Métis Nation of Ontario Rebuts Misinformation and Affirms its Legitimate Place within the Métis Nation
The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) has issued a strong rebuttal to recent claims challenging its legitimacy and historical standing within the Métis Nation. Jennifer St. Germain, Chief Strategy Officer of the MNO, emphasizes the organization’s long-standing history of advocacy, dating back to the Lake Nipigon Métis Association founded in 1965. The MNO, alongside Métis organizations in the prairies, has consistently championed Métis rights, leading to the inclusion of Métis people in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. St. Germain underscores the MNO’s role as a Métis-specific government in Ontario since 1993, with a clear mandate to represent Métis communities with historic rights in the province, as affirmed by its foundational Statement of Prime Purpose. This historical context, she argues, is supported by independent historians, court decisions, and decades of collaboration within the Métis National Council (MNC).
Central to the MNO’s defense is its role in the landmark Powley case, which established the legal test for recognizing Métis rights under Section 35. St. Germain highlights the unanimous support from the Métis Nation at the time of the Supreme Court victory, including statements of support from David Chartrand, current president of the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), who praised the Powley family and the decision’s impact on the Métis rights agenda. The MNO’s successful advocacy paved the way for the first Métis harvesting agreement with the Ontario government in 2004. Subsequent collaborative research with the province resulted in the formal recognition of seven historic Métis communities in Ontario in 2017, each meeting the criteria established by the Powley case. This, St. Germain argues, demonstrates the MNO’s consistent dedication to advancing Métis rights and recognition.
St. Germain emphasizes the MNO’s active participation within the MNC for decades, collaborating on key initiatives such as the 2002 National Definition of Métis, the Kelowna Accord, and the 2017 Canada-Métis Nation Accord. She points to a history of mutual support and recognition between the MNO and other Métis governments, challenging the current narrative that seeks to isolate and delegitimize the MNO. St. Germain underscores the vital distinction between fabricated claims of Indigenous identity (self-Indigenization) and the legitimate struggle of historic Métis communities for the recognition of their rights. The MNO, she asserts, has been a vocal opponent of fraudulent claims in Quebec and the Maritimes while steadfastly upholding the rights of established Métis communities in Ontario.
Addressing accusations of bias in historical research conducted by MNO citizens on their own communities, St. Germain denounces the double standard applied to Métis historians. She argues that Métis scholars, like their First Nations counterparts, should not be disqualified from researching their own communities due to their identity. The combination of professional credentials and lived experience enriches Métis historical research, strengthening its validity and significance. St. Germain also refutes claims that the MNO has withheld research supporting the existence of historic Métis communities in Ontario. She points to the MNO website, where the organization’s submissions to the MNC Expert Panel, containing historical documentation, are publicly available.
St. Germain further clarifies that the MNO does not promote an "Ontario Métis" identity, contrary to assertions made in previous letters. She reiterates the MNO’s consistent position as a Métis Nation government, accepted as such by the broader Métis Nation since its inception. St. Germain cites former MNC President Clem Chartier’s statement to the Supreme Court in 2003, affirming that Sault Ste. Marie and the Powleys are part of the larger Métis Nation, solidifying the MNO’s place within the larger community. Furthermore, St. Germain clarifies the status of federal recognition of Métis governments, explaining that the MNO, along with the Otipemisiwak Métis Government, the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan, and the MMF, have each signed self-government agreements with the Canadian government. While each government’s treaty implementation process varies, they are equally recognized by the federal government, and all require enabling legislation to become law.
Finally, St. Germain addresses the false claim that the MNO asserts rights in southern Ontario. She clarifies that while many Métis people live in urban areas in the south, the MNO has never claimed the existence of historic Métis communities in those regions. The rights-bearing Métis communities represented by the MNO are situated in the Upper Great Lakes and Northern Ontario, areas with a documented and continuous Métis presence dating back to the origins of the Métis Nation. St. Germain concludes by condemning the divisive nature of the attacks on the MNO, emphasizing that they undermine the collaborative spirit necessary for advancing Métis rights across the Homeland. She reaffirms the MNO’s commitment to pursuing Métis self-government, representing its citizens and communities in Ontario, and honouring the truth of their ancestors and the voices of their people. She calls for future discussions to be grounded in truth and respectful dialogue, rather than misinformation and divisive rhetoric.