Bands challenge Bill C-31

Page 8

Returning status through Bill C-31 to those who had lot it under the Indian act has caused a major rift between bands and reinstated Indians.

The issue is so controversial some people would only discuss it with Windspeaker on condition their names not be used.

"Bill C-312 simply affected some people who had their status affirmed so they could go back to their communities. But mostly it gets us to fight amongst ourselves," said Ron George head of the Native Council of Canada.

On June 28, 1985, sections of the Indian Act were declared in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-31 became law. Since then, 95,153 of 153,903 Natives who applied for status have been reinstated. In Alberta, of 21,137 applicants, 10,026 have regained status.

While many bands have welcomed returning members, others, especially in Alberta, see the amendment to the Indian Act as the federal government dictating band membership.

"Our leadership has total authority to decide who is a member of our tribe and who gets benefits. Ottawa has no say and no authority," said a Tsuu Tina band councillor who didn't want to be named.

The Tsuu Tina Nation, the Ermineskin band and Tory Senator Walter Twinn, chief of the Sawridge band, are challenging the law this month in the Federal Court of Canada. The trial will begin in Edmonton before moving to Ottawa and is expected to last up to 11 weeks.

The case could be precedental-setting in defining Aboriginal rights and self-government.

Wayne Roan, Red Cloud, is a spokesperson for the Ermineskin band, Like his father Lazarus Roan, he carries the spiritual traditions of the Cree at Hobbema and particularly Ermineskin Reserve.

"The simple fact is, control of populations has occurred since the time human beings began. When you have no control of membership, there can be very serious problems. Look at Canada, at the immigration laws. Now they are losing control of the cities because Canadian laws allow for the bringing in of unfavorable sides of cultures, traditions, customs....

"The reserve is the only place where I have traditional rights. Therefore, I have to protect it. It is our last stand," said Roan.

The Indian Act

Under the Indian Act, status Indians could lose their status a number of ways:

- Women marrying non-Indians;

- Indians who took "Half-breed Scrip" or were descended from someone who

took scrip;

- Indians who were "enfranchised" (stripped of status under the Indian Act) for any reasons, including wanting to vote, to drink, to own property, to live in another country, to become a lawyer or clergyman, along with their wives and children;

- Indian children who lost status because of illegitimacy or whose mother's and father's mothers were not entitled to be registered other than through their marriages;

- Indians who were omitted from Band Lists or the Indian Register who otherwise should have been registered or Indians whose communities were not recognized as bands.

Doris Ronnenberg, head of the Native Council of Canada (Alberta), which has intervenor status in the Twinn federal court challenge, said "voluntary" enfranchisement was often anything but.

"A lot of people didn't realize the implications of signing away status," she explained.

They were asked to either sign or lose their children to residential school, where they stayed for 10 months at a time. Or, if they worked off-reserve, Indians could eliminate the daily chore of getting a work permit signing away their status.

Perhaps the most vocal opponents to Twinn's challenge are the women who regained status through Bill C-31.

Susie Huskey, a Dene from Aklavik in the Northwest Territories, has been a longtime advocate of women's rights. In May of 1984, when she was chief of the Inuvik Band, she went to the Assembly of First Nations annual Assembly, where she pushed to get Bill C-31 on the agenda. The vote was 635 for, 215 against.

"Alberta was really against Bill C-31," Huskey said.

After she spoke insupport of the bill, one Alberta chief stood up and said, "See, you let a woman talk and look what happens." He and his band members stormed out of the meeting.

The controversy hasn't stopped Both Wayne Roan and the Tsuu Tina councillor say the fight is not against the women who regained lost status marrying white men. But women are often the ones most affected.

Patriarchy vs. matriarchy

Native men who marry white women can bring them to the reserve to live and the white women become eligible for status, along with their children, the opposite of what happened to Native women marrying white men before Bill C-31.

"There's no such thing as equality in the Indian world, but rather a blend. Equality is a pain in the ass," said Roan.

Indian men are traditionally looked at as the head of the household, said the Tsuu Tina councillor, who wanted to remain anonymous.

"There's no equal rights on reserves for men and women. Men are the authority, the leadership, in politics and everything, in the household. We people on the reserve, the majority of us, think the men have total say," he said.

Those claims of tradition are merely the chiefs embracing a foreign patriarchy, said Gail Stacey-Moore, spokesperson for the Native Women's Association of Canada.

"That is not tradition. For the past 100 years the Indian Act has imposed those kinds of rules and regulations. We are forced to follow it. There's nothing traditional about it," she said.

Everyone played a vital role in maintaining the community, and women were always recognized as the backbone of Native society, Stacey-Moore added.

Bill C-31 did much to bring people back, but not enough, she said. One clause,

the so-called second generation clause, excludes grandchildren of reinstated Indians status unless they marry status Indians.

Ronnenberg said that for the first year of the Indian Act, women could marry anyone they wanted and maintain their status, along with their children. A year later, that was changed.

oth Roan and Tsuu Tina councillor said when women married non-Indians and left the reserve, they were turning their backs on the Indian way of life.

But according to Ronnenberg's 106 year-old grandmother, Caroline Beaudry, membership before the white man was ruled individual choice.

Marrying outside one's band was common and when couples married, they chose whether to live with the husband's or wife's band. People were not refused entry to a band nor were they forced to leave, unless they committed a terrible crime.

Ovide Mercredi, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, is himself a Bill C-31 Indian.

This internal discrimination is not traditional within the tribes of Canada, he said. "The membership of the tribe was fluid. It brought in news members marriage and adoption and true relations were established," Mercredi added.

"The ideal thing for Walter Twinn to do is some research, some understanding of his past, some knowledge of the history of his people. Because if he really understands it, he will not stand in the way of people coming into his community."

Some Bill C-31 opponents, including Sawridge Chief Walter Twinn, say an influx of new members could breakdown a reserve's economical and political structure.

The Sawridge band is the richest per capita in Canada, with less than 100 members and oil-based assets worth more than $30 million. Twinn's opponents say he just doesn't want to share the wealth with the 300 Bill C-31 Indians seeking entry to the Sawridge band.

However, the economic and social hardship is valid for many less-affluent bands which did welcome returnees.

Hardships

When the bill became law in 1985, the federal government allocated funds specifically toward housing new Bill C-31 band members. The five-year program created intense animosity between established and new members on many reserves because of housing shortages.

Some members had been on waiting lists for years, only to see a new member

get a house immediately. Aother common scenario was for houses to be built for older members, with Bill C-31 members being shuttled to old homes, which may have been condemned, or left homeless.

"The federal government did make provisions for housing Bill C-31 members, however, it further created problems leaving perceptions within communities that people on the bill jumped the lines," said a source at the Union of Ontario Chiefs.

"It undermined First Nation's authority to determine our own housing policies."

Many, if not most, bands have simply taken members back and endured the hardship.

"Bill C-31 is law. There isn't a move in this part of the country to fight it," said Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

Other bands welcomed Bill C-31 returnees. One such band is the Lheit'Lit'en in central B.C.

"It's added to our community tremendously," said Chief Peter Quaw.

When he returned to his reserve in the mid 1970s, the only person still living there was his father. There were no jobs, no housing, no quality of life - nothing to persuade people to stay, he said.

They elected a new chief and with Bill C-31 funding from returnees the situation began to improve. Membership grew from 112 in 1986 to 211 in 1993. They expect to have 250 1995 and are not considering limiting their membership or turning new members away, Quaw said.