Bill C-31 And First Nation Membership

AUTHOR: Sheila Grantham

TOPIC: Bill C-31 and First Nation Membership. Pre-Conference Workshop. Aboriginal Policy Research Conference

DATES: March 20, 2006

Facilitator's Opening Comments

Wendy Cornet (both facilitator and presenter- Delia Opekokew cancelled)

Bill C-31 was enacted in 1985 and the amendments had profound impacts (both old and new challenges)

"The Search for Consensus: A Legislative History of Bill C-31, 1969-1985-"

Gerard Hartley

The debate of Native Women's rights began after the Laval case. One year later the Beard case began. Fear began to grow amongst Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal peoples and this was also due to the "White Paper" proposed in 1969.

In 1974-1978 government consulted with bands to amend Indian Act. Bands were divided on membership issues.

Full retro-activity is what Aboriginal women wanted. The Federal government rejected this request because of high costs.

The Lovelace case was based on section 12 of the Indian Act. Lovelace took this case to the UN as it went against civil and political rights.

Due to what occurred during the 1969 White Paper incident and the 1970 consultations with all bands- the government did not want to change the Indian Act.

Then section 15 came along and government had to bring all legislation in line with that. Which was one reason why Bill C-31 was enacted.

The second reason was the Lovelace case and how the UN agreed that she should have band membership.

The new bill- Bill C-47- stated the half-blood rule. Children of women affected by 12 (b) of the act would have status, but their grandchildren would not.

Munroe (past Minister of Indian Affairs) said grandchildren are too remote from Aboriginal community and if included then the costs would be high. Both Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations rejected this idea.

Bill C-47 died on the order paper then Bill C-31 was created to remove discriminatory provisions and provided restoration of status but not membership.

This bill created two categories of status Indians- 6 (1) and 6 (2)

Also, children of Indian women who lost status and had regained it through this bill, lost their status faster then Indian men. (see the "cousin issue)

Various women's groups claimed that discriminatory impacts must be removed and women impacted by previous discriminatory policy should be taken care of.

"Seeking Alternatives to Bill C-31: From Cultural Trauma to Cultural Revitalization through Customary Law"

Jo-Ann Fiske (Evelyn George was not present)

This project had to do with how women experience Bill C-31, as many claim "I am C-31).

C-31 is a formation of an identity. Individuals identity as either being C-31 or not. Descent from father's line is privileged because of citizenship and property rules.

In central BC there are certain First Nations known as the "Carrier People" and "People of the Earth". 2-5 of them have matrilineal clan systems. Through this there is a lot of opportunity to resist colonial systems. Identity is closely tied to either mother or fathers clan. Identity is closely associated with community.

This research project is based on participatory action research. Elderly women and men were asked their experiences with C-31.

Commonalties were found in matrilineal groups in Africa and Indian. These groups were very similar to the groups examined in Central BC

Focus groups were conducted with First Nations of Central BC

Disclosure of paternity- people were unaware of the effects of this policy. Many are not disclosing. This issue was also found to be a hard topic to discuss. Many found this to be a personal issue.

The women explained the only way to see how C-31 has affected them is to understand how colonization has affected them. There are several ways:

-matrilineal has been de-named

-struggle to resist patrilineal rules

-overall intrusion into family life (Indian Act, residential schools, movement on and off reserve, social assistance programs, children taken away, apprehension of children, systemic violence against women and children- disclosure is just another aspect)

-disclosure has destroyed relationships

-customary adoptions are very important part of this community- defining who one is biologically will cause severe problems.

These communities wish to create a balance between customary law and membership rules, as well as protection of individual rights through international human rights laws.

The women hope that their clan system and traditional system be recognized by state and International law.

They wish to have the right to create and maintain membership

They wish the right to have access to reserve lands and have opportunities to uphold customary laws. (through the Kasumi case a boy through customary law was adopted and considered the son of a particular family- the courts upheld this right)

Women wish the world to understand relationships between the Indian Act and the health and well being of the communities. The Indian Act is a form of systemic violence.

The Indian Act wounds individuals personal integrity by questioning whom they choose to have children with.

Women are wounded whenever their line is broken

Indian Act has brought up historic injustices

Amendments are very narrow and doesn't address or recognize those deemed as "non-status" prior to 1985 and threatens future generations.

"First Nations Citizenship, Bill C-31, and the Accommodation of Sex Discriminatory Policy"

Martin John Cannon

There is no difference to distinguish from when looking at Aboriginal rights and women's rights (although many would like to divide the two).

Cannon is a section 6(2) Indian and must look at the choices he makes before deciding to have children- because if he marries a non-Aboriginal person his children will not be given status.

Section 12(1) b was included in the Indian Act in 1951. This section left women who married non-Indians with no status.

See references section for interesting articles

Those women's children registered under 6(2) do not face the same impacts as men's children

Methodology used

- Respectful and Responsible research (Smith 1999, Battiste and Henderson, 2000)

-  8 open-ended and semi-structured interviews;

-  Transcription, coding and identification

Interview Schedule

-  Indian status question (is it important to register? What was your experience? Did you have to re-establish connection to community?)

-  Identification questions (who is a status Indian?)

-  Bill C-31 questions (acquiring and re-acquiring Indian status)

Indian Status (Preliminary Findings)

-  Introduces questions around familiarity and how familiar people are with implications of sec.6(2)

-  Some people may not know what Bill C-31 is

-  If sec.6(2) leads to the assimilation of people it may lead to people being unaware of what status is and what section they are classified under.

-  Can there be some initiative to advise people what section they are under?

-  There is a way of thinking about identity that stands outside the Indian Act. There has been little research about what status means to them and what constitutes Aboriginal Identity

Discussion Question (which was not discussed amongst the group)

-  who are the women that refuse to state paternity, what are their reasons and why?

"Nova Scotia First Nation Community-Level Bill C-31 Research"

Clara Gloade, Nova Scotia Native Women's Association

Bill C-31 was created because governments wanted to dictate what they thought was best for Aboriginal women

This presentation will provide insight into the affects of section 12(1)b (the policy that took away status from Aboriginal women marrying outside of their community)

Many Aboriginal women had little to no help from chiefs from the (National Indian Brotherhood) to help fight against section 12(1)b

Those women who married outside the community had their status taken away but they now had the right to vote and drink as they were no longer deemed Indian

Lovelace, Two-Axe Early and Lavell involve the Supreme Court of Canada and the UN in order to amend the Indian act. These various bodies agreed with the women, however, the government decided to go ahead and make changes to the Indian act without consultation. The government started classifying who was Native and who was not.

6(2) children will be dictated whom they can and cannot marry (this breaks families apart).

Women have to name fathers in order to have status (what do you do in a rape case, incest, when fathers are already married?)

The second-generation cut-off rule is a joke.

The non-native women who married the Aboriginal man- their grandchildren will still have status

Bill C-31 is a stigma that will not go away.

We have heard if you marry a white husband you will get kicked off the reserve

The band-controlled membership will impose more hardship on re-instated women and families

Aboriginal women have not been compensated for imposed policy

The impacts will include those questioning who is a community member, continued cut-off rates and sexualized discrimination

Women had to struggle meeting families needs

Women felt like they would have a better life marrying non-Aboriginal men- but this wasn't the case.

Aboriginal women feel they are discriminated against because they are women

Bands refused to allow women to move bank and they weren't allowed to be with family

There is a stigma attached to Bill C-31 and you are treated differently

There needs to be a removal of discrimination, restore status and membership rights, and also increase control over membership

"Impacts of the 1985 Indian Act Amendment (Bill C-31): Brokenhead Ojibway Nation"

Stewart Clatworthy (Chief Tina Levesque was not present)

*Since Tina was not there Stewart just briefly went through Brokenhead project

Brokenhead community participated actively throughout this study

The study was designed to look at the impacts of Bill C-31 and what it means to individuals within the community.

Brokenhead has received an increase of 46% growth of population because of bill C-31 and because of this there is an increase in the demands for programs and services. Also, there is a greater competition for access of services.

12% of the population perceive inequality based on Bill C-31

There is little to no erosion of the community because of Bill C-31

60 % of their children are a result of mixed marriages. This large number will not qualify for status. The community is concerned about this.

Just recently they had to reject 10 of their children because they did not qualify (see presentation within binder)

"Indian Registration and First Nations Membership: A National Overview"

Stewart Clatworthy

Bill C-31 represents new rules surrounding entitlements and the opportunity for First Nations to establish their own rules in relation to membership

Many communities have adopted their own rules of registration for membership (see binder notes for definitions)

There are a bundle of benefits associated with registration

Membership conveys a sense of collectivity but it is also very political

First Nations that did not adopt their own rules or registration based their membership on existing policies from the Indian Act.

There are four types of membership rules that differ from the Indian Act- Limited One-Parent Rule (is equivalent to the Indian Act), Unlimited (it is possible to be a member but not status, Two Parent (both parents), and Blood Quantum (usually 50% but a few are 25%).

The legacy of funding for communities was based on an old Act where legislation on membership and registration were the same. Now, people are losing one or the other and but the funding has not reflected these changes. People will slip through the cracks, as the policy will not reflect the current needs of the community members.

It is not possible to resolve issues under the Indian Act

First Nations can control, revise and adopt their own membership rule

First Nations can revise membership rule but it doesn't mean funding will be available to accommodate that.

Issues may be resolved through litigation (like Cornier- but we are still trying to figure out how to implement and apply that decision)

"Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity"

Michelle M. Mann

Proof of paternity is required by Indian Affairs. The father's signature must be present in order for a child to get status.

19% of all 6(2) women listed as unstated paternity- 50,300 children that were either incorrectly registered or not registered at all (within a 9-year period)

Having status conferred provides a personal and community validation to many

The Assembly of First Nations believes the loss of status means assimilation and annihilation of a nation.

Sometimes not conferring status is done unintentionally and intentionally. Either by a mother giving birth outside a community where the father is not present and unable to sign or where a mother wishes not to name father (confidentiality issues).

Trociuk Case (Recommendation No.2)

A 2003 Supreme Court of Canada Case (non-Aboriginal context). This case involves a mother and father in BC where the mother fought to have the right to not put the father's name on the child's birth certificate. The Court disagreed with the mother but agreed that there could be valid situations whereby the mother would have the right not to include the father's name on the birth certificate. Mann believes this case could be used to design a application for Aboriginal women who do not wish to include the paternal name but still wish for their child to have status.

"Indian Status, Band Membership, Gender and Race: Reconsidering the Role of Federal Law"

Wendy Cornet

First Nations Citizenship involves three components:

Human Rights Issues

Governance Issues

and Self-Government issues

The first two will be discussed in this session

First Nations women have expressed a growing concern over the current legal regime

*Cornet then goes into her presentation slides (see binder) and briefly discusses Martha Minow's "Dilemma of Difference". I have this article from school and can photocopy it if you want a copy.

Round Table Open Discussion

Q. What now? Its good to talk about this but what is to happen now? What will come from this?

A. Discussion, Reform

Q. I am 6(1) and my children's father is as well, but my children are not band members. Also, because of this we will loose land that has been held in our family.

A. This is primarily a band matter. The Indian Act allows the band to reject or accept the children.

Q. There hasn't been much movement in this area. Our children are getting older and they don't understand why they don't have status. Also, there are people with no status and no means to do research.