Money and sexism drive the C-31 court challenge

Page 6

For Walter Twinn and the other plaintiffs to say their Federal Court challenge to Bill C-31 is not about anything except protecting Indian communities and the members' right to decide who comprises those communities reveals a truly astounding belief in the gullibility of the general public.

Bill C-31 is the 1985 amendment to the Indian Act restoring status to those who were stripped of it in a variety of ways. That includes women who married non-Indians, those who served in the Armed Forces and those who took scrip, which gave them $200 and a quarter-section of land in return for their status.

During an Edmonton press conference, Walter Twinn, Chief of the Sawridege First Nation and his wife Catherine, legal counsel for the Sawridge, Tsuu T''ina and Ermineskin First Nations plaintiffs, tried to deflect allegations the challenge is sexist and racist because it would prevent women who married non-Indians from returning home. (Indian men can and could marry whoever they wanted and their wives then became Indians with all the rights and status that entails.) The Twinss argued that only 14 per cent of those affected by Bill C-31 were women who had married out.

But the bill also restored status to the children of those women, and other children who were born illegitimate. If each of those 14 per cent had two children, that adds up to 42 per cent, almost half of the 118,000. The Twinns would not be specific about who comprised the other 86 per cent, instead going back to the 14 per cent figure as if it proved their point.

The challenge to C-31, which Federal Court Justice Muldoon dismissed on July 6-with costs of about $2 million to be paid by the plaintiffs--was not meant as an attack on women and children, the plaintiffs insists. "No one's saying women who married out shouldn't return," said lawyer Walter Henderson. I wonder how Agnes Gendron and the 20 other women who have tried to return to the Cold Lake First Nation every year since C-31 was passed feel about that. At the last Treaty Day, they were greeted by an angry Chief Francis Scanie, who said: "As long as I am chief you won't pick up your God damn money here." So much for First Nations; taking care of their own.

Of course, not all First Nations are opposed to Bill C-31, but it's the rich Alberta bands who are leading the legal challenge.

But it has nothing to do with money, Walter Twinn insists. This despite the fact that the Sawridge Band's assets are estimated to be worth anywhere from $14 million to $100 million-Twinn won't say how much-and their membership may be as low as 21-again Twinn won't say. The real issue here is land and treaty rights, he said.

"What they're really trying to protect is money and the authority to control it as Catherine revealed with her comment: "Who has the power?"

Realistically, not many of the people stripped of their status would want to return to a reserve to live. Many, if not most, reverses are reeling under the combined effects of high unemployment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse problems, isolation, housing shortages, violence and a general feeling of despair. Not exactly a big draw for potential residents. And, while those communities struggle to heal and lift themselves out of this mire, they don't need any added financial burden.

If opponents to C-31 could instead look at those returning as assets-people who are going to contribute something to the community-the people could start working together to build strong, healthy communities dedicated to preserving their traditions and culture and sharing resources-the traditional way of life before the white man intervened.