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.
Tag: Indian Act
-
McIvor is Just the Start – The Indian Act is Full of Discrimination
So by now, everyone has heard of the McIvor case and knows that the registration provisions of the Indian Act, otherwise referred to as “status”, will be amended as a result. The question remains: what are we going to do about the discrimination that won’t be addressed by those amendments? For anyone who hasn’t heard of Sharon McIvor v. Canada – a brief overview of the case is necessary. Sharon McIvor is a status Indian and member of the Lower Nicola Band in British Columbia. However, she wasn’t always a status Indian. For most of her life, she was a non-status Indian because she traced her ancestry through her maternal side. Had she been able to trace her ancestry through her paternal side, status would not have been a question. In 1985 when Bill C-31 was passed and the Indian Act was amended, McIvor applied for status. When her application for status was denied by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), she immediately appealed the decision to the Registrar at INAC. She later filed a claim in court alleging gender discrimination in section 6 of the Indian Act. While INAC had reconsidered her application and gave her status under section 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act, her son Jacob was only entitled to section 6(2) status and her grandchildren were not entitled at all. It was for the sake of her grandchildren that she pursued the claim in court despite the fact that she was already registered. She argued that her inability to transmit Indian status to her grandchildren, while Indian men in her position could do so, amounted to gender discrimination. More importantly, she argued that registration as an Indian impacts both individual identity and communal membership and therefore stands for more than just access to programs and services. At trial, the court agreed with McIvor and found that section 6 of the Act discriminated between the descendants of female Indians versus male Indians born before 1985 and thus violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The court crafted a complex remedy to fix the discrimination which might have been somewhat difficult to apply and would have left band membership unaffected. So, the matter was appealed. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia agreed with the trial court that section 6 of the Act discriminated on the basis of sex (gender) contrary to section 15 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal found that the remedy at trial was too broad and seemed to limit the extent of the discrimination as between those affected by the double mother clause (children whose mother and paternal grandmother were non-Indians by birth) and Indian women who married out (married non-Indian men). The subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected. Canada then embarked upon an “engagement” process – accepting submissions or comments from Aboriginal peoples and organizations, but not officially consulting with Aboriginal peoples. The process was also very rushed – from August to November 2009. Canada’s reason for proceeding this way was due to the need to have legislation drafted before April 1, 2010. However, by proroguing Parliament, Canada’s excuse that it needed to rush is somewhat questionable. Canada offered two amendment options to Aboriginal peoples for consideration: Specifically, the amendment concept under consideration would provide Indian registration under s. 6(2) of the Indian Act to any grandchild of a woman: (a) who lost status due to marrying a non-Indian; and (b) whose children born of that marriage had the grandchild with a non-Indian after September 4, 1951 (when the “double mother” rule was first included in the Indian Act). To accomplish this, section 6(1) of the Indian Act would be amended to include any person in the situation of the “child” mentioned in (b) above. A more narrow amendment concept, which the Government does not propose to pursue, would limit its application to situations where the woman’s child (the subsequent parent of the grandchild with a non- Indian) was born before 1985. In either case, the band membership provisions of the Indian Act would also be amended to include these registrants. McIvor has commented that these proposed amendments do not address the gender discrimination raised in her case. For example, the grandchildren of Indian women who married out will only be entitled to registration as an Indian under section 6(2). Yet, the grandchildren of Indian men who married out are registered under section 6(1). What are we, as Aboriginal people going to do about the blatant gender discrimination that remains in the Act? Perhaps we need to think about pursuing the McIvor case in the international human rights forum. I don’t think we have enough time to wait for multiple cases to each work their way through domestic courts as McIvor‘s case alone took over 24 years. Canada has too much a vested interest in our lands and resources to amend the Act in any meaningful way. How many more generations of Aboriginal peoples will be denied their individual identities and be excluded from their communities because of Canada’s discriminatory Indian Act if we wait another 10, 20, 50 years? How many more generations, like mine and my childrens’ will miss out on desperately needed education assistance, medical benefits and the opportunity to contribute to the capacity and development of our communities? McIvor’s case only dealt with one small group of Aboriginal people who are discriminated against. There are numerous ways in which the registration provisions of the Act discriminate against Aboriginal peoples: (1) Gender discrimination – An individual traces their Aboriginal ancestry through their maternal line (mother, grandmother, greatgrandmother) instead of through the paternal line (father, grandfather, greatgrandfather); * Although the amendments to the Act in response to McIvor will address some of these people, it will not address of those affected by this kind of gender discrimination. (2) Arbitrary cut-off date – The date on which a person was born means that some pre-1985 babies have status, but those born post-1985 may not; (3) Illegitimate siblings – Brothers and sisters from the same family may or may not have status based on whether their parent was male or female and whether the child was male or female and born out of wedlock; (4) Unstated paternity – If an unwed Indian woman does not name the father of her child, there is a legal presumption that the father did not have status – this results in the child having lesser or no status; (5) Métis scrip takers – Aboriginal peoples who took scrip are not eligible for status regardless of their actual cultural identities as Indians versus Métis; (6) Second generation cut-off – Indians may be refused status because one of their parents do not have status – this equates to a blood quantum requirement that discriminates against those children of mixed marriages; (7) Non-Aboriginal preference – (a) Non-Aboriginal women who gained status through marriage are allowed to keep their status and pass on better status to their children than Aboriginal women and their children; (b) Adoptions – Non-Aboriginal children who are adopted into Indian families can have better status than Aboriginal children born of Indian parent(s). As can be seen by the above, there are numerous discrimination issues that need to be addressed in the Act. It is time for Canada to pull itself out of the dark ages, and put some action behind its apology. When Canada apologized for residential schools and the assimilatory attitudes upon which that policy was based – it seemed to forget that the Indian Act’s status provisions were designed to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into the dominant society and continues to do so. Canada does not have the right or authority to determine the individual or communal identities of Aboriginal peoples. Canada’s authority under section 91(24) may give it the legislative jurisdiction to manage the relationship with “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” but that does not confer a right to determine our identities. This is a right that is inherent to the right of Aboriginal peoples to be self-determining. Canada has negatively impacted our identities for generations – it’s time we were able to heal and re-assert our own identities. No where in out treaties did it say that there was a cut-off date for determining Aboriginality nor was registration even contemplated when our treaties were signed. It is time to assert our authority in this area. True Nations do not let other Nations tell them how to determine their own citizenship. Our treaties were negotiated by our ancestors for the benefit of our “heirs and heirs forever”. It is time for Canada to undo the harm it has caused. I believe that a whole-scale review of the Indian Act is necessary to bring all provisions of the Act in line with the Charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Constitution Act and all international human rights covenants to which Canada is bound. Obviously, amendments to the Indian Act would be an interim solution until such time as modern treaty, land claim and/or self-government agreements have been negotiated. The only question is whether Canada is willing to put action behind its apology and whether Aboriginal people are ready to protect their future generations?
-
Mohawks or Canada's Disappearing Indians?
The subject of racial purity is such a large one that it would be impossible to do it any justice in a simple blog. Similarly, the idea of using blood quantum to determine an individual’s identity and right to belong to their community is so complex that all I can expect to accomplish with this blog is provide food for thought. However, for those who are interested, I am currently editing my book on this subject in the hopes of publishing it sometime in 2010. Over the last few weeks, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal media have picked up a story that strikes at the heart of what it means to be an Aboriginal person in Canada. Are Mohawks, Mi’kmaq, Cayuga, Cree and Maliseet the biological result of nothing more than a simple formula to determine one’s blood purity – or does being Mohawk have more to do with common histories, ancestors, and territories or the sharing of common languages, customs, traditions and cultures? The Mohawk Indian Band Council in Kahnawake, through its Indian Act chief, Mike Delisle, have once again communicated the message that they are a blood club. However, before I deal with the core issues, a little context is necessary. Kahnawake, unlike the majority of bands in Canada, post their membership rules on their website for all to see. Most bands who have their own membership codes do not post their codes publically and sometimes refuse to provide copies to their own band members and/or potential band members. By way of anecdote, I have been sending letters to my own band for several years attempting to obtain both a copy of their membership code and an application form so that my children and I can apply. My phone calls and letters continue to go unanswered. I share this experience with a great number of band members and potential band members who attempt to seek information from their communities to no avail. I have to give credit to Kahnawake for making their membership code public and easily accessible to their members and potential members alike. According to the Indian Act, 1985, band membership is generally given to status Indians who are associated with a specific band upon their application to have their name entered on the band list. This list is maintained by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). However, pursuant to section 10 of the Act, bands are permitted to enact their own membership codes and maintain their own band lists, so long as they have a community vote and the majority votes in favour of the code. Their initial code must be submitted to INAC for approval, but once that is done there is no further requirement for bands to submit updated or amended codes. It took me many years of dealing with INAC’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) process, but I was finally provided with all the band membership codes in Canada. Having read every single one, I can tell you that blood quantum is not a common criteria. Getting back to the issue at hand, there have been numerous headlines about Kahnawake’s decision to evict non-Mohawks. The key issue appears to be that Kahnawake has a rule that no non-Mohawks can live on their reserve. Yet, Mohawks are still marrying out, having common law relationships with non-Mohawks and having children with non-Mohawks. As a result, Kahnawake has delivered notices to a group of non-Mohawks advising them that they are to be evicted. Some of the headlines I have seen recently include: “If you marry out, you move out” “Why Mohawks evict non-Natives” “Racism on the reserve” “Kahnawake non-Mohawk eviction deadline looms” “Mohawk Chief denies ethnic cleansing” “Natives only please” “Not Native, then leave reserve Mohawks say” So, is it non-Mohawks who must leave the reserve, or non-Natives? If the answer is non-Mohawks, then what is a non-Mohawk? If it’s non-Native, how does the inclusion of other non-Mohawk Aboriginal peoples (like Mi’kmaq) further Kahnawake’s goal of Mohawk identity preservation? One would assume that a non-Mohawk is a non-Aboriginal person. Many of the reports noted above appear to indicate this is the case. However, if this residency rule is applied “evenly”, then it might also apply to Mohawks who don’t meet the blood quantum requirement for band membership. But what about Aboriginal people who are not Mohawks? What happens if a Mohawk woman lives with a Mi’kmaq man? Mi’kmaq people are not Mohawks. They have very different cultures, languages, customs, traditions and territories. Yet, it is my understanding that Mi’kmaq people who are married to Mohawks can apply to transfer their band membership from their Mi’kmaq band to the Kahnawake band. This is the same for any band member across the country. If this is the case, then what Kahnawake is really protecting is a generic “Indian” identity and not a Mohawk one after all. More than that, the majority of Indian bands in Canada do not explicitly use blood quantum to determine membership. But they do use the Indian Act rules, which since 1985 include a second-generation cut-off rule which amounts to a blood quantum rule of 25% or 1/4 blood. It is quite foreseeable then, that an Aboriginal person who is a band member of some other reserve could transfer their membership to Kahnawake and become a “Mohawk” band member. This would mean that non-Mohawk Aboriginal people of less than 50% blood quantum could become “Mohawk” and have the right to live on Kahnawake, but actual Mohawk people with less than 50% blood quantum would be refused membership and possibly residency. Even worse, Mohawk band members who live with non-Mohawks could be forced to leave the reserve. Setting aside the interests of non-Aboriginal people for one minute, Kahnawake’s residency rules do little to advance Mohawk culture, and instead create situations of pain, heart-ache, division, exclusion, break-up of families, and loss of cultural connection. Not only is the rule an offence to the dignity of Mohawks who have non-Aboriginal partners, it is counter to their own Mohawk history, traditions and customs. The reserve could end up being comprised of “Mohawk” band members who are not Mohawk at all, while actual Mohawks must live off reserve. In much of the research that I have read about Mohawk people, and especially that of Kahnawake, sources seem to indicate that Mohawks were traditionally very inclusive in terms of citizenship and as a result, have a high degree of mixed ancestries in their community. Gerald Alfred wrote about the identity struggles in Kahnawake in his book “Heeding the Voices of our Ancestors”: Kahnawake as a community had traditionally been extremely receptive to the integration of outsiders. Mission records from the early period of the community’s history confirm that Mohawks at Kahnawake had continued the practice of adopting and assimilating captives, resulting in a diverse racial mixture within the Mohawk community. Even into the modern era, Kahnawake Mohawks accepted many non-Native people through marriage and among those residents who came to enjoy community membership and later formal recognition of this membership through inclusion as status Indians when the Indian Act system was implemented in Kahnawake during the 20th century. (p.163) Alfred explains that the community assimilated the racist ideas of the Indian Act in terms of what it meant to be an Indian – i.e. a Mohawk , and blended European notions of “race” with their desire to protect their cultural identity. As a result, some members of Kahnawake actually believe that blood quantum is the only way to protect their culture, despite the fact that this concept was completely alien to their traditional ways of viewing their identity and citizenship. Alfred concludes that part of the problem is that the community had not acknowledged the deep extent to which community members have internalized Indian Act ways of thinking and therefore do not realize that instead of rejecting the Indian Act, they are actually perpetuating it! How can a community expect to protect its culture if they can so easily turn their backs on their own children and grandchildren? In my opinion, some (not all) community members and leaders have been under the dark cloud of colonialism for so long, that it is hard for them to see their identity through any other eye, than that of the federal government – who, as we all know, designed the Indian Act and its policies with a view to assimilating Aboriginal peoples based on racist conceptions of blood purity. Colonial policies were designed to divide communities and families and impose a generic “Indian” identity on all Aboriginal peoples with a legislated formula designed to ensure their eventual disappearance. How ironic is it then, that the leaders in Kahnawake would adopt policies which accomplish the exact same thing? Kahnawake currently operates under the Indian Band Council governance system set forth under the Indian Act; it limits their territories with which they form an identity to the reserves that were created by Indian Affairs; they label their citizens as “band members” pursuant to the Indian Act, and they assert that the only real Mohawks are those with 50% Mohawk blood or more. In actual fact, Kahnawake’s rules speed up the assimilation process much faster than even the Indian Act rules! No wonder the Chief is worried that the federal government will walk on to their reserve one day and say “You’re not Indians anymore”. Using blood as the sole indicator of identity guarantees this eventuality. We are Nations within a Nation and our people will continue to live, love and interact with other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Nations. Intermarriage is a human right and fact of life. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the damage done to our Aboriginal identities by Canada and the Indian Act; recognize how much of this racist thinking has been internalized to our ways of thinking about ourselves; and take steps to protect our real identities for the well-being of our present generations, for the benefit of our future generations, and to honour the identities of our ancestors.