C-31 appeal decision overturned

Page 1

It was a big day for the three Alberta First Nations that have been fighting Bill C-31, the 1985 government law that returned treaty status to thousands of Native people.

On June 3, the Federal Court of Appeal threw out a 1995 judgement by Judge F. Muldoon that ruled against the Sawridge, Tsuu T'ina and Ermineskin First Nations and in favor of upholding Bill C-31. Muldoon ruled the bases for court action against the bill was unfounded, but the court of appeal found Muldoon's ruling to be suspect and labeled the judge's findings as "biased."

At a June 5 press conference, representatives from the bands expressed their pleasure at the overturned decision. They said they were eager to again take the matter to court and fight C-31 in a Constitutional challenge.

Walter Twinn, Sawridge First Nation chief and Canadian senator, has been waiting almost three years for someone to overturn Muldoon's ruling, which Twinn described as "insulting" and "without merit." Twinn said the news is bitter-sweet, because the court of appeal decision was based on bias.

"We can rejoice. We are very happy with winning the appeal, but sad that it was based on bias," he said from the posh conference room at Edmonton's Petroleum Club. "I hope it never happens to any other citizen of Canada."

Arthur Littlechild, the acting chief of the Ermineskin First Nation said the recent ruling proves that Aboriginal people in his community "were not being treated fairly."

In a similar statement, band councillor Albert Crowchild from the Tsuu T'ina Nation said the court appeal process and ruling was "an insult to our Elders."

With the latest court victory, Crowchild said his community can now "go forward and get the fair treatment for what we are seeking."

Land and band membership management were the two main factors that C-31 could affect, said Twinn.

With perhaps thousands of people becoming eligible to return to band membership lists and entitled to land on the reserve, Twinn said there are going to be big problems.

"You cannot blow up over 100 per cent or 1,000 per cent of a population," he said. There may be more people coming back to reserves, but there isn't any more land being given out to accomodate those people.

Twinn even hinted that newcomers would have a tough time coming back.

"If you take those members that want to get into Sawridge, I doubt they'd last six months," he said.

When asked what he meant, Twinn said only, "It's obvious."

Asked again to clarify, it was his wife, Catherine Twinn who gave an answer.

Referring to the new C-31 members as "strangers," she said they would bring "conflict, stress and problems" to the reserve.

The "strangers," she said, don't even have to come to the community to register on a band list.

"They are put on the list by the government and are getting legal power (on the reserve) without even going to the community."

In time, she fears, the "strangers" will "destroy the land base" of reserves.

It is that interference by the government which makes managing the band's membership more difficult.

When asked how many C-31 status people had gone back to their communities, none of the representatives knew exactly.

"Everyone has accepted a few," offered Twinn.

Another question no one wanted to answer was about money.

When asked what the Sawridge band assets were worth, Catherine Twinn said that had no relevance.

When the reporter pushed and said it was a fair question, Twinn still held her ground.

"It might be a fair question, but I don't have to answer," she said.

Philip Healey, attorney for the band said money is not the issue for the most part of this court challenge.

"The bands are simply saying, 'It's our right - our treaty right - that we decide who our members are.'"

The bands fighting C-31 are "only trying to keep their reserves intact, "he said.

Doris Ronnenberg, president of the Native Council of Canada (Alberta), wants nothing more than to see First Nation communities kept intact. She hinks C-31 people will help to keep things in order on the reserves.

"Tradition and culture was discussed at the trial. . . and the very essence of tradition and culture is family, and if [a community] is to work properly, you do not turn against your own family," she said.

Ronnenberg was granted C-31 status shortly after the bill became law. Her organization was one of the original intervenors in the Constitutional challenge to C-31 made by Twinn and the other bands. Ronnenberg has been fighting to have C-31 accepted just as long as the others have been fighting to appeal it.

"We want to preserve Bill C-31," she said, admitting the bill isn't perfect, but it is a start.

Ronnenberg said the Native Council of Canada isn't against treaty rights or any rights of Aboriginal people, it just wants to let people get back to their cultural roots.

Her home community, the Saulteaux First Nation in northern British Columbia welcomed back hundreds of members, she said.

That nation covers only 10 sq. km, said Ronnenberg, and only 60 per cent of the band members live on the reserve, but the rest, like her, are there to help anytime.

She admitted that access to band money may be a big reason for some people applying for C-31 status, but it isn't the reason for everyone.

"Money is an issue - I would be lying if I said it wasn't, but it isn't a primary factor," she said. "I, for example, want to be back as part of my nation. That was most important to me personally."

Ronnenberg and her organization may be calling on some very big guns to testify in any upcoming court action.

"Our intention is to call on Prime Minister [Jean] Chretien," she said. Since Bill C-31 is a Canadian law, why not get the head man to represent it?

Ronnenberg wants to see the court case back before a judge quickly. She said her group has found a lot more support and may have more ammunition with which to fight.

"I have more personal and organizational support than when I first started out," she sai. "And I'm a little bit wiser."

In Twinn's corner, the bands are ready to go and the lawyers are eager to get back into court.

"It'll be a dog fight again" said Twinn.

The bands' second lawyer, Martin Henderson, said the case should take considerably less time in court than the decade it spent before the courts already.

"I expect it will be shorter, because we've all been through this before," said Henderson.

No dates were set for the trial. No one at the press conference indicated that it would be in the near future.