As you are aware, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) has agreed to hold special consultations on Métis issues. The first of these consultations was held with the Metis National Council (MNC) in Saskatoon January 16 and 17. The meeting was the result of a Memorandum of Understanding signed last year between the MNC and the Commission. At first described as a "Roundtable," the terminology was changed by RCAP to "Special Consultation" during the final days of preparation for the meeting. 

A second consultation --a "Métis Circle" will be held with the NCC and the Confederacy of Métis Peoples in April of 1994. 

It should be pointed out that the NCC was not invited to the Saskatoon meeting by RCAP or MNC, (as it was to previous Roundtables on other issues of other Aboriginal peoples). Nor was the Commission willing to provide funds to have NCC observers at the meeting. The NCC Executive agreed, with the approval of the Board of Directors, to send this writer, Martin Dunn, to the meeting as an observer. 

Attendance

There were approximately 125 people at the meeting. This included RCAP Commissioners and staff, about 80 representatives of the MNC affiliates, a smattering of legal and policy "experts," and observers from the federal government and the provincial governments of the proposed Metis "homeland." From the NCC point of view it is interesting to note that NWT President Gary Bohnet participated as a delegate as did Ron Swain, who was lauded as the President of the Metis Nation of Ontario. Former NCC President Harry Daniels was a participant as was Rob Milen. Jim Sinclair was present in the building, but did not participate in the workshops or plenary sessions. Tom Lalonde of the the B.C. Louis Riel Association and Victoria Island Metis executives were invited and active participants. I noticed that a name-tag had been set aside for our old friend John Weinstein, although I did not see him, and that he was listed as the Writer/Researcher in the RCAP kit for the meeting. 

It should be noted that an eight-member delegation from the Alberta Metis Settlements was present and were noted as special guests and singled out with thanks for their participation.. They are not MNC affiliates, but were very active in the the discussion on self-government and a land base for Metis. 

Structure

It was announced that the kit for meeting was produced by RCAP staff. In addition to agenda, list of attendees, and background for the workshop questions, it contained summaries of several research papers on Métis that are being produced for and/or by RCAP. 

The format of the meeting was exactly the same as the Federal consultation meetings on the constitution leading up to the Charlottetown process.  The meeting was structured around the four simultaneous workshops --called Ïbreakout sessionsÓ -- which were held on each of the two days of the meeting.  Participants were assigned by name to one of the workshops and included delegates, Commissioners and staff, experts, and government reps.  (Although I was invited to participate by the facilitator in one workshop, I chose to be a silent observer.) 

The workshops addressed a series of five questions (attached) which were presented as part of the meeting kit.  A short plenary presentation on each of the questions was delivered prior to each workshop.  Raporteurs from each workshop met briefly to consolidate their notes and one individual presented the workshop summary to a short plenary session at the end of each workshop. 

The meeting was opened and closed by speeches from the Commission co-Chairs and from MNC President Gerald Morin. 
 

If the concluding speeches are to be believed, the consultation was a success for both the MNC and for RCAP, although attendance at workshops fell off noticeably on the second day.  With a few notable exceptions, the plenary sessions were business-like and uneventful.  The notable exception are as follows: 

In his opening prayer Fr. Guy Lavalee spoke of the internal ÏcrisisÓ  that was being experienced by the MNC and assured the meeting that this was a natural part of the Ïtransition of leadership.Ó  The Chairman of the meeting, Jim Burke of the NWT, warned delegates not to raise internal political issues on the floor, and cut short a few attempts to discuss the fact Ïeastern MetisÓ were not invited to the meeting. 

I might note that I did not speak in the meeting. I experienced very little hostility from anyone except Marc Leclair, and had some useful coffee-break discussions with Commissioners and with a few delegates.  Although I could only attend one of the four simultaneous workshops held every couple of hours, I think I was able to get a fairly good sense of the attitude of the participants.  I was pleasantly surprised by the concern and interest shown by some participants for Metis outside the MNC homeland.  It is my feeling that at least half of the participants would be willing to modify the Metis Accord definition of Metis to be more inclusive.  Unfortunately, that half does not include many of those at the executive level of the MNC. 

Apart from a few plenary speeches and taking the role of facilitators at some of the workshops, the leadership and Ïnational bureaucracyÓ of the MNC had surprisingly little to say at the meeting or in the workshops I attended. 

Issues

In terms of issues discussed and presented by the meeting, there were virtually no surprises.  The five questions addressed by the working groups dealt with identity and enumeration, federal and provincial jurisdiction for Metis, land and resources, self-government and programs and services. 

The real emphasis was on the Metis Nation Accord and the recommendation that RCAP endorse the accord or at least include it in their recommendations as the basis for a Ïlegal and binding" agreement with the federal government and the provincial governments in the MNC homeland. There were some verbal attempts to soften the impact of the Accord by describing it as "inclusive" but the text itself has not been changed and, from my point of view, the MNC strategy to "corner the market" on Metis funding in Canada is still very evident. 

In the workshop I was in and in the plenary session on identity and enumeration, the actual text of the Metis Nation Accord was not specifically discussed. As is often the case in situations where people are trying avoid or ignore the hard issues, most of the discussion revolved around the "We-know-who we-are-and we-will-define-ourselves" kinds of statements. It was interesting to see, however, the increasing emphasis on a community-by-community basis for definition, as opposed to the "top-down" dictates of the definition section of the Accord. The other issues were discussed in very much the same vein that they are discussed by any Aboriginal group seeking economic and political equity in Canada. 

Significance

It is very evident from the material presented above, that the NCC and the Confederacy of Métis Peoples in Canada have a lot of work to do in the next few months to protect the interests of NCC Métis constituents and the interests of other Confederacy participants. At the meeting, the MNC announced they were meeting with federal and provincial Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs in Toronto at the end of January to "set up a process" in which those governments would be asked to make the Metis Nation Accord "a legal and binding document." If this were to occur, it is virtually certain that the Métis in Canada who are excluded by this Accord definition and/or who are not members of the MNC affiliate organizations will have an extremely difficult if not impossible task in getting their concerns addressed by government, or even recognized by the Canadian public. 

There is little doubt that this will be a major issue at the NCC's Annual General Meeting in February. It will certainly be a major element in the consideration of the Métis workshops which are being proposed at the Assembly, and will just as certainly be the subject of resolutions that the Assembly will be asked to consider. I think it is critically important that background and briefing materials on these issues be prepared for all Assembly delegates and for possible press and public distribution. If the NCC is to continue its representation of Métis people in Canada it must be seen --by both the Aboriginal community and the Canadian public, to "walk the talk" or run the risk of taking a very remote back seat to the Metis National Council. 

I would be happy to discuss these issues further with any Executive or Board member in advance of the next AGM, and I thank the Board and Executive for covering the costs of my attendance at the MNC/RCAP Roundtable. 

Workshop Questions

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR SPECIAL CONSULTATION DISCUSSION 

Discussion of the fundamental questions will be assisted by a summary paper of Metis related research documents contracted by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These papers are intended to provide a foundation for dialogue. The summary papers will move the special consultation dialogue fonvard by providing a contextual base to create a more productive discussion. 

Prior distribution will allow the participants the opportunity to begin formulating their opinions and views of the issues prior to the special consultation. 

Questions that will focus the discussion are as follows: 

Ouestion 1

What are the Metis Nation's criteria for defining the Metis people and what is the most appropriate means to consolidate the citizenship of the Metis Nation? What are the major obstacles in achieving this? 

Question 2

What are the nature and scope of Metis Aboriginal rights, particularly rights to land? What are the obstacles to realizing these? What is the effect of the Federal government's extinguishment policy in relation to the Metis? What is the significance of the doctrine of extinguishment for Aboriginal self-government and other rights such as hunting, trapping and fishing? 

Question 3

What is the anticipated nature and scope of Metis self-governing institutions and how do these institutions relate to one another? What is the most appropriate way of empowering these institutions in terms of fiscal and jurisdictional authority to fulfill these responsibilities? 

Question 4

What are the federal and provincial governments' obligations to the Metis people? What intergovernmental mechanisms need to be put into place in recognition of these relationships? 

Question 5

What reforms such as in the legislative, policy, program, fiscal areas are necessary to recognize the existence of the Metis Nation? How would recognition of the Metis Nation be reflected in intergovernmental structures and processes?