From the Ottawa Citizen:

Consider the case of David Smith, the Liberal incumbent in the Quebec riding of Pontiac. Mr. Smith self-identifies as Metis, or what used to be known pejoratively as "half-breeds" (some Metis still use the term) -- a mix of aboriginal and French. Mr. Smith considers himself Metis because he says his maternal great-grandmother was aboriginal.

It's really no one's business what ethnic or racial identity Mr. Smith wants to adopt. However, in this case it is, because the company Mr. Smith founded once sought government contracts set aside for aboriginals. (By the time Mr. Smith was elected to public office, he had sold the company to his wife and children.)

The NDP candidate who hopes to unseat Mr. Smith is now questioning whether the latter is really Metis.

One can't help but think of Israel with its law of return, under which any Jew can board a plane to Jerusalem and claim instant citizenship. Anyone can claim Jewish identity, but if you want to move to Israel somebody is going to ask you to prove it -- and doing so can be difficult. Some Jews don't look "Jewish," just as many Canadian aboriginals look perfectly "white."

It's wrong to say that if you don't look the part, you can't really claim the identity. If most of your family came from France, but your grandfather was Chinese and that's the part of your heritage with which you identify, that's your prerogative -- unless, again, there is some associated entitlement or benefit you are claiming.

Canada has programs specifically for aboriginal people, so clearly there need to be mechanisms to weed out impostors. The only way to prevent cheating is to take the prerogative of identifying oneself away from the individual. But when we start talking about providing empirical proof, the discussion can turn to questions of blood or genetics.

Owing to its historical echoes, these conversations rightly make many people nervous. ("An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who, racially, were full Jews, insofar that he is not a Jew according to Section 2 of Article 5." -- from Germany's Nuremberg Laws of 1935.)

Metis people have long argued that their mixed ancestry is not a dilution of identity, but an identity unto itself. So can someone be part-Metis? At what point on the family tree does a Metis ancestor become family history, rather than a definer of identity?

The Metis National Council has only recently tried to answer the "Who-is-Metis?" conundrum. According to the council, a Metis is one who "self-identifies as Metis, is of historic Metis Nation Ancestry, is distinct from other Aboriginal Peoples, and is accepted by the Metis Nation." This does not specify how much of a person's ancestry must be Metis. It also appears to exclude the adopted children of Metis parents.

Presumably Mr. Smith was within his rights to take advantage of racial or ethnic preferences in government contracting. Yet because categories of race and ethnicity can be hopelessly amorphous, what's not clear is whether such preferences should exist at all.

I think this editorial touches on a lot of important facets of identity politics, but this line struck me: "It's really no one's business what ethnic or racial identity Mr. Smith wants to adopt."

The board is right -- it is no one's business. But when public money is tied to identity, it becomes everyone's business.

That's the insidious cost of big government. Not just the higher taxes to implement social programs. Not just the bloated bureaucracies. It is also the corrosive effect it has on our privacy. As the government continues to encroach on different facets of our lives, with good intentions, of course, those details of our lives become public knowledge.

Does it matter is David Smith calls himself an aboriginal? It shouldn't. But because of the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business, it matters a great deal, and David Smith is subjected to scrutiny and questions that frankly, he shouldn't have to put up with under any other circumstances.

Does it make me feel uncomfortable? Sure it does. But the fact that public money is involved means it needs to be done. I take whatever solace I can in the knowledge that David Smith is a member of the same party responsible for some much of that growth in government.