There was a general consensus that Metis have made progress over the last three decades. This is reflected in constitutional recognition of Metis, a stronger sense of identity, modernized settlement institutions, and growing involvement in running our affairs.

It was acknowledged that we have more in common than what divides us.

There was considerable discussion that the balkanization of organizations and funding has impeded the advancement of Metis and the movement. There was also acknowledgement that there was a lack of communication between what happens at the national level and what happens at the grass roots level. In this respect, people recognized that as we welcome the millenium we are discussing many of the sarne issues with many of the sarne solutions proposed twenty and thirty years ago.

There was considerable discussion on what it means to be Metis. There was general acceptance that the terrn had at least three elements:

1. Aboriginal ancestrv;
2. self-identification. and
3. commununity acceptance.

It was also made clear that the differences generally arose on the issue of community acceptance, particularlv over what people considered to be a narrow definition of the Metis Nation. Participants recognized that it was important to respect the differences between communities or jurisdictions and that no one had a monopoly over what it means to be Metis.

Consensus was also reached that the people, not government should be responsible for determining who we are as Metis. In this respect. it was recognized that Bill C-3 1 does not make a Metis an Indian. There was also acknowledgement of the irony that Metis who obtain Bill C-3 1 are obtaining what Metis collectively seeking under section 91 (24).

It was also noted that identity was as much about the future as the past. that identity is not static and that it evolves and should continue to evolve.

There was considerable discussion on how we can advance the interests of Metis. There was a consensus that while there were many challenges facing Metis. their was a sense that a strong spirit and good heart such as Ihat exhibited by participants in the meeting will sustain and guide us into the future.

Three broad approaches to the adancment of Metis were discussed. It was noted that they are not mutually exclusive: The first approach was recognition of the failure of the political system to adequately deal with Metis. Consequently, many participants spoke of the need to advance legal solutions. In this respect, many participants believed it is important to challenge government to live up to its responsibilities under section 91 (24).

The second approach focussed upon the need for political action. There was a great deal of discussion on the need to find a vehicle for the expression of a common political message. Participants spoke at length on the need for the establishment of a national Aboriginal Political Party. Other suggestions also emerged such as the need to work together is some form of Federation or Confederacy.

The third approach focussed upon the need for individual and collective healing. People spoke of the revival and promotion of the spirit. Caution was urged in the implementation of the healing fund and the potential for discord.

It was noted that land base is important to the development of Metis people.

It was recognized that there was a need to incorporate youth, women and elders into the movement and that youth, elders and women have to be encouraged to participate. Participants felt strongly that we must establish a positive environment for the youth to ensure that they can see themselves in the future. It was noted that youth who can not see themselves in the future run a greater risk of suicide or turn to drugs and alcohol in despair.

There was also a consensus on the need to hold a larger non-partisan gathering of Metis individuals from a wide cross section of Metis organizations to broaden and expand the discussion. This should include organizations, comrnunities and individuals from all walks of life including artists, business people, professionals, educators, etc. Participants agreed that MNC representatives should be involved in any larger gathering of Metis. It was suggested that there should be a planning committee and that all Metis stakeholders (including MNC) should be invited to participate on the planning committee. Sault Ste. Marie, Batoche and the Metis Settlements were offered as sites for the gathering.

It was noted that participants from all organizations were invited to participate in the meeting. Participants suggested that the message from this meeting should be delivered to the meeting hosted by MNC in Winnipeg in the same non-partisan way in which it was developed.

There was a great deal of discussion on the violation of rights and inequalities caused by the Indian Act and the narrow program and service approach adopted by the federal government in support of this Act.

Many participants suggested that the healing process should include a discussion of how this imposed legislation has served to divide the Indian, Inuit, and Metis commmity.