Know OUR History

MNO PROPOSED SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS # 1, #2 AND #3 SHOULD BE DEFEATED

By Tony Belcourt, Founding President, Métis Nation of Ontario

The MNO has put forward to the 2018 AGA, three “Proposed Special Resolutions” regarding  MNO Citizenship (Proposed Special Resolution #1, Proposed Special Resolution #2, Proposed Special Resolution #3).  They should be defeated because they introduce a concept that is not present in the MNO Bylaws or its Registry Policy or Guidelines.  In fact, they are contrary to them and if passed may very well be a violation of them.

Proposed Special Resolution #1 is titled: 

Special Resolution on Verifying All MNO Citizens Are Métis Rights-Holdersand Meet Current MNO Citizenship Requirements (emphasis added)

Proposed Special Resolution #1 is based on the Registry and Self-Government Readiness Processpassed by the PCMNO at its meeting on October 20-22, 2017.  That motion states:  

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Provisional Council of the MNO direct the MNO administration to retain the consulting firm KnowHistory to complete a review of all the MNO Registry files in order to prepare for the issuing of new MNO Citizenship cards. The review will provide the following information: 

1.    Files that are determined to meet the current requirementsfor MNO citizenship, including, an identification of whether these individuals ancestrally connect to one of the identified sevenhistoric Métis communities in Ontario or the Métis Nation in western Canada (i.e., through Métis scrip, land grants, etc.) will be issued a new MNO citizenship card. (emphasis added)

The above words, identified seven historic Métis communites, arenot a current requirementof MNO citizenship.  To the contrary, the MNO Registry Policy states:

The MNO asserts that the Historic Métis Nation Homeland in Ontario is the territory identified in the map attached as Appendix A. If an applicant can demonstrate a genealogical connection to a Métis ancestor who identified or was recognized as a Métis who lived in this territory in the late 1700s or later, that will suffice to demonstrate an ancestral connection to a Métis ancestor. In applying this policy statement, the MNO recognizes that its identified Métis traditional territories are not defined with absolute precision. So, for example, if an applicant has a Métis ancestor who lived just outside one of these identified Métis traditional territories or over the United States or Quebec border the applicant may meet the requirement for demonstrating a Métis ancestor. 

The preamble to Special Resolution #1 echoes the PCMNO motion of October 20-22, 2017:

WHEREAS THE MNO has initiated the Registry and Self-Government Readiness Process (the Registry Review) to determine how many MNO Citizens meet the current citizenship requirements set out in the MNO Bylaws and are verified Métis rights-holders; (emphasis added)…

The resolution then proposes to add a new section 7 and 7 subsections to the MNO Bylaws.  The proposed new section 7 states:

All MNO Citizens must have documentation in their citizenship file to demonstrate that they meet the current MNO requirements for citizenship as set out in sections 4 and 5 of the MNO Bylaws and MNO Registry Policy by July 31, 2020.  If as determined by the MNO Registrar through the process set out below, a MNO citizen has an incomplete citizenship file on July 31, 2020, that individual will be removed from the MNO Registry and cease to be a MNO Citizen effective immediately.

Section 4 and 5 of the current MNO Secretariat Bylaws state as follows:

4. Citizenship in the MNO shall be limited to individuals interested in furthering the objects of the MNO and who are Métis within the definition adopted by the MNO,[1]which is as follows:

(a)  Métis means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the Métis Nation.[2]

5. A person is entitled to be registered as a citizen of MNO who:

(a) provides sufficient documentation that he or she is Métis within the meaning of 4(a);[3]

(b) is not enrolled on any other Aboriginal registry; and

(c) applied for admission as a citizen and has been approved through the Registry Process of the MNO as amended from time to time.

It is curious that the preamble to Resolution #1 and the PCMNO Motion of October 2017 make reference to Métis Rights-Holdersand identified seven historic Métis communities in Ontariobut do not include those words in the proposed new Section 7 or any of the 7 subsections.  Why is that?  

What we do know is that the PCMNO has already taken steps to question the legitimacy of many  MNO Citizens who do not have documentation on file to substantiate that they are Métis Rights-Holdersand therefore may be denied a new Métis Nation of Ontario Citizenship Card.  In other words, they will be stricken from the Registry.   

What is the authority for this? Is it because the PCMNO has interpreted the word historicto mean only those Métis whose ancestry is from the identified seven historic Métis communities in Ontario or the Métis Nation in western Canada.  If so, on what basis has that decision been made? 

There is no definition of historic in the MNO By-laws or Registry Policy. 

Also please note that the current MNO Bylaws state that a person is entitled to be registered as a citizen of the MNO who applied for admission as a citizen and has been approved through the Registry Process of the MNO as amended from time to time. 

The PCMNO has taken steps to remove MNO citizens from the Registry based on a new requirement it has adopted which is not contained in the MNO Bylaws or Registry Policies.  The PCMNO is attempting to limit citizenship to only those whose ancestry originates from the West or one of the identified sevenhistoric communities of Ontario that have been approved by the Government of Ontario!.  What about the other communities that are included in the Map which is attached to the MNO Registry Policy?  Some research is still going on in those communities. Why would we prejudice the outcome of that research?

If the PCMNO wants to change the Bylaws to require explicitly that MNO citizens can only come from the Ontario Government’s approved “rights-bearing communities“ or from Western Canada, then the PCMNO should be open with MNO citizens and make that proposal properly through a clear resolution at an MNO Assembly. These Proposed Special Resolutions #1, #2, and #3 are at best misleading and appear to be designed to achieve a purpose that is not explicitly contained in the MNO Bylaws or policies.  They should be defeated.  

Tony Belcourt

August 13, 2018

Map Attached

---

[1]  2016 amendment removed “in accordance with Métis National Council”

[2]July 2004 amended by consensus to adopt the Métis National Council’s definition.  October 23, 2003 amendment replaced “is distinct from Indian or Inuit” with “is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples”.  March 1999 amendment added the phrase “…as distinct from Indian and Inuit”. Previous definition read, “… anyone of Aboriginal ancestry who self-identifies as Métis, has at least one grandparent who is Aboriginal; and whose application for admission as a citizen is accepted by the MNO”. May 5-7, 1994, November 12, 1994 and June 17, 1997 amendments.

[3]Amended pursuant to PCMNO Motion #2, June 17, 1997