Saskatchewan opponents fail in bid to oust Jim Sinclair

Page 1

BATOCHE, SASK. - An coupe d'etat attempt by anti-Sinclair members to oust Jim Sinclair as president of the Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan (AMNSIS) failed during the two-day annual assembly of AMNSIS held here on July 24 and 25, respectively.

On two different occasions during the two-day annual assembly of AMNSIS, there was evidence of a lobbying and maneuvering campaign to remove Sinclair executed by anti-Sinclair Metis members. This anti-Sinclair movement was at first subtle but soon escalated into a effrontery debate between pro-and anti-Sinclair supporters.

This has been a long standing issue since 1982 within the rank and file of AMNSIS and the "get rid of Sinclair" campaign usually surfaces at every provincial assembly of the Metis and Non-Status Indians. And every time it appears on the agenda, hidden or not, Sinclair receives a "vote of confidence" from the delegates.

The coupe d'etat attempt by anti-Sinclair delegates saw their flaming attack against Sinclair disappear into smoke as the delegates were having no part with the coupe d'etat movement to remove Sinclair from the presidency of AMNSIS.

At the outset of the first day, the second Chairman, Jim Durocher, explained to the delegates that "this annual assembly belongs to the members of AMNSIS and although we have an adopted agenda, the floor will be open for issues and concerns not covered by the agenda."

This opened the door for the anti-Sinclair delegation spearheaded by two life-time members of AMNSIS, Rod Bishop and Frank Tomkins with support coming from George Morin, Morley Norton and Maria Campbell.

Other pro-Sinclair delegates, Clem Chartier, James Favel, Clarence Trochie, Max Morin, plus others reiterated that this issue was resolved at the March 26 and 27 Constitutional Summit meeting of AMNSIS held in Prince Albert.

The delegates at the Constitutional Summit meeting passed two resolutions which in effect would settle the "unity" and Non-Status Indian question" of AMNSIS. The two resolutions endorsed by the delegates were: (a) That AMNSIS remain united until after the Constitutional Process is completed;" and (b) "That AMNSIS immediately establish an Interim Non-Status Committee..to consist of the Non-Status Members of the AMNSIS Board..."

On July 24, immediately following Sinclair's presidential report, Frank Tomkins, accused Sinclair of referring the Metis as "Baboons" during a discussions with the Metis National Council's lawyers and that they display their asses to be easily shafted by the Constitutional negotiators at the First Ministers Conference, 1985.

Tomkins outright accused Sinclair of..."lying to the Metis people," "Let us down the pipe," "You're a dictator" and "of being incompetent, for I have no confidence in you, Jim."

Tomkins lead the charge of the "non-confidence" barrage, followed by Rod Bishop, who alleged that Sinclair was "misleading the Metis people" by exercising too much political efforts on behalf of the Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan; and that Sinclair had "manipulated the two Metis seats guaranteed at the Constitutional table towards the non-Status Indians issues and concerns."

Bishop said, "We are at a cross-roads of time, we need a stronger political will of the Metis people who are powerless and landless. The Non-Status Indians have certain options to exercise in obtaining their rights but the Metis have one option, to get the Metis rights entrenched. Let's be responsible towards our people."

Sinclair rebutted some of the accusations, but "I do not deny the role of a dictator, for at times, it is demanded of a leader to make arbitrary decisions for the benefits of the Metis and Non-Status people."

He clarified that the Metis seats guaranteed for the Constitution table are "not threatened by the Non-Statue issue," but rather "are secure for Metis and Non-Status people."

As for "misleading" and "selling the Metis people down the tube," Sinclair explained that documenttions will clearly show that his loyalty is foremost to the Metis people because "You'll find in the agreements signed with governments, that my signature is not on those working agreements but bears signatures of other Metis leaders of the Metis National Council.

"I will not step in the way of the Metis and I clear direction from the Metis assembly," stated Sinclair.

He also reminded the assembly that there are two options open to achieve the aspirations towards self-government and land (a) "to go to war and die again" or (b) "negotiate the Metis rights, peacefully, by working for it, not begging for it!"

Sinclair also stated that the method to achieve some degree of success in obtaining self-government is by "exercising your rights at the local level and not by resolutions endorsed by the assembly."

The trend was in motion for the next day. However, after the first day, there was

a joke floating around campfires in effect that said, "We are no longer a Metis Nation but

a Nation of baboons." This showed the hmourous side of the delegates but were not pleased and were dead serious to settle the Non-Status Indian issue the following day.

On July 25, the agenda calling for the Non-Status Indians and Transition report, the "non-confidence" issue surfaced again. This time the attack was based on personalities, character assassinations focused on Jim Sinclair, Rod Bishop, Frank Bishop, George Morin, and at times dragged in innocent delegates into the effrontery discussions.

Accusations of putting "personal gain," "financial rewards," "greed," "setting up a new organization," and "asking for $1.2 million to finance the startup of the Non-Status organization to be taken from Metis funds," were levelled at Sinclair.

Maria Campbell, pleading to the assembly to resolve the Non-Status issue, revealed that the individuals suffering and "being torn apart from this issue are the mothers and their children.

"The people are the heart and soul of 'Back to Batoche' and thepolitical move-ment, not the politicians. Settle this issue now, Jim. What do you want?" exasperatedly asked Campbell.

Sinclair reiterated that his intention was to remain with the Association as declared by the AMNSIS members, to represent the Metis National Council for the upcoming Constitutional talks, to keep working for the Metis issues as outlined in the new Metis Nation's constitution and to arrange for a "smooth transition of the Non-Status Indian from AMNSIS.

"I am not starting a new organization, I am not asking for the $1.2 million to be taken from Metis funds, I am not after personal gains; I've paid my dues and I could go back on welfare.

"I will not beg for the funding necessary to finance the Non-Status organization, we will find the funds other than from the Metis coffers and you have the right to make a motion to remove from office," deadpanned Sinclair.

Campbell shouted back that "the Metis people are strong, we are capable of looking after ourselves, this was demonstrated during our 100 years of suppression, and we have qualified and capable leaders to replace you. You should leave with dignity, Jim!"

At this point, Jim Favel, intervened and spoke about the values and principles of Sinclair and credited him with the success of the Metis Association in Saskatchewan.

Favel, stressed that Sinclair was instrumental in negotiating for the two Metis seats at the Constitutional table and was the key actor in achieving workable agreements to benefit the Metis people of Saskatchewan.

Campbell, again shouted that the credit, "goes to the Metis people" who had been organized long before Jim Sinclair came into focus as a Metis leader.

Sinclair, again, informed the delegates to make a motion to settle the "non-confidence" debates. He challenged the malcontents to do so but no one came close

to make motion.

Sinclair called their bluff and won. When it was over, Sinclair replied, "I've survived the last fifteen years as a leader because I have the suport of the membership."

(Reporter's note: The reason why no one from the anti-Sinclair group made the motion was because it became obvious that the section of the "Big top' housing and anti-Sinclair members was fast disappearing when Favels' strong advocacy for Sinclair, resulted in a standing ovation from the delegates. This standing ovation was a signal that the coupe d'etat was finished.)