Indigenous Reconciliation

The New Riel Rebellion: Who is Métis?

Peter Best
August 1, 2022
Whether you consider him a patriot or traitor, Louis Riel’s two rebellions in the 1800s were grounded in practical matters of geography and political representation – with the overarching goal of bettering the lives of the Métis people Riel claimed to represent. But today, a nasty dispute among Métis organizations is fixated on internal power struggles and matters of racial identity rather than greater prosperity and respect for all. At the centre is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that turns on competing definitions of Canada’s mixed-race Métis and arguments over who should represent them. Peter Best explores the legal origins of this fruitless struggle and what it might hold for Canadian taxpayers of all races and combinations.
Indigenous Reconciliation

The New Riel Rebellion: Who is Métis?

Peter Best
August 1, 2022
Whether you consider him a patriot or traitor, Louis Riel’s two rebellions in the 1800s were grounded in practical matters of geography and political representation – with the overarching goal of bettering the lives of the Métis people Riel claimed to represent. But today, a nasty dispute among Métis organizations is fixated on internal power struggles and matters of racial identity rather than greater prosperity and respect for all. At the centre is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that turns on competing definitions of Canada’s mixed-race Métis and arguments over who should represent them. Peter Best explores the legal origins of this fruitless struggle and what it might hold for Canadian taxpayers of all races and combinations.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Canada has always been a country of mash-ups. Sometimes out of necessity, sometimes by choice, our history has been marked by the coming together of different groups, tribes, nations and races to produce something new.

During the age of exploration, North America experienced a rough collision of European and Aboriginal forces. Following the end of the Seven Years’ War, when the country of Canada first began to take legal shape, there arose a formal amalgam of English and French interests. To this unlikely combination was later added United Empire Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution. Then came many more immigrants from Europe and elsewhere, constantly changing the shape and look of Canada. In our modern era, rising rates of mixed marriages and other signs of social mixing between cultures, clans and ethnicities have further reinforced this welcome agglomeration effect, while Canada’s Indigenous population has increased markedly. “We are a métis civilization” declares the opening line of Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul’s 2008 book A Fair Country.

Despite this rich mélange of our backstory, however, in recent decades Canadian legislators and courts have fallen over themselves trying to divide us into separate categories based on racial ancestry – Aboriginal or otherwise – rather that admit the reality and benefit of the integrationist forces at work. The clearest fault line in this faulty process turns on the definition of that quintessentially Canadian concept: being Métis.

Legal Definitions

Coming together to make something new: From its very beginnings, the history of Canada has been marked by the intermingling of diverse cultures and races; pictured is French explorer Jacques Cartier meeting natives at Stadacona, near present-day Quebec City, in 1535.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognized and affirmed “the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.” It is a concept that explicitly includes “Métis peoples.” At the time, however, the Constitution’s framers offered no clear idea of what they meant by the term.

The word “Métis” refers to the offspring and descendants of a union between an Aboriginal and a non-Aboriginal person in the context of Canada (or its geography before Confederation). As such, it encompasses a broad spectrum of possibilities and time-frames. The most familiar example of this process of racial mixing are the Métis of Rupert’s Land – the vast Hudson’s Bay Company concession that later became much of western and northern Canada. These most famously included the Red River settlements of Manitoba prior to Confederation and throughout the Riel Rebellions of 1870 and 1885.

Imagery associated with this time and place include cultural artifacts such as York boats, pemmican, blue capotes, a pipe and pipe bag hung from a red waist sash, dyed European trade cloth worked with silk and beadwork, the Red River jig and Red River cart. All this reveals a combination of European and Aboriginal traditions and elements. Some proponents, including former federal Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Carolyn Bennett, refer to this particular iteration of the Métis as “Capital ‘M’ Métis.”

Familiar Métis imagery: The Red River settlements in what is now Manitoba were marked by distinctive crafts and practices that combined European and Aboriginal traditions including, pictured clockwise from top left, the York boat, blue capote with red sash, Red River cart and pemmican. (Sources of photos: (top left) R. A. Talbot/ Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, 1987/363-Y-2/65; (top right) HBC Corporate Collection; (bottom right) albertaMétis.com)

The Constitution, however, refers to “the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada,” seemingly in the plural. Although the Constitution’s choice of grammar could be read more than one way, it seems to support the view that there is no particular exclusivity to the descendants of the Red River settlements, the Riel Rebellions or the Fur Trade Era in Rupert’s Land, regardless of capitalization preference. It certainly raises the possibility that Métis may exist elsewhere in Canada and trace their origin to other historical eras and geographic areas. Again, the definition of Métis is best seen as simply the offspring of a mixed-race, native and non-native (usually white) couple.

The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples added its perspective on the meaning of Métis:

“Intermarriage between First Nations and Inuit women and European fur traders and fishermen produced children, but the birth of new Aboriginal cultures took longer…Gradually, however, distinct Métis cultures emerged, combining European and First Nations or Inuit heritages in unique ways. Economics played a major role in this process. The special qualities and skills of the Métis population made them indispensable members of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal economic partnerships, and that association contributed to the shaping of their cultures.”

Note again the lack of any geographic specificity entailed in “intermarriage between First Nations and Inuit women and European fur traders.” The Royal Commission makes explicit mention of Métis communities in Labrador and the Maritimes, all of which were outside Rupert’s Land.  The central role of economics – trade, resource use and individual enterprise – is also significant.

According to the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Métis refers to the “intermarriage between First Nations and Inuit women and European fur traders” without any geographic restrictions; pictured, mixed-race families in (left) Ontario and (right) Saskatchewan. (Sources of photos: (left) Robert Bell, courtesy of Library and Archives Canada, e011156727_s1; (right) Provincial Archives of Alberta, OMI Collection)

The Supreme Court of Canada offered the first key legal take on what it means to be Métis in the 2003 case of R. v. Powley. Here it upheld the acquittal of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario area residents Steve and Roddy Powley for shooting a bull moose without a hunting licence on the grounds that they were exercising their Aboriginal right to hunt for food, and that the exercise of that right in the circumstances took priority over Ontario’s hunting regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s factual finding that the Powleys were part of a Métis “community” in and around Sault Ste. Marie.

Specifically, the judgement declared that, “Métis cultures by definition post-date European contact…The constitutionally significant feature of the Métis is their special status as peoples that emerged between first contact and the effective imposition of European control.” As to who can claim membership in a Métis community, the Court wrote, “Courts will have to ascertain Métis identity on a case‑by‑case basis taking into account the value of community self‑definition, the need for the process of identification to be objectively verifiable and the purpose of the constitutional guarantee.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the Court, a person may thus be a Métis if he or she self-identifies as one, or has an ancestral connection to an historic Métis “community” and is currently accepted as a member of that community. These criteria are unquestionably vague. But read at face value, Powley argues against the suggestion there is anything specifically “Aboriginal” about being a Métis. Past and present Métis culture, by definition, was founded in and is defined by the post-contact, Euro-Canadian mercantile culture.

Then in 2016 the Supreme Court ruled on Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development). Based on seemingly thin legal and historical arguments, the Court declared that Canada’s 400,000 Métis and 200,000 non-status Indians were to be considered “Indians” under federal jurisdiction, at least for the purposes of being eligible to claim benefits from the Canadian taxpayer.

The Court again failed or declined to concretely define who exactly is a Métis person. There is no consensus on who is considered a Métis or a non-status Indian, nor need there be,” the ruling reads. Rather, this is a “fact-driven question to be decided on a case-by-case basis in the future.” Given the implications of turning all Métis into the equivalent of status Indians, with all the rights associated with tapping into Canadian taxpayers, this open-ended description hardly settled anything.

A landmark decision: The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 Daniels ruling declared Canada’s 400,000 Métis and 200,000 non-status Indians eligible for federal support, but failed to provide a clear definition of how to determine who is Métis; pictured, Métis activist Harry Daniels, who was one of the original plaintiffs. (Source of photo: Congress of Aboriginal Peoples)

Prompted by Daniels, in June 2019 the Justin Trudeau government announced that it had signed “self-government agreements with three provincial branches of the “Métis Nation” in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. (Manitoba signed a similar agreement in 2021.) According to the National Post, these agreements were to be “an upfront recognition of the Métis right to self-government, with further agreements on specific areas of jurisdiction to follow,” such as “childcare, language and the administration of justice.” Then federal minister Bennett announced at the time, “For generations, Métis weren’t recognized at all by the federal government…Métis were the forgotten people.” Forgotten no longer. Since the Daniels ruling, Métis organizations have received an estimated $3.4 billion in federal funding.

But how is anyone to decide who gets to participate in this taxpayer-funded windfall? Recall that Daniels proposed the entirely impractical concept of 400,000 individual “case by case” examinations of Métis status. By failing to properly define and explain the elements of Métis status, the Supreme Court repeated and compounded the failures of the section 35 framers to produce a legally valid notion of a Métis person. Now it appears this will be up to the Métis themselves to hash out in court, as indicated by a high-stakes lawsuit that is already tearing the Métis Nation apart.

Duelling Definitions

Since 1983 the Métis have been represented nationally by the Ottawa-based Métis National Council (MNC). It was created through the cooperation of three founding provincial bodies: the Manitoba Métis Federation, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and Métis Nation of Alberta. Later, organizations from Ontario and British Columbia were added.

Forgotten no longer: In the wake of the Daniels ruling, Métis organizations have received an estimated $3.4 billion in federal funding; pictured, former Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Carolyn Bennett. (Source of photo: Arctic Circle, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Within the MNC, the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) has typically acted as the first among equals, given its claim to represent the “homeland” of the Métis Nation. For this reason, MMF members also tended to dominate the national organization’s leadership and bureaucracy. Of note, David Chartrand has been the president of MMF since 1997, and during that time has held numerous senior executive positions at MNC, including as vice-president from 2007 to 2021.

In 2002, reflecting this sense of noblesse oblige, Manitoba representatives pushed the MNC to adopt a “National Definition” of Métis status as being “a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and who is accepted by the Métis Nation.” (The twin requirements of self-identification and rigorously documented ancestry, plus the MNC’s apparent option still to reject any applicant who seemingly qualified in other respects, make for a curious combination.)

This National Definition promoted Manitoba’s interests by focusing attention on those with a direct connection to the original Red River settlements (although it also applied to Métis elsewhere in the former Rupert’s Land and where the fur trade had been conducted). This position naturally rankled other provincial bodies, notably the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), whose members may claim Métis identity but most of whom lack the necessary Red River/Rupert’s Land connections to meet the National Definition. The MNO prefers what it calls a “pan-Indigenous” definition of Métis status based on “self-identification and a connection to the territories outside Manitoba.”

A restrictive “National Definition”: The Manitoba Métis Federation promotes a concept of a Métis Nation that is limited to areas associated with the former Rupert’s Land and Red River settlements, excluding the possibility of “new” Métis communities elsewhere in the country.

This long-simmering internal feud took on much greater import following the Daniels decision ruling that the Métis are Indians for constitutional purposes, thus opening the door to billions in federal funding through self-government agreements with Ottawa. The reason for the disagreement is one of the few things the competing Métis organizations can agree on. According to MNC legal documents, “Since at least 2017 there has arisen among the governing members of MNC a dispute concerning the identification and recognition of citizens of the Métis Nation.” A legal filing by the MMF similarly observes, “This disagreement quickly devolved into a bitter battle over fundamental questions about what it means to be Métis.”

The issue has been most pronounced in Ontario, where the MNO is particularly aggressive in signing up members from what it calls “new historic Métis communities”; that is, communities without a direct connection to Rupert’s Land and the fur trade. According to census data, Métis are the fastest-growing segment of Canada’s aboriginal population, with most of this growth coming in Eastern Canada. All this threatened the pre-eminent position of the Manitoba Métis Federation within the Métis world.

A rupture in the nation: Following the September 2021 election of Ontario Métis representative Cassidy Caron (left) as president of the Métis National Council, the Manitoba Métis Federation announced (right) it was leaving the national body. (Source of right image: Facebook/ Manitoba Métis Federation)

After failing to block Ontario from welcoming arriviste “new” Métis by legal means, last year the MMF abruptly split from the national body on the eve of its 2021 national assembly. The trigger for this move was the election of Ontario Métis representative Cassidy Caron as MNC president. It is here that the dispute gets messy.

Scorched-Earth Policy

According to the MNC, the departure of the Manitoba Métis prior to the annual meeting was part of a meticulously planned “scorched earth policy” meant to leave the MNC severely damaged as soon as Caron took office. Earlier this year, the national body launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the MMF, claiming its departure was fraught with corporate malfeasance, including the alleged misappropriation of millions of dollars in program funding arrangements signed with the federal government, as well as other allegations of conflicts of interest and non-arm’s-length dealings. (It is important to note that none of the allegations of either side have been tested or proven in court.)

The most prominent of these allegedly stolen programs is the $30 million Métis Veterans Legacy Program between the MNC and Ottawa in 2019. It included a $9 million fund to provide compensation of up to $20,000 for each living Métis veteran of the Second World War (and smaller amounts for surviving families); it also allows the service provider to charge a 15 percent administrative fee, making it a lucrative venture for whoever is running the program. The MNC claims control of this compensation fund was improperly transferred to the MMF prior to the split.

Legal action: A $25 million lawsuit by the Métis National Council accuses the Manitoba Métis Federation and its president David Chartrand (pictured) of engaging in a “scorched-earth policy” that deliberately weakened the national organization following the split. (Source of photo: Jaison Empson/ CBC)

The MNC also claims the MMF arranged “excessive, inappropriate or unnecessary” severance and retirement packages – in some cases up to two years’ pay – for personnel working for the national office, some of whom were then promised jobs with the Manitoba organization. The MNC further claims the MMF seized control of an historic and irreplaceable Métis computer database that was supposed to reside with the national organization. All told, the MNC is claiming losses and damages of more than $25 million.

In its statement of defence and counterclaim, the MMF denies all allegations, claiming the lawsuit is simply “the latest salvo from the MNC against the MMF and David Chartrand in a broader political dispute over the representation of the Métis people” and “what it means to be Métis.” The MMF boasts that it “was a primary driver of the MNC’s growth and success in procuring billions of dollars in funding from the federal government and other sources for the benefit of the Métis Nation.” Whatever success the national organization has enjoyed, the defence document implies, is thus to be considered the sole result of Manitoba’s efforts. With regard to the veterans’ compensation program, it claims the MNC is incapable of delivering the services required. The MMF thus argues it is entitled to run all the programs it took with it.

Just in case this “take-my-ball-and-leave” legal gambit isn’t sufficiently convincing for the courts, however, the MMF makes a further Hail Mary-style argument to insulate itself from all claims of administrative malfeasance. “The MNC has always operated in accordance with Métis Nation traditions, practices and procedures, which are well known and accepted by the Métis Nation,” the MMF statement of defence asserts. “The MNC is an Indigenous representation body and properly viewed through the lens of recognition, reconciliation, and affirmation…Strict compliance with corporate law requirements, and a failure to recognize and affirm the MNC’s long-standing traditions, practices and governance structures, frustrate and run counter to section 35.”

In essence, the MMF is arguing that as an Indigenous organization, it should not be held to the same legal, fiduciary and ethical standards that apply to non-Aboriginal businesses and organizations. To do so would “frustrate” reconciliation efforts. It is a risky claim that has not been tested in court. And keep in mind that Métis culture has always been a mixed-race child of capitalism, mercantilism, hunting traditions and deep cultural mixing and integration. How could their genuine “traditions, practices and governance structures” be anything other than a reflection of all these, of which compliance with the law – including corporate law – is an essential feature? Further, the MMF clearly expects to benefit from Canadian law – starting with the Constitution itself, and here extending to the fair procedures of civil courts – and expects governments and other organization to live up to agreements in accordance with law.

Better Off Without Ottawa

The MNC’s lawsuit and the MMF’s counterclaim have yet to be resolved by Canada’s legal system. It will likely take years to decide who can be considered the proper overall representative of Métis people, and whether Métis organizations should be held to the same duty-of-care standards as the rest of Canada. While we await these results, however, it bears mention that this fight over how to define Métis identity is itself a deeply problematic and indeed racist concept, in that it seeks to define individuals based on ancient bloodstock. It is also dubious given that much of the motivation is self-admittedly about who gains access to federal largesse and who gets to administer and distribute it. This is not the best path towards improving life for Canadians who claim Métis heritage.
Free to choose their own path: University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan provided employment data and other economic indicators to support his contention that the independent nature of the Metis enabled them to do better than most First Nations.

Tom Flanagan, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary, uses the Métis as an example of the problematic tendency of “defining groups of people in racial terms and putting them under the paternalistic control of the state.” In discussing the process leading up to the recently-concluded self-government agreements that lie at the heart of the current legal fight, Flanagan dismisses the claim that the “Métis have missed out on the benefits that First Nations receive as aboriginal peoples.” Rather, he argues, the evidence points in the opposite direction:

“The Métis are better off than First Nations precisely because they have always been independent and self-supporting, the ‘free people,’ as they have often called themselves. It is no accident that Métis do better than First Nations on every indicator that Statistics Canada measures, including employment, income, housing and education.”

Flanagan explains that prosperity comes from the development of human capital and from participation in the broader economy, not in extracting government funding based on bloodlines and cultural identity. “Ethnic groups such as the Chinese, Japanese and Jews have achieved prosperity in Canada despite enduring periods of discrimination,” Flanagan notes. “Would they have done better, or even as well, if their efforts had been devoted to getting their names on a registry to receive compensation for wrongs done to their ancestors?” Instead, various Métis organizations are fighting over which group represents the purest form of a particular combination of mixed-race heritage.

Learning to love your mashed-up heritage: Mexico’s mixed-race mestizo population is widely recognized for its contribution to the country’s rich ethnic diversity.

Consider the Mexican equivalent of mixed-race Métis and other non-status Indigenous people. These are the Mestizos, a product of what is known as “mestizaje.” They have no special legal, racial status and aspire to none. They’re just “ordinary” Mexicans. If anything, the Mestizos are currently exalted by their community as representing the positive, future-oriented, creative intermingling of the Indigenous and European “races” and cultures that make up the rich, diverse and colourful human tapestry that characterizes that country – a culturally fused “creative participation” with neither the Indigenous nor European side being regarded as superior.

Benefits of Diversity

In Canada, instead of recognizing and celebrating the broad diversity of their heritage, the Métis – or at least their official organizations – seek to have themselves racially pigeon-holed as “Indigenous.” And in doing so, they deliberately ignore the crucial other part of their heritage.

Jody Wilson-Raybould. (Source of photo: Erich Saide Photography)

Consider the case of former Trudeau Cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, described by the Canadian Encyclopedia as “Canada’s first Indigenous justice minister.” In fact, she is of mixed racial heritage. Her father was Indigenous and her mother a white schoolteacher. Her husband is white. She was born and raised in Vancouver. She is thus an example of the social mixing essential to the Canadian experience and epitomizes the richness and success of the integrationist model. Based on the various definitions offered by the courts listed above, we might accurately consider her Métis. Yet it’s fashionable – as well as personally and politically advantageous – for Wilson-Raybould to define herself as “Indian” (her word choice in the title of her autobiography).

The great irony is that being of mixed or indeterminate “blood” – biracial or multi-racial – can be seen as better and healthier, individually and for society, than being of a homogeneous racial group. Multi-ethnic writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff explained in the New York Times the many advantages being “mixed” offers:

“…[It] makes it harder to fall back on the tribal identities that have guided (disastrously) so much of human history, and that are now resurgent. Your background pushes you to construct a worldview that transcends the tribal…You’re also accustomed to the idea of having several selves, and of trying to forge them into something whole, this task of self-creation [being] a defining experience of modernity. Focusing on our multiple social identities imparts mental flexibility…and forces one to think more deeply about the world. It’s linked to economic prosperity and creativity.”

A richly varied and multifarious heritage ought to be the source of great pride. Diversity is said to be our strength, after all. What a shame that such a positive and quintessentially Canadian concept as Métis has been turned into yet another source of legal division and social disharmony.

Peter Best is a lawyer based in Sudbury, Ontario and author of the 2018 book There Is No Difference: An Argument for the Abolition of the Indian Reserve System and Special Race-based Laws and Entitlements for Canada’s Indians.

Source of main image: City of Winnipeg Archives.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Fake Meat Fiasco: So Much for Plant-based Protein Alternatives

It wasn’t long ago that plant-based meat alternatives – fake meat – began to take over supermarket shelves and fast-food chains. Environmentalists and animal-right activists promised that shifting to a fully plant-based diet would make us all healthier and help solve global warming. Governments jumped in to rhapsodize and subsidize the next miracle food. But all that soon began to fizzle: consumers turned up their noses at fake meat, sales plummeted and restaurant chains began dropping it from menus. Chewing over the exaggerations and false claims behind fake meat, Doug Firby charts how this one-time centrepiece of woke foodies has been spat out by decidedly dissatisfied consumers.

Doug Ford’s Use of the “Notwithstanding” Clause: Keeping Ontario’s Schools Open

As Canada’s courts continue to invent novel new rights for Canadians, conflicts with law-making governments become ever-more common. Decisions that are political in nature are increasingly made by unelected but intrusive judges, eroding the authority of legislatures – and the sovereignty of the people who elected them. It is time to swing the pendulum back, asserts Grant A. Brown. And the Charter’s “notwithstanding” clause, he believes, is a legitimate constitutional means to do so. This logic was on display last week when the Ontario government used the notwithstanding clause in back-to-work legislation meant to keep the province’s schools open. While a deal this week with the union representing illegally striking educational support workers led Doug Ford’s government to withdraw the law, its purpose was served. Are other provinces taking note? 

The Skilled Trades Crisis and What to Do About it

Canadians have grown familiar with the frequently rocky post-pandemic service quality in the restaurant, hospitality and retail sectors. As well as standard refrains like “We’re short-staffed,” “We can’t find good people,” or “We can’t match the wages of other industries.” Less visible than these inconveniences is a potentially far greater problem lurking in the manufacturing, natural resources, transportation and other sectors: an acute shortage of certified trades workers. Giving three cheers to Canada’s hard-working tradespeople, Gwyn Morgan charts the growth of the economy-threatening shortage, surveys the damage it is wreaking, looks at some of its avoidable causes, and proposes some remedies.

More from this author

Why Doesn’t the Charter Apply to All Canadians?

Everyone has an opinion about Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms these days. Does it really include the right to strike? Should provinces use the notwithstanding clause to suspend its rights? But there’s never been any debate about who should hold these rights. All fair-minded Canadians would be deeply offended by the idea that the Charter should be applied selectively on the basis of race or culture. Yet that is what Canada’s courts are doing. Peter Best examines an incendiary ruling in Yukon that sets aside the individual equality rights of Indigenous Canadians in favour of the collective rights of native self-government. Is this sort of discrimination a new Canadian tradition?

Picture of an American and Canadian flags under a bridge. What happens now that Canada might be extending its Aboriginal rights to those who live in the United States?

Supreme Blunder: Canada’s Highest Court Grants Aboriginal Rights to American Natives

Citizenship is a two-way street. Belonging to a nation-state entails certain rights and benefits as well as concomitant responsibilities, including an obligation of loyalty. It is not something to be handed out on a whim. Yet that’s precisely what Canada’s Supreme Court has done with its recent Desautel ruling – granting the advantages of Canadian citizenship to American Indigenous people with no connection or loyalty to this country. Lawyer Peter Best traces the origin of this bizarre judicial fabulation and its potentially disastrous consequences for all Canadians, including the Aboriginal community.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.