Dear Readers; after checking my blog stats, I can see that traffic has been heavy on my previous Bill C-3 blogs, especially the one that reads as an update. I will try to oblige, but please forgive any annoying repetition.
March 11, 2010 - First Reading (that's where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House).
March 26, 2010 - Second Reading
March 29, 2010 - Debates
April 1, 2010 - Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON)
April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 - Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill.
April 29, 2010 - AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it.
May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.
Parliament then recessed for the summer.
October 26, 2010 - Report Stage - Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed:
(1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented;
(2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act.
(3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions.
All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates.
Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates
The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010.
Dec.15, 2010 - Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent.
Jan.21. 2011 - The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time.
All this legislative information can be found at the following link:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=6949&List=stat
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/index-eng.asp
INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment:
(1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian?
(2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and
(3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951?
If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly:
INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre
Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 1-866-817-3977
TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554
I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations:
Online: January 31, 2011
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.
The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required:
- Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as "long-form")
- Two passport style photographs
- Original piece of valid identification (i.e. - driver's licence, passport, government issued ID)
- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS
And if applicable:
- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate
- Custody Court Order
- Statutory Declaration Form(s).
Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a "mail-in" process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so.
I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver's License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate.
INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows:
Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011
Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified
Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement
Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months
The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits.
Also of interest:
(1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and
(2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation.
Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog.
Pam
Showing posts with label Status. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Status. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Bill C-3: Senate Considerations More About Blood "Purity" and "Benefits" than Equality
This blog will serve as an update as to the current status of Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It will also serve to highlight the disturbing considerations that are being made by Senators and the Minister of INAC in passing this bill.
Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill's treatment to date:
(1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House;
(2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor's case;
(3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill;
(4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses);
(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;
(6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability;
(7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives);
(8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly;
(9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study;
(10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6);
(11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute;
(12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly.
So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011.
So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here:
(1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy.
(2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women.
(3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy.
There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO's) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO's all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in.
First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment.
You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written - yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that "something was better than nothing" and supported the bill.
When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO's would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO's did not play ball.
The NAO's are not what they used to be - although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900's which culminated in the 1970's in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as "co-opted". Back then, the NAO's stood for what was just and not what was "just" in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people.
It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010:
(1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate;
(2) the AFN testified that "the bill, with or without amendments must proceed";
(3) the NAFC's main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients;
(4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to "our chiefs, our communities and our families";
Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO's would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau's job much easier.
INAC Minister John Duncan's testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here:
"the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed."
"With five different national Aboriginal organizations ... the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process."
"the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process."
Sharon McIvor's testimony pointed out what is really happening here - we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said:
"what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights... An exploratory process, so others - many of who will not be affected directly - have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre."
She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon's "hypothetical brother" to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon's quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony?
She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO's have put us Indian women in - that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well:
"The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women's Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on."
She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed.
Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally - i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women - how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation - it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination.
Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings:
(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:
"How far do you think your status can go?"
"Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is."
"If pure Indian marries a non-Indian... how far do you think you can take the status?"
"Nevermind about gender equality."
(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:
"I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list... and the specific decision"
(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:
"we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits"
"There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be."
Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say - but it serves to justify funding NAO's to do more repetitive research.
Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada's interest in having a limited "1/4 blood" rule was primarily for financial reasons.
Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money - we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren.
If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO's what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community.
I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO's a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO's should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just.
Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada's desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO's who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children's children seven generations into the future.
Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor's long-standing fight for our rights.
Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill's treatment to date:
(1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House;
(2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor's case;
(3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill;
(4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses);
(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;
(6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability;
(7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives);
(8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly;
(9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study;
(10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6);
(11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute;
(12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly.
So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011.
So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here:
(1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy.
(2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women.
(3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy.
There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO's) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO's all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in.
First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment.
You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written - yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that "something was better than nothing" and supported the bill.
When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO's would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO's did not play ball.
The NAO's are not what they used to be - although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900's which culminated in the 1970's in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as "co-opted". Back then, the NAO's stood for what was just and not what was "just" in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people.
It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010:
(1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate;
(2) the AFN testified that "the bill, with or without amendments must proceed";
(3) the NAFC's main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients;
(4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to "our chiefs, our communities and our families";
Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO's would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau's job much easier.
INAC Minister John Duncan's testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here:
"the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed."
"With five different national Aboriginal organizations ... the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process."
"the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process."
Sharon McIvor's testimony pointed out what is really happening here - we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said:
"what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights... An exploratory process, so others - many of who will not be affected directly - have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre."
She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon's "hypothetical brother" to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon's quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony?
She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO's have put us Indian women in - that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well:
"The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women's Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on."
She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed.
Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally - i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women - how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation - it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination.
Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings:
(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:
"How far do you think your status can go?"
"Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is."
"If pure Indian marries a non-Indian... how far do you think you can take the status?"
"Nevermind about gender equality."
(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:
"I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list... and the specific decision"
(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:
"we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits"
"There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be."
Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say - but it serves to justify funding NAO's to do more repetitive research.
Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada's interest in having a limited "1/4 blood" rule was primarily for financial reasons.
Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money - we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren.
If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO's what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community.
I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO's a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO's should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just.
Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada's desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO's who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children's children seven generations into the future.
Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor's long-standing fight for our rights.
Friday, March 12, 2010
UPDATED - Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act
Sharon McIvor went to court to challenge the gender discrimination in section 6 of the Indian Act, 1985. Registration under the Indian Act provides greater entitlements to Indian men who married out (married a non-Indian) and their descendants as compared with Indian women who married out.
McIvor won both at trial and on appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further appeal. While the trial court would have offered a broader remedy, the court of appeal limited the scope of the discrimination and therefore made comments which suggested to Canada that it might get away with a minimalist amendment. (For further information on the McIvor case, see my previous blog entry).
As a result of these legal proceedings, Canada embarked upon a very short "engagement" process. It chose not to consult with Aboriginal peoples about the need to amend the Indian Act and instead presented Aboriginal groups with their proposed amendment. Prior to the amendments being released, most understood that the proposed amendment would grant section 6(1) status to the children of Indian women who married out (they are currently section 6(2) Indians) and grant for the first time, section 6(2) status to the grandchildren. However, it now appears that this is NOT the case.
On Thursday, March 12, 2010 Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) Chuck Strahl introduced Bill C-3 An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) into the House of Commons. This Bill will have to go through both Parliament and the Senate in order to become law.
With regard to the grandchildren of Indian women who married out, the Bill seems to be on track with what Canada proposed during the engagement sessions held in 2009. INAC has published a document to explain how the legislative amendments are intended to apply to individuals who are the grandchildren of Indian women who married out. Canada explains that if an individual can answer the following three questions, they are encouraged to apply for registration:
(1) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?
(2) Is one of your parents registered, or entitled to be registered, under sub-section 6(2) of the Indian Act?
(3) Were you born on or after September 4, 1951?
The problem comes when the children (not grandchildren) of Indian women who married out ask themselves whether they qualify for a change in Indian status from section 6(2) to section 6(1)? The short answer is YES - if they had disentitled kids (non-status Indian kids) and NO - if they never had any kids or had kids with another registered Indian therefore making their children "entitled".
Although not highlighted in their publication which explains how the new amendments might affect individuals, in one of their explanation documents, INAC provides the following check list to determine which section 6(2) Indians will be entitled to registration under the proposed section 6(1)(c.1):
(1) Did your mother lose status for marrying an Indian man?
(2)Is your father a non-Indian?
(3) Were you born AFTER your mom lost status but BEFORE 1985 (unless your parents married each other prior to 1985)?
(4)Did you have a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951?
Number 3 is somewhat complex and confusing and seems to be an awkward attempt to prevent the possibility that any of the descendants of Indian women might have enhanced status. However, number 4 creates a whole new division amongst section 6(2) Indians - (1) those who had "disentitled" (non-status) kids and those without kids, and (2) those with disentitled kids and those with status Indian kids.
For the first time in the Indian Act's history, one's specific entitlement to Indian status will depend in part on whether one has children, and more specifically whether one has non-status Indian children. Status has always been determined based on one's parents. This new section would now put the focus on the status of one's children. This is absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary in order to acheive the goal of addressing the inequity between the decendants of Indian women versus Indian men.
This Bill is supposed to address gender inequity and not create more inequity and division between siblings and families. This is a significant matter that must be addressed before the Bill is passed.
At the same time that Canada announced the Bill, they also indicated that there would be a joint process developed in conjunction with Aboriginal organizations, First Nations groups and individuals to try to address the broader issues around registration, band membership, treaties and other cultural issues.
But some non-Aboriginal people are asking the question: why should Canadians care about this legislation? This is actually a good question that needs to be addressed.
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood before Parliament and apologized to the survivors of the residential school system, he did so on behalf of all Canadians. While there has been a great deal of debate about the adequacy of the apology and an obvious lack of corresponding action, the fact remains that an apology was made.
PM Harper apologized for the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was based. The goal of assimilation was based on the idea that European culture was superior to Aboriginal cultures. In addition to the physical and sexual abuse experienced by Aboriginal peoples in residential schools, they also suffered from divided families and communities, and a loss of language, culture and identity that has resulted in significant social ills within Aboriginal communities both on and off-reserve.
What Canadians have to remember is that the Indian Act and its predecessor legislation is based on the very same assimilatory foundation as the residential school policy and it has caused the very same division of families and communities, and loss of language, culture and identity. The Indian Act went even further to incorporate a male-preference for registration, membership, residency, voting rights, and access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as various programs and services.
Canada essentially incorporated an idea into the Act that gave the message to communities that Aboriginal women were less worthy and less capable of passing on Aboriginal identity and culture. This has had an incredibly damaging affect on both Aboriginal women and their communities.
Yet, Canada, as a Nation, does not stand for racism or sexism. Canada publically holds itself out to the international community as being a modern, democratic country which values human rights, gender equality and multi-culturalism. If this is indeed representative of Canadian values as a whole, then Canadians ought to care very deeply whether laws affecting Aboriginal peoples also represent a respect for human rights, gender equality and respect for Aboriginal culture.
The Indian Act's registration provisions were based on outdated, assimilatory goals and include a formula that ensures the eventual legislative extinction of Aboriginal peoples. Canada must take action to amend the Act in a meaningful, significant way that reflects our core values as Canadians, at least until something else replaces the Act. The current proposed amendment does not do this.
By not amending the registration provisions in any significant way, we are allowing assimilation to continue. This lack of action not only violates basic human rights related to gender and identity, it also violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which represents not only the highest law of the land, but a significant promise to Aboriginal peoples to protect their culture and identity for future generations.
Canada accepts tens of thousands of new immigrants to this country every year, who draw upon Canada's financial and other resources, yet Canada fought tooth and nail against Sharon McIvor for over 20 years to avoid having to register the descendents of Indian women. That does not represent a commitment to gender equity for Aboriginal peoples - it represents more of the assimilatory attitudes upon which this Act was originally based.
We wouldn't accept the reopening of residential schools - therefore Canadians should not stand for the continued assimilation of Aboriginal peoples through the registration provisions of the Indian Act.
One can only hope that the joint process announced by Canada will address these urgent issues.
McIvor won both at trial and on appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further appeal. While the trial court would have offered a broader remedy, the court of appeal limited the scope of the discrimination and therefore made comments which suggested to Canada that it might get away with a minimalist amendment. (For further information on the McIvor case, see my previous blog entry).
As a result of these legal proceedings, Canada embarked upon a very short "engagement" process. It chose not to consult with Aboriginal peoples about the need to amend the Indian Act and instead presented Aboriginal groups with their proposed amendment. Prior to the amendments being released, most understood that the proposed amendment would grant section 6(1) status to the children of Indian women who married out (they are currently section 6(2) Indians) and grant for the first time, section 6(2) status to the grandchildren. However, it now appears that this is NOT the case.
On Thursday, March 12, 2010 Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) Chuck Strahl introduced Bill C-3 An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) into the House of Commons. This Bill will have to go through both Parliament and the Senate in order to become law.
With regard to the grandchildren of Indian women who married out, the Bill seems to be on track with what Canada proposed during the engagement sessions held in 2009. INAC has published a document to explain how the legislative amendments are intended to apply to individuals who are the grandchildren of Indian women who married out. Canada explains that if an individual can answer the following three questions, they are encouraged to apply for registration:
(1) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?
(2) Is one of your parents registered, or entitled to be registered, under sub-section 6(2) of the Indian Act?
(3) Were you born on or after September 4, 1951?
The problem comes when the children (not grandchildren) of Indian women who married out ask themselves whether they qualify for a change in Indian status from section 6(2) to section 6(1)? The short answer is YES - if they had disentitled kids (non-status Indian kids) and NO - if they never had any kids or had kids with another registered Indian therefore making their children "entitled".
Although not highlighted in their publication which explains how the new amendments might affect individuals, in one of their explanation documents, INAC provides the following check list to determine which section 6(2) Indians will be entitled to registration under the proposed section 6(1)(c.1):
(1) Did your mother lose status for marrying an Indian man?
(2)Is your father a non-Indian?
(3) Were you born AFTER your mom lost status but BEFORE 1985 (unless your parents married each other prior to 1985)?
(4)Did you have a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951?
Number 3 is somewhat complex and confusing and seems to be an awkward attempt to prevent the possibility that any of the descendants of Indian women might have enhanced status. However, number 4 creates a whole new division amongst section 6(2) Indians - (1) those who had "disentitled" (non-status) kids and those without kids, and (2) those with disentitled kids and those with status Indian kids.
For the first time in the Indian Act's history, one's specific entitlement to Indian status will depend in part on whether one has children, and more specifically whether one has non-status Indian children. Status has always been determined based on one's parents. This new section would now put the focus on the status of one's children. This is absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary in order to acheive the goal of addressing the inequity between the decendants of Indian women versus Indian men.
This Bill is supposed to address gender inequity and not create more inequity and division between siblings and families. This is a significant matter that must be addressed before the Bill is passed.
At the same time that Canada announced the Bill, they also indicated that there would be a joint process developed in conjunction with Aboriginal organizations, First Nations groups and individuals to try to address the broader issues around registration, band membership, treaties and other cultural issues.
But some non-Aboriginal people are asking the question: why should Canadians care about this legislation? This is actually a good question that needs to be addressed.
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood before Parliament and apologized to the survivors of the residential school system, he did so on behalf of all Canadians. While there has been a great deal of debate about the adequacy of the apology and an obvious lack of corresponding action, the fact remains that an apology was made.
PM Harper apologized for the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was based. The goal of assimilation was based on the idea that European culture was superior to Aboriginal cultures. In addition to the physical and sexual abuse experienced by Aboriginal peoples in residential schools, they also suffered from divided families and communities, and a loss of language, culture and identity that has resulted in significant social ills within Aboriginal communities both on and off-reserve.
What Canadians have to remember is that the Indian Act and its predecessor legislation is based on the very same assimilatory foundation as the residential school policy and it has caused the very same division of families and communities, and loss of language, culture and identity. The Indian Act went even further to incorporate a male-preference for registration, membership, residency, voting rights, and access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as various programs and services.
Canada essentially incorporated an idea into the Act that gave the message to communities that Aboriginal women were less worthy and less capable of passing on Aboriginal identity and culture. This has had an incredibly damaging affect on both Aboriginal women and their communities.
Yet, Canada, as a Nation, does not stand for racism or sexism. Canada publically holds itself out to the international community as being a modern, democratic country which values human rights, gender equality and multi-culturalism. If this is indeed representative of Canadian values as a whole, then Canadians ought to care very deeply whether laws affecting Aboriginal peoples also represent a respect for human rights, gender equality and respect for Aboriginal culture.
The Indian Act's registration provisions were based on outdated, assimilatory goals and include a formula that ensures the eventual legislative extinction of Aboriginal peoples. Canada must take action to amend the Act in a meaningful, significant way that reflects our core values as Canadians, at least until something else replaces the Act. The current proposed amendment does not do this.
By not amending the registration provisions in any significant way, we are allowing assimilation to continue. This lack of action not only violates basic human rights related to gender and identity, it also violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which represents not only the highest law of the land, but a significant promise to Aboriginal peoples to protect their culture and identity for future generations.
Canada accepts tens of thousands of new immigrants to this country every year, who draw upon Canada's financial and other resources, yet Canada fought tooth and nail against Sharon McIvor for over 20 years to avoid having to register the descendents of Indian women. That does not represent a commitment to gender equity for Aboriginal peoples - it represents more of the assimilatory attitudes upon which this Act was originally based.
We wouldn't accept the reopening of residential schools - therefore Canadians should not stand for the continued assimilation of Aboriginal peoples through the registration provisions of the Indian Act.
One can only hope that the joint process announced by Canada will address these urgent issues.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Aboriginal Peoples in NB not Consulted on Proposed Sale of NB Power to Québec
The Premier of New Brunswick (NB) announced in 2009 that NB had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hydro-Québec that would involve the transfer/sale of NB Power and/or its assets to Québec (or part thereof). Premier Shawn Graham explained that this is necessary for all New Brunswickers: "By entering into this agreement, New Brunswick is securing access to affordable, clean hydroelectricity, which will make the province's economy more competitive and provide a cleaner environment for future generations of New Brunswickers." The obvious question being: do New Brunswickers feel the same way?
It is the province's goal to enter into a legal, binding agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010. I fail to see how the Premier could possibly finalize an agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010, if he also plans on informing Aboriginal communities about how this deal might impact their Aboriginal and treaty rights, including their land claims and also engaging in proper consultations with them. It is not as if he hasn't been given due notice that there are unresolved land claims in New Brunswick. Both on and off-reserve Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples have informed NB about their land claims and that they expect to be consulted on decisions made by NB that could impact those claims and their Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Firstly, NB signed a bilateral agreement with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet Chiefs that had as its goal (in part) to: "facilitate communication and consultation between First Nations Leaders and their constituents and between the Province and its citizens" on a wide variety of issues. The very first item listed for discussion and consultation is "Land and Resources". Given the reaction of the NB Chiefs in the recent media reports, it does not appear as if NB has lived up to its part of the deal.
Secondly, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples (NBAPC) which represents Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people living off-reserve in NB was not included in the above-mentioned bilateral agreement. However, that does not absolve NB of its legal obligations to inform the off-reserve Aboriginal peoples represented by the NBAPC of the implications of this proposed deal, consult with them and accommodate their interests and concerns. As this was not done, Frank Palmater, a Director of the NBAPC sent a letter to the Premier in November 2009 reminding him of their outstanding land claim and NB's legal obligation to consult with them before any decisions are made with regard to NB Power and its assets. It reads in part:
" As you know, the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy Peoples in New Brunswick have never surrendered or ceded their traditional territories. They did not sign treaties which gave up rights to their lands, nor have they since settled a comprehensive land claim ceding their Aboriginal and treaty rights to their land in exchange for anything. In fact, as you also know, the NBAPC and other Aboriginal groups have received funding in the past to complete land claims research with a view to submitting a formal claim. All that was missing was the province of New Brunswick’s commitment to negotiate.
I refer you to the book, Our Land: The Maritimes: The Basis of the Indian Claim in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, edited by former President of the NBAPC, Gary Gould and his collaborator, Allan Semple. The book publically asserted both a historical and legal basis of Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The NBAPC has also advocated on behalf of its members with regards to their claims to Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The fact that the province of New Brunswick has ignored our claims does not mean that we have not made those claims and maintain them.
As you are aware, there are numerous legal cases that have been heard at the Supreme Court of Canada relating to fiduciary duty, the honour of the Crown and the duty to consult and accommodate with regards to Aboriginal peoples and their interests. ...This duty to consult and accommodate applies regardless of whether our Aboriginal title right has been confirmed in court of law. The duty is triggered when the province of New Brunswick has “real or constructive knowledge” of the “potential existence” of the Aboriginal right or title claimed.
Therefore, the province of New Brunswick must not only act honourably in all of its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, which includes the NBAPC, it must also consider both their historical and future relationship with Aboriginal peoples. This relationship has as its base, our treaties and our traditional lands upon which we currently share with the province. ...
Practically speaking, this means that our Aboriginal title to our traditional territories in New Brunswick act as a “burden” to the province’s title and, as such, it cannot be sold, traded and/or otherwise dealt with unless and until our underlying Aboriginal title claims have been addressed. In other words, you do not have the right to even consider the sale of NB Power and/or its assets to another province because NB Power and its assets sit on lands which are claimed by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples in New Brunswick and the sale, trade or loan of NB Power and/or its assets can and will have a negative impact on our land claim once it is finally addressed. Moreover, it is also our understanding that there are various specific land claims relating to NB Power and/or its assets that have yet to be addressed. ...
Therefore, this letter will:
(1) Re-assert our long-standing claim to Aboriginal title in the lands traditionally used and/or occupied by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in New Brunswick, a right which is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(2) Remind the Province of New Brunswick of its legal and moral obligations to act honourably and in good faith and to both consult with us and accommodate our interests with regards to the proposed sale of NB Power and/or its assets; and
(3) Request that the Province of New Brunswick meet with us immediately to establish a process to finally address our long-outstanding Aboriginal title claim as well as our treaty and other rights in New Brunswick, before considering the sale of NB Power and/or its assets."
The Premier promptly responded to this letter on December 7, 2009 by indicating that no binding agreement had yet been signed and that NB, would in fact, be meeting with the NBAPC on this issue within the "next few months". When the NBAPC failed to hear from the Premier, Frank Palmater sent another letter reminding him of the looming deadline and the province's legal obligations to consult. Now, the Chiefs of New Brunswick are also pointing out the lack of consultation.
For the benefit of all New Brunswickers: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, the Premier ought to slow down this run-away train and avoid a complete disaster (legally and politically) and take time to:
(1) properly inform communities about the specific implications of this proposed deal;
(2) consult in an appropriate manner; and
(3) accommodate the interests, rights and concerns raised during consultations.
Our land and resources are worth at least the time it takes to have this discussion.
It is the province's goal to enter into a legal, binding agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010. I fail to see how the Premier could possibly finalize an agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010, if he also plans on informing Aboriginal communities about how this deal might impact their Aboriginal and treaty rights, including their land claims and also engaging in proper consultations with them. It is not as if he hasn't been given due notice that there are unresolved land claims in New Brunswick. Both on and off-reserve Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples have informed NB about their land claims and that they expect to be consulted on decisions made by NB that could impact those claims and their Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Firstly, NB signed a bilateral agreement with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet Chiefs that had as its goal (in part) to: "facilitate communication and consultation between First Nations Leaders and their constituents and between the Province and its citizens" on a wide variety of issues. The very first item listed for discussion and consultation is "Land and Resources". Given the reaction of the NB Chiefs in the recent media reports, it does not appear as if NB has lived up to its part of the deal.
Secondly, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples (NBAPC) which represents Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people living off-reserve in NB was not included in the above-mentioned bilateral agreement. However, that does not absolve NB of its legal obligations to inform the off-reserve Aboriginal peoples represented by the NBAPC of the implications of this proposed deal, consult with them and accommodate their interests and concerns. As this was not done, Frank Palmater, a Director of the NBAPC sent a letter to the Premier in November 2009 reminding him of their outstanding land claim and NB's legal obligation to consult with them before any decisions are made with regard to NB Power and its assets. It reads in part:
" As you know, the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy Peoples in New Brunswick have never surrendered or ceded their traditional territories. They did not sign treaties which gave up rights to their lands, nor have they since settled a comprehensive land claim ceding their Aboriginal and treaty rights to their land in exchange for anything. In fact, as you also know, the NBAPC and other Aboriginal groups have received funding in the past to complete land claims research with a view to submitting a formal claim. All that was missing was the province of New Brunswick’s commitment to negotiate.
I refer you to the book, Our Land: The Maritimes: The Basis of the Indian Claim in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, edited by former President of the NBAPC, Gary Gould and his collaborator, Allan Semple. The book publically asserted both a historical and legal basis of Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The NBAPC has also advocated on behalf of its members with regards to their claims to Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The fact that the province of New Brunswick has ignored our claims does not mean that we have not made those claims and maintain them.
As you are aware, there are numerous legal cases that have been heard at the Supreme Court of Canada relating to fiduciary duty, the honour of the Crown and the duty to consult and accommodate with regards to Aboriginal peoples and their interests. ...This duty to consult and accommodate applies regardless of whether our Aboriginal title right has been confirmed in court of law. The duty is triggered when the province of New Brunswick has “real or constructive knowledge” of the “potential existence” of the Aboriginal right or title claimed.
Therefore, the province of New Brunswick must not only act honourably in all of its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, which includes the NBAPC, it must also consider both their historical and future relationship with Aboriginal peoples. This relationship has as its base, our treaties and our traditional lands upon which we currently share with the province. ...
Practically speaking, this means that our Aboriginal title to our traditional territories in New Brunswick act as a “burden” to the province’s title and, as such, it cannot be sold, traded and/or otherwise dealt with unless and until our underlying Aboriginal title claims have been addressed. In other words, you do not have the right to even consider the sale of NB Power and/or its assets to another province because NB Power and its assets sit on lands which are claimed by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples in New Brunswick and the sale, trade or loan of NB Power and/or its assets can and will have a negative impact on our land claim once it is finally addressed. Moreover, it is also our understanding that there are various specific land claims relating to NB Power and/or its assets that have yet to be addressed. ...
Therefore, this letter will:
(1) Re-assert our long-standing claim to Aboriginal title in the lands traditionally used and/or occupied by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in New Brunswick, a right which is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(2) Remind the Province of New Brunswick of its legal and moral obligations to act honourably and in good faith and to both consult with us and accommodate our interests with regards to the proposed sale of NB Power and/or its assets; and
(3) Request that the Province of New Brunswick meet with us immediately to establish a process to finally address our long-outstanding Aboriginal title claim as well as our treaty and other rights in New Brunswick, before considering the sale of NB Power and/or its assets."
The Premier promptly responded to this letter on December 7, 2009 by indicating that no binding agreement had yet been signed and that NB, would in fact, be meeting with the NBAPC on this issue within the "next few months". When the NBAPC failed to hear from the Premier, Frank Palmater sent another letter reminding him of the looming deadline and the province's legal obligations to consult. Now, the Chiefs of New Brunswick are also pointing out the lack of consultation.
For the benefit of all New Brunswickers: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, the Premier ought to slow down this run-away train and avoid a complete disaster (legally and politically) and take time to:
(1) properly inform communities about the specific implications of this proposed deal;
(2) consult in an appropriate manner; and
(3) accommodate the interests, rights and concerns raised during consultations.
Our land and resources are worth at least the time it takes to have this discussion.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What is a Non-Status Indian?
What is a Non-Status Indian? People ask me this question nearly everyday. Some people think Non-Status Indians are really just Métis people - those with mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry. Others think that a Non-Status Indian is any person who is not registered under the Indian Act as an "Indian" - i.e. they are not Aboriginal people. I have even had government officials query whether we can ever know what a Non-Status Indian is as there is no legislative definition for them.
For many years, some Aboriginal political organisations that represent Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve also represented Métis peoples. For example, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) used to be called the New Brunswick Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians. Although the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) now has responsibility for Status Indians, Non-Status and Métis people, it wasn't always that way. The Minister of INAC used to be responsible for status Indians and there was a Federal Interlocutor who was specifically responsible for Métis and Non-Status Indians. The terms Métis and Non-Status Indian have been used together for so long that there is understandable confusion about the two.
In the most simplest terms - Métis people are those people who have descended from Métis groups across the country. These Métis groups were originally born from unions between Aboriginal peoples (Cree, Ojibway etc) and non-Aboriginal peoples and went on to identify not with their Aboriginal ancestors, nor did they identify with their non-Aboriginal ancestors. Métis peoples saw themselves as distinct from both groups and went on to develop their own practices, customs, traditions, languages and so forth. It is a common misunderstanding to refer to someone with mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry as Métis, at least without knowing more.
What about Non-Status Indians? Are they not Aboriginal people with mixed ancestries? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Many Non-Status Indians have no more of a mixed ancestral heritage than do status Indians. So, then what is a Non-Status Indian? INAC's website defines the term Non-Status Indian as follows:
"...commonly refers to people who identify themselves as Indians but who are not entitled to registration on the Indian Registrar pursuant to the Indian Act."
The University of Saskatchewan's Online Encyclopedia defines Non-Status Indians as follows:
"People who are identified as Non-Status Indians in Canada are individuals who are not considered as Registered Indians because either they or their ancestors were refused or lost their Indian status through the mechanisms of the Indian Act, and who do not identify as being Métis. The mechanism by which people lost their status was “enfranchisement.” The most common method of enfranchisement was through intermarriage, whereby a Status Indian woman marrying a non-Indian man lost her Indian status—as did her children; this law existed until the Indian Act was amended in 1985. Other ways in which individuals could be enfranchised was by obtaining the federal right to vote (until 1960), feeing simple title to land, or receiving a university degree (until 1951). "
Professor and lawyer, Joseph Magnet had this to say about Non-Status Indians in his article "Who are the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada?":
"The consistent narrowing of the definition of ‘Indian’ in various amendments to the Indian Act created a large population of Aboriginal people without Indian status, or the rights and entitlements that attach to it – the non-status Indians... The population of non-status Indians is larger than is discerned by considering the legal exceptions in the various Indian Acts, however. It also includes people of Aboriginal ancestry and culture who were never entitled to register in 1876, as well as Aboriginal people entitled to register who chose not to submit themselves to the Department’s control....The non-status population includes the historical Indians and their descendants."
While all of these definitions are accurate, it may be simpler to say that Non-Status Indians are those people who identify as Indian (i.e. Mohawk, Mi'kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) but who by choice or legislative exclusion are not registered under the Indian Act as Indians (i.e. they do not have "status"). For many, the term Non-Status Indian is not so much an identity, but a state of being. For example, I am a Mi'kmaq person and have always identified as such. My larger extended family is Mi'kmaq and we have worked our whole lives towards improving the lives of Mi'kmaq and other Aboriginal peoples who live off-reserve and who are treated differently because they lack a residence on reserve and/or because they do not have status under the Indian Act. I was raised to know the community from which my family originated, the traditions and practices of my Nation as well as the people who share the same Mi'kmaq history.
While I identify as Mi'kmaq, I am also aware that due to gender discrimination in the Indian Act, I am not currently entitled to be a registered (status) Indian, despite the fact that my father was a status Indian and band member at Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. Therefore, I am a non-status Indian, i.e. a Mi'kmaq who is not registered under the Indian Act. That is my state of being as so decided by a government official at INAC. Some people have asked why I would continue to refer to myself or my situation with such a negative label as Non-Status Indian. My only answer is this: so long as there is a discriminatory federal process that tells me I am a Non-Status Indian, then I have an obligation to use the term, educate people about the term and work towards finally getting rid of the need to even have the term.
Other terms such as First Nations or off-reserve Aboriginal peoples may include both status and Non-Status Indians. However, the saying "out of sight - out of mind" applies especially to this situation. In my opinion, generic terms tend to hide the fact that Non-Status Indians exist and this creates a lack of awareness about their issues. Non-Status Indians are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, birth/blood status, and/or marital/family status. Some are denied band membership simply because they do not have status. Many do not qualify for federal programs and services because they lack status. Some are even denied the right to call themselves Cree, Mi'kmaq or Mohawk because some Aboriginal communities have come to associate their identities with federal recognition - i.e. status. These issues affect the quality of life of thousands of us across the country. We need to acknowledge the problem and find solutions.
There are Non-Status Indians who live on and off-reserve, who do and don't have band membership, who are and are not welcome in their home communities and those who associate with off-reserve political groups and those who don't. One cannot easily generalize when it comes to Non-Status Indians, but certain demographic facts should be highlighted: Aboriginal women and their children are disproportionately affected by the discrimination of the Indian Act's status provisions and comprise a higher number of Non-Status Indians. Non-Status Indians also suffer from the same poor socio-economic conditions as their status Indian brothers and sisters. Most live off-reserve and receive little assistance from federal and provincial governments or their own Aboriginal communities.
It is time that all Aboriginal people started talking about this situation and included Non-Status Indians of all backgrounds in the discussion. That includes ensuring that Non-Status Indians are at the table when treaties, land claims, self-government and other issues of importance are discussed. As with most issues involving Aboriginal peoples, identity is a complex political, social, historical. cultural and legal issue that requires a deeper conversation amongst ourselves. First and foremost however, it requires a rejection of Canada's presumed jurisdiction over our identity and the discriminatory tools it has used to label and divide us (status). There can be no right more inherent or more integral to one's culture than the right of Aboriginal Nations to be self-defining.
Hopefully, this has helped to answer the questions you have all e-mailed me recently about Non-Status Indians. There is a great deal more information out there regarding Non-Status Indians and I encourage you all to look for it and come up with your own thoughts and ideas about the issues we face and join the discussion. For those who are interested, you can get more information on my website at http://www.nonstatusindian.com/. You can also follow me on Facebook under the name Non Statusindian or on Twitter as Pam_Palmater. At any time, please feel free to e-mail me at palmater@nonstatusindian.com
Pam
For many years, some Aboriginal political organisations that represent Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve also represented Métis peoples. For example, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) used to be called the New Brunswick Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians. Although the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) now has responsibility for Status Indians, Non-Status and Métis people, it wasn't always that way. The Minister of INAC used to be responsible for status Indians and there was a Federal Interlocutor who was specifically responsible for Métis and Non-Status Indians. The terms Métis and Non-Status Indian have been used together for so long that there is understandable confusion about the two.
In the most simplest terms - Métis people are those people who have descended from Métis groups across the country. These Métis groups were originally born from unions between Aboriginal peoples (Cree, Ojibway etc) and non-Aboriginal peoples and went on to identify not with their Aboriginal ancestors, nor did they identify with their non-Aboriginal ancestors. Métis peoples saw themselves as distinct from both groups and went on to develop their own practices, customs, traditions, languages and so forth. It is a common misunderstanding to refer to someone with mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry as Métis, at least without knowing more.
What about Non-Status Indians? Are they not Aboriginal people with mixed ancestries? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Many Non-Status Indians have no more of a mixed ancestral heritage than do status Indians. So, then what is a Non-Status Indian? INAC's website defines the term Non-Status Indian as follows:
"...commonly refers to people who identify themselves as Indians but who are not entitled to registration on the Indian Registrar pursuant to the Indian Act."
The University of Saskatchewan's Online Encyclopedia defines Non-Status Indians as follows:
"People who are identified as Non-Status Indians in Canada are individuals who are not considered as Registered Indians because either they or their ancestors were refused or lost their Indian status through the mechanisms of the Indian Act, and who do not identify as being Métis. The mechanism by which people lost their status was “enfranchisement.” The most common method of enfranchisement was through intermarriage, whereby a Status Indian woman marrying a non-Indian man lost her Indian status—as did her children; this law existed until the Indian Act was amended in 1985. Other ways in which individuals could be enfranchised was by obtaining the federal right to vote (until 1960), feeing simple title to land, or receiving a university degree (until 1951). "
Professor and lawyer, Joseph Magnet had this to say about Non-Status Indians in his article "Who are the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada?":
"The consistent narrowing of the definition of ‘Indian’ in various amendments to the Indian Act created a large population of Aboriginal people without Indian status, or the rights and entitlements that attach to it – the non-status Indians... The population of non-status Indians is larger than is discerned by considering the legal exceptions in the various Indian Acts, however. It also includes people of Aboriginal ancestry and culture who were never entitled to register in 1876, as well as Aboriginal people entitled to register who chose not to submit themselves to the Department’s control....The non-status population includes the historical Indians and their descendants."
While all of these definitions are accurate, it may be simpler to say that Non-Status Indians are those people who identify as Indian (i.e. Mohawk, Mi'kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) but who by choice or legislative exclusion are not registered under the Indian Act as Indians (i.e. they do not have "status"). For many, the term Non-Status Indian is not so much an identity, but a state of being. For example, I am a Mi'kmaq person and have always identified as such. My larger extended family is Mi'kmaq and we have worked our whole lives towards improving the lives of Mi'kmaq and other Aboriginal peoples who live off-reserve and who are treated differently because they lack a residence on reserve and/or because they do not have status under the Indian Act. I was raised to know the community from which my family originated, the traditions and practices of my Nation as well as the people who share the same Mi'kmaq history.
While I identify as Mi'kmaq, I am also aware that due to gender discrimination in the Indian Act, I am not currently entitled to be a registered (status) Indian, despite the fact that my father was a status Indian and band member at Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. Therefore, I am a non-status Indian, i.e. a Mi'kmaq who is not registered under the Indian Act. That is my state of being as so decided by a government official at INAC. Some people have asked why I would continue to refer to myself or my situation with such a negative label as Non-Status Indian. My only answer is this: so long as there is a discriminatory federal process that tells me I am a Non-Status Indian, then I have an obligation to use the term, educate people about the term and work towards finally getting rid of the need to even have the term.
Other terms such as First Nations or off-reserve Aboriginal peoples may include both status and Non-Status Indians. However, the saying "out of sight - out of mind" applies especially to this situation. In my opinion, generic terms tend to hide the fact that Non-Status Indians exist and this creates a lack of awareness about their issues. Non-Status Indians are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, birth/blood status, and/or marital/family status. Some are denied band membership simply because they do not have status. Many do not qualify for federal programs and services because they lack status. Some are even denied the right to call themselves Cree, Mi'kmaq or Mohawk because some Aboriginal communities have come to associate their identities with federal recognition - i.e. status. These issues affect the quality of life of thousands of us across the country. We need to acknowledge the problem and find solutions.
There are Non-Status Indians who live on and off-reserve, who do and don't have band membership, who are and are not welcome in their home communities and those who associate with off-reserve political groups and those who don't. One cannot easily generalize when it comes to Non-Status Indians, but certain demographic facts should be highlighted: Aboriginal women and their children are disproportionately affected by the discrimination of the Indian Act's status provisions and comprise a higher number of Non-Status Indians. Non-Status Indians also suffer from the same poor socio-economic conditions as their status Indian brothers and sisters. Most live off-reserve and receive little assistance from federal and provincial governments or their own Aboriginal communities.
It is time that all Aboriginal people started talking about this situation and included Non-Status Indians of all backgrounds in the discussion. That includes ensuring that Non-Status Indians are at the table when treaties, land claims, self-government and other issues of importance are discussed. As with most issues involving Aboriginal peoples, identity is a complex political, social, historical. cultural and legal issue that requires a deeper conversation amongst ourselves. First and foremost however, it requires a rejection of Canada's presumed jurisdiction over our identity and the discriminatory tools it has used to label and divide us (status). There can be no right more inherent or more integral to one's culture than the right of Aboriginal Nations to be self-defining.
Hopefully, this has helped to answer the questions you have all e-mailed me recently about Non-Status Indians. There is a great deal more information out there regarding Non-Status Indians and I encourage you all to look for it and come up with your own thoughts and ideas about the issues we face and join the discussion. For those who are interested, you can get more information on my website at http://www.nonstatusindian.com/. You can also follow me on Facebook under the name Non Statusindian or on Twitter as Pam_Palmater. At any time, please feel free to e-mail me at palmater@nonstatusindian.com
Pam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)