Establishing rules for citizenship moves nations away from Indian Act

Drawing up guidelines for establishing citizenship has never been a priority issue for Lake Manitoba First Nation, but councillor Florence McLean is reconsidering the urgency.

“When the chiefs have a meeting they have certain areas or subjects they talk about. Citizenship has never been discussed,” said McLean. “We’ll have to discuss it now.”
“That conversation is so important,” said Assembly of First Nation National Chief Shawn Atleo. “It really ties to our very identity as Indigenous people, as citizens of First Nations. It’s about belonging and connectiveness.  It’s about the legacy of the external imposition of the Indian Act.”

The AFN hosted a national forum on First Nation Citizenship in Edmonton in mid-November. McLean was one of more than 100 delegates.

“I never knew citizenship was so complex,” she said.
The complexity is one reason why the vast majority of First Nations have not adopted a definition of citizenship, despite the Penner report, which was tabled in 1983 and recommended that each First Nation determine membership according to their own criteria.

“Unfortunately First Nations didn’t take charge of their membership those days and that continues to happen now,” said Roberta Jamieson, who was appointed to the Penner committee as an ex-officio member to represent the AFN.

Although it’s been almost 30 years since the report, Jamieson said the slow rate of progress doesn’t frustrate her and is understandable.

“I know the incredible challenges our communities face. When you think about the history, the fact that we continue to survive is an amazing accomplishment. I would, of course, like to see us move a lot faster.”

Jamieson said 60 per cent of First Nations remain under the Indian Act, which establishes a definition of membership. That definition is entrenched by federal law. Citizenship, she said, is a term that refers to nations and is a necessary step for First Nations to establish themselves as a level of government.

“Some of our nations are sitting at tables negotiating with big corporations or governments or really charting their future, and they must be concerned about the integrity of their communities and citizenship is key. So I think the demand, the urgency has increased and it will continue to increase and so the sooner we get on with this task the better,” she said.

Jamieson pointed out the Indian Act presents First Nations as homogenous, which is not the case. The distinctions between First Nations people would be reflected in each nation’s own citizenship definition, but there will be shared values.

“I think you don’t (determine citizenship) in a vacuum,” said Jamieson. “There are fundamental international instruments of equality for example and now the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There are overriding requirements to treat people fairly and equally within the context of the whole.”

McLean said she will be taking back what she learned at the two-day forum for discussion, not only with her chief and the rest of the council but also with Elders and youth.

“We want to try and get away from the Indian Act,” said McLean. “Do we want to control our own destiny? What business does the government have to say who are citizens?”

McLean said she will make use of a toolkit compiled by the Assembly of First Nations.

“I find it very, very interesting and it will be helpful,” she said, noting that the toolkit provides a community discussion guide.

The toolkit states, “First Nation citizenship stands for the political and civil status of individuals belonging in a First Nation as determined by First Nations law – without interference from settler law.

“Reasserting First Nation law over citizenship involves recovering First Nation legal traditions and cultural values and applying these to meet the current needs of First Nations.”

Said Jamieson, “Until First Nations occupy that space, of course, there’s going to be people taking steps to address the problems.”