Some media are suggesting the recent federal decision that Metis are to be considered as Indian for constitutional purposes will lead to an open ended free for all where people look for traces of aboriginal heritage to take unfair advantage of federal resources.
First, it is clear that Metis are included as aboriginal peoples - that is right in the Constitution Act 1982. Moreover there is a longstanding and straightforward legal definition of Metis that makes clear race is not the main issue.
R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43,  2 SCR 207set the legal definition of "Métis" as people who have continued ties to a historical Métis community, and are accepted as such by that community. There needs be some ancestral connection but racial percentages are not relevant. The real question is connection to an existing community. Someone with no ties to an existing Metis community cannot just claim to be Metis.