A very costly arbitrary word

This letter went into 'The Calgary Herald' today and since I have no clue how to send links, I am re-posting it:

"Dear Editor,

"The issue about who is, or is not, Metis lies in the constitutionally-vague definition of the term.  A Metis is described very broadly as a person who is descended from mixed native and European blood, but it can also mean people who have lived among Metis, married into the society, are accepted by the community or self-identify as Metis.  This is what the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 and it can also include “non-status Indians”. 

Just to further complicate matters, one of the drafters of the Constitution Act of 1982 added the term “Metis” at the last minute to have it ready for the Queen to sign when she was here in 1982.  Because of the urgency, no one correctly calculated the downstream impacts of adding Metis to the document.

 "With the financial implications for 600,000 people, no wonder it’s become such an issue.

 

"Nancy Marley-Clarke"

 

The arbitrariness of it all is simply breathtaking!  The guy who just threw the word "Metis" into the mix was a New Zealander who came on secondment and went like the wind, leaving an unholy mess in his wake.  A champion and scholar of the Maori people, he thought he'd solve the same problems for Canada.  But all he did was cost us millions.  The reason I know this is because B was also part of the constitutional team and argued against it at the time.  But seriously, it was all rushed so it would be ready when Her Majesty arrived to sign.  

That's the kind of mess you can create by trying to be a hero.  Dumb.