Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Bill C-3

  • Why is Trudeau Government Opposing Charter Equality for Indigenous Women?

    (Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on June 21, 2017 – edited)

    Shortly after Confederation, the federal government used its jurisdictional powers over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” in s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, to enact the Indian Act, 1876 — making it nearly as old as “Canada” itself. For well over a hundred years, the Indian Act has included provisions intended to legislate Indians out of existence — a form of forced assimilation — that primarily targeted Indigenous women and their descendants for enfranchisement (loss of status as an “Indian” and removal from the reserve as a member). Although there have been many amendments to the act over the years, the federal government, through the Indian Registrar, retains exclusive authority over the legal criteria for determining who is an Indian. Unfortunately, self-declared feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s elite feminist team of ministers is actively working against gender equality amendments for the Indian Act’s discriminatory registration provisions. Under previous versions of the act, Indian women who married out (married a man not registered as an Indian) lost their Indian status, as did her children. Indian men who married out kept their Indian status and their non-Indian wives and children gained Indian status as well. This created a deep inequality that has been carried forward through successive generations despite the many human rights protections enacted in Canada over the same time period. Many Indigenous women fought against these discriminatory provisions, including Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell and Yvonne Bedard, who lost their case at the Supreme Court of Canada in Lavell v. Canada (Attorney General) [1974] S.C.R. 1349. Sandra Lovelace (now Sen. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas) won her human rights claim against Canada at the United Nations Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981) requiring Canada to amend the Indian Act in 1985. However, the 1985 Bill C-31 amendments did not go far enough to remedy the ongoing gender inequality between Indian men and women and their descendants in the transmission of Indian status, so Sharon McIvor was forced to bring a s. 15 Charter challenge against Canada (The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11). Her win on appeal McIvor v. Canada (Registrar, Indian and Northern Affairs) 2009 BCCA 153 forced Canada to amend the act once again in 2010 with the Bill C-3 amendments, but Canada’s reluctance to remedy all gender discrimination led to the current case underlying the 2017 Bill S-3 proposed amendments in Descheneaux v. Canada 2015 QCCS 3555. At issue in all of these cases was the federal government’s staunch refusal to once-and-for-all remedy all remaining vestiges of gender inequality between Indian men and women in the transmission of Indian status. What is unique about the proposed Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) is not so much the need to address the Descheneaux decision (which declared various discriminatory sections of the Indian Act inoperative); but the stark political differences between the Senate and the House on the fundamental question of whether Indigenous women and their descendants deserve gender equality under the Indian Act. After hearing the passionate testimonies of Indigenous women lawyers and experts, First Nation organizations and other legal witnesses; the Senate unanimously supported an amendment to Bill S-3 intended to grant the same status to Indian women and their descendants as that held by Indian men and their descendants, referred as the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment. The importance of gender equality for Indigenous women united Liberal, Conservative and independent senators alike. Minister Carolyn Bennett’s refusal to accept the amendment pitted the Senate against the House, whose Aboriginal Affairs Committee rejected the gender equality amendment and Parliament will likely vote to send the bill back to the Senate with a new title to respond to Descheneaux and not fully eliminate sex-based inequities. The fact that Indigenous women must continue to battle Canada for equality is shocking in 2017 given that the Charter’s section 15 guarantee of equality between men and women has constitutional status. The Charter’s well-established case law on substantive equality and Aboriginal rights leaves little doubt about Canada’s legal and constitutional obligation to remedy gender inequality for Indigenous women — but it is by no means the only legal protection against sex discrimination in Canada. Section 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race and gender. Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 ensures that Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally as between males and female persons. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, Oct. 2, 2007, A/RES/61/295 (UNDRIP), which Trudeau has specifically promised to implement into law in Canada, includes article 44 which ensures that all the rights and freedoms contained in UNDRIP are guaranteed equally to male and female Indigenous peoples. It must be remembered that cabinet ministers were directed by Trudeau to fulfil their mandates based on the principle that there is no relationship more important to Canada, than the one with Indigenous peoples. It was therefore refreshing to hear former Minister for the Status of Women Patti Hadju acknowledge the “long-standing, systemic discrimination that Indigenous women and girls experience in this country”; that “intersection of racism and sexism greatly increases the vulnerability of Indigenous women” and that the “racism brought on by colonization has had devastating impacts on Indigenous women’s power, their status, their role in their communities and their economic situations.” Yet, the current Minister for the Status of Women, Maryam Monsef, is silent on the issue of Bill S-3 and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Indigenous Affairs Minister Bennett continue to actively obstruct the Senate amendments to fully remedy gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Minister Bennett and Minister Raybould-Wilson are responsible for creating this standoff over equality in the Senate and House. No one wanted it to come to this, but here we are with the fundamental equality rights of Indigenous women in the balance. It is now up to the Senate of Canada to stand firm in its original stance defending both the Charter’s integrity and the equality rights of Indigenous women. The next steps may be hard and they may be political uncomfortable — but for Indigenous women, it is a matter of life and death. Discriminatory exclusion under the Indian Act is one of the root causes of murdered and missing Indigenous women — it’s up to the Senate now to stand with the Charter and defends gender equality. The link to the original article as published in Lawyer’s Daily can be found here: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/4019/why-is-trudeau-government-opposing-charter-equality-for-indigenous-women-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Please see my related video on my Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2p_ScohgJc&t=1167s

  • An Update on Bill C-3 – January 19 2011 – What's Next?

    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

  • 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.

  • The Slow, Painful Death of CAP: Can it be Saved?

    THIS BLOG DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS SOLELY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is a national Aboriginal organization that once claimed to represent the interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve in Canada. The current national President is Betty-Ann Lavallee who used to be the President of one of CAP’s affiliates – the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC). CAP has recently changed its website and in so doing, has changed the focus of who it claims to represent being “the interests of its provincial and territorial affiliate organizations”. The provincial and territorial affiliates of CAP located in the East receive core funding for their operations, whereas those in the west have struggled without much success in obtaining funding. CAP’s board of directors are comprised of the Presidents of each of the affiliate organizations – most of whom, including CAP, prefer to be referred to as “Chiefs” – ironic given their anti-Chief stance. CAP used to be known as the Native Council of Canada (NCC) and in its early years had incredibly dynamic, passionate leaders who advocated strongly on behalf of those Aboriginal peoples who were excluded from legal recognition and equal access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as programs and services. Incredible leaders like Viola Robinson, Tony Belcourt, Harry Daniels, Ron George, and Dwight Dorey went on to make other significant contributions to the plight of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC was there at the constitutional talks, they advocated for equality for Aboriginal women during the Bill C-31 era, and were on the front-lines organizing protests when governments were going to reduce housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC at the time also represented Metis peoples and their struggles for recognition and equality long before the Powley case and the creation of the Metis National Council (MNC). Some may find it hard to believe, but the NCC and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)(formerly NIB) used to work closely together on a wide variety of issues. Unfortunately, those days are long over. The NCC (now CAP) started its slow, downward descent when Patrick Brazeau (then Vice-President) assumed the position of President when former President, Dwight Dorey stepped down after 7 years in office. There was no election for the position of President by the members of the off-reserve – it was an automatic assumption of Presidency as per CAP’s Constitution and By-Laws. Brazeau served less than 3 years as the National President, but in that short time managed to nearly destroy CAP and its reputation. Some Board members of CAP have indicated that Brazeau served a limited purpose in that he at least raised the profile of CAP and should be commended for his aggressive media agenda. I disagree. Simply raising the media profile of an organization is not an accomplishment if the reasons for why the profile was raised are negative or serve to hurt others. Brazeau used CAP as his “launching pad” to obtain media attention for himself, not CAP; align himself politically with the Conservative Party; and eventually jump ship and land himself a conservative Senate seat all while trashing First Nations and their leaders. That might suit Brazeau’s interests, but what did CAP get out of the deal? If you listen to Board members and various media reports, what Brazeau left CAP with was controversy, destroyed relationships with other NAO’s, allegations of sexual harassment, a decreased budget, financial turmoil, and worst of all – a confused and discouraged membership. Brazeau, now Senator Brazeau, has been described in the media as a “loose cannon” and “self-promoting” for spewing negativity against First Nations communities and their leaders at every opportunity. Unfortunately for CAP, this still has repercussions for them given how he used his position at CAP to gain his initial media profile. But that is as far as my sympathy goes for CAP. Once Brazeau finally agreed to give up his Presidency at CAP (and not obtain both a CAP salary and Senate salary as the he had originally intended) CAP had every opportunity to distance itself from the self-serving Brazeau-legacy. It could have elected leadership which would bring CAP back to its roots and its core mandate to be THE political voice for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples and take the much-needed steps to repair its relationships with other NAO’s and more importantly, the grass roots people Brazeau left behind. That is not what happened. Wisely or unwisely, some voters in the Atlantic region reported difficulty getting the then President of NBAPC, Betty-Ann Lavallee, to do any work on behalf of its constituency and so decided that if they could not get rid of her constitutionally (as she always had her lawyer by her side), then voting her into CAP would at least get her out of NB. I can see the appeal of such an approach. The plan worked, except no one could foresee that no election would held at the NBAPC and that a staff member of the NBAPC would eventually acclaimed as President. This has left many NB members dazed and confused to say the least. But, that is all just the behind the scenes and media gossip. It will never be confirmed or denied and no explanations will ever be forthcoming as is the case in political controversies. In fairness, CAP should be judged on its record. In the short time that Betty-Ann Lavallee has been President of CAP, she has shown an eerily similar disposition to that of Brazeau, although much less informed. Lavallee has demonstrated that she will flip-flip CAP’s position on just about any issue to suit the conservative party line. All of this is done in the name of CAP but without consulting in a meaningful way with its own members (not Board) on issues that are important to them. By way of example, CAP prepared a submission to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)to put on the record its position on Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. CAP argued that INAC did not consult with Aboriginal peoples, that the Indian Act’s registration provisions were discriminatory, and that section 6(1) of the Act should be amended to include all those born pre-1985 to remedy the full extent of gender inequality in that provision. By the time it rolled around to CAP’s turn to present to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) on Bill C-3, CAP had changed its tune and was willing to support the bill. In case there was any doubt about CAP’s Brazeau-esque support of the Conservative Government, when CAP appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, Lavallee specifically endorsed the Conservative Party’s suite of legislation. In fact, if you read the transcripts of her submission on Bill S-4, it sounds more like a Conservative Party ad for their initiatives than any sustantive input on the bill. She cited the residential schools apology, Bill S-4, Bill C-3, and the right of Indians to vote as significant evidence of the Conservative Government’s commitment to “humanity” for Aboriginal peoples. If anyone was under any doubt about whether Lavallee’s CAP would abandon the Brazeau legacy or cuddle up to the Conservatives – Lavallee settled it that day. Furthermore, in stark contrast to Brazeau’s media blitz, Lavallee is almost never in the media on any issue. It is as though CAP has fallen off the face of the earth. CAP used to stand for equality and didn’t make deals that were harmful to its members. Now the CAP Presidency is used either as a political launching pad or just a job. Some might say that I am simply being critical of any NAO. To my mind, what I am most critical of is the holier-than-thou hypocrisy started by Brazeau and being carried forward by Lavallee. When Brazeau accepted his Senate seat, he announced to the public that he would be maintaining his position and salary at CAP as well as drawing a Senate salary. This seems to be a pretty hypocritical position for one who has so vocally criticized any First Nation Chief that only makes ONE 6 figure salary, let alone TWO. Brazeau criticizes First Nations for not respecting the rights of Aboriginal women, yet it was Brazeau who made headlines for having sexual harassment complaints and made disparaging remarks against all the Aboriginal women who offered testimony on Bill S-4. Lavallee has proven to be no different. It is reported that Brazeau left CAP in financial turmoil, with various federal departments claiming “financial irregularities” and large sums of money that were not accounted for in their financial reports. So, some could argue that he left CAP in a mess. That doesn’t prevent Lavallee from taking the bull by the horns and getting the situation under control. Yet, at CAP’s recent AGM, many AGM delegates and some Board of Directors reported that CAP showed a deficit of nearly 2 million dollars. Yet despite this fact, Lavallee allegedly requested a significant increase to her 6 figure salary at a board meeting preceding the AGM. While some board members were against a raise until the deficit was addressed, it is reported that she nevertheless ended up with a raise. Now I don’t know about other Aboriginal people living off-reserve, but aside from the obvious hypocrisy, what does this say about the usefulness of CAP? Am I getting any value for the tax dollars I use to pay Lavallee’s inflated salary? It would be one thing if CAP was in a deficit because it had accomplished a long list of things for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve, but I fear my tax dollars are being used to fund her trips to Bolivia and her salary increase, as opposed to any tangible improvements for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. Where is the self-restraint or the self-sacrifice? How could a real leader inflate their own salary when she has not even secured core funding for her own western affiliates? If CAP is not already dead, it is surely in the process of a slow, painful death as years now pass without advancing the cause for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. Can CAP be saved? I think the better question is should it be saved? Is there anyone in Indian country ready and willing to support another NAO that appears to be more concerned about securing enough funding for consultants and staff to administer programs and services, than it does with making any substantive difference for Aboriginal people politically, legally, culturally or otherwise? I guess that call is for the grass roots people to make.

  • Letter to editor of Globe & Mail re Bill S-4

    Dear editor; My name is Pam Palmater and I am a Mi’kmaq lawyer originally from New Brunswick and am now the Chair of Ryerson University’s Centre for Indigenous Governance. I was called as an expert witness on several bills, including Bill S-4 – Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise referred to as MRP legislation). Please find attached a copy of my official submission to the Senate in this regard. However, I would also refer you to the transcript of Senate proceedings as this contains additional vital information about the Bill and its potential impacts. The reason for my letter to you today is because Mr. Curry, in his article dated July 6, 2010 and entitled “Senate approves bill to help abused, divorced aboriginal women”, presented factually inaccurate information which serves only to perpetuate misleading information about the real issues and negative stereotypes about Aboriginal peoples. For example, while the sub-headline may create drama around the vote to support/reject the bill, the fact is 32 Senators voted against it, not two, and they voted this way primarily because of the nearly unanimous voices of the Aboriginal leaders, women and organization that appeared before the Senate on Bill S-4. Those 32 Senators who voted against this bill did so based on very informed and detailed presentations from well-respected groups like the Canadian Bar Association who warned that this Bill would create new rights for non-Indians in reserve land and that consultation was required before the bill proceeded. Even more shameful is the fact that there is very little reference to what Aboriginal peoples’ views were – and an embarrassing lack of reference to the views presented by Aboriginal women themselves. Before the Senate there was nearly unanimous opposition to this Bill by Aboriginal women like myself, Native Women’s Association of Canada, Quebec Native Women, Women Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and others. The common theme amongst the Aboriginal women was that change is definitely needed, but no Aboriginal women were willing to give up their individual and communal Aboriginal, treaty, land and governance rights in exchange for federal control over matrimonial property. What gets forgotten is that a violation of the right to self-government of a First Nation is also a violation against that First Nation’s women. Aboriginal women are struggling to protect their rights and identities for their future generations which can’t be achieved if Canada resorts back to paternalistic control over their personal lives and re-institutes Indian agents through “verifiers”. Even worse is the fact that this bill won’t help Aboriginal women but will open up reserve lands to non-Indians in violation of countless treaties, the Royal Proclamation, the Indian Act itself and the Constitution Act, 1982. This aspect of the Bill is, in essence, illegal. It purports to unilaterally change constitutionally protected rights without amending the constitution. Canada cannot, by amendment of the Indian Act, amend the Constitution. First Nations lands are protected for the SOLE use of First Nations and changing this fact without consultation with First Nations has been referred to by various academics as an abuse of power. Mr. Curry also refers to the fact that Bill S-4 is the third time around for MRP legislation but fails to highlight that the reason it failed the last two times was because there was no consultation with First Nations. Consultation is not a mere nicity that the government can choose to ignore at will. In addition to the honour of the Crown and its various fiduciary obligations towards Aboriginal peoples, Canada has a LEGAL obligation to fully inform, consult with and accommodate the legitimate concerns of First Nations whose Aboriginal, treaty and/or land rights may be impacted by government decisions, actions, policy or legislation. I need only refer to the numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions like Haida, Taku, Mikisew Cree, Delgamuukw, Guerin, Sparrow, Van der Peet Trilogy, Sappier and Gray which support this fact. The fact of the matter is that Canada “engaged” with Aboriginal political organizations at a very general level but it did not consult with First Nations specifically about Bill S-4. Even Canada’s own Ministerial representative concluded that consultations had NOT taken place and that any solution must include consultation. Whenever a well-read newspaper such as the Globe and Mail leaves out critical information that would permit readers to have access to at least the basic information to come to their own conclusions about issues like Bill S-4, it detracts from its usefulness and risks becoming a one-sided advocacy piece. Readers deserve more and so do the subjects that you treat. Aboriginal peoples are regularly portrayed negatively in the media because that serves the interests of right-wing thinkers who believe everyone should subscribe to their limited views about what it means to be a Canadian. So, the fact the Mr. Curry could write about Bill S-4 and not even mention the fact that this Bill will affect First Nation jurisdiction over their own lands or that it does not recognize and implement their right to be self-governing – both rights of which are protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is irresponsible. In 1996 Canada recognized that the inherent right of self-government was protected in section 35 of the The Constitution Act, 1982 and that issues like membership and family law was the sole jurisdiction of First Nations. The Constitution Act, 1982 is the Supreme Law of Canada and Canada can’t choose to honour it only when it is convenient. We just celebrated Canada Day on July 1 – perhaps we also need a day to celebrate our Constitution and remind Canadians that First Nations and their rights are just as an integral part of our Constitution as are our highly valued Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition to these glaring omissions, I would also like to draw your attention to several factual inaccuracies: (1) Mr. Curry claims that this bill is designed to help “abused, divorced aboriginal women”. The conservative senators specifically clarified at the hearings that this bill was not targeted at abused Aboriginal women. I refer you to the transcript for more details. Similarly, even if it was, it should be noted that all legal experts who presented testified that this bill does not offer real remedies for Aboriginal women as there is no funding to access lawyers or courts and there is no funding to help create local remedies that are accepted by the community. (2) Mr. Curry claims that Aboriginal women’s only options are to “plead their case to the local band council”. He obviously did not follow the hearings or peruse the transcripts which highlighted the First Nations who have already designed their own MRP laws or have traditional or informal rules which take care of MRP issues. I refer specifically to Anishanabek Nation, Six Nations, Akwesasne and others who, under this bill, will have their own MRP laws rejected. While MRP laws are necessary in many First Nation communities, what is needed is capacity building and funding to support First Nations to work with their communities to come up with their own laws and local dispute resolution mechanisms – we already know from residential schools how things turn out when Canada imposes its own views on Aboriginal peoples. (3) Citing Senator LeBreton does not help Mr. Curry’s article either. Mr. Curry cites her as saying that she is “mystified” that Aboriginal Women Senators Dyck and Lovelace would oppose the bill. With all due respect, she could only come to that conclusion if she ignored nearly every single submission and testimony that was made before the Senate hearings on Bill S-4. Senator Lovelace and Dyck are well-respected Aboriginal women who have been a part of the struggle to have the voices of First Nations and Aboriginal women in particular heard. What those two Senators did was actually listen to what Aboriginal women and First Nations said and brought those views and concerns forward. This is what is expected of those who represent the people – Senators blindly support whatever their political party advocates without listening to the people are undemocratic. LeBreton didn’t even listen to what her own conservative senators said at the hearing. She claims the legislation is geared towards “preventing cases of repeated abuse” yet her own conservative members specifically stated that it was not. When she did refer to testimony she discounted what the AFN had said on the basis that most First Nations leaders are male. Again, I would refer you to the testimony of the Aboriginal women, experts and organizations that were also against this bill. I would refer you to the report of the Ministerial Representative on MRP who highlighted the fact that there are more Aboriginal women chiefs of First Nations in Canada, than there are women in the House of Commons. My elders always use to tell me that before one could criticize another, they should be sure that they have their own teepee in order. So, instead of trying to twist the issue to one of Aboriginal women versus Aboriginal men or individual rights versus communal rights, I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Curry look at the real issue: how Canada continues to develop policies and laws which control, divide and assimilate Aboriginal peoples despite their legally and constitutionally protected rights. If Canada was truly concerned about gender equality, it would work with Aboriginal women to amend Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act to once and for all make status equal between Aboriginal men and women. Canada can’t have it both ways – it either wants true gender equality for Aboriginal women in all laws and policies or it doesn’t. If it does, then it has to listen to Aboriginal women about Bill S-4 and the need for consultation. If it doesn’t, then we’ll see more of the legislation that the conservatives have tried to cram through the House and Senate – Bill S-4, Bill C-3, Bill C-24, and Bill S-11. Respectfully; Pam

  • Excerpts of My Presentation to the Standing Committee on Bill C-3

    What follows is an excerpt from my presentation that I will be delivering to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which is studying a draft of Bill C-3 – Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. Once I make the presentation, I will post my entire presentation online on my website: www.nonstatusindian.com. Part of the problem with Bill C-3 is how to respect gender equality in practice and not just the law. Delayed equality is not full equality. Canada fought the McIvor case for over 20 years and now proposes a minimal amendment that would require another person like Sharon McIvor to spend another 25 years to seek gender equality on essentially the same facts. An undefined joint process that does not have a specific mandate, clear objectives or identified funding for wide-spread participation does not provide any real comfort that gender discrimination, or any discrimination, will be addressed any time soon. This situation is coupled with the fact that no additional funding has been identified for bands based on their increased membership numbers. This could result in bands feeling that they do not have sufficient resources to accommodate all their members and may amend or create band membership codes which specifically exclude those affected by Bill C-3. Canada often blames Aboriginal peoples for not being of one mind on these issues. How quickly Canada forgets that this registration system was not only imposed upon us, but we were never consulted about what we wanted and the decision-making power rests solely with Canada. Aboriginal peoples have been living under the dark cloud of the Indian Act for over 130 years. How could Canada expect any result other than exactly what the Indian Act was designed to do – ensure that we were dependent, divided, and without our beliefs guide us. It’s time for Canada to right its wrongs. To do other than address all the gender (and other) discrimination could mean additional and significant delays in justice for Aboriginal women and children with regard to: (i) equal access to status and band membership; (ii) equal access to citizenship in self-government agreements; (iii) equal access to beneficiary status under treaties (historic and modern); (iv) equal access to beneficiary status under land claim agreements (specific and comprehensive); (v) an equal political voice in their communities (as electors and/or nominees for chief and council); and (vi) equal access to programs and services from Canada in relation to health, education, economic development, and tax supports; (vii) equal access to band programs and services like education & training, headstart, on- reserve schooling, housing, and tax supports; and (viii) equal access to elders, mentors, leaders, community members, land bases, cultural traditions, customs and practices, cultural events, and language training, etc. Respecting our Constitution, Charter, CHRA, and international human rights instruments and norms means we no longer have the option to exclude Indian women and their descendants from their birth right on the basis of political compromise, administrative inconvenience, opposition to human rights or added costs. Canada has previously exercised its legislative jurisdiction to amend the Act much more broadly than the litigation required and there is no reason it can’t do so again. Let’s try to get it right this time – my children are counting on you to uphold Canada’s commitment to gender equality and human rights both in the letter and in spirit. Here are my recommendations with regards to Bill C-3: (1) I believe that Canada should withdraw the Bill and redraft more appropriate legislation that deals with gender discrimination, in conjunction with Sharon McIvor and other Aboriginal technical experts from the AFN, NWAC, and CAP. If this could not be done, then I would recommend the following: (2) Make an amendment to section 2 of Bill C-3, by adding the words “or was born prior to April 17, 1985 and was a direct descendant of such a person” to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, 1985; (3) Delete sections 3 and 4 of Bill C-3 and any references to a new section 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act; (4) A new section should be added before or after sections 7 and 8 of Bill C-3 that provide protections for Bill C-3 individuals with regards to band membership, especially for those born pre-1985; (5) Section 9 of Bill C-3 should be deleted in its entirety or amended to provide limited protection for bands and only in relation to status; (6) Adequate funding be provided to First Nations for band-delivered programs and services based on their increased membership numbers (if any) and funding to enable all bands to draft membership codes, to review their current band membership codes and make the necessary amendments to incorporate gender equality; (7) Canada, in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals negotiate a process by which to compensate those affected by Bill C-3 (or some other form of the Bill) in the fairest, quickest manner possible; (8) Additional legislation be drafted in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals to proactively address the remaining aspects of gender discrimination in the Indian Act; and (9) That Canada, in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals negotiate the mandate, terms of reference, funding structures and deliverable objectives of the joint consultation process that will lead to further amendments dealing with the larger discrimination and jurisdiction issues under the Indian Act in the short term, and negotiate a similar process to engage in longer term solutions like modern treaties, self-government agreements and so forth. Obviously my presentation contained a great deal more detail about what the actual problems were with Bill C-3, but this lets everyone know what I’m thinking in terms of go-forward solutions. Keep an eye on my website for my entire presentation which will be posted later on this week.

  • Bill C-3 Creates More Discrimination than it Remedies

    As with all my blogs, the contents are my own personal views and should never be taken as legal advice. In my last blog, I provided some of my concerns with regards to Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act which was introduced on March 11, 2010. The purpose of this blog will be to review Bill C-3 in much more detail. However, readers should be aware that this Bill is not yet law and must go through several more stages before it even has a chance at being law. First it is introduced in the House of Commons and given its first reading, which is really just a presentation of the Bill – like what Minister Strahl did with Bill C-3. It must then go through a second reading (where the principle of the Bill is debated) and then referred to committee for study. It is at this stage that the committee will hear witnesses and comments about each section of the Bill. The next stage is the report stage where amendments can be made and then this is followed by the third and final reading. If the Bill is passed by the House of Commons then it is sent to Senate where the process is repeated. Assuming that it passes through the Senate, then the Governor General can give the Bill “Royal Assent” and will become law on the day of assent unless the Bill says otherwise. There is still some time before this Bill becomes law, so it is very important that we all submit our comments and views about it to our Members of Parliament (MPs), Senators, Minister Strahl, our Aboriginal representative organizations, Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Critic, Todd Russell, and any other group or organization that you feel will bring the message forward on your behalf. I have already sent my letter to Minister Strahl and this blog will provide a brief overview of some of my comments/concerns. First of all, my providing comments to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) does not equate with acceptance or agreement with Bill C-3 or its amendments. It is my opinion that Canada does NOT have the jurisdiction to determine our identities – legally, culturally, politically or otherwise. However, I realize that practically speaking, the Indian Act will be amended whether I agree or not and I would rather have my input into those changes than not. That being said, I do not condone such a limited amendment as that presented in Bill C-3 which clearly does NOT address all of the blatant gender discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act. This problem is only transported into the band membership rules as a result. In numerous discussions with other lawyers and community members, I have identified at least three very specific problems with the proposed amendments: (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) contains awkward, confusing wording that creates a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity about what this section is meant to accomplish; (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) contains new, additional criteria that is discriminatory, illogical, counter to how status is normally transmitted, and completely unnecessary in order to effect a proper gender equity remedy; and (3) Section 9 contains an overly broad, offensive and unjust insulation from liability for Canada and the bands, for Canada’s role in creating and perpetuating gender discrimination against Indian women who married out and their descendants. I will deal with each of the above concerns separately and summarize my recommendations at the end. (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) specifically provides as follows: (iii) was born on or after the day on which the marriage referred to in subparagraph (i) occurred and, unless the person’s parents married each other prior to April 17, 1985, was born prior to that date, and… This section is awkwardly worded and as such creates a great deal of uncertainty about its potential application. What was Canada’s intention with this section? Where did this wording come from? I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note that very clearly specifies what it is meant to accomplish and how. (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) provides as follows: (iv) had or adopted a child, on or after September 4, 1951, with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the day on which the child was born or adopted; This section has the effect of creating a new way to determine entitlement to registration and, as a result, creates a new form of discrimination as between the siblings of the Indian women who married out. What this additional criterion does is determine entitlement to registration based on the status or lack thereof of the applicant’s children. Status has always been determined based on the entitlement of one’s parents, i.e. parents transmit their status to their children – not vice versa. This is both illogical and discriminatory. It is illogical because it does not reflect either the trial court’s or the Court of Appeal’s decision in McIvor. It is discriminatory because it creates new, inequitable distinctions between the sibling children of Indian women who married out. The problem can be seen in the following way: (1) If the children of Indian women who married out have Non-Status Indian children (or disentitled children), their children can only be registered under section 6(2) and cannot share in the same identity as their parent; will not be able to transmit status to their children in their own right; and will be excluded from membership in bands that exclude section 6(2) Indians or their equivalent. Despite the fact that the section 6(2) parent will become a section 6(1)(c.1) Indian and therefore have a higher chance of becoming a band member, they suffer in the sense that they can’t pass on equal identity and rights to their children and therefore their children have a higher chance of not being accepted in their community. (2) On the other hand, if the section 6(2) parent had status Indian children, then these section 6(1) Indian children have a higher chance of becoming band members than their section 6(2) parent who will remain as a section 6(2) Indian. In this way, the section 6(2) Indian parent will personally suffer for having had status Indian children, because they will not receive the Bill C-3 gender equity remedy solely because their children are status Indians. The descendants of Indian women who married out seem to be punished time and again for not being able to manage the Indian Act’s entitlement formula that is really designed to disentitle people. This is beyond unjust – it violates our inherent right to our Aboriginal identities and to be self-determining in our own individual and collective lives. Canada is once again interfering with the most private and intimate part of our lives – how and when and with whom we decide to have relations – in order to limit and/or reduce the status Indian population. Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) ignores the gender discrimination imposed on the children of Indian women who married out and suggests that this discrimination skipped a generation and fell solely on the grandchildren and, as a result, only the grandchildren are entitled to a remedy. What could possibly be the purpose of this section, but to limit as much as possible, the number of status Indians who will be entitled to band membership and to limit the overall number of Indians in the future? I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) be deleted in its entirety. It is not necessary to achieve gender equity as a result of the McIvor case. (3) Section 9 provides as follows: 9. For greater certainty, no person or body has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, or a council of a band for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise of theirpowers or the performance of their duties, only because (a) a person was not registered, or did not have their name entered in a Band List, immediately before the day on which this Act comes into force; and (b) one of the person’s parents is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act, as enacted by subsection 2(3). This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination? When Bill C-31 was amended to reinstate Indian women who had married out, Canada denied compensation to Indian women who married out on the basis that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not in effect pre-85 and it argued that it could not be held liable for laws that were not in effect at the time. However, the Charter has been in force for many decades since 1985 and Canada cannot now say they can’t be held liable for discriminatory actions that took place well after the Charter was in force. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the very negative stereotypes against Indian women that McIvor (and others) fought against – that they are less worthy, less Aboriginal, and less able to transmit their Aboriginality to their children simply by virtue of being Aboriginal women. Furthermore, findings of discrimination are based on effect, not on intention, and those victims that have suffered due to this discrimination deserve to be compensated – no less so that the victims of residential schools. Prime Minister Harper acknowledged that the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was designed was wrong; he apologized to the victims on behalf of all Canadians; and ensured that the victims were compensated. Aside from the physical aspect of residential schools, Indian status has had the same harmful effects on Indians and especially Indian women, as residential schools. By discriminating against Indian women and their descendants, they have suffered separation from their communities, family divisions, loss of identity, culture, language and dignity. Furthermore, their continued lack of access to federal programs and services have greatly affect their quality of life and their overall chances in life. By denying compensation to Indian women and their descendants for the same types of harms as were suffered in residential schools, Canada sends the message that Aboriginal women are somehow not deserved of redress or compensation for the harms suffered from gender discrimination created by Canada under the Indian Act. If there was any doubt as to the continued discrimination against Indian women, even in this amendment meant to address gender inequity, one need only refer to the privileged and protected positions of status of Indian men and their non-Indian wives and descendants. Throughout this process, non-Indians have been and continue to be protected under the Indian Act simply because of their association with Indian men. Non-Indian women who married Indian men gained status and benefits and non-Indian children were adopted and gained status. Not only did these non-Indians gain status, they were entitled to all the benefits, rights and interests that go with that status, including band membership, reserve residency, voting and running in band elections and a share of treaty and land claim benefits. The preservation of their status is guaranteed at every turn, where Indian women and their descendants must continually fight for it. Yet, non-status Indian children who are Aboriginal by birth, identity and culture, were excluded on the basis of gender discrimination which was known by Canada to be discriminatory and which has since been found to be discriminatory. Even with this minimalistic and highly problematic Bill C-3, there still won’t be gender equality between Indian men and women. The majority of parents struggling with poor socio-economic conditions in Aboriginal communities are single Indian mothers. The majority of off-reserve Aboriginal people suffering from poor socio-economic conditions are the descendants of Indian women who married out. Canada has publically stated that access to educational opportunities is the key to improving life for Aboriginal peoples. How many Indian women and their descendants could have gone to university to make a better life for themselves, their children, their families and communities had they been registered? I would recommend that section 9 either be deleted in its entirety or amended to provide limited protections for the bands and only in relation to the determination of status. Summary of Recommendations: (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) should be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note as to what it is meant to accomplish; (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) should be deleted in its entirety; and (3) Section 9 should either be deleted in its entirety, or amended to provide limited protection for the bands in regards to status only. I hope that you will all consider my comments and offer your own feedback to our elected leaders so that gender discrimination is not perpetuated, but is finally addressed.