I understand that the Inuit and other northern aboriginal peoples are culturally, spiritually, and linguistically distinct from both the First Nations and the Metis of Canada, not to mention a separate migration from the Old World. However, it seems a similar distinction could certainly be made between, say, the Haida and the Onandaga (minus the migration). Were there specific pressures around the time of the drafting of the Constitution that led to the distinction being made? Were the three categories specified (Indian, Inuit, Metis) just the simplest ones to make?
In the early 1930s, the Conservative government of R.B. Bennett was desperate to shore up the dismal accounts of the Canadian government. Canada was one of the countries hardest hit by the Great Depression of the 1930s. As an export nation the sudden stillness of international trade hit the northern Dominion harder than most. Prime Minister Bennett's solution was to cut expenses across the board. Bennett - a long time corporate leader and millionaire - ran the country the way he would run his business. It made sense to many during the Depression that if the government had less money flowing in, it should cut down on money flowing out.
One of the expenses Ottawa looked hard at was the administration of relief in Arctic Quebec. In 1931, the federal government decided that Quebec should pay for the welfare of those Inuit communities and at first they agreed. Within a year though, the Quebec government wrote back to the federal government noting that it had no responsibility in the matter of administration of Aboriginal peoples (though they would have said Indians or Eskimos at that time). On 7 July, 1932, Ottawa replied: "Eskimo not classed with Indian in British North America Act and Indian Act does not apply to Eskimo. Eskimos own property and operate businesses in their own names and have all rights of citizenship. Debates in Dominion House show contrary intention with respect to Indians. Eskimo is not ward of Crown." The Attorney General agreed with the province of Quebec's position that it was a federal matter, but neither side was willing to budge. At the expense of starving Inuit, a stalemate over jurisdiction issues developed.
This continued on until 1933, when Quebec Premier Alexandre Taschereau referred the case to the Supreme Court, asking whether the term 'Indian' used in section 91 of the British North America Act included the Inuit residents of his province. The case wouldn't be heard until 1935 and it was only in 1939 that a judgement was rendered.
The federal government argued that the Inuit were a different 'race' than Indians, that there had been no Inuit within the borders of the Dominion in 1867 so it could not apply, and that the Inuit had traditionally been treated "differently" than other Aboriginal(as poor, destitute Canadians, rather than how they treated other Aboriginal peoples, which was effectively as a lower class of citizen - not a shining moment in our history). Quebec argued that the term Indian had been applied to the Inuit before 1867 and that many other Indians had lived outside the boundaries of Confederation but were now beholden to its laws.
In the final decision by Chief Justice Lyman Duff (which you can read in full here thanks to the wonderful internet), Duff clearly explains that yes, Inuit are Indians. The Hudson Bay Company had for a long time treated them as such. In 1867, the Canadian Parliament passed legislation outlining its responsibility for Indians in the Hudson Bay's Ruperts Land when it took that territory over, which it did in 1870. Effectively the Supreme Court researched and argued a historical debate over the use of the term Eskimo and found that it was consistently conflated with Indian. Thus, the federal government would be responsible for administrating Inuit people.
So all of that to say that the premise of your question is slightly mistaken - Inuit were separated in that there was no explicit statement saying they were considered "Indians," but Duff's decision outlines (and is made on) the fact that the Inuit, regardless of legal definitions, had always been considered the same as Indians throughout Canada's legal history. Any distinction between them was accidental or non-binding.
Wow that's really interesting -- reminds my of the way the USA distingishes Pacific Islanders and Alaska Natives in separate census categories than the other Native populations in the lower 48.
Has anyone ever published a comparative social and legal history of the Peri-Arctic people of the globe? Are there any meaningful differences between Russian, American, and Canadian approaches to relations and legal status of Peri-Arctic peoples, especially since some ethnic groups have populations all three states, allowing to an especially detailed comparative social history. I ask this as someone who never visited the far north and has only interacted with native people of the Eastern Great Lakes region (Hodenosaunee, etc)
