BCIC host gala to raise awareness surrounding Bill-C31

It was an outcry of indignation that helped change the Indian Act to reinstate First Nations women who had lost their status after marrying a non-status person, but now an uproar over the unfair classification system that was incorporated into the modification is threatening to erupt into a constitutional challenge.
The legislation introduced in 1985, called Bill-C31, is being slammed for being a veiled attempt at extinguishing status Aboriginal people within generations.
Under the categorization, if a status man and a status woman got married and had children, their children would have full status, referred to as a 6(1) status. But if a status woman or man married a non-status person, their children would be designated a 6(2) status. And if those children married non-status people, their children will have no status.
"In 100 years time, according to the statistical studies we've done, there will not be one status Indian left in Canada," said Chief Ron Ignace of Skeetchestn Indian Band.
"So it's really a policy of genocide or assimilation. It's designed to do away with status people to resolve the land question because your land rights, your Aboriginal rights and title are tied to you as a status person."
According to the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, "Within 75 years, individuals who lack entitlement to Indian registration are expected to account for one in every three people eligible for First Nations membership."
Chief Lynda Price of the Ulkatcho First Nations knows well the ramifications of Bill C-31.
When her mother got her status back with the introduction of Bill C-31, she was classified as a 6(1), but her children whom she had with her non-status husband, were assigned a 6(2) designation.
"She was discriminated against," Pryce said.
"All the years after my father died, she raised us for 20 years. She provided for our family and raised our family and didn't have any support through the programs Indian Affairs is supposed to provide for her because she lost her status."
On Sept. 17, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (BCIC) held a fundraising gala to create awareness of the issues surrounding Bill-C31.
"[The Bill] is a way of divesting you of your fundamental human rights and your rights as an Indigenous person according to the Constitution of Canada and international laws and declarations," Ignace said following the event.
"Once you lose your status, you lose all your rights as a treaty person. You lose all of that. We ought not to stand for it and should stand up and fight it."
There is a strategy in the works through the BCIC to organize a campaign with expansive reach. The evening's festivities that included a silent auction will aid in the effort.
"We are fundraising ultimately, to make a constitutional challenge against Section 6 of the Indian Act which is very bad legislation," Ignace said.
"It goes to the foundation of everything we stand for and who we are."
Three women sitting in the back of the Renaissance Hotel Vancouver ballroom understood that indignant conviction.
For them, it was worth about $1,000 ­ the amount they paid for a signed Carey Price Montreal Canadiens jersey.
"It's a steal!" said Tania Moore of Vancouver.
Merriment aside, Moore and her friends Leslie Varley and Mary Knox-Guimont said they supported Bill-C31 because it has affected their personal lives.
When Varley's mother married her father, a non-status person, the classification system made it so that their children lost their status.
"It's very discriminatory ­ I just don't agree with the extent that the legislation went. It needs to go further," Varley said of the Bill.
"I'm a Nisg'a from Northern British Columbia. Our line follows our matrilineal ancestry, [But] according to the government, I'm actually not Nisg'a and yet, according to our culture, you are who your mother is, so I'm definitely Nisg'a."
Moore, from Gitxsan Nation, echoed Varley's sentiments, pointing to Canadian policy.
"If a child is born in Canada, they're Canadian no matter if their parents have citizenship or not," Moore said.
"But if you look at this policy, if they follow that logic, if a child is born to a First Nations woman, that child should be First Nations regardless. So it's kind of a double standard between the general Canadian population and the First Nations population."
As for their winnings, the three women said they'll share the rights to the jersey.
"I get it in December," Mary Knox-Guimont from Kwakiutl Nation said.