| The "Metis Indians" of Ontario |
by Joe Sawchuk
This paper concerns the development and use of the term "Metis" in the province of Ontario from the 1960s to the present. [1] This is an interesting development, because until recently the term was limited to the Western provinces and some parts of the Northwest Territories.
In order for an ethnic group or an aboriginal group to develop a sense of self-awareness, it needs to be seen in opposition to something else. In the case of the Metis, that opposition is not so much between Metis and whites as it is between Metis and other aboriginal peoples. There are many categories of "native" recognized in Canada today, thanks to over 100 years of mostly federal legislation. These include status Indians, non-status Indians, registered Indians, non-registered Indians, treaty Indians, non-treaty Indians, C-31s, on-reserve Indians, off-reserve Indians, Metis, Metis Nation, and Inuit or Eskimo. This can be confusing, and is exacerbated by the fact that many of these terms are not mutually exclusive. For example, "non-status Indian" can refer to either Metis, non-registered or non-treaty Indians, but often the term is used to refer to all of them, treating them as a single unit. "Status" can include both treaty and non-treaty Indians, C-31s, on-reserve Indians, or off-reserve Indians. Although most of these terms are derived from governmental legislation rather than cultural affiliation, some of them, especially the term "status" and "Metis" have become reified for aboriginal populations, and now bear considerable emotional and cultural significance.
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]
So, from the 1960s to the 1980s, a strong political union between non-status Indians and the Metis existed in western Canada. But all this changed in 1982, when aboriginal rights were entrenched in the newly structured Canadian constitution. Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act 1982 defined "aboriginal peoples of Canada" as the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. Conspicuous by its absence from this definition was any mention of the non-status Indians of Canada. [3] This made the legal position of Metis and non-status quite different, and the political organizations that had housed the two groups began to split up.
It was at this time that the western Metis began to develop a conscious ethnic identity that excluded non-status Indians; creating the idea of a "historic Red River Metis community," inhabiting a "historic Metis Nation Homeland" (west central North America) on or before 8 December 1869, (the date of the proclamation of the Provisional Government of the Metis in the Northwest Territories.) [4] This reification of a Red River Metis identity has become very powerful in the prairies, but it is also visible in Ontario. Ontario is a strange place to witness this reformulation, because it has a very different group of Native people laying claim to the term Metis, and the territory is not considered part of the historic Metis homeland by most Metis outside of Ontario.
Although I want to discuss some of the ways that ethnic boundaries are being redefined, I should make it clear that I am not in any way suggesting that the claims made in Ontario are counterfeit or "false," or that the motives of the Ontario group are spurious. Developing or adopting a "new" tradition is a typical way an ethnic group or an aboriginal group can create legitimacy for itself. Several scholars, such as David Lowenthal [5] have commented on this practice. Traditions which are claimed to be ancient frequently turn out to be recent inventions intended to provide continuity with a real or imagined past. They are used to establish group membership in communities, legitimize the group in its own eyes and the eyes of others, and to inculcate a sense of belonging and self-worth. This is all very well, but as we shall see in Ontario, the process of creating a past is not automatic, nor is it without opposition from within.
Although the mixed blood population of Ontario has come to be identified as "Metis", this group has few historic links to the Historic Metis Population of the prairies. Its historic presence is centred around Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. It does have a clear sense of separateness from other native groups. But this identity in and of itself does not necessarily fit into the political demands of the new millennium.
Currently, we find two diametrically opposed strategies for self-identification in Ontario. One approach – attempting to create an exclusive Ontario identity – is exemplified by the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association (OMAA). It attempts to represent the "Metis Indians" or the "woodland Metis tribe" – the population that regards itself as Ontario Metis. They also claim to represent non-status Indians and off reserve Indians in Ontario. Its national affiliation is with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) an organization that is attempting to represent Metis, non-status Indians, and off-reserve Indians across Canada.
The other approach is represented by the political organization Metis Nation of Ontario (MNO). It explicitly opts for an alliance or amalgamation with the Red River Metis. This approach stresses ties to Red River, and appropriates the cultural symbols of the prairie Metis. The MNO is an affiliate of the Metis National Council, the national organization representing the "Historic Metis Nation" within Canada.
Both of the major Metis political organizations in Ontario [6] had their beginning with the Ontario Metis and non-status Indian Association (OMNSIA). This organization had its beginnings in Northern Ontario in 1965. [7] From the beginning, it was recognized as an organization for people who were aboriginal, but who did not have Indian status. For lack of a better term, they called themselves "Metis." It was not chosen for cultural or historic reasons – rather it was seen as the widest and all-encompassing term that could be used. The term was almost unknown in Ontario at the time, "half-breed" or "breed" being much more common. The new term became known to the fledgling association because of political activity in another part of Canada; the prairies:
The Lake Nipigon meetings... all started because we had read in the paper about out west where Jim Sinclair and Dr. Howard Adams were doing something about the Metis movement out there. At that time, we didn't know what a Metis was. We thought you had to be half French to be a Metis. We knew we were half-breed but some people called us non-status Indians. According to them two fellows, we were all Metis, so that's how we founded the Lake Nipigon Metis Association, because we heard those guys talking about it (P. McGuire 1980b emphasis added).
It is significant that McGuire mentions Jim Sinclair, an important force in mobilization of AMNSIS, but who himself was a non-status Indian, not a Metis.
On March 27, 1971, OMNSIA, the first province-wide association, was formed. Again, the word Metis was incorporated into the title, not because it was in common use in Ontario, but because it was seen as encompassing the widest possible group of people. However, this attempt at uniting the half-breed population and non-status Indians created the same strain that the prairie Metis political organizations had: Metis is a cultural and racial term (i.e. "half-breed") while non-status is a legal term based on government legislation.
The partnership was strained to the breaking point in 1985, with the passage of Bill C-31 – an Act of the federal parliament. The Indian Act was amended to permit many non-status Indians to regain their status and become registered Indians. As a result, approximately 20% of OMNSIA's members became registered under the Indian Act. In order to reflect this change in their constituency, OMNSIA dropped the term non-status Indian from its name in 1987 and changed it to the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association. OMAA now claims to offer representation to 200,000 Indian and Metis peoples living off reserves in Ontario (OMAA website 2001).
Although for many years the OMNSIA was the only representative of the Ontario Metis, it never suggested an actual link with Red River Metis for its constituency, nor did its successor OMAA, other than borrowing the name Metis. This changed in 1994 with the formation of the Metis Nation of Ontario. The MNO was founded in 1994 at a delegates meeting that brought together Métis (mostly OMAA members) from communities around Ontario. In contrast to the OMAA, and the OMNSIA before it, the MNO offered an aggressive identification not only as the Metis of Ontario, but as a group having a similar historical background and identity as the Red River Metis. It became affiliated with the Metis National Council as "the only representative body of the Metis in Ontario." In 2001, it claimed that over 380 communities were included in the MNO Registry, the only registry of Métis in Ontario recognized by the historic Métis Nation and the Métis National Council, and that the MNO "offers the most legitimate way in Ontario for Métis people to be recognized" (MNO website, 2001). Thus, today there are two Ontario organizations, both purporting to speak for the Metis of Ontario. Both have very different ideas of who their constituents are. To get a better idea why such a situation could come about, we have to look at the specifics of Metis and non-status identification in Ontario from the 1980s on.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, the situation looked very different in Ontario. When we look at the discussions over Metis identity that took place at the time, we discover that most rank and file members of the association were interested in non-status issues, rather than developing an identity as a Metis, and often referred to themselves as "Indians," "breeds" or "half breeds." [8] Most did not even speak to the issue of being Metis, and those that did adopted the term Metis for lack of a better term. [9] A typical statement from the time would identify the speaker as a "breed" rather than Metis, or MNSI if the term Metis was used at all. [10]
However, there is some indication that OMNSIA began to discourage the use of the term "breed" in the early 1980s. The organization held two surveys, one in 1981 and one in 1985, to gather data on a variety of policy matters. [11] For our purposes, the most interesting questions involve self-identity. Both surveys were closed-ended; they gave a number of choices for self-identity, including Metis, non-status, status, Canadian-born and naturalized citizen, but neither offered "breed" or "half-breed" as an option, although both terms were in common use in Ontario at the time. Nor was there a space to write in another identity. There were some further shortcomings with the survey. Respondents were free to choose more than one of the identities offered, and many did so. While 40.9% of the respondents identified as non-status, and 36% identified as Metis, there was nothing in the survey to indicate why the respondent would chose to identify one way or another. Both surveys also failed to allow for a distinction between "Red River" Metis and "Ontario" Metis. The surveys do seem to show that there was a feeling of separateness from Indian on the part of many of the respondents. The sociologists who collated the data concluded that the Ontario Metis "represent a group distinct from the Metis who trace their heritage and identity to their experiences at Red River." This is a reasonable conclusion, but other than referring to some historical authorities, they could offer no internal evidence to support or refute this claim, because nothing in the survey was designed to elicit such information. [12]
The eventual split between OMAA and MNO probably proceeded along the lines hinted at in these surveys. For example, the 1985 survey revealed a split in attitudes about heritage; those who identified as NSI tended to identify more closely with Indian heritage in terms of language, and spirituality than those identifying as Metis. The split between the two organizations may reflect this cultural differentiation – with the OMAA more closely supporting NSI and "Native" values, with the MNO more closely supporting Red River Metis values. An examination of the symbolism used by each organization would seem to bear this out.
OMNSIA: The original OMNSIA logo (1971-1987) had an equal number of Indian and white symbols, and is indicative of who OMNSIA considered its constituents. It had an outer circle which symbolized infinity, and the fact that native people "have been here since time immemorial." White symbols included the Trillium (government of Ontario) Maple Leaf (Government of Canada) the scales of justice (white man's justice) and a book (white man's "book learning"). Native symbols included the lynx, the feather, the bow and arrow. Interestingly, there were no explicit Metis symbols – no Metis flag, sash, image of Louis Riel, etc.
OMAA: The symbolism has changed drastically in the new OMAA logo. There are six North American Indian symbols used: tribe; the sacred number four (four races, four seasons, four stages of life); arrows; tipis; sun ("father sun") and the eagle. There is now one Metis symbol used; the "infinity" symbol from the Red River Metis flag. About the only "white" symbols are the color white itself (the "white race" is part of the four colours) and the anthropological term "woodland". When speaking to members of OMAA today, it is obvious that many native values – Cree and Ojibwa – are still a major influence. [13]
The Metis Nation of Ontario: As early as 1978, Duke Redbird, who was president of OMNSIA in the early 1980s, wrote a masters thesis published in 1980 which suggested that half-breeds and non-status Indians might wish to look to the western Metis to find an identity. The MNO seems to have borrowed a page from Redbird's book, and turned to Red River as the source of their Metis identity. This is recent innovation and even their own website alludes to the fact that the term "Metis" (in terms of Red River Metis) was not always known in Ontario. The statement just stops short of admitting they're "inventing" the Ontario Metis; they make the case that the Metis were always here, just not recognized as such.
The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) evolved from the rich and dynamic history of an Aboriginal people long thought to be non-existent in Ontario. The MNO... has drawn Métis people together in ever-increasing numbers, encouraged them to claim their inheritance, and to establish their identity within the Province of Ontario. (MNO website, 2001, emphasis added)
While the MNO does not have an official logo, their website calls on four specific historical symbols to help define its constituency. Three of these are derived from the prairie Metis: the Metis flag, sash, and Louis Riel. The only truly Ontario historical element in this litany is the adhesion of Metis to Treaty 3 (up to now, this had been referred to typically as the adhesion of half-breeds to Treaty 3)
Who Are the Ontario Metis?
It is obvious that there is a split identity at work in Ontario. Both provincial organizations claim to represent the Metis of Ontario, but both have a very different idea of who their constituents are, and what constitutes a Metis. It is still not clear whether the imported western values and culture posited by the MNO can actually take root. Mike McGuire, one of the founding fathers of OMNSIA and current president of OMAA has this to say about the creation of an Ontario "Metis" culture:
Well, Tony Belcourt (president of the MNO) wanted to go more with the Red River things, eh? Maybe they wanted to say to be Metis, you have to come from the Red River in order to have that identity. But in Ontario we don't identify with that. The Metis people of Ontario; they are the Ontario Metis people. They're not from the west. Tony comes from Alberta. He comes into Ontario and says well, here are the values of the Metis people. Well, maybe in the west they do have a different set of values. But in Ontario we're a different being... So that's how the split (between OMAA and MNO) began. I think it was more of the Western Metis concept, I think that they wanted to put the Western Metis values here (McGuire 1997).
Despite OMAA's skepticism over the Red River link, it may well be that a new Metis identity based on those criteria is developing in Ontario through the activities of the MNO. The desire to do so is understandable. The idea of "Metis" in the Red River sense is itself an attractive one (the portrayal of the "new Nation", the creators of western Canada, Louis Riel as culture hero.) These are all positive images, which give people a sense of pride in an actual ethno-aboriginal identity as opposed to an "anti-identity" based on rejection from other groups.
The one thing that can be predicted about ethnic or aboriginal boundaries is that they change with the times. The times today may demand a Metis identity in Ontario far different from the one envisioned the activists who started the Ontario Metis and non-status Indian Association in 1965.
Endnotes
[1] This is a version of a paper presented at The Ninth Biennial Maple Leaf and Eagle Conference on North American Studies: Reconfigurations of Native North America, from Tuesday, September 3, to Friday, September 6, 2002, at the North American Studies Program at the Renvall Institute for Area and Cultural Studies University of Helsinki
[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).
[3] This does not mean that non-status are not covered by the Constitution, but that is a discussion for another time.
[4] MNC provisional definition.
[5] David Lowenthal, Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York, The Free Press, 1996
[6] There are other Ontario Metis organizations, such as Red Sky, not included in this discussion.
[7] OMNSIA had its beginnings with the formation of the MacDiarmid Housing Corporation, formed in 1962 in the small community of MacDiarmid, situated on the shores of Lake Nipigon, in northern Ontario, north of Thunder Bay. This later became the Lake Nipigon Metis Association, in 1965.
[8] We have at least three sources that reveal the thoughts and conflicts surrounding the idea of Metis identification at that time. One was a series of meetings that discussed the merits of a "special status" for MNSI in Ontario - a policy briefly pursued by the OMNSIA under Duke Redbird's leadership. The second is a series of debates that OMNSIA held to discuss issues surrounding the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, including the definition of Metis, aboriginal and aboriginal rights. And finally, OMNSIA conducted two different surveys polling its members on both policy issues and issues of self identification.
[9] Consider this statement from the son of the founder of the Metis movement in Ontario: "The first attempts at Metis organization here in Ontario was some years ago. The main objective we had at that time was special status or to be recognized by the government – not just for what we were historically but for what we are today. At that time we were nothing but a pile of Indians who were not recognized by the Indians or by the Whites.... But since then we've come to recognize what we were and the old man and a whole bunch of us got together and formed a Metis association" (Mike McGuire Thunder Bay, 1978, emphasis added).
[10] "I personally am not in favour of our people joining together with the treaty Indians in forming one organization. I am also not prepared to risk losing the pride and independency that is mine because I am a breed. We have always owned our own homes, and always made a respectable attempt to survive as a breed. We have always did things our own way without any handouts. Our ancestors were a proud and independent breed, capable of living in harmony with the land, the Indian and the Whites. We stand our ground for special rights and the recognition of ourselves as half-breed. Joining the treaty Indians would be a total loss of our own identity... We should be recognized for what we are, and WE ARE Metis (Robert Chilton Moose Factory, 1978)."
[11] The 1981 survey had 73 responses; the 1985 survey had 2004 responses.
[12] Peters, Evelyn, Mark Rosenberg and Greg Halseth The Ontario Metis: Characteristics and Identity Native Issues 4. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, 1991.
[13] There is an origin story about the early days of organizing (at the Lake Nipigon Metis Association's inaugural meeting, a baby's cry was heard from the wilderness, symbolizing the birth of the "New People"); a "fire ceremony" was especially designed for the organization, and it is common practice for the leaders of the organization to go to the Native community for spiritual guidance (Mike McGuire, taped interview, June 17, 1997, Thunder Bay, Ontario).