Could changes to the Indian Act be a good thing?

Page 7

Dear Editor:

At the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario where I claim membership, there are 930 members of the band, 330 of which are living on the reserve with the remaining 600 living elsewhere.

These 600 members are, because of the Indian Act, not allowed to vote, although they are directly affected by decisions and policies implemented by the chief and band council. It is this way for most reserves throughout Canada whether elections are through band custom or Indian Act.

First Nation members who live off the reserve are not heard and even if they were, their words carry very little weight because they cannot vote; the fundamental principle behind democracy.

I know of a person from Italy, who after 20 years of living in Canada, still receives a ballot in the mail for the national election in Italy every four years. Yet bands will not do this for members who live in the next nearest town, let alone another country.

When National Chief Ovide Mercredi and the rest of our so-called leaders are on television sniveling that they were not invited to have a say at the First Ministers conference, I sympathize with them. I (and thousands of others) know all to well how it feels; perhaps even more so because it is not the dominant society and the Canadian government that negates our voice, but our own leaders!

We First Nations people who claim to be more egalitarian then any colonial government in North America; who profess that Canada is not a democracy because Native people are marginalized in the political structure of the country; who want to be treated equal, to be heard, are allowing the Indian Act to be used to oppress our own.

Our leaders fought against Bill C-31 in 1985, a legislation that gave status back to the thousands of Native women and children who lost it through marriage. Isn't it tradition that leaders sacrifice themselves for the sake of the children of the nation? In 1985 they fought tooth and nail using every excuse possible to annul that responsibility. Our leaders stood against their own people, on the side of the Canadian government. Then it was called National Indian Brotherhood, now it is known as the Assembly of First Nations. In Lovelace v. Canada at the International Human Rights Tribunal, in Hague, Netherlands, 1977 Native people disenfranchised from their own communities began the long journey home, but there would be no one there to welcome them back. Instead, Aboriginal people on the reserves began to blame the victims, not the perpetrator, the federal Government. Those children who lost their status are all grown up. Now they have been marginalized by our Indian Act leaders.

The Indian Act has hurt us all, some more than others. Those that adhere to it the most are those in power. Perhaps it is in their best interest to keep me and others like me marginalized. Traditions and fairness are often spoken about by our leaders, yet our leaders, who are elected through the Indian Act, seem to forget our egalitarian traditions. The tradition of democracy in Canada, in my own opinion, is more fair to Aboriginal people who live off the reserve, than any band council is.

Let us be truthful when we speak about family and traditional ways of fairness. Let us be honest when we speak about how much we love our children. Let us remember that our children are our children no matter how old they are. If our leaders want to be leaders and our people want to stop the marginalization we suffer in Canada, let it first begin at home.

Sincerely,

David A. Groulx