Bill C-31 still discriminates

Page 10

Despite the heroic struggles in the 70s and 80s of such Aboriginal women as Mary Two Axe Early, Jeanette Lavell, Sandra Lovelace and the Tobique women from New Brunswick, sexist discrimination still continues under Canada's Indian Act.

These women brought the disenfranchisement issue, Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act, to the women's movement, to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. [Under Section 12(1)(b), Aboriginal women lost their "status" when they married non-Native men.]

The result of their struggle was the enactment of Bill C-31 in 1985, which amended the Indian Act.

Although Bill C-31 allowed the reinstatement of thousands of women and children who had lost status under the previous discriminatory law, the amendment brought in a whole new set of ways to discriminate against them. In fact, Aboriginal leaders are now recognizing that Bill C-31 is merely the realization of the termination policy that then-minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chretien was proposing with his 1969 White Paper Policy.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is doing work on this issue, and what they have found is that under current Bill C-31 registration procedures, many First Nations communities are headed for extinction. This is not to say that the membership of these bands will die off, but that eventually all members will lose their status and all rights associated with it.

According to Elizabeth Hall, an employee working in the Family Reunification Program at the United Native Nations - an organization which represents off-reserve Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia - the registration process is so convoluted and uncoordinated that people going through it often either give up before they have attained the status which is rightfully theirs or accept a lesser degree of status than they are entitled to.

Add to this that the Department of Indian Affairs is more than happy to see the termination of status, little effort is made to inform applicants of what they are entitled to. The result is that even 13 years after the passage of Bill C-31, there are still large numbers of women and children who have not been reinstated.

The old version of the Indian Act had just two categories - status and non-status Indians. Bill C-31 created several different categories, which include status with or without membership. And because membership codes fall under the purview of band councils, some people can have membership with or without status.

Those with status fall into several categories as well. The most important feature is that only some "status Indians" - that is, those reinstated under Section 6(1) - have the capacity to pass on status to their children. Those registered as Section 6(2) "status Indians" cannot pass on status. Further still, there are even more categories under Sections 6(1) and 6(2).

Discrimination continues to be a central feature in the lives of women and children affected by this section of the Indian Act. This injustice takes the form of inequitable distribution of resources, more particularly the lack of programs and services to address this issue. Those attempting to negotiate their way through the tangle of red tape to have their status reinstated need advocates and other service providers to walk them through it. Those who throw up their arms in frustration need to know that giving up adversely affects their children and grandchildren.

The worst insult is that Bill C-31 still has sexual discrimination - the primary reason Aboriginal women sought to bring about this amendment. Women are responsible for registering children for status and part of this process includes proving paternity and providing evidence of the type of status the father has.

If a father is unwilling to sign a sworn affidavit stating that he is the father, or if the mother is unwilling to disclose the paternity of her child, then DIA automatically registers the child as having one non-status parent. Tis puts the child in the Section 6(2) category and there leaves her or him unable to pass on status.

Another injustice has been the lack of documented information on the effect Bill C-31 has on women and children. For example, how many have been able to return to their homelands? What has the experience of returning home been like? Are they treated the same or differently than band members who are not Bill C-31s? How many are still in urban areas? What support provisions are made at each level of government, including First Nations band councils, for Aboriginal women and children in urban areas?

While many of us know the answer to these questions, our knowledge and experience is in isolation of each other. There are numerous gaps in DIA policies and practices, but the responses of individuals and Aboriginal agencies are uncoordinated. Without accurate and adequate documentation, Aboriginal women's groups have no leverage when it comes to participation at a policy level or in trying to access funding.

The Aboriginal Women's Action Network (AWAN) has taken on the challenge of documenting the effects of Bill C-31. The project has received funding support from the Status of Women Canada.

Because we understand all too well the experience of being kept outside of the decision-making process, we have designed a model of research that is community-based and inclusive. The tentative date for our "Consultations Conference" is Nov. 21 and 22. Participants of this conference will be Aboriginal women from various parts of British Columbia who will spend a weekend exploring Bill C-31 issues, learning interview and research methods, and then formulating the questions this research will address. These women will then return to their communities and each will conduct interviews with five women affected by Bill C-31.

AWAN is currently conducting a literature review so that when conference participants arrive each will be aware of all that has been written on Bill C-31. This should hlp determine what direction our research should take.

One of AWAN's goals is to publish a book of the stories of the women interviewed for this project. Another goal is to have the conference, as well as some of the interviews, filmed for educational and political use. When the interviews are completed, a researcher will then analyze the data and write a final report, which will be used as a tool for political lobbying.

Statistics from various sources indicate that the majority of off-reserve status Aboriginal peoples are women. And AWAN members who are active in the Vancouver area understand the frustration of having our people be the majority of clients and recipients of non-Aboriginal programs and services while we have no effective participation in the decision-making process of these agencies and organizations.

The problem lies in the ways funding formulas are devised and this is where change is essential. However, the larger problem lies with the undemocratic processes inherent in the non-profit societies acts, in the Indian Act, and other laws which serve to exclude and silence Aboriginal women.

Since we live in urban areas, we believe that the provincial ministries of Women's Equality and Aboriginal Affairs have some responsibility for Aboriginal women. And since we have status, DIA also should honor its fiduciary obligation to us, whether we live on or off reserve. Yet none of these levels of government are prepared to address our needs nor heed our voices.

AWAN's Bill C-31 study will be an incremental step in the struggle of Aboriginal women to free ourselves from the grips of these many forms of marginalization.

For accounts of the struggle for reinstatement by the Tobique women, pick up a copy of Enough is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out by the Tobique Women's Group as told to Janet Silman, first published by Toronto Women's Press in 1987.

Fay Blaney is a member of the Aboriginal Women's Action Network.

First published in Kinesis, Canada's National Fminist Newspaper, November 1998