Statement made on 11 June 2009 by Senator Lucie Pépin (retired)
Senator Pépin:
With the amendment of the Indian Act in 1985, Aboriginal women could marry a non-Indian, keep their Indian status and pass it on to their children. However, the problem was just passed down to the next generation. Grandchildren are not affected by the reinstatement of this right.
We all agree that Aboriginal people must have the same rights as all other Canadians. We have that common goal. But still today, the law treats Aboriginal men and women differently when it comes to passing Indian status and band membership on to their grandchildren.
Can you tell us what position your organizations take on this discriminatory treatment? What initiatives have you taken to have the law changed so that Aboriginal women have all the same rights as Aboriginal men when it comes to transferring status? And how can you help us in our efforts to have grandchildren recognized?
Mr. Chartier: Thank you for the question. I will defer the answer to the First Nations leadership. The Metis nation, although we do have an interest in seeing justice done for all Aboriginal Peoples, will not take a position on this. I will take this opportunity to say, however, that — no, I will not.
Mr. Daniels: That is a very good question. The Indian Act, being the kind of legislation it is, has caused a lot of division amongst our people, amongst our women and of course our children. We certainly do want our children to be recognized as Indian people. Our grandchildren and our great grandchildren should have the right to be Indians and who they truly are.
We will continue to work on ensuring that all our Indian peoples have the right to be Indian peoples without having to face the discriminatory laws of the Indian Act. That is very important for our future. That is why we continue to work in trying to right those wrongs of the past.
It will take a lot of work. There are still a lot of court proceedings ongoing, with the Sharon McIvor case as well as the Daniels case. We are not too sure, but we may have a whole new list of McIvor Indians.
With Bill C-31, with Indians and non-status Indians, we may have a whole new list of Indians; we do not know.
Hopefully, with the end of the McIvor case, we will see exactly where Indian people will stand in the future.
Mr. Fontaine: I did not pick up my equipment quickly enough, so I missed the first part of your question. If the question is related to the Indian Act provisions on status or band membership, I will speak to your question.
First, Bill C-31 was supposed to remedy that problem for all time. While the numbers of reinstated First Nations citizens increased significantly — I believe in the order of 100,000 additional members with Indian status were added to the list kept by the registrar — it became obvious, soon after the bill came into effect, that it was not the panacea we were hoping it would be in terms of dealing with this issue. It has become obvious that the bill is, in effect, a termination bill.
We see the answer to this problem as something that ought to be addressed on a government-to-government basis because it is obvious to us, and I am sure it is to you, that citizenship is a matter that must be left to governments. That right to define citizenship ourselves, to determine who our citizens will be, has been denied our government. I regret the previous attempt to address this issue was put aside because we had agreed to a process to address this issue. We did not want to talk about band status, band members or band membership lists; we wanted to talk about citizenship, and citizenship is a matter for, and a prerogative of, governments. As I said, this right has been denied us.
We want to see a process that brings us together with the federal government to deal with this issue of citizenship. It must be done in a way that engages our governments and our leaders to the fullest extent possible.
We should not be forced to go to the courts for a remedy, as we are now. The McIvor case is only one example. I understand there are at least another 60 cases similar to the McIvor case. On that point, we have been consistent that we will support Sharon McIvor in whatever decision she takes on this issue. She has decided that she will seek leave to appeal and we will support that decision.