Know OUR History

Know OUR History - Part 1

By Tony Belcourt

In its report to the 2018 Annual General Assembly, the MNO reported that according to the research done so far, almost 40% of MNO citizens lacked the  documents it says are now needed in the MNO Registry. The MNO reports that it has 18,000 citizens in the Registry. Does the MNO intend to remove up to 7,200 of those citizens?

The MNO has a process underway to remove elected members of its Councils if they don't have documentation it says it needs (even though all of them have previously been verified in order to run in the first place). Does it intend to remove up to 100 of its 286 elected members of the Councils (PCMNO; Community Councils; Youth; Veterans)?

What the current leadership of the MNO is doing is cold-hearted.  It is turning its back on the people who made the MNO possible in the beginning.  Except for a very small number on the PCMNO, none were around in the days when building the MNO was a huge challenge, including our current MNO President Margaret Froh.

Just who were those people?  

The MNO had its Founding Delegates Assembly on May 4 - 7, 1994 at the community centre on Church Street next door to the Town Inn.  I don't have a complete list handy of all of those who attended but here is a list of 65 of them:

Delegates – MNO Founding Delegates Assembly, Toronto May 4 – 6, 1994

1.     Suzanne Burnett, Grimsby 2.     Elize Hartley, Hamilton 3.     Gilbert Gervais, Timmins 4.     Alma Adams, MacDiarmind 5.     Jean Teillet, Toronto 6.     Dianne Anderson, East York

7.     Brenda Prouty, Dryden 8.     Sandy Kimpert, Dryden 9.     Norm Mulligan,  Ottawa  10.  Willie Flynn, Mattawa 11.  Guy Lefebvre, Timmins 12.  Marc Rondeau, Porcupine 13.  Helen Bradley, Sans Souci 14.  Marie Hevysage, Curtis

15.  Mary Jane Boston… SSM  16.  Mike Johnson, Echo Bay 17.  Eleanor Yateman, Apsley 18.  Debbie Kirk, Ft. Frances  19.  Vivian Wilson, Port McNicoll 20.  Sharon Reynolds, Midland 21.  Don Cadeau, Port McNicoll  22.  Owen Roberts, Guelph

23.  John Roberts, Hannan 24.  Wendy Breen, Brantford  25.  Sharon White, Kingston  26.  Brad McGraw, Wabigoon 27.  Ted Biggs, Kenora 28.  Bill McLean, Peterborough 29.  James Marcellais, Balmertown  30.  Louise Goulding, MacTier 31.  Brian Maddigan, Thunder Bay 32.  Theresa Smith, Goulis River 33.  Cam Enders, Beardmore 34.  Dan Sinclair, Sioux Lookout

35.  Roland Chartrand, Keewatin 36.  Matt Adolph, Sudbury 37.  Sharon Talbot, Blind River 38.  Alan Bjorna, Batchawana  39.  Olaf Bjorna, Batchawana 40.  Garth Lepine, Sarnia 41.  Norm Lepine, Petrolia 42.  William Gagnon, Port Hope 43.  Lorraine St. Germain, Marathon 44.  Edith McLeod, MacDiarmid  45.  Evelyn Jones, Penetanguishene 46.  Albert Lepage, Victoria Harbour 47.  John Novak, North Bay 48.  Elmer St. Pierre, Northbrook 49.  Pat Thibault, Arden 50.  Richard Hirst, Peterborough

51.  Paul Desgroseilliers, Buckorn 52.  Marion Larkman, Buckhorn 53.  Lois McCallum, Clayton 54.  Reta Gordon, Manotick 55.  Paul Chaput, Toronto 56.  Agnes Lidstone, SSM 57.  George McGuire, Thunder Bay 58.  Tony Belcourt, Ottawa

59.  Naomi Oig, Dryden 60.  Ron Swain, SSM 61.  Millie Flamand, Dryden 62.  Shane Belcourt, Ottawa 63.  Lawrence Gladue, Ottawa 64.  Larry King, Thunder Bay 65.  Vivian McLachlin 66. David Hannan

That may not look like a lot of people by today's standards but keep in mind that in 1994, the only money we had was from a small loan from the MNC. Those were the days when the only "office" we had was in the attic of my home in Ottawa.  The Ontario government refused to fund us and blocked us from core funding for two years. We depended 100% on volunteers.

The people who started the MNO were all dedicated and well intentioned. In those days, there was no clear cut definition of who was Métis or who could belong to the Métis Nation. Anthropologist Joe Sawchuk said this in a paper that he presented at a conference in Helsinki in 2002 titled "Metis Indians of Ontario":

There might not be obvious cultural and phenotypic differences between status Indians, non-status Indians and Metis, but the legal differences between them are clear cut. Status Indians are entitled to an array of services including social assistance, housing, education and health care that are not available to Metis or non-status. These legal differences caused the Metis and non-status Indian to band together in the mid 1960s in Western Canada.  What they had in common at the time was a lack of recognition as Native peoples from the government of Canada, and exclusion from the special services afforded status Indians.  

At that time, the definition of who was a Metis, or who was allowed to join a Metis organization was broadly based. Most Metis organizations defined a Metis as someone of mixed white and Indian ancestry (or of mixed non-Indian and Indian ancestry); and non-status Indians were welcomed to join. No distinction was made between Metis with roots in Red River and those Metis whose ancestry was founded in other parts of Canada; no cultural affiliation or references to historical populations or events were needed for a person to join the political organizations.  There was nothing to prevent a non-status Indian from identifying as Metis if he/she wished.  Taking on the name Metis was an innovative assumption of identity for "half-breed" and non-status alike.  In the prairies, the term was almost unknown – or at least unused – until Metis political organizations began to re-emerge in the 1960s. ^[2]

Footnote (2) reads:

^[2] In a survey undertaken by the Manitoba provincial government in 1958, it was found that less than one percent, or three out of 295 people who identified themselves or were identified by others as Metis or half-breed said they would give "Metis" in answer to the question "What is your nationality?"  "Half-breed" was a more common answer – 42 percent or 123 stated that they would claim half-breed as their nationality, while 68 or 23 percent would answer that they were Indian (Lagasse 1959: 54-56).

There was a great deal of discussion at our Founding Delegates Conference on who could belong to the new organization we were creating. A paper on the subject written by Paul Chaput with input from many of us including Jean Teillet was presented.  Eventually a motion was made to adopt this definition:

Motion #10

Move the following definition:

Anyone of Aboriginal ancestry who self-identifies as Metis, is distinct from Indian or Inuit and who is accepted by the Metis Nation of Ontario, is Metis.

A person is entitled to be registered as a citizen of the Metis Nation of Ontario who:

          * is alive,

          * self-identifies as Metis,

          * is distinct from Indian or Inuit,

          * has genealogical ties to Aboriginal ancestry,

          * is accepted by the Metis Nation of Ontario

          * is not enrolled on any other Aboriginal Registry.

Moved by:James Marcellais

Seconded:Willie Flynn                   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

This definition and criteria for the MNO Registry remained in place for over a decade.  This was the MNO Power Point Presentation on the Registry process that was on the MNO website in 2005:

All MNO Citizens who were registered from the time we started until now are due the respect they deserve.  They applied to the MNO for citizenship in good faith.  They provided the documentation as required from time to time. As stated in an earlier blog, at the beginning we only needed people to complete the form which indicated their ancestry.  We made value judgments that the applicant met the criteria on the basis of the information required at the time.  When the verification process for entitlement to be elected was instituted they either had the documentation needed or obtained it in order to run for office.  The process we used has stood the test of time. Everyone currently holding elected office met that test.  It is unconscionable that the PCMNO would ignore this history and turn their back on so many thousands of MNO citizens who, to date, could proudly say they are a citizen of the MNO.  It is wrong to remove people with vested interests - morally and legally.  The PCMNO should respect its own history - and its people.

Tony Belcourt
September 12, 2018