 
stated publicly.
152) There is some difference of opinion as to whether a non-Indigenous individual who has 
been made a member of a First Nation by the nation should always publicly state that they are 
not Indigenous. Several experts stated that the adult adoptee should acknowledge first who they 
are before saying that they have been adopted into the nation. For example, “I’m a settler and 
I’m adopted by or a member of the x First Nation.” But not everyone agreed, referring to the fact 
that Indigenous peoples are nations with the inherent right to determine their own membership 
according to their own traditions. Under this analysis, if adopted or made a member by the nation
these individuals should not have to show the route by which they became a member. It also 
suggests that the question that should be asked is not whether one is Indigenous, but whether one 
is a member/citizen of an Indigenous nation. 
153) All the experts agreed that one cannot claim Indigenous identity on the basis of adult 
adoption by individuals or families, membership in a First Nation, DNA tests, or work done for 
Indigenous communities. Boyden’s final plea was,
If I have been traditionally adopted by a number of people in Indigenous communities, if my DNA 
test shows I have Indigenous blood, if I have engaged my whole career in publicly defending 
Indigenous rights, am I not, in some way, Indigenous? (Boyden, 2017)
154) The answer to Joseph Boyden’s query is no. He may be an ally. His DNA test may show 
that he has some Indigenous ancestry, and he has in fact defended Indigenous rights. But none of 
this converts him into a member of an Indigenous nation or into an Indigenous person. 
(n) “Native” Names
155) Many Indigenous identity fraudsters adopt what non-Indigenous people think sounds like 
a native name. It is not unknown for fraudsters to look up words in an Indigenous dictionary and 
fashion themselves a name. Such names are usually easy for Indigenous language speakers to 
identify because while the words may be from their language, the way they are put together is 
profoundly wrong.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 35
156) If the name sounds like a Hollywood romanticized name, it’s probably an invention. This 
is a red flag.
157) It is also a red flag when the individual tells an elaborate story about how they got their 
name. Most Indigenous people will simply say their name. For example, the cultural advisor to 
the Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw treaty negotiations introduces himself by saying “my name is 
Naxaxalhts'i. I am also known as Sonny McHalsie.” 
(o) Recent Identification
158) Recent identification claims should give rise to questions. That said, it cannot be 
categorically stated that all recent identification claims are illegitimate. Those who are seeking to 
reconnect because, for example, they were part of the 60s scoop, should not be penalized because 
their Indigenous identity is of recent vintage. 
159) Unfortunately, many recent Indigenous identity claims are far from benign and are 
instead opportunistic. Many of these new claims arose after the Powley decision was handed 
down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003. Some of the recent claimants were interviewed 
for the Corneau case and were quite candid about their recent conversion and the catalyst that 
began it. Leroux has provided this evidence along with a pertinent observation that these newbies
are operating “in conjunction with larger social and political trends, including legal ones, that 
occur outside the actual region in question.” Here is what some of the Corneau litigants said.
“Powley opened doors, and it closed others. Of course, it provided recognition for the East, now, 
Powley helps us here. Powley told us, ‘defend your rights, demand them, ok, recognize yourselves 
as Métis, those who are Métis, defend your rights, demand them!’ And that’s what we’re doing.” 
“We quickly understood that [Powley] was the way to have your Aboriginal identity recognized, 
get with it, let’s go, things are going by the Métis route, there’s no other way to play it, don’t try to 
play another hand, you lose from the outset, that’s why we decided to create the [CMDRSM].” 
“Powley was like lightning in a blue sky, it was, those people, we have to, us Métis should put up 
a monument to them, it was really Powley that started everything. What the ‘Ontario Métis Nation’ 
[sic] just won is huge, they won [rights] for all of Ontario . . . and Quebec is next. It’ll happen fast 
now, we’ll also experience the same lightning [here].” 
“They woke us up in 2003 with Powley when they told us: ‘Well, self-identify as métis’, you know, 
they didn’t say, ‘self-identify as Indians or off-reserve Aboriginal or this or that.’ They said, ‘if you’re 
Aboriginal, you’re one of these three categories.’ We didn’t have much of a choice, they forced our 
hand, and said, ‘identify yourselves.’ So, today if you’re Aboriginal and you feel Aboriginal, that’s my 
case, well I’m necessarily métis.” 
“So, we looked at what happened in the Powley decision, which was in Ontario I think, we were 
saying that Métis have the same rights as Indians [sic], so we went to see what rights we could have 
because like I explained, we knew we had Indian ancestry but we weren’t using it.” (Leroux, 2019)
160) These are shockingly manipulative. Leroux goes on to note that,
With only a few exceptions, interview participants explained that prior to events in the early 
2000s, they simply did not identify as “métis.” In fact, the majority of interview participants were 
not even aware of their Indigenous ancestry prior to undertaking genealogical research on the 
matter for the purpose of joining the CMDRSM as members. Again, Powley provides the legal  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 36
environment for the mobilization of a long-ago ancestor by French descendants in these regions 
of Quebec. Whether aware of their ancestry or not prior to the SCC’s Powley decision, interview 
participants “used” their ancestry, as the last participant explained, to claim a “métis” identity that 
mirrored the Powley test. (Leroux, 2019)
161) It is with good reason that the courts in eastern Canada are rejecting these recent vintage 
Indigenous identity claims. Recent identity is one of the red flags.
***
162) The above are patterns of behaviour that raise red flags. They are generally not the kind 
of behaviour Indigenous people exhibit. There may be other patterns not mentioned here. 
163) The reason for illustrating these behaviours is to answer the question asked above – why 
didn’t we see what was right under our noses? Joseph Boyden’s uncle, known as Injun Joe, 
gleefully admitted he was taking advantage of people who “idiotically believe [me] to be a real 
live Canadian Indian.” (Sangster, 1956) Why, when presented with a parody of Indigenous 
culture, is it so readily consumed as the real deal? The answer is ignorance, many stereotypes 
about Indians, and perhaps an eagerness to romanticize Indigenous people. 
C. Harm Caused by Indigenous Identity Fraud 164) Indigenous identity fraud causes harm. This is uncontested. Every expert from the 
academy spoke about the harm it causes. Every expert insisted that misrepresentation matters, a 
lot. 
165) David Shorter, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote about 
doing work on and with Native Americans while not being one. Shorter is a fan of an American 
Cherokee identity fabricator Andrea Smith's scholarship, but still takes the position that 
misrepresentation matters.
She has done incredible theoretical work in the academic field of indigenous studies and has 
even been recognized internationally for her broad and groundbreaking antiviolence coalition 
building. So does it matter that she did all of that in redface? Yes, it does. Andy Smith did not just 
appear out of an egg, as a fully formed 'woman of color' advocate, validated as an indigenous 
scholar, and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. She got there by grabbing the microphone, keeping 
others away from it and deciding to speak both 'as' and 'for' a group of people. (Jaschik, 2015)
166) Indigenous identity fraudsters spend years cultivating relationships with powerful 
Indigenous leaders and elders to obtain and retain an insider status. Once secured inside, they 
push others out of their way, not only by playing insider, but also by playing gatekeeper which 
allows them to take up Indigenous space. 
For every scholarship she [Andrea Smith] received as a Native person, for every honorarium she 
has received as an Indigenous speaker, for her book sales that a publisher sold as coming from a 
“Cherokee” author, those recognitions came at the expense of some student who wasn’t funded, 
some speaker who wasn’t invited, or some book by an Indigenous author that wasn’t bought.
(Shorter, 2018) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 37
For every fraudster holding a university position, acquiring Indigenous grants and scholarships, 
there are Indigenous scholars, students and staff who are shut out. (Wheeler Interview, 2021)
167) Several experts drew attention to the harm caused by the fraudster practice of claiming
intergenerational trauma, family violence, abuse, and addictions. Wheeler calls it their “heinous 
strategy of stealing the experiences we have lived through and claiming them as their own for the 
purposes of self-authentication.” (Wheeler, 2021) This theft of Indigenous trauma leaves 
emotional turmoil in the Indigenous community. People feel embarrassed and ashamed that they 
were so taken in by the fraud. The last thing Indigenous communities need is additional 
emotional turmoil.
168) Palmater calls it “ethnicity shopping,” and notes that 
it’s the height of white superiority to think that you have the ability to shop from other peoples’ 
ethnicity and take what you want, and get the opportunities from it, and deny them the 
opportunities from their own ethnicity…It’s exploitative, opportunistic, manipulative, and 
extractive. It’s dispossession and appropriation founded in the racism and entitlement that goes 
with white supremacy. It’s another wave of colonization…We took everything else so we’re going 
to ensure we get the rest by saying we’re you. (Palmater, 2021)
169) This is all far from harmless. When fraudsters conflate their situation with the trauma of 
Indigenous people, when they use the situation of Indigenous people who were scooped from 
their communities or otherwise disconnected, they are cynical and self-serving.
Identity fraud traffics in narratives of violence and dispossession that create insecurity and 
confusion among those who’ve been scooped, stolen, or disconnected by assimilationist federal 
government policies. (Wheeler, 2021)
170) The harm Indigenous identity fraud perpetuates on the academy is serious and extensive. 
It affects the university’s reputation and its Indigenous members. Ultimately it attacks and 
undermines academic integrity. The University, rightly, has high ethical standards. But if 
Indigenous identity fraudsters on faculty are permitted to fabricate their identity, teaching, and 
scholarship, then it makes a mockery of academic and ethical standards. 
171) When an Indigenous identity fraudster is outed in a university, professors from other 
universities shy away from recommending that school to their students. They are wary of 
universities that had the kind of processes that permitted the fraudster admission and of how the 
University handled the exposure of the fraudster. They are sceptical that these universities can 
nurture and protect Indigenous students. 
172) Indigenous students are also making choices to avoid campuses where Indigenous 
identity fraud has been exposed. Some students are so disturbed by these events that they transfer 
to another university.
173) Students who studied with a known Indigenous identity fraudster feel particularly 
manipulated. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 38
When a fraudster is finally exposed the impact on Indigenous students is absolutely painful. 
Students question everything they learned in class, feel duped and manipulated, and experience 
tremendous emotional turmoil. (Wheeler, 2021)
174) Imagine also what it means to a student who had a fraudster as their thesis supervisor. 
They will be “not only reeling emotionally but are also dependent on research assistantships, 
financial support, their committees, and supervisors.” (Wheeler, 2021) Interviews with students 
revealed enormous fear, anger, shame, and confusion. There were tears and worries. They 
questioned everything they had learned. They worried about their academic careers. Some have 
their name associated with a fraudster and said they felt exposed and vulnerable. Some worried 
because they had published papers with a known fraudster. They worried that all their 
scholarship and any papers they write in future will be questioned for validity. They question 
their validity! They wondered whether to start over or quit in despair. (Student Interviews, 2022) 
This is an untenable position to put a young scholar in.
175) Indigenous identity fraudsters also spread their poisonous harm to scholarship built on 
Indigenous fraud.
These are self-identifying “Indigenous” individuals without connection to our Nations and 
communities and who continue to silence our voices. They reproduce the settler-centric research 
without being accountable to our Nations while scoring lucrative research grants. This trend is 
seen elsewhere, among those self-Indigenizing individuals—with very tenuous and often no 
discernible Indigenous ancestry—are laying claim to the title of unceded Indigenous territory as 
well as many other inherent Indigenous rights. (Lawford and Coburn, 2019)
176) The conclusion on harm is undisputed – being dishonest about one’s identity and one’s 
connections to Indigenous communities damages the integrity of the academy and is harmful to 
Indigenous peoples. (NAISA, 2015) 
177) Tallbear has summed up the harm well. She notes that there is great risk to Indigenous 
well-being with,
the structural trickle-down of having non-Indigenous people with non-Indigenous community 
standpoints rising through the ranks to represent us and theorize Indigenous peoplehood, 
sovereignty, and (anti-)colonialism. These people become “thought leaders,” institutional 
decision-makers, and policy advisors to governmental leaders with regulatory and economic 
power over our peoples. They then shape academic and public discourse about who we allegedly 
are, what our lives allegedly look like, and what they think should be done about and to us.
(Tallbear, Colonial Theft, 2021)
178) The exposure of Indigenous identity fraud raises questions about the validity of 
scholarship produced by the fraudsters but also makes the rest of the academy suspicious of all 
Indigenous scholarship. They question its validity, but often privately or silently. They do not 
want to be seen to be racist by questioning Indigenous scholarship. 
  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 39
D: Self-Identification and Ancestry 
1. Self-Identification
179) Following the release by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of its Calls to Action
in 2015, the academy began to “Indigenize.” Indigenization in the academy takes three separate 
forms – inclusion, reconciliation, and decolonization. (Gaudry and Lorenz, 2018) The academy’s 
focus to date has been on inclusion – increasing the numbers of Indigenous students and hiring 
more Indigenous faculty and staff. Indigenization-by-inclusion is what USask announced in 2018 
when the College of Arts and Science made a commitment to hire thirty Indigenous scholars 
over the next ten years. (Putnam, 2018) It is noted that USask is moving beyond Indigenization￾by-inclusion with the implementation of its Ohpahootan/Oopahootaan/Indigenous Strategy in 
2021.
180) Some scholars have criticized Indigenization-by-inclusion noting that it is predicated on a 
belief that the academy was and would remain a neutral space. These scholars suggest that 
Indigenization was never intended to make the academy more Indigenous. The intention, they 
say, was more modest, to increase the number of Indigenous people in the academy. (Battiste and 
Findlay, 2002)
181) The academy, intent on Indigenizing as rapidly as possible, relied for years on applicants 
self-identifying. Applicants were asked how they identified, or they were asked to state their 
ancestry. Most universities did not ask for any verification of Indigenous identity for faculty 
positions. Professors interviewed for this report confirmed the reliance on self-identification
without verification by Ryerson (now Toronto Metropolitan University), St. Mary’s University,
First Nations University, Athabasca University, USask, the Gabriel Dumont Institute, the 
University of Regina, Concordia, the University of Manitoba, the University of Alberta, and the 
University of Ottawa. (Palmater, Sinclair, Wheeler, Farrell Racette, Tallbear, and McDougall 
Interviews, 2021-2022)
182) Cook, the vice-president, Indigenous at the University of Manitoba, claims that the 
reason the academy moved to reliance on self-identification is rooted in “good intentions.” She 
says it was an attempt to move away from the federal government control over identification and 
place it with Indigenous communities. (Coutts, 2022) This assertion is difficult to align with the 
fact that no institution placed identification with Indigenous communities. Institutions placed 
identification firmly with individuals. Cook’s theory is also difficult to align with the fact that the 
academy has never actually moved away from federal government control over Indigenous 
identification. The academy still accepts government issued status cards as evidence of 
Indigenous identity.
183) In relying on self-identification and/or ancestry with no verification, the academy created 
an honour system. It feared taking on the role of deciding whether an applicant was Indigenous. 
The academy correctly understood that this was inappropriate. Unfortunately, in creating an 
honour system the academy failed to take on the role it should have taken on – to ensure that an 
Indigenous applicant’s claim was honest.
184) Asking for verification evidence is not determining whether an applicant is Indigenous. It 
is putting in place a process to ensure honesty. This is similar to the system for verifying 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 40
academic credentials. When the academy asks for documentary verification of academic 
credentials, the verification ensures that applicants’ claims are honest and accurate. Nowadays, 
to ensure that accuracy, it is common practice for transcripts to move between the granting 
university to the institution that is verifying an applicant’s credentials. This removes any 
possibility of tampering with grades on the transcripts. The verification of academic credentials 
does not delve into the details of the courses, or why the student got a specific mark. The process 
is designed to ensure that the student accurately portrays the marks she received. Evidence 
supporting an Indigenous identity claim fulfills the same purpose.
185) In relying on self-identification, the academy abdicated its responsibility to ensure that 
applicants were being honest about their claimed Indigenous identity. It could be argued that the 
academy naïvely believed no one would take advantage of the self-identification system to gain 
access to the university. But this seems to be an inadequate assessment of an institution ripe with
techniques it regularly uses to ensure accuracy and honesty in its scholars. Exams are invigilated. 
Many educational strategies are evidence-based, meaning that they are informed by objective 
evidence. The academy checks academic credentials and references. Peer reviews evaluate 
academic publications. It seems that in most, if not all other aspects of the academy, it is standard 
operating procedure to ensure honesty and accuracy. It is most unfortunate and worthy of some 
institutional self-reflection to examine why an exception was made for Indigenous identity.
186) When the academy avoided its responsibility for validating the honesty of Indigenous 
identity claims, it opened itself up to fraudulent claims and vastly underestimated the extent to 
which people would go to access places in the academy. It failed to account for,
the way in which white possessiveness means that people make possessive claims to identity 
because they feel like it, because they want to, because they think they deserve it…this is what 
we’re seeing, what we’ve been seeing for generations in the academy. (Andersen, 2022)
187) This is the essence of the ongoing colonial project, “become the Indian to kill the 
Indian/kill the Indian and then become the Indian.” (Deloria, 1999) One of the central aims of 
colonization in Canada is to assimilate and eradicate Indigenous identity. Note that this process 
is not placed in the past tense. This is because colonization is a many-headed beast that is alive 
and well and capable of continuous adaptation. This understanding must be applied to the 
academy’s reliance on self-identification. Relying on self-identification as the access key 
suggests that the academy may not fully understand itself to be the agent of colonization that it 
is. It is in this light that we must recognize that when the academy relied on self-identification it 
permitted its application processes to operate as “a tool of de-indigenization.” (Gaudry and 
Lorenz, 2018)
188) The academy has justified its use of self-identification by claiming that:
a) It was our policy to accept self-identification and/or declarations as to Indigenous 
ancestry. This is circular. It is a simple statement that the academy relied on self￾identification because it had either an explicit or a tacit policy that used self￾identification.
b) It is not our place to question Indigenous identity. We don’t ask out of respect for 
Indigenous cultures. Even if we asked for evidence, we have no way of knowing if 
the proof offered is valid. It is worth asking why the academy thought it disrespectful  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 41
to ask for verification of Indigenous identity and why it thought it was helpless to 
validate proof. The admission that the academy itself did not possess the needed 
information and could not even seek information from Indigenous peoples tells us a 
great deal about the academy’s impoverished relationship with and paucity of 
knowledge about Indigenous peoples. This is also a statement of the academy’s 
abdication of responsibility to ensure honesty. 
c) It is a violation of their legal rights, specifically their individual right to identify and 
their right to privacy.
d) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides for a 
right of self-determination 
189) The academy, by and large, has now acknowledged that self-identification, in and of 
itself, is insufficient and many institutions in the academy have resolved to move forward on 
solutions to deal with Indigenous identity fraud and most importantly, to undertake this 
important work in partnership with Indigenous communities. Jacqueline Ottmann, president of 
First Nations University of Canada, acknowledged this important shift with a recommendation 
that the academy “end the practice of self-identification when hiring new scholars.” (Cyca, 
Macleans, 2022)
Self-identification no longer has a place in these spaces…The focus is now on citizenship, 
membership and relationality to community and lived experiences. (Ottmann, Macleans, 2022)
190) There now appears to be a consensus in the academy that moves us beyond the excuses in 
(a) and (b) above. There remains a need to address the rights issues raised (c) and (d) as both 
indicate that the academy may be confused about who has the right to determine Indigenous 
identity and the relationship between individual rights, self-identification, and self-determination.
These issues are dealt with later in this report.
2. Ancestry
191) Despite Ottmann’s statement that the focus is now on “citizenship, membership, 
relationship to community and lived experiences,” there appears to still be reliance on ancestry. 
In place of self-identification, some universities are still asking an applicant to declare ancestry. 
According to Andersen, the University of Alberta continues to ask applicants to state their 
ancestry. (Andersen Interview, 2022) USask, in the past, also asked for ancestry. Provost Airini 
stated that the University is committed to participate in the ongoing national discussion about
“hiring processes for positions specifically recruiting those with Indigenous ancestry.” (USask, 
Airini Statement, 2021) This indicates the need to articulate how ancestry relates to Indigenous 
identity and citizenship/membership. 
192) It seems fair to say that most Indigenous people do not agree that ancestry alone provides 
validity for Indigenous identity, especially if the connection is ancient, minimal, or tenuous. 
Many state emphatically that one is not Indigenous if the only evidence of Indigenous ancestry is 
an ever-so-great Indian grandmother from hundreds of years ago. When Indigenous people ask, 
“who are your people?” they are not asking you to produce a genealogy that shows an 
Indigenous ancestor 400 years ago. They are asking who your relatives are today and where your 
family lives now. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 42
193) All Indigenous experts consulted agreed that the traditional means of Indigenous identity 
is based on family connections and with an Indigenous people that pre-existed Canada’s creation 
and is still in existence today. In other words, there should be someone alive in the Indigenous 
community who, at the very least, knows of the claimant’s family. In the absence of that living 
relationship and knowledge, the claim is one based solely on some “long-ago ancestral essence.” 
Such claims act to disregard the living Indigenous people and relocate their existence solely in 
ancestry, genealogy, blood memory, and lineal descent - what Gaudry calls “communing with 
the dead” rather than with living Indigenous communities. (Gaudry, 2018) 
194) It is also highly questionable to re-label as Indigenous an ancient ancestor who may never 
have thought of or called themselves Indigenous. Yet this is what some who claim Indigenous 
identity via an ancient ancestor claim.
This ancestor need not have thought of themselves as an Indigenous person either, or have 
belonged to an identifiable Indigenous group; they merely need to have been someone who was 
placed into some category of Indigeneity by outside observers. (Gaudry and Andersen, 2016)
195) Such tenuous genealogical ancestry is not sufficient evidence to support a claim to 
Indigenous identity or to a connection to a contemporary Indigenous community. It may be an 
interesting genealogical fact of the claimant’s ancestry. But that does not make that person 
Indigenous today. Ancestry is not identity.
196) Michelle Latimer is a perfect example of a “long-ago ancestral essence” claim. Latimer 
claimed to be “a non-status Algonquin of mixed blood, Métis, French Canadian heritage.” 
(Barrera, 2021) Her evidence is two women ancestors born around 1605 and 1647. (Leroux, 
2021) Just to be clear, Latimer’s claim rests on two ancestors from about 417 years ago and 375 
years ago. If one counts a generation as approximately thirty years, (Devine, 2005) her ancestor 
from 1605 is almost 14 generations ago. There is no biological “blood” basis for such tenuous 
ancestral Indigenous claims. After seven generations one has 0.78% of your ancestor’s genes.
The rapidly diminishing percentage of ancestral genes as you go back in your pedigree is just one 
reason why it’s so biologically insignificant to have distant Indigenous ancestors. (dmgweb.net) 
Yet Latimer is far from alone in claiming that an Indigenous ancestor from 400 years ago is 
sufficient to support an Indigenous identity claim. According to Leroux approximately ten 
million people in Canada have the same ancestry Latimer has.
197) The courts have commented on these distant ancestor claims and concluded that this kind 
of tenuous evidence “falls far short of the type of evidence that would be necessary to sustain the 
position” of a claimant that they are Métis. While the following was made in the context of a s.35 
harvesting claim, it is a valid observation about these opportunistic ancestral claims.
When examining the evidence of an ancestral family connection to the Métis community, I have 
the [genealogical] evidence of Donald Morrisson and the assertion by Castonguay that he is a 
Métis…I query whether the ancestral link is sufficient…the family tree of Jean-Denis Castonguay 
contains persons of native ancestry namely; Edmee Lejeune who was born in 1625 and who died 
in 1687; Radegone Lambert who was born in 1621 and died in 1686…It would seem reasonable 
to conclude that evidence of more recent ancestral aboriginal connection would be required…
Given the totality of the evidence surrounding Jean-Denis Castonguay's claim to Métis status, I 
find it to be more opportunistic than factual. (Castonguay (J-D), 2002, paras. 55-60) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 43
198) These types of claims reflect what is known as the “one-drop” rule. The claim is that one 
drop of Indigenous ancestry from long ago is sufficient evidence that one is Indigenous. This is 
what is called the logic of hypodescent. It is “a type of racial homeopathy at work,” such that a 
tiny fraction of blood has the power to reshape one’s ancestral claim. That one drop comes to the 
forefront despite how miniscule it is in the vast numbers of ancestors. (Sturm, 2011)
199) Tallbear refers to such claims as “a person fabricating an identity out of two Indian 
needles deep in the 19th, 18th, or 17th centuries of their ancestral haystack.” (Tallbear, Dead 
Ancestors, 2021)
200) It may be helpful to think of these ancient ancestry claims as strategic self-making. They
reflect the claimant’s desire to have an interesting origin story and to lift themselves out of the 
greater Canadian public and transform into an exotic other. They are a creative act of revisionist 
life writing. One judge in Quebec, somewhat sarcastically commented that, “what emerges from 
this defence…is its remarkable creativity.” The judge went on to say that “it would be easier to 
nail Jell-o to a wall than to locate the ins and outs of the remarkably vague and elusive 
allegations...” (Sequin, 2017, translation, para. 158, Selected Eastern Métis Cases, 2002-2018) 
201) And indeed, recent court cases show claims that reach back twelve or more generations 
for an Indigenous ancestor. They repurpose any historical figure with mixed ancestry, and some 
who have no mixed ancestry, as Métis. They then claim that their culture remained hidden for 
three hundred years. 
Of the 2,011 individual genealogies the CMAM [Communauté Métis autochtone de Maniwaki] 
submitted for its case (from their six thousand members), an incredible 75 percent registered 
a root ancestor born in the 1600s…[and] about 25 percent listed an “Indigenous” root 
ancestor who, by scholarly consensus, wasn't even Indigenous. At least five hundred 
members without any actual Indigenous ancestry have been granted membership. (Leroux, 
2018)
202) These claims are the performance of Indigenous identity wrapped up in the guise of a 
claim of ancestry. Despite all courts (over fifty) denying their claims outright, membership in 
these Eastern Métis organizations continue to grow at astonishing rates.
203) Those who rest their Indigenous identity claim in an ancient ancestor may have an 
insignificant ancestral racial link, but Coburn reminds us that Indigenous nations do not 
“determine citizenship on the basis of biological determinism” (Coburn, 2021)
204) Another aspect of identity claims that are solely based in ancestry is that such claims
confuse ancestry with identity on all levels – individual, social, and political. Recall that these 
identity levels are all based in living relationships. Ancestry without more does not provide 
evidence of identity on any of these levels. 
205) No culture is pure. Most individuals have multiple ancestral lines. These multiple 
ancestral lines do not entitle them, without more, to citizenship or membership in an Indigenous 
nation. Ultimately, as Tallbear notes, reliance on “ancestry alone is not a robust claim.” 
(Tallbear, Dead Ancestors, 2021) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 44
3. Indigenous Peoples are not a Race
206) Using ancestry to identify Indigenous applicants is a way of asking for a personal identity 
using genealogical proof. It emphasizes the individual and not the Indigenous people. It negates 
the idea of collectives, peoples, nations, or polities in its search for a mere genealogical 
connection to an Indigenous ancestor. It treats Indigenous identity as a matter of race. 
207) Chartrand notes that there is a “widespread failure” to appreciate the fact that rights, 
including the right to identify as an Indigenous person, do not arise merely because one has 
Indigenous ancestors. He points out the erroneous but common reference in Canada to persons of 
Indigenous ancestry. 
This terminology fails to acknowledge that it is not personal antecedents per se which determine
the present identity of any particular individual...One of the most pervasive notions in Canada is
that Aboriginal peoples comprise a racial minority, and that they are not distinct peoples entitled to
political liberty and equality with other peoples...Aboriginal peoples are not arguing in favour of
maintaining biological purity, but in favour of maintaining cultures. (Chartrand, 1995)
208) To be fair, the idea that Indigenous peoples are a race is widely shared both within and 
outside the academy. Race is a contested concept. Some argue that it is an invented social 
construct made real by humans. Others argue that race is merely a shorthand that enables us to 
consider genetic differences. Without commenting further on this debate, we can observe that
racial boundaries and even the definition of race have shifted conceptually over time and place. 
Thus, whether race is used for cultural, political, or scientific purposes the concept is unreliable 
because it is “inherently unstable” and a “blunt and dull instrument.” (Goodman, 2006) The 
enduring power of a concept like race retains much of its power from its institutionalization. The 
better it is embedded in institutions the less likely it is to be questioned as to its origins or 
veracity. 
209) It would be nice to categorically say that the racial theory of Indigenous identity is simply 
wrong. It would be possible to do that if Indigenous peoples were in control of their own 
membership/citizenship and the sole question to be answered was whether an individual had 
membership in an Indigenous nation. But Indigenous nations are not solely in control of their 
membership. While Inuit, the Métis Nation, and some First Nations have control over their 
membership, the federal government and the courts have interfered in First Nation identity, and 
they have, most unfortunately, embedded the concept that First Nation identity is race-based in 
their institutions – the Indian Act and its registry, and in the common law. The colonial regime 
continues to affirm that “Indians” are a race. This can be seen in a 2008 case where the Supreme 
Court accepted that an ameliorative program for a First Nation fishery amounted to differential 
treatment on the basis of race. (Kapp, 2008) This is a conclusion that is ill-informed as to the 
nature of Aboriginal collectives.
210) Because this race-based theory informs the law of this country, it cannot be ignored 
entirely. The academy is forced to use race-based claims when it relies on Indian Act
registration, which unfortunately further embeds an inappropriate racial theory. The academy
will have to take a position on whether it will recognize other race-based Indigenous identity
claims, and if so, on what terms. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 45
E: Indigenous Identity
211) The following discussion will focus first on traditional Indigenous identity and the ways 
Indigenous people identify their members when formal systems are in their control. The 
discussion will then turn to Indigenous identity that owes its legitimacy to the race-based theory 
set out by the federal government and the courts in law. 
1. Indigenous Ways of Knowing Indigenous Identity
(a) First Nations Traditional Identification
212) Indigenous peoples are not a race. They are cultures and nations. First Nations have 
traditional ways of understanding Indigenous identity, which they see in terms of an individual’s 
relationship: (1) to family; (2) to ethnicity/culture; and (3) to polities – bands, tribes, and nations. 
This layered and nested identity is then placed in a geographic territory. For example: a woman 
is a member of the Lightning family, she is Cree, she is a member of the Sampson Cree Nation, 
and she lives in Treaty 8 territory. We should note that family relations often (usually) cross
political affiliations and spill over established boundaries. This is but one meaning of the term 
‘all my relations.’
213) It may be helpful to recall the previous discussion on adult adoption, which distinguished 
the family from the Indigenous nation. Setting aside, for the moment, the relationship to place, 
traditional theories of First Nation identity can be understood as familial, ethnic, and political. 
The fact that there are different layers of identity is often not understood. When First Nations 
people ask an individual about identity, they usually want to hear the political, ethnic, and family 
relationship which establishes the individual’s identity. As noted above, this is what they are 
asking when they ask, “who are your people, who is your grandmother, where are you from?” 
(Campbell, 2021)
214) Note that most First Nations don’t ask “who are you?” That’s because their emphasis is 
not on the individual, but on that individual’s relationship with the group – familial, cultural, and 
political. If an individual simply says they have Mohawk ancestry, that is a statement that they 
are solely relying on a racial theory of identity. First Nation traditional theories of identity do not 
support claims based solely in ancestry. This is because one is First Nations only by virtue of 
one’s ongoing connection or membership in an Indigenous family, an Indigenous culture, and a
First Nation polity.
215) To be clear, an acknowledgment of familial or ancestral connection does not necessarily 
equate to community acceptance as a member. A First Nation individual who was removed from 
her Indigenous community in the 60s scoop may have re-established a close relationship with her 
family on the reserve. The Band may recognize her relationship as one of their member families. 
It may even consider her eligible for membership/citizenship in the Band, but for multiple 
reasons may not have accepted her as a member/citizen of the Band. The decision as to whether 
the Band wishes to make these kind of distinctions rests with the Band. But the failure to 
appreciate the possibility of this distinction (recognition as a relative vs. acceptance in the polity) 
resonated through the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Daniels.
216) In Canadian common law, Aboriginal rights are acknowledged as collective rights that do 
not belong to individuals. One fundamental Aboriginal right is the collective right of Indigenous  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 46
peoples to determine their members according to their own customs, laws, and traditions. Given 
that collective right, it does not follow that there is an individual right to identify or claim a 
connection to an Indigenous collective in the absence of a reciprocal recognition or acceptance of 
relationship (whether that is recognition of familial relationship or acceptance as a 
member/citizen) from the relevant Indigenous nation.
(b) The Métis Nation Identification System
217) The Métis Nation has five regional/provincial members – Métis Nation-BC; Métis Nation 
of Alberta; Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, the Manitoba Metis Federation, and Métis Nation of 
Ontario (MNO). Each of these provincial organizations have a reliable registry that the 
University of Saskatchewan can utilize. Because these registries require objective evidence for 
citizenship to be granted, cards that are up to date and issued by them can be accepted with no 
further quest for information. 
218) The Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) recently left the Métis National Council (though 
not the Métis Nation). That said, the MMF has a verifiable registry that can be relied on. In 
addition to Métis Nation members who live within the geographic boundaries of Manitoba, the 
MMF also registers members who meet its requirements regardless of their current residency. 
219) The Métis Nation does not accept local collectives as the appropriate entities to issue 
cards or register their citizens. The MMF does seek the local community’s acknowledgment as 
part of its multi-step registration process. But the registry and final approval rests with the 
provincial registry. The entities that enrol or register members are at the provincial/regional level 
for the Métis Nation. 
220) The Métis Settlements in Alberta are also registered in a legislated system, which can be 
relied on by the academy.
(c) Inuit Identification Systems
221) Inuit in Canada now have codified identity definitions in each of their land claims and 
self-government agreements. For example, Nunatsiavut defines “Inuit” as,
3.2.4 …all those members of the aboriginal people of Labrador, sometimes known as Eskimos, 
that has traditionally used and occupied and currently uses and occupies the lands, waters and 
sea ice of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Area, or any Region. “Inuit” does not include 
beneficiaries of:
 (a) the “James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement”;
 (b) the “Inuvialuit Final Agreement”; or
 (c) the “Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the 
Queen in Right of Canada”
222) The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement defines Inuit or Inuk as:
3.2.5 A person shall be entitled to be enrolled as a beneficiary under the Agreement and be
entitled to benefit therefrom if on November 15, 1974 he or she was:
 a) person of Inuit ancestry who was born in Quebec or is ordinarily resident in Quebec or, if not
ordinarily resident in the Territory, is recognized as a member thereof, by one of the Inuit
communities, or 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 47
 b) a person of Inuit ancestry who is recognized by one of the Inuit communities as having been
on such date a member thereof
223) In s. 3.2.1 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Inuit include the lawful 
spouse of a person who is eligible to be a beneficiary, though the Cree do not. Inquiries would be 
necessary to establish whether the Inuit would consider such a spouse to be Inuit or simply a 
beneficiary.
224) The Inuit have formed regional identities around their land claims and self-government 
agreements. The codification of their enrolment requirements and the description of their 
territories in these agreements makes the academy’s quest for verification relatively simple. 
Applicants should identify which Inuit region they claim, for example: Inuvialuit, Nunavut, 
Northern Quebec, or Labrador. Each of these groups have registries that can validate a claim. 
(d) Identifying Indigenous peoples from outside Canada
225) The many customs and practices of Indigenous people from geographic territories other 
than Canada are far too numerous to mention or analyze for the purposes of this report. That 
said, it is unlikely that the University of Saskatchewan has expertise in-house to determine the 
validity of Indigenous identity claims that originate in another country. The guiding principle 
will have to be to seek assistance from the Indigenous group in the other country that will 
hopefully provide some verification of the claim.
F. Government Theory of Indigenous Identity
226) In a perfect world where there was no legacy of interference by colonial governments and 
laws, the foundational principle that Indigenous peoples are nations with the right to determine 
their own membership, would be the rule. Canada, however, is far from a perfect world, and 
there is a long history of government and court interference in Indigenous identity. 
227) Government interference has been myopically focused on the identity of Indians, which 
has left the Métis Nation and the Inuit with space to set their own rules for membership. 
228) The federal government largely ignored the Inuit until forced by the courts to 
acknowledge jurisdiction for them in 1939. (Re Eskimo, 1939) When it did begin to try to 
identify Inuit, the government found it hard. One factor played an important role in the 
government’s struggle to identify Inuit, the fact that the government made no effort to learn or 
understand Inuit language (Inuktitut), familial systems, or even their names. According to 
Zebedee Nungak, traditionally Inuit names didn't use patriarchal surnames. They followed a 
"system of specific references to family relationships" known as tuqsurausiit. (Manoukian, 2021) 
Canadian administrators were unwilling to learn how to pronounce Inuit names – they were too 
long and too hard to pronounce. (Roberts, 1975) Unwilling to make any effort in this regard, 
government resorted to fingerprinting individual Inuit, a method that the Inuit strenuously 
objected to.
229) Suggestions were made as early as 1935 that Inuit be given an identity disc with a 
number. The system began in 1941, but it was not until the Family Allowance Regulations began  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 48
in 1945 that an “effective registration program” was devised. It is in these regulations that 
“Eskimo” was defined as,
a person who is listed as an Eskimo on the roll or records of, and to whom an identification disc 
has been issued by, the Bureau of Northwest Territories and Yukon Affairs of the Department of 
Mines and Resources. (Roberts, 1975)
230) Inuit were required to keep their discs (ujamiit or ujamik) on their person at all times. The 
number was their legal identity. The numbers replaced their Inuit names and became their legal 
names. The numbered disc identification system continued into the 1970s-1980s. In 1970 the 
government implemented Project Surname, which allowed Inuit to choose their own surname. 
This replaced the number system as a legal identity with a western patriarchal surname system
previously unknown to the Inuit. Most Inuit have a last name now and are members of land 
claims and self-government agreements that define their beneficiaries.
231) The government took a different approach with respect to the Métis Nation. Until the 
Powley decision came down in 2003, the federal government denied that the Métis Nation 
existed as a people, and instead treated the Métis as individuals with a derivative rights claim. A 
derivative claim to Indigenous rights was a theory that any Métis claim to Indigenous rights
arose solely because of their ancestral connection to Indians. Here again we see the western 
liberal individual rights paradigm and race-based analysis at work.
232) Government identified Métis as “half-breeds” in the Manitoba Act, 1870 and under its 
scrip system. Both relied on self-identification and ancestry. This too is consistent with its race￾based analysis and individual rights paradigm, under which the government designated any 
individual with mixed ancestry as a half-breed. 
233) Government denial of the Métis Nation, as an Indigenous collective, greatly affected the 
Métis Nation in many important ways but never interfered directly in the way the Métis Nation 
determined its own citizenship. The main way government affected Métis Nation citizenship 
traditions was indirect, via its changes to the Indian Act.
234) Prior to 1951 the Indian Act permitted some Métis to be registered as “Indians.” They fit 
into the definition of “Indian” and “non-treaty Indian” because they had “Indian blood” or were 
the child of or married to a person with “Indian blood”. 
2(f) “Indian” means (i) any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band, (ii) 
any child of such person, (iii) any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person;
(g) “non-treaty Indian” means any person of Indian blood who is reputed to belong to an 
irregular, band, or who follows the Indian mode of life, even if such person is only a temporary 
resident in Canada (Indian Act, 1906).
235) Whether they were entitled to be registered as an “Indian” generally arose when they 
married a band member. This is what “reputed to belong to a particular band” usually meant. 
Registration of Métis under the Indian Act was thus dependent on the Chief recommending to the 
Indian agent that a particular individual be included on the band list and thus become registered  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 49
under the Act. Sometimes the Chief wanted to do this, sometimes he didn’t. Even if he wanted 
to, sometimes he was successful, sometimes not.
236) Over time, as the definition of “Indian” in the Indian Act changed, many individuals who 
were previously entitled to registration lost their status. Because the Métis Nation has always 
lived near and is closely related to First Nations on the Prairies, when individuals lost their 
Indian Act status, many were welcomed into nearby Métis Nation communities and families. 
Some of these “non-status Indians” married into Métis families and some began to identify as 
Métis. Thus, there was a long period of time where the government, by means of its focus on the 
gradual enfranchisement of Indians, indirectly affected the membership of the Métis Nation by 
increasing its numbers and blending non-status Indians into Métis communities.
237) This began to change in 1985 with Bill C-31 when the Indian Act rules became more 
inclusive. Many non-status Indians regained their status and rejoined their First Nation 
communities. Many ceased to identify as Métis. Thus, after 1985, the government indirectly 
affected the membership of the Métis Nation by decreasing its numbers. Many who eagerly 
sought their re-instatement as Indians were later disillusioned about the results. Some were not 
welcomed into First Nation communities and received few benefits. Some would willingly 
remove themselves from their newly acquired status as Indians, but there is no mechanism in the 
Indian Act that permits an individual to voluntarily withdraw. 
238) The situation on the Métis Settlements in Alberta is also confusing as a series of cases has 
sought to ensure that the Settlements are populated by Métis, not Indians. The story of the 
Settlements is much too complicated to describe in this report but suffice it to say that the ability 
to be a member of the Settlements is set out in provincial legislation which defines Métis “as a 
person of aboriginal ancestry who identifies with Metis history and culture.” (MSA, SA, 2000, 
ch. M-14,s. 1(j)) There are also status Indians who are members of the Métis Settlements.
(Cunningham, 2010) Many members of the Métis settlements are also members of the Métis 
Nation Alberta.
239) Nothing about Indigenous identity is black and white, it is mostly shades of gray. But it is 
worth noting that one other important effect of the government’s ongoing interference, both 
federal and provincial, is that it greatly confuses everyone’s understanding of Métis identity. 
(Teillet, 2017) Indigenous identity fraudsters take advantage of the ongoing confusion to falsely 
claim they are Métis. Many claim to be Métis because it seems to them to be the easiest onramp 
into Indigenous identity. If everyone is confused about Métis identity, and they are, then no one 
will likely be able to question a fraudster’s claim.
240) If government ignored the Inuit for decades and denied the existence of the Métis Nation 
as a people, it had its eye firmly fixed on Indians. The Canadian government began to 
appropriate the task of identifying and registering Indians in the early 1800s. The current Indian 
Act is quite literally Victorian legislation in concept. The first Indian Act was passed in 1876, but 
its legislative precursors go back to 1839. Through a series of amendments, the Act acquired its 
present conceptual form by the 1880s. The dead hand of the pre-Confederation years of 
Canadian Indian policy development continues to affect the Act today. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 50
The central philosophical assumptions and policies of modern Canadian Indian administration 
were shaped in the Canadas during the four decades prior to Confederation. Instrumental in this 
process were six government commissions of inquiry which devised, evaluated, and modified a 
programme for Indian advancement and civilization based on treaties, reserves, religious 
conversion, and agricultural instruction. Though not apparent at the time, the series of 
investigative reports created a corporate memory for the Indian department and established a 
policy framework for dealing with Native peoples and issues. The approach became entrenched, 
like the department itself, and remained virtually unchanged and unchallenged until 1969, when 
the federal government issued its white paper on Indian policy. (Leslie, 1985)
241) It is this Victorian relic, the Indian Act, that still allows “a minister and some bureaucrats 
to tell people who they are.” (Mercredi and Turpel, 1994) In addition to the Indian Act, there are 
different understandings of the definition of “Indian” for the purposes of s. 91(24), under the 
Natural Resource Transfer Agreements, 1930, and under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 
242) The Indian Act’s fundamental purposes are paradoxical – protection and assimilation. All 
systems imposed on First Nations – band councils, reserves, and the registry – were designed to, 
among other things, eradicate any collective Indian identity by emphasizing individual Indian 
identity. The enfranchisement system, which de-registered individuals who sought, among other 
things, education, was designed to accomplish the Act’s purpose of assimilation.
243) But the systems meant to assimilate First Nations into Canadian society have also had an 
interesting and very forceful counter effect. They have reinforced a traditional orientation to 
family, clan, extended kinship, or other groupings. This familial orientation cuts across the band 
communities created by the reserve system. Instead of emphasizing the individual, these 
traditional systems emphasize connection to the people. The result is that there are three distinct 
ways of claiming First Nation identity: 
(a) the legislated system whereby one is an Indian with a card issued by the 
government; 
(b) the court-determined identity, which refers to one who identifies as an Indian but is 
ineligible for registration under the Indian Act (non-status Indians); and 
(c) identity that is determined by connection to and/or acceptance by the traditions and 
customs of the Indigenous nation, which usually require a familial connection. 
G. First Nation Women and Self-Identification
244) Under the colonial patriarchal system, a non-Indigenous woman who married an Indian 
was registered as an Indian under the Indian Act, and an Indian woman who married a settler, 
Métis, or Inuit man was deregistered. Part of the battle to reclaim the right to be registered as a 
legal Indian was fought by First Nation women who had been deregistered because they married 
non-Indigenous men. Jeannette Lavell and Yvonne Bédard took the battle to regain their Indian 
Act status to the domestic courts. (Lavell, 1974) In upholding the federal government’s 
legislative right to determine that these women could not be band members, the Supreme Court 
of Canada went so far as to find that,
equality before the law under the Bill of Rights means equality of treatment in the enforcement 
and application of the laws of Canada before the law enforcement authorities and the ordinary 
courts of the land, and no such inequality is necessarily entailed in the construction and 
application of s. 12(1)(b) [of the Indian Act]. (Lavell, 1974) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 51
245) Sandra Lovelace took her case to the United Nations, which ultimately held that Canada 
discriminated against women in the Indian Act and was in breach of the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights. (Lovelace, 1977) In 1985, in response to the decision of the United 
Nations Human Rights Committee in Lovelace, the federal government amended the Indian Act
with Bill C-31. Under Bill C-31, the government kept control of Indian registration, set up a 
second-generation cut-off for entitlement to registration, and established the opportunity for First 
Nations to take control of their band membership by developing their own membership codes. 
246) Bill C-31 separated Indian status from band membership. The result of this separation is 
that one individual may be registered on a band list and on the Indian Act registry, while another 
individual may be registered on a band list but not be eligible for registration on the Indian Act 
registry, while yet another individual may be registered under the Indian Act and not be on any 
band list. After 1995 First Nations with land claims and self-government agreements also took 
control of their membership lists. 
247) In 1985, with the new Bill C-31, Canada entered a new era where the numbers of Indians 
registered under the Indian Act began to grow. Bill C-31 granted status to 174,500 individuals. 
Another 37,000 were added after a 2011 amendment known as Bill C-3, and that same year 
nearly 24,000 individuals were added with the establishment of the new Qalipu Mi’kmaq First 
Nation. A 2016 Bill S-3 amendment is expected to entitle another 28,970 individuals to be 
registered. One further amendment in Bill S-3, which came into effect in 2019, removed the 
1951 cut-off date from the Indian Act. This applies to all descendants born prior to April 17, 
1985, or of marriages that occurred prior to 1985 of women who were removed from band lists 
or not considered Indians because of their marriage to a non-Indian man prior to 1951. They will 
be entitled to status and will have the ability to further transmit entitlement to their children. It is 
expected that 747,045 additional individuals will be entitled to registration. It is possible that up 
to 250,740 individuals may actually register as Indians between 2017/2019 and 2041. (Statistics 
Canada, Projections) Obviously, the numbers of those registered under the Indian Act will 
continue to grow for the foreseeable future.
248) One effect of these cases and amendments to the Indian Act, is that the right to be 
registered as an Indian under the Indian Act has become an individual right in the sense that if 
one meets the requirements of the Act one is entitled to be registered. Indeed, the very definition 
of “Indian” in the Indian Act is “a person who pursuant to this Act is registered as an Indian or is 
entitled to be registered as an Indian.” Indian Act, 1985) Registration under the Act does not
require the acknowledgment of a connection by the Indigenous collective. 
249) Registration under the Indian Act is race-based. This racial analysis was amplified when 
the 1951 cut-off date was removed, and individuals became eligible to register if they traced their 
ancestry to someone who was enfranchised back to 1869. This means that individuals who have 
been separated from their bands for 7+ generations will be entitled to register as Indians. When 
considered in light of the objection to Indigenous identity being based on an ever-so-great 
ancestor, it is clear that the distinction between the ancestral requirements to be registered as an 
Indian under the Indian Act and the living familial connections required by First Nations for 
band membership will continue to widen as the generations go by. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 52
250) Because Indian Act registration is disconnected from membership in an Indigenous 
collective the right to status is cemented in the western liberal paradigm that adopts an 
essentially individualistic approach to identity. In fact, the entire Indian Act reflects western 
concepts of individualism. A “band” under the Act is defined as a “body of Indians” (Indian Act, 
1985) That is a body of individual Indians, certainly not the “Nations or Tribes of Indians” 
described in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This is also very different from the American 
approach which focuses on tribal membership and descent from tribal members with little focus 
on the individual. (Leslie, 1985) Note that in the Indian Reorganization Act, the term Indian 
includes,
all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal 
jurisdiction, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, 
residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation and shall further include all other 
persons of one-half or more Indian blood. (Indian Reorganization Act, s. 19 [25 U.S.C. 5125])
251) Nothing in the recent changes to the Canadian Indian Act has fundamentally shifted the 
priority it has always given to the western perspective that Indians are a racial category and to its 
own paradigm that privileges individualism. Under the Act, the cultural collective, the nation, or 
the tribe, is relegated to second place, which is in keeping with western values. 
252) Another thing to note about the litigation instigated by First Nations women is that, in 
addition to an ancestral connection, it eschewed community acceptance or recognition. 
Indigenous women claimed the right to be Indians without the need for recognition or acceptance 
by, and often in defiance of band governments. 
253) Remember that Bill C-31 separated registration as an Indian under the Indian Act from 
band membership, except in one respect. Individuals registered on a band list who are status 
Indians cannot be unilaterally removed by the band. So, control of band membership means 
control of who can be added to the band list, which can include status and non-status individuals. 
Band control of membership also means it can only unilaterally remove members who are not 
registered under the Indian Act.
254) The right to be registered as an Indian on the Indian Act registry is determined by the 
rules set out in the Act. If an applicant meets the current requirements, she is entitled to be 
registered. But that does not mean that her family’s band must accept her as a member. A band 
that has control of its membership can determine its own rules with respect to enrolment. This 
means it can add non-status Indians or other individuals who are not entitled to be registered 
under the Indian Act.
255) For example, in 2017, Fort William First Nation added four people to its band-controlled 
membership list. (Galloway, 2017) Three of the new members are Indigenous individuals who 
are not registered under the Indian Act, and one is non-Indigenous. All four were adopted by 
band members as children. Fort William First Nation is one of some 230 First Nations who now 
control their own membership lists. 
256) Non-status Indians are individuals “who identify themselves as Indians but who are not 
entitled to registration on the Indian Register pursuant to the Indian Act.” (Canada, 2022) It is  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 53
almost impossible to estimate the numbers of those who now identify as non-status Indians. This 
difficulty arises largely because non-status Indians rely on ancestry and self-identification and 
because no one is keeping track of their numbers. One consequence of Bill C-31, C-3, and S-3 is 
that the numbers of non-status Indians might seem to be diminishing because many have become 
entitled to registration. But to offset this, there are a growing number of newly identifying non￾status Indians. Note that the definition of non-status Indians, is individuals who self-identify as 
Indians but who are not eligible to be registered. The definition is about ineligibility. To further 
complicate matters, non-status Indians may not be Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, 
but they are Indians for the purposes of federal jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 91(24).
(Daniels, 2016)
257) The upshot is that individuals have a “right” to self-identify as Indians if they are eligible 
to be registered under the Indian Act. Indigenous collectives–bands, nations, treaty groups, self￾governing nations, or tribes–claim the “right” to determine their own members according to their 
own customs, laws, and traditions under UNDRIP. The federal government asserts its “right” to 
determine who is an Indian for its purposes. These “rights” are not reconcilable, but they do form
part of the existing paradigm with respect to who has the right to identify as Indians or First 
Nations. 
258) This is not meant to be a full analysis of the vast changes affecting First Nation and Métis 
Nation identity that have resulted from amendments to the Indian Act over the years. It is 
included to briefly illustrate the fact that Indigenous identity in Canada is not solely in the 
control of Indigenous peoples and that self-identification has a history. It is included to 
emphasize that, until 2016, the individual rights paradigm was exclusive to the Indian Act. And 
that the individual rights paradigm does not apply to membership in Indigenous nations under 
their own customs, laws, and traditions. Finally, this brief analysis of the Indian Act is included 
to show that the federal government, in continuing to define Indians for the purpose of the Indian 
Act, retains a large role in determining Indigenous identity in Canada. 
259) The federal government also interferes in Indigenous identity with its census. This is 
because the census works on a self-identification basis and without the benefit of any definitions. 
Andersen calls this “discursive violence which shears ‘Métis’ of any national or even historical 
political roots and supplements these with a simple emphasis on mixed ancestry.” (Andersen, 
2015) Statistics Canada, to date, has refused to add to the census a Métis category that 
distinguishes those identifying with the Métis Nation. In so doing it ensures that the Métis 
category includes fraudsters who have taken on Métis identity. It means the numbers of Métis in 
the census cannot be relied on. The proof is readily apparent in the numbers. According to the 
2016 census, the Métis population increased by a whopping 51.2% from 2006 to 2016.
(StatsCan, Rapid Growth)
H. The Court’s Theory of Métis and Non-status Indian Identity 
260) The courts have also affected Métis and non-status Indian identity in Powley and Daniels.
261) The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its reasons for judgment in Powley in 2003.
Powley affirmed that the Métis are a distinct Indigenous people, and that a Métis community can 
be a rights-bearing community for the purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 54
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby 
recognized and affirmed.
 (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of 
Canada.
262) This court recognition of Métis as a distinct Indigenous people with their own rights, 
customs, and traditions, appeared to signal a significant shift in thinking. Until then government 
and the courts had treated Métis as individuals and there was no recognition of the Métis Nation 
as a distinct Indigenous people. The change in attitude was extremely important and at the time 
seemed to put to rest the “Métis-as-mixed” logic, which had been dominant up until then, and 
indeed had been argued by the Crown at all levels of court. (Gaudry and Andersen, 2016)
263) The 2016 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Daniels has muddied the waters 
considerably. The helpful part of the decision is that it confirmed that non-status Indians and
Métis are within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, ironically as 
“Indians.” This finding uses “Indians” as a legal identity only. It does not define their familial, 
cultural, or political identities. And since the federal government does not legislate or keep a 
registry of who is Inuit or Métis, the mere confirmation of federal jurisdiction is not intrusive. 
264) Unfortunately, the Court in Daniels did not stop with a declaration that Métis and non￾status Indians are within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). It went on to define the Métis for 
the purposes of that federal jurisdiction. This was ill-considered and unnecessary. When it 
determined in 1939 that Inuit were within federal jurisdiction for the purposes of s. 91(24), the 
Court did not define who qualifies as Inuit. (Re Eskimos, 1939) The Court has never attempted to 
define First Nations who qualify as Indians for the purposes of s. 91(24). While the Indian Act
defines who is an Indian for the purposes of that Act, this is not determinative of who is an 
Indian for the purposes of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). The Court in Daniels agreed that 
non-status Indians are within 91(24). Despite acknowledging that “the definitional contours of 
‘non-status Indian’ are also imprecise,” which is quite the understatement, the Court made no 
attempt to define non-status Indians. (Daniels, 2016, para. 18-20) But it had no hesitation to 
wade in with respect to the Métis. 
265) Before we delve into the problems created by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect 
to Métis identity it will be helpful to understand how the Métis Nation defines its citizens and 
how the Court defined the Métis in previous cases.
266) The Métis Nation took action to define its citizens as the Powley case was moving 
through the lower courts (1998-2001). In the interests of full disclosure, the author of this report 
was legal counsel for the Powleys at all levels of court. The Métis Nation took the position that, 
as a nation, it had the right to determine its own members. It did not want the Supreme Court of 
Canada to define the members of the Métis Nation or set terms it did not agree with. This was 
especially so because the case arose in Ontario and the Métis Nation has internal disputes about 
the exact edge of its eastern boundary. 
267) The Métis National Council (MNC) established a Métis Rights Panel and charged them 
with creating a national definition of Métis for the Métis Nation. Again, in the interests of full  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 55
disclosure, the author of this report was a member of the MNC Métis Rights Panel and held the 
pen on the draft definition throughout most of the consultation period.
268) The Métis Rights Panel took up the task and began a two-year process of consultation 
with the provincial governing members. Dozens of assemblies were held across the five 
provinces. Hundreds, if not thousands of Métis Nation citizens of the provincial organizations 
attended these consultation sessions. The definition was drafted and redrafted in response to the 
consultations. Every word was reviewed, debated, and often argued over. The plan was that the 
MNC, as an intervenor in the Powley case, would go to the Supreme Court of Canada and 
emphasize that the Métis Nation had a definition of Métis, which they did not want the court to 
interfere with. The hope was that the Court would adopt the fundamental principles of the MNC 
definition and not invent another definition out of whole cloth. 
269) The final definition was adopted in 2002 by the Métis National Council General 
Assembly and subsequently by each of the five governing members.
“Métis” means an individual who self-identifies as Métis, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, is 
distinct from other Aboriginal Peoples and is accepted by the Métis Nation.
Powley was argued at the Supreme Court of Canada in March of 2003 and the reasons for 
judgment were handed down in September of 2003. 
270) It is important to set out this history because some have misstated the historical facts 
about how the Métis Nation arrived at its definition. The Supreme Court of Canada did not 
determine the Métis Nation definition of Métis. In fact, it was the opposite. 
271) Powley went to trial in 1998. It was about the Métis community in Sault Ste Marie, 
Ontario. It was argued on the basis of the findings of the Report of the Royal Commission on 
Aboriginal Peoples, which came out in 1996. The RCAP Report recognized the Métis Nation as 
a distinct Indigenous nation, and recognized groups it referred to as the “other Métis” (RCAP 
Report, 1996). One of those “other Métis” communities the Commission recognized was in Sault 
Ste. Marie. The Powleys did not ask the court to make findings that the community in Sault Ste 
Marie was part of the Métis Nation and the Court made no such finding.
272) That said, the Powleys proposed three broad factors as indicia of Métis identity for the 
purpose of claiming Métis rights under s. 35: self-identification, ancestral connection, and 
community acceptance. The three indicia, which the Supreme Court of Canada called guidelines, 
were endorsed by all levels of court in Powley. Because legal counsel for the Powleys was 
working closely with the Métis National Council it is no accident that the three indicia are 
consistent with the MNC definition. The difference between the three indicia in Powley and the 
Métis Nation definition is in the specificity. The test for s. 35 Aboriginal rights at the time the 
Powley case was going through the courts was at the local community or regional level, which 
the court described as “Sault Ste Marie and environs.” So, the indicia in Powley, particularly 
with respect to ancestral connection and the community acceptance, were determined for the 
local community in Sault Ste Marie and environs. The Métis Nation specifies that the ancestral 
connection and community acceptance required are to the historic Métis Nation.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 56
273) The Court in Powley articulated the three indicia as follows:
Self-identification – the claimant must self-identify, not just as Métis, but as a member 
of a Métis community, that the self-identification should not be of “recent vintage”, and 
not “made belatedly in order to benefit from a s. 35 right.” (Powley, 2003, par. 31)
Ancestral connection – there must be evidence of an ancestral connection to an historic 
community. The Court emphasized that this was an “objective requirement” to ensure 
that the beneficiaries of s. 35 rights have “a real link to the historic community whose 
practices ground the right being claimed.” It is not a blood quantum requirement, but a 
matter of proof. In other words, there must be some evidence that “the claimant’s 
ancestors belonged to the historic Métis community by birth, adoption, or other means.”
(Powley, 2003, par. 32)
Community acceptance – requires demonstrable proof by the modern community whose 
“continuity with the historic community provides the legal foundation for the right being 
claimed.” The core of community acceptance is past and ongoing participation in a 
shared culture, in the customs and traditions that constitute a Métis community’s identity 
and distinguish it from other groups. The requirement is for “an objective demonstration 
of a solid bond of past and present mutual identification and recognition of common 
belonging between the claimant and other members of the rights-bearing community.”
(Powley, 2003, par. 33)
274) The Court in Powley also emphasized that,
The term “Métis” in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European 
heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed 
their own customs, way of life, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit 
and European forebears. (Powley, 2003, par. 10)
…determining membership in the Métis community might not be as simple as verifying 
membership in, for example, an Indian band…The inquiry must take into account both the value 
of community self-definition, and the need for the process of identification to be objectively 
verifiable. (Powley, 2003, par. 29)
275) Finally, the Powley court stated that membership in a Métis organization
may be relevant to the question of community acceptance, but it is not sufficient in the absence of 
a contextual understanding of the membership requirements of the organization and its role in the 
Métis community. (Powley, 2003, par. 33)
276) The Powley case was a product of its time – 1998-2003. The Métis Nation has since been 
recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as a distinct Indigenous people in three separate 
cases. (Cunningham, 2011; Manitoba Métis Federation, 2013; and Daniels, 2016). These cases
now need to be understood in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples, which states that each Indigenous people has a right of self-determination 
(UNDRIP, s. 3) and the right to determine its own members pursuant to its customs and 
traditions (UNDRIP, s. 33). Although it has not been a question put before the Supreme Court of 
Canada, it is reasonable to argue that the right to determine its members is also a right protected  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 57
by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is also reasonable to argue that, absent a pressing and 
urgent concern, the courts cannot remove one of the criteria by which the Métis Nation 
determines its members. It is in this context that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 
Daniels should be now reconsidered. 
277) As noted above, while the Indian Act has indirectly affected the numbers of Métis, the 
Court in Powley appeared to be correctly endorsing self-determination with respect to the Métis 
Nation’s authority to define its members. It is most unfortunate that the Court in Daniels
removed one of the criteria by which the Métis Nation determines its members when it 
uncoupled the community from the individual with respect to Indigenous identity. And it did it 
by making a factual error in the application of the evidence.
278) The Daniels Court erroneously applied the evidence about non-status Indians to Métis 
when it accepted, as a fact, that Métis included “people who may no longer be accepted by their 
communities because they were separated from them as a result, for example, of government 
policies such as Indian Residential Schools.” (Daniels, 2016, par. 49) This is a factual error. 
Métis communities do not now, and never have rejected any individual who was separated from 
their Métis community by government policies or for any other reason. Such rejections have 
occurred in some First Nation Band communities. But this has never happened in Métis 
communities. As a result of this misapplication of the evidence about the experiences of non￾status Indians to the Métis, the Court rejected any Métis definition that included “community 
acceptance” as a criterion for determining federal jurisdiction. 
279) What a mess this has left throughout Canada! The Court basically accepted that Métis has 
two meanings – the Métis Nation which it recognized as a distinct Indigenous people, and a new 
category we might call the “Daniels Métis”, which includes “anyone with mixed European and 
Aboriginal heritage.” (Daniels, 2016, par. 17) 
280) It may be some excuse, albeit a poor one, that the Court brought down its reasons for 
judgment in Daniels on April 14, 2016, and Canada adhered to the United Nations Declaration 
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples one short month later, on May 10, 2016. 
281) The Daniels Court endorsed the impoverished idea that community acceptance is relevant 
only to the protection of collectively held s. 35 rights such as hunting and fishing, but irrelevant 
to the most basic collective right of an Indigenous people – the right to determine its own 
membership, which is clearly stated in the Declaration.
33. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in 
accordance with their customs and traditions.
282) Neither Powley nor Daniels rely solely on self-identification and neither eliminate a 
requirement of ancestral connection. But because the court endorsed the “Métis as mixed” theory 
and because there is no required connection with a community, the Court left us with individuals 
who can self-identify as Métis relying only on mixed ancestry. We now have three groups of 
Indigenous individuals who are free-range, race-based, and anointed by Canadian law – Status 
Indians who are not members of a Band, Daniels Métis, and non-status Indians. While we can 
determine the non-Band Status Indians by the Indian Act Registry, no one knows who the 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 58
Daniels Métis and non-status Indians are, how many there are, or where they are. This problem is 
one that will only grow worse with time.
I. The Disconnected
283) The academy has indicated that it intends to shift away from self-identification and move 
to reliance on ancestry and community connection via citizenship/membership. Multiple 
questions arise when the focus shifts from self-identification to ancestry and
citizenship/membership, especially with respect to Indigenous individuals who are disconnected 
from their nations and communities. These are serious consideration that need to be examined.
284) One issue is with respect to those whose adoption records have been sealed. Many 
individuals know, from information revealed by officials at government agencies, that they are 
Indigenous. But they have no additional information to connect them to a specific community or 
nation and it is likely that they will never be able to acquire that information. Some policy 
decisions will have to be made for the disconnected, who through no fault of their own, cannot 
access information that connects them with a specific Indigenous community. 
285) Another issue arises with respect to the many Indians on the Indian Act general registry. 
These people are not members of Bands. Since 2019 registration under the Indian Act can be 
obtained with proof of Indian ancestry as far back as 1869. If the connection is over 150 years 
old, it will be tenuous at best. Will the academy recognize Indian status cards (and therefore 
prioritize ancestral connection) in the absence of, or perhaps over the objections of the Band?
286) If the academy does take a policy decision to prioritize ancestral connection by 
recognizing all status cards, regardless of how tenuous the connection to the Band may be, how 
will that support a “partnership” with Bands? Especially if the Band has taken over control of its 
membership. Does it not undermine the Band’s self-determination if the University 
acknowledges a connection to the Band that the Band itself does not recognize? 
287) A move to rely on ancestry and community connection via citizenship/membership will 
have to grapple with these issues. Which of these – ancestry or community connection via 
citizenship/membership is to be prioritized? Can there be reliance on one to the exclusion of the 
other? Do we need both ancestry and community connection? The University will have to make 
some policy decisions in this regard.
288) With respect to status cards, the University can agree to work with the Band and support 
its self-determination and its right to determine its own members, including when it is 
considering accepting an applicant solely based on a status card. Or the University can take the 
position that it will always accept applicants with a status card regardless of a Band’s wishes. 
Locating a principled position will be difficult under these circumstances. That said, there is no 
law or rule that the University must accept status cards at face value. If the University takes the 
position that the primary requirement is connection via membership/citizenship and that ancestry
is a secondary consideration, then mere registration on the Indian Act registry would not 
necessarily preclude an additional requirement of contemporary connection to a Band. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 59
289) With respect to non-status Indians, the question of community connection is extremely 
relevant. Unless the Band has taken control of its membership, these individuals are, by 
definition, excluded from membership/citizenship. If the question is not membership/citizenship 
but instead one of connection, what amount of connection will suffice? 
290) Finally, we come to the Daniels Métis. What are the rules with respect to these 
individuals? The Supreme Court of Canada stated that they are recognized as “Indians” for the 
purposes of federal jurisdiction. This ruling does not apply to the academy, which is not within 
federal jurisdiction. But the academy will have to make decisions about whether it will ever, and 
if so under what circumstances, accept applications from individuals whose only 
recommendation is that they have Indigenous ancestry, choose to call themselves Métis, and may 
or may not belong to newly created “Métis organizations.”
291) The question of where the priority is – with ancestral connection or community 
connection via citizenship/membership – will have to be decided. If we harken back to the earlier 
discussion about the right of self-determination that inheres in Indigenous peoples and the right 
to determine their own members, then ancestral connection should logically take a second seat to 
community connection via citizenship/membership. 
J. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
292) UNDRIP states, in Article 3, that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self￾determination.” Self-determination means “the sovereign right and power of the Indigenous 
group to decide who belongs to them, without external interference.” (UN, Prevention of 
Discrimination, 1986) Self-determination is not an individual right. It is a collective right 
belonging to every Indigenous peoples. 
293) As noted above, Article 33 of UNDRIP affirms the right of Indigenous peoples to 
determine their own identity or membership. With respect to individuals, Article 9 states that
“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or 
nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned.”
294) Note that both articles 33 and 9 require the rights to be determined “in accordance with 
the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned.” It is worth emphasizing that 
nowhere in UNDRIP is there a free-standing individual right to claim Indigenous identity that is 
separate and distinct from the traditions and customs of the Indigenous collective. 
295) It is important to emphasize the distinction between self-determination, which is a right 
that vests in the collective and self-identification, which is an individual right. UNDRIP clearly 
distinguishes between the rights of Indigenous peoples and the rights of Indigenous individuals. 
For example, Article 2 states that “Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all 
other peoples and individuals.” Article 3 specifically states that “Indigenous peoples have the 
right to self-determination.” Article 9 of the Declaration states that “Indigenous peoples and 
individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with 
the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned.” Article 3 vests the right to 
self-determination in Indigenous peoples not in Indigenous individuals. Article 9 is a collective 
and an individual right. But the language is important. In Article 9 both individuals and peoples  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 60
must be Indigenous to have the right to belong. Also note that the right to belong is to be realized 
according to the traditions and customs of the Indigenous collective. 
296) What are the membership traditions and customs of Indigenous peoples? Most 
Indigenous nations have membership customs and traditions that are basically composed of three 
required elements: (1) self-identification, (2) an ancestral connection to the group; and (3)
acceptance by the group. 
297) It should be noted that the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples did not 
include a requirement for an ancestral connection. The omission of an ancestral connection 
follows on their findings that Aboriginal peoples are nations not a race. 
Aboriginal peoples (in the plural) refers to organic political and cultural entities that stem 
historically from the original peoples of North America (not collections of individuals united by so￾called racial characteristics). (RCAP Report, 1996, p. 104)
298) Olthius criticizes the ancestral connection requirement in Powley as
a court-imposed requirement that Aboriginal rights descend by way of the individual members, 
rather than by way of the communities themselves. It also suggests that Aboriginal groupness 
has an inherent genetic component. (Olthius, 2009)
299) Despite the Commission’s omission of a requirement for an ancestral connection and the 
Olthius critique, the Indigenous peoples across Canada have not generally agreed. By and large 
they remain deeply committed to a requirement for an ancestral connection to the people 
involved. While some are prepared to make the occasional exception, as demonstrated by the 
Fort William example referred to above, for the most part Band controlled membership codes 
and the Métis Nation definition have continued to insist that their membership requirements 
include an ancestral connection to the people.
300) Why do Indigenous peoples insist on an ancestral connection as a requirement of 
membership? Instead of denouncing it as a default to a race-based requirement, it may be more 
reasonable to suggest that this is the way Indigenous people establish an individual’s relationship 
to their core group, the people, the us, as distinguished from them or the other. When an 
Indigenous nation requires an ancestral connection to the community it is an inquiry along the 
lines of “who are your relatives, who is your grandmother, and where are you from?” It is about 
connection, a relationship, to that place and those people. It is not a stand-alone requirement, and 
it is not used to prove the individual is Indigenous. In addition, this rule does not preclude the 
Indigenous nation from establishing rules that allow the core group to accept others on different 
terms. 
301) The better view is to understand that Indigenous nations use of the ancestral requirement 
for membership is quite different from reliance solely on an untethered Indigenous ancestor used 
to prove Indigenous identity. 
302) Regardless of whether an ancestral connection is included, the requirements established 
by the nation cannot be bypassed by a sub-group such as a local organization, a family, or an 
individual. Ceremonies, adoption, local organizations, and families do not provide an onramp  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 61
into Indigenous identity or the nation in the absence of the agreement of the nation. Only the 
nation can choose to make exceptions to its membership customs and traditions. 
303) On June 21, 2021, Canada’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples Act came into force. The purposes of this Act are set out in s. 4 and are to:
(a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in 
Canadian law; and 
(b) provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration. 
304) This is an important move forward in Canadian law and brings UNDRIP squarely within 
the law. It also affirms that Canadian laws are intended to be consistent with UNDRIP. While we 
have seen little evidence of this to date, this Act will have influence and effect in the future
Canadian legal landscape. With respect to Indigenous identification, it will hopefully help to 
reinforce Indigenous ways of identity.
K. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
305) Some have argued that Indigenous self-identification is an individual right protected by s. 
15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection 
and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based 
on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
306) The claim that s. 15 of the Charter protects Indigenous self-identification arises from the 
idea that individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of “race, national or ethnic 
origin”. Proponents of this claim argue that self-identification is sufficient evidence to prove 
their Indigenous identity and that they should not be required to adhere to “colonial 
requirements” to provide documentary evidence in support of their claim. (Warrick, 2022) It is 
suggested that it is neither helpful nor is it reasonable to expect the academy, a product of the 
colonial regime, to abandon “colonial requirements” such as evidence to verify a claim of 
Indigenous identity. The question is whether a requirement for “colonial requirements,” such as 
documentary evidence to support an Indigenous identity assertion in the academy violates s. 15 
of the Charter.
307) It is suggested that such a requirement would not violate s. 15. First, because the Charter
applies to government action. The Supreme Court of Canada held in McKinney that universities 
are autonomous bodies and not part of government, which means that the Charter does not apply 
their policies or actions. (McKinney, 1990; Douglas/Kwantlen, 1990) But this is a legal argument 
that dodges the underlying claim of discrimination, which should indeed be addressed.
308) Is it discriminatory for the academy to require objective evidence to support an 
Indigenous identity claim? This is an ironic claim for a s. 15 Charter case because the court has 
insisted on the need for evidence to support s. 15 claims. The easiest evidence is documentary 
but evidence to support an Indigenous identity claim does not necessarily have to be in the form 
of documentation. It could take the form of community support. The take-home point for the 
academy is not whether it can require evidence to support an Indigenous identity claim, but  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 62
whether such a policy requirement is onerous. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that it is 
not onerous to insist that supporting evidence “must amount to more than a web of instinct.”
(Kahkewistahaw, 2015, par. 34)
309) If the Charter does not apply to USask, the Human Rights Code of Saskatchewan does. It 
contains a list of prohibited grounds that includes “nationality” and “race or perceived race.”
Every person and every class of persons has the right to engage in and carry on any occupation, 
business or enterprise under the law without discrimination on the basis of a prohibited ground 
(Sask Human Rights Code, 2018).
310) It is possible that someone could bring a claim that USask’s requirement for evidence to 
support Indigenous identity is discriminatory based on nationality or race. It is suggested that no 
evidence would equate to the “web of instinct” the Supreme Court dismissed. If USask is 
offering a material advantage, then it would not be unreasonable to require evidence to support 
an Indigenous identity claim. Again, it would seem logical that a requirement for supporting 
evidence that does not create undue hardship would not be found to be particularly onerous and 
would not violate the Code.
  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 63
Section Two: University of Saskatchewan Policies and Procedures 
A. Indigenization & USask Culture
311) USask began to Indigenize after the release of the Truth and Reconciliation 
Commission’s Calls to Action. USask’s 2015 Indigenization Announcement included the 
intention to develop a “strategic set of changes to policies, procedures and practices that increase 
inclusion, break down barriers and realign institutional, college and school outcomes without 
harm to previously established goals.” (USask, Indigenization Announcement, 2015) 
312) Since then, USask has done internal work to realize Indigenization. In 2021 the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy, University Plan 2025 was released. 
The University Plan 2025 weaves together commitments, goals, principles and values that aspire 
to advance Indigenization and support transformative decolonization leading to reconciliation. 
Through this commitment, the University of Saskatchewan seeks to embrace and embody the 
essence of the Indigenous name bestowed upon its strategy: nīkānītān manācihitowinihk (Cree) | 
ni manachīhitoonaan (Michif), which means “Let us lead with respect”.
(ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy, 2021)
313) The goals, commitments, principles, and values in ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/ 
Indigenization Strategy are indeed laudable. It is an ambitious and inspirational document to 
read. 
314) Unfortunately, interviews with Indigenous students, staff, and faculty at USask revealed 
that the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy, begun with the best of intentions and 
enthusiasm, may not be progressing as well as expected, at least from the Indigenous 
participants’ perspective. It is noted that the Strategy is very new, and implementation has only 
just begun. That said, there appears to be a gap between the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy’s aspirations and the experiences of 
Indigenous staff, students, and faculty at USask. In this respect the interviews are consistent with 
the findings of the USask Senior Leadership Consultations with Indigenous Faculty and Staff 
November-December 2020. These consultations revealed that Indigenous faculty and staff at 
USask reported experiences of overt and covert racism, exhaustion and burn-out, frustration, 
feelings of being undermined, consultation fatigue, and a general “disbelief that any form of 
change will happen.” (Truth-Telling Report, July 29, 2021).
315) Some of the difficulty with respect to the early implementation of the Indigenization 
Strategy may lie in the culture of the academy. The USask situation strongly echoes the 1970s 
and 80s when women were trying to break the glass ceiling in the workforce. Many workplaces 
elevated one or two women into a senior management position only to have them flee after a 
short time. Their flight was seen as failure and reinforced existing opinions held by the men who 
were the dominant culture in the workplace. The culture was created by men, reinforced daily by 
men, and a hostile environment for women. Men ignored the women, insulted, or ridiculed them, 
undermined them, and made them so miserable that many of these women resigned. Men then 
said ‘we told you! Women can’t cut it, they are not capable, they shouldn’t be in these positions.’
The strategy was to insert women at the higher levels of the workplace, but the culture was all 
male. And as Conrad Prince, Director Indigenous and Canadian Programs at Save the Children 
Canada says, “culture eats strategy for dinner.” (Prince, 2022) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 64
316) This may be what is happening with the implementation of the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy. It may be undermined by USask’s pre￾existing, settler-colonial culture. That said, if we look at the increasing presence of women in top 
positions in the academy today, we can see that it is possible to change the culture of institutions. 
317) USask’s culture is essentially invisible to the members who are the dominant and 
majority participants. It has long-standing traditions that are thoroughly anchored in its colonial 
structure. It is driven by the dominant culture’s belief system, which is accompanied by the 
security of knowing itself to be a good, wise, and benevolent institution. USask is secure in 
knowing that it holds an important role in Canadian society. Indeed, USask may not see this as 
culture at all and may simply understand their culture as the “normal” way, the “reality” of the 
academy. (Bopp, Brown, and Robb, 2017) These beliefs make institutions such as USask highly 
resistant to change. 
The University is a dominant culture institution run by dominant culture people. The culture has 
hidden rules, and standards of thinking and behaviour that are simply assumed. Those running 
the system are in what is often an unconscious, but nevertheless privileged power position. 
(Bopp, Brown, and Robb, 2017)
318) But when looked at from the perspective of Indigenous people who, responding to the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy, and living within the USask culture, we see 
that,
when Indigenous people encounter this unconscious culture of superiority, it can be
extremely frustrating and demeaning. Many report experiencing continuous assumptions of 
inferiority, ignorance, deviance or incompetence on the part of those in authority within the 
system. Some declare this as "racism". It's not surprising that these encounters can lead to 
anger, misunderstanding and conflict. Nor is it surprising that when Indigenous people share their 
perspectives on how to move forward with processes that could more effectively serve 
Indigenous learners and communities, their contributions are quite often not heard, dismissed as 
impracticable, or ignored. (Bopp, Brown, and Robb, 2017)
319) Although the following statement was made with respect to feminism, the insertion of 
[Indigenous people] into the statement adapts it appropriately to the USask culture, which they 
see as their
struggle against victimization that arises from being different in the first instance; against 
marginalization that comes from being unequally located in the scheme of things in the second 
instance; but most of all, it is a mobilization towards a total rejection of any system of relations in 
which [Indigenous people are] … systematically restrained, subordinated, oppressed, used, and 
abused. (Hoppers, 2009, emphasis in original)
320) This recognition of the load placed on Indigenous people in the university is 
acknowledged in the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy
Everyone who is here [at the University] has a responsibility to learn [about indigenization], and 
they have a responsibility to use this knowledge. [NonIndigenous people] put a big weight on our 
shoulders as Indigenous people to teach…[the] Indigenization movement is often placed on our 
shoulders as Indigenous people, but that’s not ours to carry. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 65
321) USask has made several strong statements that it is prepared to take action to combat 
racism and oppression, and that it will call out unacceptable behaviour and attitudes. President 
Stoicheff has stated that acting
calls for the dismantling of institutional structures, policies and processes that contribute to 
inequalities faced by marginalized groups…It means challenging the status quo and changing our 
opinions. (Truth-Telling Report, July 2021)
322) This report, in multiple spots, emphasizes the need for USask to educate itself with 
respect to Indigenous peoples. It is acknowledged that the implementation of the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy intends to do just that. What is suggested here 
is that, in addition to implementing the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy, USask
may also wish to examine its workplace culture with a critical lens to determine how that culture 
may be undermining or non-supportive of its ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy. 
Workplace culture is not merely reflected in policies, procedures, philosophies, and statements of 
mission, vision, and values. These are indeed important and crucial to defining the workplace 
culture and USask has worked hard in recent years to establish these important cornerstones. But 
USask culture is also a combination of leadership, management style, workplace practices, 
people hired and retained, the work environment, and communications. An evaluation of these 
aspects of USask culture, may be helpful. Absent better self-knowledge about its own culture, 
the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy may be difficult to implement as currently 
envisioned because USask’s culture may be undermining the strategy in both small and large 
ways. 
323) This internal cultural self-examination is also a necessary step in forming partnerships 
with Indigenous peoples. For all the same reasons that the
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy may be endangered by USask’s culture, the 
same will apply to partnerships between USask and Indigenous peoples. 
324) Yet, as the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy clearly recognizes, it is 
crucial for USask to create more meaningful and close relationships with Indigenous peoples, 
and not just with respect to the partnerships necessary for identity verification. Indigenous 
identity fraudsters have exposed the ignorance of USask with respect to Indigenous peoples. 
USask simply must become better educated about the Indigenous peoples in Canada. This is 
necessary if USask is serious about wanting to put a stop to Indigenous identity fraud. The need 
for USask to learn more about Indigenous peoples is acknowledged in the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy when it states that 
We all have a responsibility—both individually and collectively—to support the work of 
reconciliation, redress past wrongs, mend and heal broken relationships between Indigenous 
peoples and Canadian educational institutions, and lay the foundation for our shared future. This 
responsibility is rooted in acknowledging and understanding the sophistication and complexity of 
Indigenous histories, knowledges, cultures, teachings, practices, and philosophies, and ensuring 
that this richness and diversity remains interwoven within the fabric of the University’s and 
broader community’s research, learning and engagement efforts.
We are all responsible to the seven generations that came before us and the seven generations 
yet to come; to all our relations; and to sharing the truths that are embedded within our stories.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 66
Rooted in the principles of respect, responsibility, reciprocity and sustainability, we look forward to 
working hand-in-hand with the University of Saskatchewan to build on its commitment and 
aspiration for Indigenization and its Wise Practices in order to bring this strategy to life.
325) Indigenous identity fraudsters could not intrude into Indigenous space in USask if the 
University and Indigenous communities were more engaged with each other, worked together, 
and were true partners in education. It is the responsibility of USask, a responsibility it has 
acknowledged, to actively change in this regard. It must continue to take up the challenge.
326) If there is responsibility on USask to change, there is also a corresponding responsibility 
in Indigenous communities. Many in the Indigenous community are aware of Indigenous identity 
fraudsters in their midst, often many years before the University finds out. They know and can 
identify Indigenous identity fraudsters. But they do not act on their knowledge. Partly this is 
because of the historical barriers that exist to distance USask and Indigenous communities. Partly 
it is because they feel unheard when they do speak up. But it is also because, to date, Indigenous 
communities have not understood that they must play a role in discouraging Indigenous identity 
fraud at USask. But this too must change.
We have to speak out more. We have to be prepared to stand up if we know that it’s not the 
truth. We can’t afford to not do that…The community needs to get involved and the University has 
to go to the community…The University has to reach out to them. We have to have serious 
conversations and make it possible to have those conversations. (Campbell, 2022)
327) A better relationship between Indigenous communities and USask could act to 
encourage those communities to work with the University to stop Indigenous identity fraud. 
328) The MOUs USask entered into with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan on education and 
citizenship are a good start. USask has indicated its intention to continue this practice with First 
Nations and Inuit. Indeed, an “increase in the number of Métis, First Nations, and Inuit 
agreements driven by Indigenous communities” is noted as a marker in the 
ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy.
329) Working in partnership with Indigenous communities includes the creation of one or 
more Indigenous Advisory Committees that focus on specific issues the partners wish to work on 
together. It is understood that USask has established a Task Force specifically focused on 
Indigenous identity. 
330) The Calls to Action in the ohpahotân/oohpaahotaan/Indigenization Strategy are a good 
start. It will be important to remember that these necessary changes are not going to be quick. As 
we have seen from the women’s movement, there are major successes in some fields (the 
academy and government) and almost no progress in others (the RCMP, police, and the 
military). The road ahead for Indigenization is likely to be bumpy and lengthy, but that work 
must continue. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 67
B. Policy & Process Amendments
331) USask has acknowledged that it needs to take action to deal with Indigenous identity 
fraud. This section of the report examines opportunities where USask can implement specific 
actions by reviewing and amending some of its policies and procedures.
332) It is hoped that attention to policies and processes will act as a deterrent to individuals 
contemplating an entrance into USask based on false Indigenous identity. If the fraudsters begin 
to understand that USask is on the lookout for them and that they must now provide evidence to 
support their claims that will send a loud signal. It is also hoped that the actions USask
undertakes at opportune moments will enable it to have a means of reviewing the Indigenous 
identity of those already embedded inside. Finally, there are opportunities where USask can 
gather evidence of fraud about Indigenous identity should it encounter false claims in the future.
1. deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy
333) USask is implementing the deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth
Policy. The stated purpose of the policy is to provide “a framework for the implementation of 
Indigenous membership/citizenship verification with documentation at the University of 
Saskatchewan.”
334) When implementing the deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy
there will be a need to articulate specific processes that put more detail into the principles and 
large purpose statements in the Indigenous Truth Policy. The following are offered as comments 
that those implementing the Indigenous Truth Policy may wish to consider. 
335) The procedures put in place to implement the Indigenous Truth Policy may wish to use
the word “evidence” instead of “documentation.” Documents may be the most common form of 
evidence. But even in the courts oral evidence is valued and accepted. Also, not all Indigenous 
groups have robust membership criteria. They may have no way of providing a document as 
evidence. The point here is to distinguish between an individual the group may acknowledge as 
family but not have accepted as a member. There may not always be documentation, but there 
may be good evidence. This is not meant to let the candidate use self-identification. It is meant to 
facilitate oral evidence from the relevant Indigenous community. What oral evidence is 
acceptable can be set out in the accompanying implementation procedures.
336) Caution must be exercised on all evidence, whether testimonial or documentary in nature. 
Who provides the evidence will be a crucial factor in determining validity. Note the cautions 
above about adoption by individuals or families, rogue or illegitimate organizations, and so￾called “elders”. The kind of evidence is also important. The University should not rely on DNA 
evidence, family stories, and genealogies that show an ancient Indigenous ancestor. How far 
back an ancestral connection can go is a question that each distinct Indigenous community will 
have to determine.
337) In the Principles section of the Indigenous Truth Policy, there is a statement that “The 
university is committed to achieving reconciliation which requires, and is not limited to, a 
recognition of Indigenous self-government, law, perspectives, and rights as critical components  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 68
of relationships.” When the procedural implementation is being put into place, USask may wish 
to put emphasis on the basic right of self-determination, which is a larger concept than self￾government. As noted above, self-determination means “the sovereign right and power of the 
Indigenous group to decide who belongs to them, without external interference.” (UN, 
Prevention of Discrimination, 1986) UNDRIP, at s. 33, states that Indigenous peoples have the 
right to determine their own membership. 
338) In the Compliance section of the Indigenous Truth Policy, there is a statement that 
“Formal complaints under this policy will be directed to the Vice-Provost Indigenous 
Engagement for resolution.” It is recommended that implementation of compliance should 
include a specific complaints process for Indigenous identity fraud. 
339) In the Associated Documents and Knowledges section, there is reference to UNDRIP, but 
no reference is made to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,
which is the federal legislation that commits Canada to making its laws consistent with the 
Declaration. The implementers of the Indigenous Truth Policy will wish to familiarize 
themselves with how federal laws are being amended to comply with the Declaration, which will 
be an ongoing task.
340) The draft deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy does not directly 
address Indigenous identity fraud. But its implementation will likely need to consider ways of 
doing so. This is suggested because there appears to be a need to send a loud message to 
potential applicants that USask’s objective is to stop the practice of Indigenous identity fraud. It 
will be helpful for USask to clearly communicate a statement of intent in this regard. A strong 
statement could be published on its website, in student applications, in any job advertising and 
anywhere else that the University feels appropriate. This will assist with the implementation of 
the Indigenous Truth Policy. 
341) Indigenous identity fraudsters need to know that USask will ask for evidence to support 
an Indigenous identity claim and that USask will verify that evidence. To date fraudsters have 
been slipping into the academy because they could, because no one checked, and because no one 
thought they should check Indigenous identity claims. Sending a clear signal that those days are 
over will act as a strong deterrent.
2. Application Processes
342) USask has draft Admission Guidelines for Verifying Indigenous Self-Declaration 
Documentation. The draft Admission Guidelines are for students and set out the objective, which 
is to provide guidance to Admission Officers when they receive, request, or review documents 
provided by students in support of their Indigenous self-declaration to access an equity seat. The 
draft Admission Guidelines show that USask is moving beyond self-identification and setting up 
processes to verify the evidence offered by students to prove their Indigenous identity.
343) If USask is not already implementing these draft Admission Guidelines, it should 
consider doing so. Consideration should be given as to how these Admission Guidelines would 
work with the implementation of the deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth
Policy. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 69
344) If these draft Admission Guidelines would not apply to the hiring process for faculty and 
staff, USask may also wish to consider drafting a similar set of guidelines to use in their hiring 
processes. It may be that the implementation procedures accompanying the deybwewin | 
taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy are intended to replace or supplement the draft 
Admission Guidelines. In any event, the language should be consistent in all documents. 
345) It is commendable that USask is now requiring evidence to support Indigenous identity 
claims. 
346) The same evidentiary concerns set out above apply to any evidence submitted under the 
draft Admission Guidelines. There is guidance to the Admission Officer to engage the Indigenous 
Admissions Advisory Committee when in doubt about the evidence, or lack of evidence
provided by a student. The Advisory Committee will review the documents and provide a 
recommendation to the Admissions Officer. There is also the following statement:
Applicants and students who knowingly misrepresent themselves to the university to gain a 
benefit not intended for them are subject to the university’s Regulations on Student Academic 
Misconduct policy.
347) The draft Admission Guidelines and the deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous 
Truth Policy both set out the responsibilities of USask with respect to verification. But some 
onus can be put on the applicant claiming Indigenous identity as well. It is in this spirit that the 
University may wish to consider applicant declarations.
3. Applicant Declarations
348) USask may wish to draft an Indigenous Identity Declaration Form, which could include:
i) A declaration from the applicant about their Indigenous identity, which could 
include:
(a) when they began to identify as Indigenous; 
(b) which, if any, Indigenous nation/community they claim a connection to;
(c) whether they have been acknowledged or accepted by the Indigenous 
nation/community they claim a connection to;
(d) whether they are qualified to speak or teach about Indigenous people; 
(e) an explanation if their claim is of recent vintage; 
(f) an explanation if their community identity has changed; 
(g) a statement that acknowledges that they are required to provide some evidence 
to support their claim of Indigenous identity and what form their evidence 
takes; 
(h) if there is no legitimate card, Indigenous references with contact information;
and
(i) an invitation to provide any additional information about their Indigenous 
identity they may wish to include.
ii) The purpose for which the information is being collected, how it will be used, and 
how it will be protected;
iii) Notice that USask may review the applicant’s publicly available records, including 
their online and social media presence; 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 70
iv) Notice that USask may request updated information from time to time and upon 
request the applicant agrees to provide it; 
v) Permission to USask to inquire further into the details of the information provided, 
vi) A warning about possible results for providing false or misleading information, 
including dismissal;
vii) An acknowledgement that the applicant understands that they are required to 
substantiate their Indigenous identity claim with evidence; and
viii) A statement that the applicant attests to all of the above accompanied by their 
signature and date.
USask’s legal counsel will wish to consider whether this Indigenous Identity Declaration Form
should be in the form of a statutory declaration and will likely have advice about how to draft 
such a form. 
349) Another means of ensuring that an applicant student, staff, or faculty is aware of USask’s 
expectations is to include, on hiring documents, or student placement offers, a signed statement 
that the applicants have read and agreed to follow USask policies, guidelines, and mission 
statements. USask has several such policies that apply to its employees and students including 
Guidelines for Academic Conduct and the Statement of Mission, Vision, and Values of the 
University of Saskatchewan. Colleges/Departments with their own mission statements or 
guidelines (for example, the College of Medicine has its own Statement of the Vision, Mission, 
Values and Goals). These should be referenced if applicable to the applicant. 
350) These mission statements and guidelines contain high standards for ethical behaviour 
expected by everyone at USask. For example, the Guidelines for Academic Conduct describe a 
set of expectations for ethical behaviour in the teacher-student learning environment at USask. 
They were approved by University Council on June 17, 1999. The Guidelines are described 
under three general principles: (1) learning and growth, (2) honesty and integrity, and (3) respect 
for the dignity of others. The Guidelines were designed to apply to both teachers and students
and state that “all members of the academic community are expected to engage in scholarly 
activities with honesty and integrity…Trust depends on academic honesty, and honesty is 
fundamental to the integrity of the learning environment at the University.” The Guidelines also 
note that “a teacher should foster honest academic conduct and discourage all forms of academic 
dishonesty.”
351) The Statement of Mission, Vision, and Values of the University of Saskatchewan declares 
the university’s goal of being “an outstanding institution of research, learning, knowledge￾keeping, reconciliation, and inclusion with and by Indigenous peoples and communities. The 
statement includes a belief in the principle of “openness, transparency, and accountability” and 
“reconciliation”. The statement also includes a commitment to “acting in accordance with the 
following values…integrity, honesty, and ethical behaviour”.
352) The Statement of the Vision, Mission, Values and Goals of the College of Medicine,
USask declares its commitment to professionalism which is articulated as a commitment to 
“abide by high ethical standards of behaviour” that “requires an on-going personal commitment  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 71
to integrity.” The statement goes on to say that “we know and apply ethical and professional 
standards of conduct.”
353) It does no harm to emphasize the honesty, integrity and high ethical standards of 
behaviour expected by USask. In fact, this can encourage USask members to strive for 
excellence because it knows the high standards of expectation. That said, this emphasis should 
not be applied only to Indigenous applicants. Indigenous identity fraudsters have thrived in the 
academy because they had the support of the administration and non-Indigenous academics, 
some of whom knew or ought to have known that the Indigenous identity fraudsters gained and 
maintained the space on false pretenses. All applicants should be made aware of USask’s ethical 
standards and its expectations for its staff, students, and faculty with respect to Indigenous 
identity fraud.
4. Embedded Indigenous Identity Fraudsters in Faculty and Staff
354) What about the Indigenous identity fraudsters who are already embedded in USask as 
faculty or staff? It does not seem advisable to start a search among all Indigenous staff and 
faculty and demand that they verify their identity evidence after the fact. It would smell of a 
witch hunt, would likely be inappropriate and possibly violate the law for many reasons.
355) The deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy contains the following 
statement:
For Indigenous membership/citizenship assertions that have occurred before this Policy came 
into effect, verification will also be required where there is reason to question the authenticity of 
that claim and where that prior assertion has resulted in material advantage, or where the 
absence of verification would be otherwise contrary to the principles recognized in this policy.
356) It is noted that this statement provides the opportunity to require verification “where there 
is reason to question the authenticity of that claim and where that prior assertion has resulted in 
material advantage.” The implementation processes of the Indigenous Truth Policy will wish to 
consider some questions - What is the basis to question the authenticity of the claim? Does it 
require a formal complaint to be filed? Is it mere suspicion? Is it based on rumours? This should 
be clarified in the implementation process information. Also, it is coupled with past “material 
advantage.” Does this include the fact that they were awarded admission or a faculty/staff 
position? If this is intended to be the meaning, then it should be stated more clearly. 
357) If the applicant came to USask using self-identification and is seeking a new material 
advantage, it is an opportunity to have them sign the Indigenous Identity Declaration Form and 
provide supporting evidence or references. It may also be an opportunity to deny any new 
material advantage in the absence of verification evidence of Indigenous identity. 
358) The Indigenous Truth Policy should be finalized and adopted by the University prior to 
any steps being taken in this regard. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 72
5. Indigenous Identity Fraud Complaints Process
359) If it has not already done so, USask may wish to consider adding a new complaints 
process that is specific to Indigenous identity fraud. Such a process is referenced in the 
deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy, which states that
Formal complaints under this policy will be directed to the Vice-Provost Indigenous Engagement 
for resolution. 
360) For implementation of this part of the Indigenous Truth Policy, the Vice-Provost 
Indigenous Engagement will require the establishment of an Indigenous Identity Fraud 
Complaints Process. Members of USask need to know that there is a process where they can 
raise this issue. 
361) This Indigenous Identity Fraud Complaints Process should include a description of the 
process including how to initiate an Indigenous identity fraud complaint, what information is 
required to substantiate the complaint, a clear indication of who oversees the process, who makes 
the decision, and possible consequences. The process must be fair and equitable and must 
provide clear guidance for the accused. Consider an appeal process as well.
362) Establishing an Indigenous Identity Fraud Complaints Process provides another 
opportunity for an Indigenous identity scan. USask should make the complainant aware of the 
appropriate complaint process and ensure that process assistance is available to the complainant
and also to the person who is the object of the complaint. 
363) It is important that the decision-maker be someone who has adequate knowledge to make 
an informed decision. It will likely not be possible for a non-Indigenous person, such as the Dean 
of a faculty, to understand the nuances at issue, so Indigenous identity fraud complaints should 
be heard and decided by an Indigenous person or committee. This may require amendments to 
the Collective Agreement. 
6. Collective Agreement 
364) The Collective Agreement between USask and the USask Faculty Association (USFA) 
has been extended to June 30, 2023. The current Agreement refers to “Indigenous or Aboriginal 
Peoples” in s. 7 which includes important language with respect to non-discrimination. 
7.1 The parties recognize the value of diversity, equity and inclusion in the University community 
and are committed to ensuring equal opportunities for all employees. The parties are also 
committed to ensuring that there are no barriers or systemic discrimination to the full participation 
of all employees including women, Indigenous or Aboriginal Peoples (First Nations, Métis, and 
Inuit), persons with disabilities, persons of a particular race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic 
origin, persons of disadvantaged groups, or persons of any sexual orientation or gender identity 
(LGBT+).
7.3 Consistent with the principles of employment equity, diversity and inclusion, the parties are 
committed to eliminating or modifying those employment policies, practices, and systems, 
whether formal or informal, shown to have an unfavorable effect on the hiring, retention and 
promotion of members of designated groups. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 73
365) In the next round of Collective Agreement negotiations, it might be helpful to negotiate 
new language that commits the parties to review and revise employment policies, practices, and 
systems, including in the Collective Agreement, that enabled Indigenous identity fraud. This 
should include an acknowledgment that it is in the best interests of both parties to stop 
Indigenous identity fraud and to implement policies, practices, and systems to do so. 
366) It will also be important to ensure that there is a separation of powers. The Dean, for 
example, should not initiate a process and be the decision-maker. The Dean should not be the 
decision-maker on a complaint, later initiate a separate complaint against a participant in the first 
complaint, and sit as decision-maker again. This is not a suggestion of bias on the part of the 
Dean, but the multiple roles do give an appearance of bias. Because some of these roles are set 
out in the Collective Agreement, the University may wish to consider bringing these issues to the 
negotiation table in this round of negotiations. 
7. Safe Disclosure Policy
1) In 2015, USask President, Peter Stoicheff, stated that, 
We cannot deem [our] role a success unless we become a force of change for aboriginal 
education. None of it matters unless we achieve this. The educational gap is too great, the moral 
imperative is too strong, for us not to play our part. (Indigenization, 2015).
2) In light of this statement, it is most unfortunate that it has fallen to Indigenous faculty to 
take on the role of identity police in the academy. Hopefully this will end when USask 
implements more policies, practices, and systems to prevent Indigenous identity fraud. 
3) USask has a Safe Disclosure Policy, with the stated intention of providing a mechanism 
through which university members can confidentially and anonymously disclose, among other 
things, “unethical conduct or other wrongdoing that they have witnessed, or have otherwise 
obtained information about or evidence of…” The principle behind the policy is that “all 
university employees, Board of Governors, and all other individuals and parties acting on behalf 
of the university, consistently act with integrity, honesty, accountability and transparency, in 
order to protect the university’s assets, reputation, and the public funds that have been entrusted 
to the university.”
4) USask may wish to consider amending the Safe Disclosure Policy to ensure that, without 
amending the existing principles, thought is given to specifically stating that the policy applies to 
those who disclose Indigenous identity fraud. It is further recommended that additional thought 
is given to adding a new principle about protecting USask’s Indigenous community partners and 
Indigenous members of USask from harm.
8. Privacy
5) Some have raised the issue of privacy with respect to Indigenous identity. This is 
especially relevant with respect to employment records and personal information held by USask. 
6) The need to protect this information sometimes places USask in an awkward situation 
and makes it impossible to respond in public. This is a serious concern. It can be mitigated 
somewhat if USask and the Indigenous individual have an agreement in advance that the very  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 74
fact that the individual applied for a publicly advertised Indigenous placement means that USask 
can share at least some basic information with respect to their Indigenous identity. Remember 
that, especially for staff and faculty, this is a contract relationship, and the University can 
contract out of some aspects of privacy with respect to personal information. 
7) There are several reasons USask may wish to gather this data in an agreement with the 
individual Indigenous person. First, because USask uses the fact that the individual is Indigenous
for its DEI purposes, although granted this is in its aggregate form. Still, students, faculty and 
staff should know that USask uses their Indigenous identity for its own purposes.
8) Second, it is presumed that USask is serious about entering into partnerships with 
Indigenous communities. In furtherance of this objective, USask should gather data with respect 
to which communities its members are from. Information on this level would likely need to be 
more than aggregate. 
9) Third, USask needs to know if an Indigenous person is qualified to teach or even speak to 
Indigenous issues. Some who come with cards have never lived in an Indigenous community and 
have only recently identified. They have no background or experience to speak with respect to 
Indigenous issues. This may not matter in some situations, for example, if the Indigenous person 
is a chemistry professor and does not wish to ever teach about Indigenous people. But it will 
matter in other situations a great deal.
10) Fourth, a contract with respect to Indigenous identity information allows USask to 
become more educated about exactly which Indigenous people it is in a relationship with. This 
enables USask to work with those Indigenous communities to better facilitate their working 
partnership.
11) The Indigenous information privacy contract should stipulate exactly what information 
could be made public. For example, the name, Indigenous community, treaty membership, etc. 
The parties should consider entering into such contracts when the Indigenous individual is 
entering the academy. USask can always ask to contract with existing members, but this will 
likely be more difficult. 
9. Educating Human Resource Staff & Faculty Search Committees
12) USask should consider an education program about Indigenous identity fraud for its 
human resources staff and for faculty. This is because they play an important role in the hiring 
processes, and it is through them, and their lack of knowledge, that Indigenous identity fraudsters
slip into the academy. They are important gatekeepers, but they can only function to keep such 
fraudsters out of the academy if they are educated enough to spot them in the first place. 
 
  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 75
Section Three: Recommendations 
A. What Was Heard Report Recommendations
13) Early in June of 2022 First Nations University released a report called Indigenous Voices 
on Indigenous Identity: What was Heard Report (FNU, 2022). The report captured the 
discussions from a National Forum held on March 9-10, 2022. The event was virtual but brought 
together many Indigenous voices to discuss “wise practices for validating Indigenous identity” 
within the academy.
14) This report covers some of the same ground contained in the What was Heard Report 
although this report considers some of the issues in greater detail. The What was Heard Report 
contains the following list of proposed actions.
• Define identity. There are many definitions of identity. This is hard, uncomfortable work, but is an 
articulation of Indigenous laws and requires capacity on part of Nations to fully engage.
• Terms matter. There may be a more relevant word than identity. Citizenship, relationship, and 
kinship speak to who claims a person, not who the person claims. Look for the markers of identity 
– a name or clan, responsibilities, the ability to give gifts, and accountability.
• Move beyond self-identification. Request community references. Build questions into the 
interview and selection process that focus on Indigenous knowledge and traditions.
• Build relationships with communities. Rather than relying on self-identification as the only basis to 
understand claims to Indigeneity, work with local community leaders to build strong relationships.
• Focus on service. Understand how Indigenous faculty, staff, and students are impact the 
community. The connection to community is fundamental to understanding what is meant by 
Indigenous identity.
• Recognize Elders and Traditional Knowledge Holders. Traditionally, these were the people who 
would validate a newcomer’s claim to identity. Change collective agreements to recognize Elders 
as full faculty members for their deep wisdom, teachings, and knowledge.
• Establish Indigenous Expert Panels. This creates a safe space for Indigenous academics to 
engage in meaningful discussion, sharing, and collaboration. Indigenous panels are an important 
resource for post-secondary institutions.
• Enact vetting policies. Establish policies and procedures to assess the identity of all Indigenous 
candidates applying for academic or research positions. These processes must be Indigenous 
led, provide a safe space, and truly work for and with Indigenous peoples.
• Create Committees to validate applications. Include distinguished and respected local Indigenous 
community members, students, researchers, scholars, and faculty to examine applications and 
validate claims of Indigenous identity.
• Clearly outline consequences for fraudulent claims. Ensure that policies include possible reprisals 
for fraudulent claims of identity, which may include a spectrum of redress, reparation, or in 
extreme cases criminal charges.
• Identify legitimate and fake organizations. Create lists of legitimate Indigenous organizations. If 
people cannot meet the identity requirements of these organizations, then they have not met the  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 76
bar.
• Provide training. It is unrealistic to expect Indigenous faculty to engage in every identity issue. 
Hiring committees and boards need to be trained so that they know who Indigenous people are, 
how we define ourselves, what legitimate documents look like, and how stories and connection to 
community inform processes.
• Validate claims of Indigenous identity. Verify claims of connection to a community through the 
Nation or organization that holds the registry of members. Request advance consent and include 
a notice to applicant that their identity will be verified with the Nation to which they claim 
attachment.
• Align collective agreements. Establish Indigenizing principles for collective agreements and 
mobilize an understanding of what an Indigenous scholar is, how Indigenous peoples are 
recruited, and reciprocal relationships and engagements with Indigenous communities.
 
15) USask will wish to consider these recommendations. 
16) Conversations are taking place across Canada as the academy is attempting to come to 
grips with the issue of Indigenous identity fraud. USask is currently participating in this national 
conversation. That participation should continue. 
17) This report adds the following recommendations, which are grouped into categories:
caring for the members of USask, partnerships with Indigenous peoples, education, policy and 
process amendments, the collective agreement, and communications.
B. Ongoing Care for USask’s Indigenous Members
Elders
1. USask should initiate a conversation with Indigenous Elders about Indigenous identity 
fraud with a view to protecting them from abuse and assisting them to protect 
themselves.
Indigenous Students
2. USask should make inquiries of all students who, through no fault of their own, may 
have been adversely affected by Indigenous identity fraud with the goal of ensuring
their personal well-being, to understand if their academic careers suffered harm, and 
investigate possible mitigation measures.
Indigenous Faculty & Staff
3. USask should make inquiries of all Indigenous faculty and staff who, through no fault 
of their own, may have been adversely affected by Indigenous identity fraud with the 
goal of ensuring their personal well-being, to understand if their academic careers
suffered harm, and investigate possible mitigation measures. 
4. USask may wish to consider asking the Elders and Indigenous students, faculty, and 
staff, if a ceremony would be helpful to enable all USask members to move forward on 
Indigenous identity fraud in a good way. Such a ceremony might help to heal hurt 
feelings, provide comfort, and allow people to move forward in a good way. Apologies  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 77
have been made in some circumstances but there are still hurt feelings in USask. A 
ceremony can bring people back together and provide some hope for the future.
C. Partnerships with Indigenous Communities
5. USask should continue to work with Indigenous communities to establish partnerships 
and nurture existing partnerships. 
D. Education
6. USask, with special attention paid to human resources staff and faculty who sit on 
search committees, should take steps to educate staff and faculty about:
a. the colonial enterprises that separate Indigenous individuals from their Indigenous 
identities,
b. Indigenous identity fraud,
c. Indigenous organizations,
d. intergenerational Indigenous trauma,
e. USask’s ongoing role in colonialism,
f. Indigenous identity,
g. race and ancestry in relation to Indigenous identity, and
h. the membership rules of Indigenous peoples, including the rules of First Nations 
with control of their own membership lists, Métis Nation citizenship rules, and 
those set out in Inuit and First Nation land claims and self-government agreements.
7. USask should take steps to identify and understand its own culture and learn how that 
culture may be acting to undermine or be non-supportive of its Indigenization Strategy 
and its Indigenous members.
E. Policy Amendments
8. USask should review its policies and procedures, create new policies, or amend its 
policies as necessary, to deal with Indigenous identity fraud.
F. Collective Agreement
9. USask should negotiate new language in the Collective Agreement that commits the 
parties to review and revise policies and practices in the Collective Agreement that 
enable and fail to adequately deal with Indigenous identity fraud.
G. Communications
10. USask should review how it handles Indigenous identity fraud, how it communicates
with the public, the Indigenous communities, and its Indigenous members, with a view 
to taking steps to ensure better communications in future. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 78
Bibliography 
A. Publications and Press
Agoyo, Acee. “Fraudulent Native Artist charged with violating Indian Arts and Crafts Act”, 
November 24, 2021 at https://www.indianz.com/News/2021/11/24/fraudulent-native-artist￾charged-with-violating-indian-arts-and-crafts-act/. 
Andersen, Chris. “Indigenous identity fraud is encouraged in academia. Here’s how to change 
that.” November 4, 2021, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/opinion-chris￾andersen-indigenous-identity-fraud-1.6236018. 
_____________. "Métis": Race, Recognition, and the Struggle for Indigenous People
(Vancouver: UBC Press, 2015)
Andrew-Gee, Eric. “The Making of Joseph Boyden”, Globe & Mail, August 4, 2017 at 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/joseph-boyden/article35881215/. 
Battiste, M., Bell, L., & Findlay, L. M. (2002). “Decolonizing education in Canadian 
universities: An interdisciplinary, international, Indigenous research project.” Canadian Journal 
of Native Education, 26, 82–95.
Barrera, Jorge. CBC News, “Michelle Latimer breaks silence, presents ancestry report following 
questions about Indigenous identity”, May 17, 2021 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/michelle-latimer-ancestry-report-expert-1.6024508. 
___________. “Author Joseph Boyden’s shape-shifting Indigenous identity”, December 23, 
2016, https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/author-joseph-boydens-shape-shifting-indigenous￾identity/.
Benjamin Moore Paints, accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.benjaminmoore.com/en-ca/paint￾colours/white. (Benjamin Moore Paints, 2022)
Bopp, Michael, Lee Brown, and Jonathan Robb. “Reconciliation within the Academy: Why is 
Indigenization so Difficult?” (2017), Four Worlds Centre for Development Learning at 
http://www.fourworlds.ca/pdf_downloads/Reconciliation_within_the_Academy_Final.pdf. 
Boyden, Joseph. “My name is Joseph Boyden”, Macleans, August 2, 2017.
Browder, Laura. Slippery Characters: Ethnic Impersonators and American Identities. Chapel 
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000 
CBC Documentaries, January 20, 2022 at https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/although-adopted￾from-haiti-my-son-josiah-is-unconditionally-a-member-of-our-indigenous-community￾1.6321814. 
Chan, Cheryl. “Vancouver Curator outed as ‘pretendian’ resigns from SFU Galleries”, 
Vancouver Sun, November 6, 2021 at https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-curator-outed￾as-pretendian-resigns-from-sfu-galleries. 
Paul L.A.H. Chartrand, “The Aboriginal Peoples in Canada and Renewal of the Federation” in K.
Knop et al., eds., Rethinking Federalism: Citizens, Markets, and Governments in a Changing World
(Vancouver: UBC Press, 1995) 119 at 122-23. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 79
Cook-Lynn, Elizabeth. “Meeting of Indian Professors Takes Up Issues of ‘Ethnic Fraud’, 
Sovereignty and Research Needs.” Wicazo Sa Review 9, no. 1 (1993); 57-59.
Coutts, Ian. “Universities look to combat ‘Indigenous identity fraud’ after a string of recent 
cases”, February 16, 2022, University Affairs at https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news￾article/universities-look-to-combat-indigenous-identity-fraud-after-string-of-recent-cases/. 
Cyca, Michelle. “The Curious Case of Gina Adams: An investigation into the “Pretendian” 
problem on Canadian campuses”, Macleans, October 2022, pp. 30-42.
Dgmweb.net. “Number of Ancestors in a Given Generation” at 
http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html. 
Deer, Ka’nhehsí:io and Jorge Barrera, “Award-winning filmmaker Michelle Latimer’s 
Indigenous identity under scrutiny”, CBC News, December 17, 2020 at 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/michelle-latimer-kitigan-zibi-indigenous-identity￾1.5845310. 
Deloria, Phillip J. Playing Indian, (Yale Historical Publications Series, 1999, Kindle Edition).
Devine, Donn. “How long is a generation? Science provides an answer” originally published in 
Ancestry Magazine, Sept-Oct 2005, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 51-53 at
https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_provides_an_answer. 
Forester, Brett. “The harmful, ‘cynical and self-serving’ nature of Indigenous Identity fraud”, 
November 4, 2021, APTN News at https://www.aptnnews.ca/nation-to-nation/the-harmful￾cynical-and-self-serving-nature-of-indigenous-identity-fraud/
Gaudry, Adam. “Communing with the Dead: The “New Métis,” Métis Identity Appropriation, 
and the Displacement of Living Métis Culture” in American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 
(Spring 2018), pp. 162-190 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/amerindiquar.42.2.0162, p, 
174. 
Gaudry, Adam and Danielle Lorenz. “Indigenization as inclusion, reconciliation, and 
decolonization: navigating the different visions for indigenizing the Canadian Academy” in 
AlterNative, 2018, Vol. 14(3) 218-227 at 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1177180118785382.
Gaudry, Adam and Chris Andersen. “Daniels v. Canada: Racialized Legacies, Settler Self￾Indigenization and the Denial of Indigenous Peoplehood.” TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural 
Studies, Vol. 36, Fall 2016, pp. 19-30.
Galloway, Gloria. “Fort William First Nation accepts non-Indigenous man as full member”, The 
Globe and Mail, April 2, 2017 at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/non￾indigenous-cousin-in-fort-william-gets-full-first-nation-membership/article34558143/. 
Goodman, Alan. “Two Questions About Race,” June 7, 2006, web forum Is Race “Real”? 
organized by the Social Science Research council at 
https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2020/07/race-is-a-racist-concept/. 
Hoppers, Catherine A. Odora. “Gender Integration and Mainstreaming: Challenges for a 
Transforming Higher Education Institution.” Unisa Women-in Research Annual Lecture, August 
27, 2009. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 80
Huhndorf, Shari M. Going Native: Indians in the American Cultural Imagination (Ithaca and 
London: Cornell University Press, 2013) Kindle Edition.
Jackson, AC. “Amanda Boyden’s “I Got the Dog” is a fierce, funny account of marriage to a 
fraud”, October 15, 2020, The Liberty Project, at https://www.libertyproject.com/marriage-story￾2648216652.html. 
Jago, Robert. “Joseph Boyden won’t find Indigenous Identity in a Test Tube of Spit: To be First 
Nations, you must first belong to a nation,” August 4, 2017, Canadaland at 
https://www.canadaland.com/joseph-boyden-indigenous-dna/
Jaschik, Scott. “Fake Cherokee?”, July 6, 2015 Insider Higher Ed, quoting David Shorter at 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/06/scholar-who-has-made-name-cherokee￾accused-not-having-native-american-roots. 
Keeler, Jacqueline. “The Alleged Pretendians List”, June 6, 2020, 
https://www.pollennationmagazine.com/pollen-nation/2020/5/5/the-alleged-pretendians.
Kimber, Stephen. “Who is Joseph Boyden, and does the answer matter”, January 8, 2017, 
Halifax Examiner, at https://stephenkimber.com/who-is-joseph-boyden-and-does-the-answer￾matter/. 
Kramer, A. (2015). “The genomic imaginary: Genealogical heritage and shaping of 
bioconvergent identities.” MediaTropes, 5(1), 80-104 
Lawford, Karen and Veldon Coburn. “Research, Ethnic Fraud, and the Academy: A Protocol for 
Working with Indigenous Communities and Peoples”, August 20, 2019, Yellowhead Institute at 
https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2019/08/20/research-ethnic-fraud-and-the-academy-a-protocol￾for-working-with-indigenous-communities-and-peoples/
Lefebvre, Mel, and Alicia Elliott, “We Didn’t Choose to Called Indigenous”, February 18, 2022, 
The Walrus at https://thewalrus.ca/we-didnt-choose-to-be-called-indigenous/. 
Légaré, André “The Reconstruction of Inuit Collective Identity: From Cultural to Civic: The 
Case of Nunavut”, (2007). Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi). 109 
at https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=aprci. 
Leroux, Darryl. "Self-made Métis". Maisonneuve, 2018
____________. Distorted Descent: White Claims to Indigenous Identity. (Winnipeg: University 
of Manitoba Press, 2019); (Leroux, Distorted, 2019)
____________. ““Eastern Métis” Studies and White Settler Colonialism Today”, Aboriginal 
Policy Studies, Vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, pp. 104-114, 
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/28314. (Leroux, Eastern Métis, 
2019)
____________. “Michelle Latimer Thread”, Twitter, May 11, 2021, at 
https://twitter.com/DarrylLeroux/status/1392123333127417856.
____________. Raceshifting website, accessed July 1, 2022, at https://www.raceshifting.com/. 
(Leroux, Raceshifting) 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 81
Leslie, John. Commissions of Inquiry into Indian Affairs in the Canadas, 1828-1858: Evolving a 
corporate memory for the Indian Department (Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research Centre, 
DIAND, 1985) at 185.
Library and Archives Canada, RG 10, vol. 6810, file 470-2-3, vol. 7, 55 (L-3) and 63 (N-3). 
(“LAC”)
Manoukian, Marina. “The messed up truth of Inuit identification numbers” August 20, 2021, 
Grunge at https://www.grunge.com/492989/the-messed-up-truth-of-inuit-identification￾numbers/. 
Marks, Jonathan. “The Realities of Races”, June 7, 2006, web forum Is Race "Real”? organized 
by the Social Science Research Council, at http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/. 
McMaster, Geoff. “Indigenous DNA no proof of Indigenous identity, says Native studies 
scholar”, November 5, 2018, University of Alberta Folio, at 
https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2018/11/indigenous-dna-no-proof-of-indigenous-identity-says￾native-studies-scholar.html. 
Mercredi, Ovide and Mary Ellen Turpel. In the Rapids: Navigating the Future of First Nations 
(Toronto: Penguin, 1994), p. 95.
Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, “NAISA Statement on Indigenous Identity 
Fraud” 2015, https://us8.campaign￾archive.com/?e=b7bb9ee7e4&u=42a60b451fd1cbd5c894f6f2b&id=b15fd225fc.
NFB, Government of Canada News Release from National Film Board, “NFB at TIFF 2020. 
World premiere for Michelle Latimer’s Inconvenient Indian at the Toronto International Film 
Festival”, August 14, 2020, https://www.canada.ca/en/national-film-board/news/2020/08/nfb-at￾tiff-2020-world-premiere-for-michelle-latimers-inconvenient-indian-at-the-toronto-international￾film-festival.html (“NFB, 2020”)
Olthuis, Brent. “The Constitution's Peoples: Approaching Community in the Context of Section 
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,” 2009 54-1 McGill Law Journal 1, 2009 CanLIIDocs 175, 
<https://canlii.ca/t/2b3j>, retrieved on 2022-06-30. 
OMAA, “OMAA-Woodland Métis Tribe membership application form”, accessed July 1, 2022 
at https://omaa.org/#. 
Pewewardy, Cornel D. “So You Think You Hired an ‘Indian’ Faculty Member?” in Indigenizing 
the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities, edited by Devon A. 
Mihesuah and Angela Cavender Wilson, 200-217 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004), 
p. 201.
Putnam, Chris. “College of Arts and Science unveils Aboriginal faculty recruitment plan”, 
January 12, 2018 at https://news.usask.ca/articles/colleges/2018/college-of-arts-and-science￾unveils-aboriginal-faculty-recruitment-plan.php. 
Roberts, Barry A. “Eskimo Identification and Disc Numbers: A Brief History” 1975, Department 
of Indian and Northern Affairs at https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/aanc￾inac/R5-303-1975-eng.pdf;  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 82
Salutin, Rick. “The Boyden affair just got murkier”, January 13, 2017, Toronto Star at 
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/13/the-boyden-affair-just-got-murkier￾salutin.html. 
Sangster, Dorothy. July 21, 1956 “The double life of Injun Joe”, Macleans at 
https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1956/7/21/the-double-life-of-injun-joe. 
Shorter, David. “Four Words for Andrea Smith: ‘I’m not an Indian” September 12, 2018, Indian 
Country Today, at https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/four-words-for-andrea-smith-im-not￾an-indian
Smith, Andrea. “For All Those Who Were Indian in a Former Life”, November/December 1991, 
p. 44-45, Ms. Magazine at 
https://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/CARC/Overview/4_For_All_Those.PDF. 
Sturm, Circe. Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century, 
(Santa Fe: SAR Press, 2011)
Tallbear, Kim. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic 
Science. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013) (Tallbear, 2013)
___________. “We are not your Dead Ancestors: Playing Indian and white possession,” June 14, 
2021, https://kimtallbear.substack.com/p/we-are-not-your-dead-ancestors?s=r#details. (Tallbear 
Dead Ancestors, 2021)
___________. “Playing Indian Constitutes a Structural form of Colonial Theft” May 9, 2021, at 
https://kimtallbear.substack.com/p/playing-indian-constitutes-a-structural?s=r. (Tallbear, 
Colonial Theft, 2021)
____________. “Indigenous “Race Shifting” Red Flags: A Quick Primer for Reporters and 
Others”, September 9, 2021, https://kimtallbear.substack.com/p/indigenous-race-shifting-red￾flags?s=r#details. (Tallbear, Red Flags, 2021)
____________. “The harmful, ‘cynical and self-serving’ nature of Indigenous identity fraud”, 
November 4, 2021, APTN National News at https://www.aptnnews.ca/nation-to-nation/the￾harmful-cynical-and-self-serving-nature-of-indigenous-identity-fraud/. (Tallbear, Harmful, 2021)
_____________. “Identity is a poor substitute for relating: Genetic ancestry, critical polyamory, 
property and relations.” Critical Indigenous Studies Handbook (UK: Routledge, 2020) (Tallbear, 
2020)
Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”: An Essay (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1992) at 25.
Taylor, Drew Hayden. “No, I won’t call out alleged ‘pretendians’ based on rumour.”, TVO 
Today, December 1, 2021 at https://www.tvo.org/article/no-i-wont-call-out-alleged-pretendians￾based-on-rumour. 
Teillet, Jean. Métis Law in Canada (Toronto and Vancouver: Pape Salter Teillet LLP, 2017), 
Chapter 1.
Trumpener, Betsy. “All Native basketball tournament reinstates adopted player, drops 
‘bloodline’ rule”, CBC News, March 6, 2017 at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 83
columbia/josiah-wilson-status-indian-adopted-as-infant-reinstated-at-all-native-basketball￾1.4011790. 
Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization is not a metaphor” in Decolonization: 
Indigeneity, Education & Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40 at p. 16, 
https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization
%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf
University of Victoria Law, May 18, 2022, 
https://www.uvic.ca/law/facultystaff/facultydirectory/napoleon.php. (“UVicLaw, 2022”)
Warick, Jason. “Indigenous Scholar says he was rejected by University of Sask. over lack of 
documentation,”, June 9, 2022 at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/real-carriere￾rejected-university-saskatchewan-documentation-1.6482089. 
Wharton Staff, “When do exaggerations and misstatements cross the line?” Knowledge at 
Wharton, June 23, 2010 at https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/when-do-exaggerations￾and-misstatements-cross-the-line/. 
Wheeler, Winona. “Indigenous Identity Fraud in the Academy”, November 15, 2021, VOX at 
https://usaskfaculty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Indigenous-Identity-Fraud-in-the￾Academy.pdf. 
B. Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Section 3, Eligibility, s. 3.2.4(c) at 
http://www.naskapi.ca/documents/documents/JBNQA.pdf. 
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Chapter 3: Eligibility and Enrolment, s. 3.3.5. 
https://nunatsiavut.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Criteria-of-Beneficiary-Eligibility-and￾Enrolment-Chapter-3.pdf. 
Inuvialuit Final Agreement, as amended 2005, s. 5(2)(d), 
https://irc.inuvialuit.com/sites/default/files/Inuvialuit%20Final%20Agreement%202005.pdf. 
C. Reports
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996, Vol. 4, 
http://data2.archives.ca/e/e448/e011188230-04.pdf (RCAP Report, 1996)
First Nation University of Canada, Indigenous Voices on Indigenous Identity: What was Heard 
Report from the National Indigenous Identity Forum held on March 9, 2022 
https://www.fnuniv.ca/wp-content/uploads/Indigenous-Voices-on-Indigenous-Identity_National￾Indigenous-Identity-Forum_Report_March-22_June-22-FINAL.pdf. (FNU, 2022)
Statistics Canada, “Projections of the Indigenous populations and households in Canada, 2016 to 
2041: Overview of data sources, methods, assumptions and scenarios”, see Table 8, at 
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/17-20-0001/172000012021001-eng.htm. 
Statistics Canada, “Rapid population growth among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit” at 
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm?indid=14430-
3&indgeo=0. 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 84
Government of Canada, Definition of “Non-Status Indians” accessed July 1, 2022 at 
https://rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014433/1535469348029.
U.N. Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study of the 
Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, U.N. Doc. 
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4, para. 382 (1986)
D. University of Saskatchewan Statements, Policies & Agreements 
Ohpahootan/Oopahootaan/Indigenous Strategy, August 2021, at 
https://plan.usask.ca/indigenous/
Truth-telling Report, July 29, 2021, at https://indigenous.usask.ca/ 
“Agreement for Recognizing Métis Nation Citizenship between Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and 
University of Saskatchewan”, November 27, 2021 at https://metisnationsk.com/wp￾content/uploads/2021/11/MNS-USASK-agreement-Nov-27-2021.pdf. (MNS Citizenship 
Agreement, 2021)
Collective Agreement between the University of Saskatchewan and the University of 
Saskatchewan Faculty Association (USFA) July 1, 2017-June 30, 2022 (extended to June 30, 
2023)
deybwewin | taapwaywin | tapwewin: Indigenous Truth Policy
MOU “Advancing Métis Post-Secondary Education between Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and 
University of Saskatchewan”, November 18, 2019 https://metisnationsk.com/wp￾content/uploads/2020/02/MNS_MOU-with-UofS_Nov2019.pdf. (MNS Advancing Education 
MOU, 2019)
University of Saskatchewan, Guidelines for Academic Conduct (draft)
University of Saskatchewan, Safe Disclosure Policy, July 29, 2014 at 
https://policies.usask.ca/policies/operations-and-general-administration/safe-disclosure￾policy.php#AuthorizationandApproval
“Indigenization and the University of Saskatchewan” 2015, at 
https://teaching.usask.ca/curriculum/indigenization.php#IndigenizationandTheUniversityofSaska
tchewan. (USask, Indigenization Announcement, 2015)
University of Saskatchewan, “A Statement from Provost and Vice-President Academic, Airini,” 
November 1, 2021. (USask, Airini Statement, 2021)
University of Saskatchewan, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, “Position
Statement on False Claims to Indigenous Identity,” November 4, 2021(USask, CH&E Statement, 
2021)
E. Statutes & Declarations
An Act respecting Indians, R.S., 1906, c. 43, s. 2. (Indian Act, 1906)
Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5, s. 2(1). 

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 85
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91 – “the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada 
extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated…(24) 
Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”
Natural Resources Transfer Acts, 1930, S.C. 1930, c. 29, c. 21 and c. 41.
Royal Proclamation of 1763
Indian Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 73-383, 48 Stat. 984.
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 
resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, available at: 
https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html [accessed 4 July 2022]
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, S.C. 2021, c. 14
Manitoba Act, 1870
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018, Chapter S-24.2
Métis Settlements Act, S.A., 2000, Ch. M-14 (MSA, SA, 2000, ch. M-14)
F. Interviews & Conversations
Dr. Pam Palmater, Dr. Kim Tallbear, Dr. Winona Wheeler, Dr. Raven Sinclair, Kathie Pruden, 
Dr. Brenda McDougall, Dr. Chris Andersen, Dr. Darryl Leroux, Dr. Sherry Farrell Racette, Dr. 
Veldon Coburn, Maria Campbell, Norman Fleury, Louise Halfe, Eugene Arcand, Conrad Prince, 
Jeffery Hewitt, and other professors, staff, and students.
G. Case Law
Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, 2011 SCC 37 (CanLII)
R. v. Powley 2003 SCC 43 (CanLII)
R. v. Marshall, 1999 CanLII 665 (SCC)
R. v. Castonguay (J.-D.) 2002 NBPC 26, para. 59.
R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41
Reference as to whether “Indians” in s. 91(24) of the B.N.A. Act includes Eskimo inhabitants of 
the Province of Quebec, 1939 CanLII 22 (SCC), (Re Eskimo).
Québec (Procureur général) (Ministère des Ressources naturelles) c. Corneau, 2015 QCCS 482.
Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, [1974] SCR 1349.
Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. 24/1977: Canada 30/07/81, UN Doc. 
CCPR/C/13/D/24/1977.
Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 (CanLII).
(Daniels, SCC 2016)
McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229.  

Teillet Report on Indigenous Identity Fraud-October 2022 86
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570,
Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548. para. 34.
Quebec (Procureure generale) c. Sequin 2017 QCCS 1881 at para. 158.
Selected Eastern Métis Cases 2002-2018. R. v. Chiasson, 2001 NBPC 5, aff’d 12 March 2002
(Q.B.) [unreported] [Chiasson (No. 1)]; R. v. Castonguay (J.-D.), 2002 NBPC 26,; R. v.
Castonguay (R.), 2002 NBPC 1, aff’d 2003 NBQB 325; R. v. Daigle, 2003 NBPC 4, aff’d 2004
NBQB 79; R. v. Castonguay (D.), 2003 NBPC 16, , aff’d 6 May 2005 (Q.B.) [unreported], leave to
appeal to C.A. denied, 2006 NBCA 43; R. v. Chiasson, 2004 NBQB 80, leave to appeal to C.A.
denied and appeal quashed, 2005 NBCA 82, [R. v. Chiasson (No. 2)]; R. v. Stanley R. 
Castonguay, 2012 NBPC 19 (CanLII); R. v. Joseph Cyrille Caissie, 2012 NBPC 1 (CanLII); 
Corneau c Québec (Procureure générale), 2016 QCCA 1835; Corneau c. Procureure générale du 
Québec, 2018 QCCA 1172 (CanLII); R. v. Hopper, 2004 NBPC 7, aff’d 2005 NBQB 399, aff’d
2008 NBCA 42. Séguin c Québec (Procureure générale), 2016 QCCS 1881; R. v. John (Jackie) 
Vautour and Roy Vautour, 2010 NBPC 39; Vautour v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2015 NBQB 94 
(CanLII); Vautour et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of New Brunswick et 
al., 2021 NBCA 4 (CanLII); R. v. Hatfield, 2015 NSSC 77 (CanLII). (Selected Eastern Métis 
Cases, 2002-2018) 