INDIAN REGISTRATION, BAND MEMBERSHIP AND FIRST NATION CITIZENSHIP FINAL REPORT ON THE APC BILL C-3 EXPLORATORY PROCESS

Transcription

1 INDIAN REGISTRATION, BAND MEMBERSHIP AND FIRST NATION CITIZENSHIP FINAL REPORT ON THE APC BILL C-3 EXPLORATORY PROCESS Prepared by Krista Brookes, Sr. Policy Analyst/Legal Advisor Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat January 23, 2012

2 BACKGROUND In December 2010, when Bill C-3 (Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act) was introduced into Parliament, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) announced that Canada would engage in an exploratory process to examine issues related to Indian registration, membership and First Nation citizenship outside the scope of the legislation. The purpose of the exploratory process is to identify, examine and discuss the broader issues associated with Indian registration, Band membership and First Nation citizenship that go beyond the McIvor decision and the parameters of Bill C-3. The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat (APC) is a non-profit corporation which represents 38 Mi kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu First Nations Chiefs and their communities in the Atlantic and eastern Quebec regions and parts of Maine, USA. Its mandate is to research, analyze and develop alternatives to federal policies affecting its member First Nations. APC, in its analysis of Bill C-3, and through input obtained from its member First Nation Chiefs and community members, determined that the Bill did not go far enough to remove all the discrimination within the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The APC received financial support from AANDC to undertake a lead role and activities in the Atlantic region to begin to gather information and examine and discuss these broader issues with its First Nation members. First Nation Governments have always maintained that they have jurisdiction over the issue of citizenship and Canada must recognize this and end the distinction between Indian Act registration status and band membership. Project timeline: August 2011 until January 2012 OVERVIEW OF APC S C-3 EXPLORATORY PROCESS The APC prepared background documents and materials (such as a Discussion Paper and powerpoint presentation) about issues relating to registration, membership and citizenship to inform and guide the All Chiefs Meeting and the community-based focus groups that will were led by APC. APC also developed dedicated web pages on its website (see as well as a Facebook Group (see and an online SurveyMonkey tool ( was used to conduct a survey and provide pertinent information on the activities that it will undertake as part of the exploratory process on Indian registration, Band membership and citizenship. The APC also presented to the APC All Chiefs and Executive meetings in September and December on issues relating to Indian registration, Band membership and citizenship. The APC also undertook and lead three (3) community-based focus groups (First Nation women and youth and Indian Registry Administrators) in the Atlantic Region on issues 2 P a g e

3 relating to Indian registration, Band membership and citizenship. Unfortunately, APC did not have the time to conduct an Elders Focus Group as planned and no comments were received via the Facebook Group. APC also prepared a summary report of each of the focus groups that will include the number of participants in each session, a summary of the discussion and issues raised, and any recommendations stemming from the discussion (see all recommendations outlined below). SUMMARY REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS First Nation Womens (10 attended) Custom adoptions must be posted or screened of band membership applications. This would give the band members the ability to contest the membership additions; which is two years. IRAs (6 attended) Bill C-31 regarding persons registered as 6-2 s does not go far enough, it should include another generation. MMAYC (Youth) (10 attended) First Nations people in Atlantic Canada should begin the process of developing and defining who is a citizen of their Nation(s). The federal government should no longer be involved in defining who is an Indian or First Nation; Registration that involved nonnative women who have gained status through marriage prior to C-31 should have their status removed, especially through divorce and other non-native children born by that mother, after should not have the ability to become status Indians. Errors in mistaken registration are an issue. One being unstated paternity, an example of this is a young mother, both parents are native, however, the mother does not want the father s name on the birth certificate so that child gets registered as a 6-2 when in actual fact should have been registered as a 6-1. The other reason being adoption. A nonnative person adopted by a native family actually can get their status thus, having no actual Indian blood at all. Some people adopt their grandchildren to move them up from a 6-2 to a 6-1. This mistaken registration could potentially result in no status Indians at all not too far in the future. The federal government has to The definition of who is a citizen should be decided by Nation(s) via referendum;

4 determine how to amend this situation. We have to find a way to clarify adoptions and to have the paternity stated on the birth certificates so our population is not depleted. There is a common definition needed of who is a Mi`kmaq which would grant that person treaty rights. A regional/nation based authority should be formed to establish the citizenship criteria and appeals mechanism; For those Mi`kmaqs that have not retained the Mi`kmaq language and culture, it must be offered in our communities to be identified as Mi`kmaq. Mi`kmaq must be offered in all schools and universities in the Atlantic. Band Councils can decide membership (for the purposes of delivering programs and services), but not First Nation citizenship/beneficiaries (for the purposes of determining who can exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights); A mechanism is needed for discriminatory practices of approving Mi`kmaq citizenship, especially with the newly creation of Qalipu First Nation. Non-native women who gained Indian status prior to 1985 should lose their status as a result of Bill C-3; Since Indian Affairs have approved the custom membership codes, they should bear the costs of updating and ensuring the codes are compliant with human rights issues since Section 67 has passed through Parliament last June. First Nation leaders must conduct community consultation sessions with their community on issues of bylaw and code developments. This will ensure accountability measures of each First Nation Chief and Council. Siblings of C-3 registered Indians should not be required to have a child(ren) before their Indian status would switch from 6(2) to 6(1); First Nations should know their language and culture in order to become citizens; Some non-native persons, who have status children, living onreserve know the language and culture very well perhaps they should be considered citizens; however, there are many that 4 P a g e

5 cannot live on-reserve but they should still be considered citizens despite not knowing their language or culture Mothers should not be permitted to declare unstated paternity on birth certificates and Indian status applications so as to ensure their children are registered correctly (ie., under section 6(1) if father is status Indian, versus automatically registered under section 6(2), if unstated). SUMMARY REPORT FROM SURVEYMONKEY (72 responses) RECOMMENDATIONS If a well planned out document describing ancestry-birth rights, or specific allocations to becoming a citizen of a Nation, then there could be no bias decisions made within Band Administrations or committees. I see too many Councils have too much power over individuals. Include off reserve Aboriginal Peoples citizen referendums Combination of processes to ensure that off-reserve citizens are included. I think there should be a standard set, that includes various mechanisms. This topic relates to Q 14 [above] as well. The limited options for answers in Q 14 are very misleading. Citizenship is an International law definition. It is not based on blood quantum [this is an American concept because it can lead toward ethnic cleansing. You are born with a citizenship. No one should be able to deprive you of it. You can be a member of more than one Nation [tribal or otherwise] without losing your identity. Proof of blood lineage, offer courses on Aboriginal languages to keep it from being extinct and to keep the thought process and customs of "the people" to be indigenous. Along with an aboriginal history, we as first nations people should show interest, participation and knowledge on who we are as 'indians' No mention of Elders on this form, ask them. Give scenarios for discussion purposes at community meetings. For example, if you had a grandchild that had one parent who was not of aboriginal descent, would you divide your estate up equally among all grandchildren, or in proportion to aboriginal ancestry? I would bet 100% would divide it equally. The same reasoning can be applied to all of us. Why would we do any less? This is something that needs to be determined by First Nations citizens with 1st generation ancestry with a blood quantum of 50% or higher. If a person cannot trace their bloodline back to the 18th century Peace and Friendship treaties than they should not be allowed to take part in the negotiation of treaty right implementation for the Nation as a whole. Through a community committee made up of Elders and Community people. But not the elected officials Include the off reserve, these #'s are high and should never be excluded Has to be specific to each separate nation but don't like the word "authority Would need to know more about the design of the process. It would need to have a legitimate, accountable process similar to Grand Council of the Mi'kmaq that would know who the family

6 clans are, take into consideration many families have dispersed into USA, and off reserve in Canada. It would also need to be a welcoming process and have the ability to consider special circumstances such as the sixty's scoop up generation, adopted, or fostered, or lost generations through other circumstances where paternal information are not known. The question #14 Who should decide who is a citizen? Please select only one answer. The Band Council, An Aboriginal provincial body, An Aboriginal regional body, A membership committee selected by the community, The federal government, according to the Indian Act, Referendum in the community, Self-identification is not a question that is easily answered or will give you accurate results. I think that question should have been allowed multiple answers. First, immediate family members are going to know news about new family members born, or found through adoption, foster or lost generation. So I think the Band as the governing body over the needs of the citizens also needs to be informed of their citizen lists for election purposes and communication of Band business as the governing body of their citizenship. However, there would also may need to be more than Band Council involved. You may find you need added expertise other than what Band Council can provide. There may be difficult circumstances where some non native citizens were married to First Nations, but not anymore, who still claim citizenship, these situations will also arise. Who are the legitimate beneficiaries of our Nation? I believe this process in order to be effective, fair and efficient would require several interlinked bodies or Tiers, as many as 3 or 4 to reflect proper process to address citizenship, that can include an appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism should be done in consultation with the Nation to discuss the citizen criteria or the grounds to which an appeal should be granted. The only way is thru blood line. Otherwise anyone who has very little blood line will receive all benefits that should only go to at least 50 blood line. This would eliminate many who do not qualify. I think we should consider a Mi'kmaq/Maliseet Constitution first which would in turn governs any Citizenship authority. I am a firm believer that no legitimate authority has a right to deprive a person of their Creator given citizenship. It is up to each Nation to determine who its citizens are. The establishment of an Authority as contemplated denies the autonomy of each Nation of this inherent responsibility. At this moment of our history, there are separate Maliseet and Mi'kmaw First Nations that are geographically separate and with limited governmental powers in Canada and the US. The inherent jurisdiction of each Nation must be recognized by international standards and also subject to international norms to protect the individual and collective identities of the members of each of these Mi'kmaw and Maliseet Nations. It would depend on who is the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet authority and who they are accountable to. Would not agree if it was run by the current chief and council system. Providing it includes good representation of citizens in community, unbiased, and no business dealings and influence by Chief and Council. The Mi'kmaw-Maliseet National Authority would also be required to organize and provide access to community on consultation on who can be a member and their contribution to the group. It should also be an advocate for cultural education enforcing Aboriginal Language courses to keep it alive and a promise to educate the children in same manner. # 13 use of Aboriginal Language should come first. The extinction of language is an extinction of identity. External from politics. You don't have any room for comments, so i'll put them here. Question 13 needs to be more defined. What does 1st generational ancestry mean? Mother and father? Does it mean to be a citizen your saying both have to be citizens? Matrilineal and Patrilineal? So, if your father is non-aboriginal you don't have citizenship rights? Was not that issue put to rest with Bill C-31? Question 16 requires some more thought! Citizens have the right to become a resident in a First Nations Community? You need to define the difference between a band member and resident? Anyone can be a resident of a community as long as they obey the laws of that community I suppose. But, not everyone can be a band member. This is a different issue and one that you should leave to the Bands to decide as autonomous entities. More and more people are abusing the current system in place now which cause greater problems for Mi'kmaq Nation as a whole. There are many "full blooded" non-natives with status 6 P a g e

7 cards who found a way to manoeuvre the system so they can catch a tax break or exploit the system in some other way. A more stringent process needs to be in place to ensure First Nation rights are being accessed by people with actual First Nations ancestry. The strength of our blood lines should be the determining factor as to whether one can access to treaty rights. No the community itself should decide as to who their members are. I would like to have an authority just for Nova Scotia.