Saskatchewan Metis, Non-Status face dilemma

Page 5

NEWS ANALYSIS

It is obvious that a dilemma exists within the rank and file of the Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan (AMNSIS) which nobody other than

an anti-Jim Sinclair wishes to address publicly. That group had the courage to speak their minds at the AMNSIS annual assembly held on July 24 and 25 at Batoche, Saskatchewan.

The choice of the "dilemma" is in order, for the New World Dictionary defines the noun as: "---an argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavourable or disagreeable alternatives; any situation in which one must choose between unpleasant alternatives."

The reason why this dilemma exists among AMNSIS elected executive, board of directors and members, is Jim Sinclair's political maneuvering other and tactics to delay a little longer his inevitable removal as president of AMNSIS.

Sinclair's clever maneuvering to stay in power, bolstered by the support to the delegates (by, a very narrow margin) has created a major political rift among the rank

and file of the association.

This political rift was clearly demonstrated by some of the attending delegates at the annual assembly, which usually allows for "bear pit sessions." This assembly was no different. This evidence of turning loose the wolves to rip Sinclair apart was a clear indication that there is a silent majority out there wishing that Sinclair would commit political suicide.

This anti-Sinclair movements not only involves the ousted Metis leaders such as Rob Bishop, Frank Tomkins and George Morin, but also includes members from the executive and board of AMNSIS. These members mirror anxiety and unrest to the membership, yet at the same time, try desperately to present a facade of unity and harmony.

Take malcontents who have lost their bids for positions with AMNSIS are

making all the noise to "dump" Sinclair from the presidency; however, I suspect that

these malcontents, or "honesty politicians" are being channelled by some of the present executive and board members to spearhead an anti-Sinclair movement sanctioned by

most of them. But they will not come forth to be identified and lay their cards on the table for all to see.

There are power plays quarterbacked by some of the old vanguard who wish to remain anonymous, and in these jockeying power plays, someone will eventually become the sacrificial lamb, a casualty of his own making.

Some of the Metis members are outright bold in asking Jim Sinclair to tender his recommendation does not materialize, a "non-confidence" vote usually develops, with Sinclair always managing to hang on.

This year's annual assembly was no different. There was an attitude of ostracism prevailing throughout the two-day political meeting, but as usual, a "wait and see" game developed.

Again, Sinclair survived another campaign, I suppose much to the chagrin of the backbenchers.

To completely understand the existing dilemma surrounding AMNSIS, one must know of its history and how this organization became unique.

In the late 1960s, Malcolm Norris, Alex Bishop, Don Neilson, and a few Metis members reactivated the Metis movement in Saskatchewan. This movement was not new, however, for it was the Metis Society of Saskatchewan reactivated from its short sleep.

In the recruitment campaigns launched by the late Malcolm Norris, there was no need to classify or identify yourself as a Non-Status or Metis, because you either qualified as an "Indian" or a "Half-Breed." The Non-Status Indian question never surfaced, although a few did maintain their identity as Non-Status Indians. It was never an issue among the membership of the Society of Saskatchewan.

Shortly after Norris's death, the Metis people were inspired by a young, dynamic "half-breed" from southern Saskatchewan. His name - Jim Sinclair.

Sinclair quickly caught the imagination of the "half-breeds" in Saskatchewan. He was feisty, intelligent, street smart, and above all, a great orator inspiring the "half-breeds" to raly around the flag and take up the cause. Sinclair was a protege of the controversial Howard Adams. (I remember the first time Sinclair arrived in Ile-a-la-Crosse, in 1968, to address the Metis.)

Sinclair recruited the best "half-breed" brain power that existed in Saskatchewan

at that time, and throughout the years mastered the arts of politics. The Metis Society of Saskatchewan was a political force to be reckoned with and some of the credit should be attributed to him.

The foundation of the Metis Society of Saskatchewan was reinforced with staunch Metis support staff, resource personnel and good leaders - leaders with vision and aspirations. The "half-breeds," now referred to as Metis, were represented by one of the most dynamic organization in western Canada.

In 1976, the Metis Society of Saskatchewan officially changed its name to Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan (AMNSIS) to represent

the now distinct two Aboriginal peoples who had two common denominators - poverty and oppression. They were a people with no land, no rights, no guarantees of any type, and yet who survived the hardships because of their adaptability and fortitude.

It was with this persistence, fortitude and political clout launched that the leader-ship of AMNSIS pursued federal and provincial governments to make concessions towards the socio-economic plights of the Metis and Non-Status Indians in Saskatchewan.

AMNSIS was the voice for both Native groups to equally voice their issues and concerns. Their objectives and goals were the same. Political equity promoted equality among the Metis and Non-Status Indians. There was equal footing for both groups.

However, with the patriation of the BNA Act at and the amendments of the BNA Act 1982, the signing of the Constitutional table the political equity began to disappear within AMNSIS. The solidarity that once was a hallmark of AMNSIS was slowly being

eroded by new twists in the Constitutional Process.

The introducton of Bill C-31 and the implementation of the bill by the federal government, put an additional wedge between the Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan, although both sides argue this is not the case.

However, one has only to observe the latest development - the introduction of the new Metis Constitution of Saskatchewan passed at the annual assembly - to confirm that unity and solidarity are fading. The movement to split AMNSIS has started and cannot be reversed. It is inevitable!

The members of AMNSIS passed two resolutions at the Constitutional Summit meeting held March 26 and 27 in Prince Albert to "encourage and welcome Non-Status Indians to remain as full participating members" and to "establish an Interim Non-Status Committee" to begin developments that will safeguard the interests of the Non-Status Indians.

These two resolutions calls for a "smooth transition" and with the groups to remain under the same umbrella until at least 1988.

Again, at the annual assembly these resolutions were challenged with George Morin calling for the separation now. Many members of AMNSIS agreed but refused

to act accordingly, holding steadfast to having a "smooth transition." This decision only prolongs the internal rift that has developed among the old vanguards to AMNSIS.

There is a strong undercurrent that implies that Jim Sinclair should remove himself voluntarily and with dignity because some members feel "there are qualified Metis leaders to shoulder the responsibilities of negotiating at the constitutional table."

Maria Campbell outright asked "What do you want, Jim? We'll give you half of the funding to finance your start-up organization."

Sinclair replied, "I do not want Metis funds allocated to the Metis people of Saskatchewan nor will I beg for it! We'll seek the necessary funding from other governmental departments. Make a motion and let the membership decide."

Once again, Sinclair called the bluff and won. Sinclair is still the leader of AMNSIS. Thi is fact does not resolve the dilemma, but rather contributes further resentment from some members.

The question remains, "What does Jim Sinclair want?" There are many answers, unqualified of course, to the question. However, it appears Sinclair still wants to be "the champion fighter" for Metis rights at the next Constitutional talks in 1987. He wants to see AMNSIS to remain the same until the "smooth transition" is finalized in 1988.

Sinclair is a master of outmaneuvering his opposition and that is why he is still the leader of AMNSIS. His persistence (although he claims he is an Indian, a Non-Status) to remain as leader of AMNSIS is very admirable and his desire to continue to act as a chief negotiator for Metis rights is very commendable.

However, when he admits that "I'm an Indian" and has taken up the cause of the Non-Status full time, leaving the Metis cause to the Metis executive to develop, it is time for Sinclair to relinquish his stranglehold on the Metis people and pass on the torch to other qualified Metis leaders of Saskatchewan.

There is a principle to be upheld. The Metis people are a race, a NATION that survived one hundred years of suppression. The Metis National Council's Declaration of Rights only identifies Metis rights and the new Metis Nation Constitution of Saskatchewan segregates itself from the Non-Status. It is only politically smart to have a Metis leader at the helm , not a self-appointed "Indian."

To use Jim Sinclair's own words, taken from the sworn affidavit (page 14) dated March 7, 1983: "....it is our view that the Non-Status Indians must be represented by the Indian delegation at the First Ministers Conference. They are not Metis and are not entitled to one of the Metis seats."

Now do you see the dilemma surrounding the Metis and Non-Status of Saskatchewan?