What’s up with the Métis?
Uncategorized Comments (0)
Written and submitted by
David Bentley
June 10 2003
In 1981, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was in the process of forming and delivering the Charter of Rights, which was to include an Aboriginal rights clause. Vic Savino (2001), in the publication “First Perspective”, refers to this time as a time when 8 out of 10 provinces were against the Aboriginal clause and Native organizations such as the Native Council of Canada saw this as their one chance to have Aboriginal rights protected in the Constitution. Included in the Aboriginal rights clause were Indians, Inuit and the Métis. According to Mr. Savino, at one meeting between Native groups and government, Manitoba Senator Duff Roblin asked Harry Daniels, leader of the Native National Council which represented the Métis, ‘How do we know who is Métis?’ To this, Mr. Daniels responded, ‘We know who we are, we know the generations of discrimination we have endured, we don’t need anybody to tell us who we are.
If you identify as Ukranian or Italian, we don’t question who you are or try to tell you who you are. We self-identify just like everyone else in this country’. Mr. Savino reports that Mr. Roblin then shook Mr. Daniel’s hand, and the Métis remained in the Aboriginal rights clause. (Savino, 2001).
While Mr. Daniel’s passion and romanticism as to Métis self-identification are certainly noble qualities, history has proven the naivete of those remarks. History has also shown where blind faith in a poorly-worded Charter of Rights can lead to divisiveness, abuse of power, and, ultimately be damaging to the very Métis it was meant to protect.
Section 25 of the Canadian Constitution recognizes the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada (which include Indian, Inuit and Métis groups) in order to protect the culture, customs, traditions and languages of Aboriginal peoples. Within the Constitution, the Métis won recognition but not definition. Along with recognition came funding to protect the Métis culture; and the fight amongst Métis groups to access the funding began. It also introduced a whole new era for Human Resources and Development Canada (HRDC) and questionable dealings with certain Métis organizations.
Having received recognition in the Charter of Rights, the Métis had to join and form a voice of their own when dealing with the government. In 1983, a number of Métis organizations left the umbrella of the Native Council of Canada. In 1984, five Provincial Métis Councils merged to create the Métis National Council (MNC), including the Louis Riel Métis Association in British Columbia. At this time, provincial branches of the MNC were created. In November 1984, the MNC Secretariat revised MNC by-laws whereby membership in the MNC passed from the Louis Riel Métis Association of British Columbia to the Métis Nation of British Columbia (MNBC).
This was a common procedure with the provincial organizations that had merged. Since those days in 1984, much has changed within Métis organizations and there is a smell of collusion within the memberships. This stems mostly from the anticipation of land claim settlements in the not-to-distant future. Currently, the MNC and its affiliates are stating that for a person to be Métis, they must have direct roots to the Métis Homeland as they define it, thus denying membership to many Métis in Canada. In some cases, members of some families have been granted membership, while other members of the same family have been denied. The bloodline would appear not to play a role. This is also the type of action that has led some to break away from the MNC and join other, non-funded Métis organizations. To date, the government has not agreed to the ‘Métis definition’ as put forward by MNC and its affiliates.
In a February, 2003 interview, Dr. John Roberts, Acting President of the Canadian Métis Council, confirmed the outrage of many Métis directed toward the various groups who are trying to define who is Métis. Dr. Roberts states this is a case of ‘ethnic cleansing, even though the government has not recognized a definition involving ancestry to the Métis Homeland, the government continues to pump money into these organizations that use the money to work against the government, particularly HRDC, in order to narrow the definition and, by extension, obtain more government funding and give more power to specific individuals. The concept of ‘Nationhood’ equates with ‘wealth’, and this is a far cry from the original reasons for including the Métis in the Constitution’. Dr. Roberts furthers his point with the following, ‘This is a perfect example of a nationhood gone awry and serving individual rather than collective interests. People are forced to accept membership in MNC on MNC’s terms if the people want to be ‘officially’ recognized as Métis and if these people want any financial advantages that come from being Métis. Being Métis then, is not a matter of blood, but a matter of pocketbook. Does the government tell Blacks that they’re not Black unless they can trace their ancestry back to a particular part of Africa, or that Mohawks are not Indians unless they can prove that they’re part of, say, Joseph Brant’s family?’
While the MNC and affiliates receive core funding, other Métis organizations do not. While some do receive education and training funding, it is usually done under the umbrella of a core-funded group. Under this arrangement, groups that are not core-funded are set up for failure. Unable to have staff on a payroll, it is most difficult to provide the services to complement the education and training funding.
Currently, the relationship between HRDC and the MNC is being challenged in the courts with papers served on HRDC in July 2002. The suit was launched by Mr. Kurtis DeSilva, President of the MNBC and has an interesting history.
According to court documents (Federal Court – Trial Division), by a Memorandum of Understanding in 1996, various Métis groups in British Columbia, as well as MNC, agreed to recognize MNBC as the governing member organization for British Columbia. Also in January 1996, HRDC entered into the ‘National Framework Agreement for Métis Human Resource Development and Labour Market Training’ with MNC with MNBC being a signatory to the agreement. To further this agreement, in September 1996, MNBC signed a Regional Bilateral Agreement with HRDC. In January 1997, HRDC informed MNBC that it had failed to account for, or had improper expenditures, of approximately $135,000 and that HRDC would not renew the contract. At no time did HRDC advise on how to properly deal with the said overpayment.
At this time, according to Mr. DeSilva’s suit, the officers and directors of MNBC resigned their positions to avoid HRDC liability and to incorporate a new entity to continue to receive HRDC funding. These officers and directors incorporated the Métis Provincial Council in British Columbia (MPCBC). HRDC continued to advance funds to MPCBC despite it being set up to avoid HRDC liability, thus damaging MNBC by failing to make both MPCBC and MNBC abide by HRDC requirements. Since this time, HRDC has refused to acknowledge MNBC as a legitimate organization representing Métis. When HRDC filed its defence with the courts, Mr. DeSilva and his counsel were surprised at the lack of a defence put forth by HRDC.
Also in the suit, MNBC is challenging the definition of Métis as defined by MNC and MPCBC. Mr. DeSilva’s claim is that the narrow definition and process disentitles Métis people who do not agree with the definition. Since HRDC has not directed MNC and MPCBC from using their definition process, MNBC charges that HRDC is aiding and acquiescing in a discriminatory practice contrary to Section 15 of the Constitution Act (1982). (Court documents, Federal Court – Trial Division).
This is but one example of the problems associated with definition and the delivering of funding to Métis organizations. HRDC dodged a bullet the last time it was involved in a scandal, since no Métis issues or involvement came out at the time. Some Métis wonder how that was avoided. Mr. DeSilva’s suit has the potential to bring questionable practices to the table for public consideration.
It is obvious that many problems have resulted since the day the Métis received recognition in the Charter. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) addressed the issue of the Métis in Canada, but to date has mostly gathered dust, despite being supported by many Métis.
There is also no political will in this country to address the concerns within the Métis community, divided as they are. The information and circumstances surrounding the suit brought forward by MNBC has been brought to the attention of both Liberal MPs as well as MPs sitting with the Canadian Alliance. While interest was expressed by both sides, the silence since has been interesting. It would appear the Métis are an issue that political parties are not comfortable with, and thus, following up on these concerns is difficult.
While the political and court angles play out, there is also an onus on the Métis people themselves to work on unity within their numbers. They also have an obligation to Canadians to make clear who they are so Canadians can have a clear picture in their dealings with the Métis. With rights come responsibilities. This is a playing field that has to be levelled, if only for fairness for all. Until a unified definition as to who is Métis is agreed upon, both by Métis and Canadians, there can never be a Métis Nation, only a Méti$ Nation.
David Bentley
@ June 10, 2003