A Struggle for Acceptance

A Struggle for Acceptance by Margaret L. Hele How does one become a cast out from one's own society, community and family? Falling in love and seeking a good life! Since the time of early contact, aboriginals have been intermarrying with other nations. With the inception of the Indian Act aboriginal women were deemed to be under the care of their husbands and then their children. The women were banished from their bands and homelands for "marrying out" - they married men of another race or of another band. The Indian Act stripped them of their status as Indians. They were made to feel that they had betrayed their race. They were never fully accepted into their husband's community and were no longer a part of their birth community. Women, never comprehending how the words "I do" could change their birthright, lived in harmony with their world. On the surface, it appeared that they had accepted the fact that they could no longer live among their birth family on their homeland. Their children struggled to understand why their cousins were included as Status Indians and they were excluded. During their stay away from their reserves, life experiences educated these women and they grew in strength. From amongst them strong leaders emerged; two of which were Mary Two Axe-Early and Jeanette Corbiere-Laval. As leaders of a women's group they went to the World Court to argue for the rights of women of aboriginal descent. No one could fathom how a non-native female who married a native male could be given the status of Indian and a native female who married a non-native male could have her Indian status revoked. The World Court ruled this discriminatory. Following many years of hearings the government of Canada passed Bill C-31 which amended the Indian Act. This was Canada's attempt to rectify the injustice that aboriginal women and their children were forced to live under. Women of native ancestry hailed this victory in 1985. They were elated that their identity was once again recognized. They embraced their rights, took advantage of the opportunity to further their education, returned to their homeland and participated in their community. It soon became apparent that the struggle for equality had to continue. Most bands did not welcome their sisters and their cousins. Many communities looked at the influx of members as a threat to their way of life. They feared that land bases, services and finances would be inadequate. They feared that their customs and culture would be eroded by the infiltration of new ideas and ways. They feared the education that the reinstated members brought with them. They were identified derogatively as "Bill C- 31's". No one foresaw the numbers of people of native ancestry that would apply for their

status. The government provided extra dollars for education purposes and housing. Not all bands were willing to administer these dollars. The bands who decided to work with reinstated members, distribute the education dollars and built new homes, brought job opportunities to their communities and criticism from their established membership. Many blamed the government as favouring the reinstated members ahead of members who had not enfranchised. They felt the extra dollars being transferred to the bands were not sufficient to cover the increase in services brought on by the increase in membership. Under a government housing program, approximately eight reinstated members on the Garden River First Nation were given allotments to build a new home. Some members combined this housing allotment with funds from other investments to construct substantial homes. Band members who had their names on a housing list for years viewed this as "Bill C-31 members" being placed ahead of them. Bands were given the opportunity to take control of their membership. Several governing bodies submitted codes before June 1987. The people believed that the band would thus determine who would be given membership. The time for consultation, research, discussion and formulation of a code was rushed. In an atmosphere of confusion and frustration hands drew up codes based on the guide lines of the Department of Indian Affairs. Although the guidelines stated that the codes were not to exclude reinstated members, many codes did not adhere. When the codes were formulated all eligible voting members were to be included in the discussion and in the voting. This, however, was not the case. All reinstated members were not notified of meetings pertaining to the formulation of the membership code. Since the time of inception and formal recognition of the Garden River Band by the Canadian Government there has been disagreements as to who qualifies as a band member. When the Garden River Reserve was established in 1850 with the signing of the Robinson-Huron Treaty, it was known as the "half breed" reserve for its members were of mixed blood. Shingwauk, of mixed blood himself, was placed as leader of the band for his services in the wars against the Long Knives'. Shingwauk encouraged all who were descendants of Indian people to join the band, thus strengthening if for political purposes. The young men who now surround you, although half-breeds belong to me, - my blood runs though their veins - and they have our[s] and all [have] given themselves up to me, and now from part of my tribe - It is my determination to serve them to the best of my ability-(footnote 1) The French and English surnames which are prominent on the reserve today attest to the mixture of nations that continue to form this band. On June 18th and 19th of 1987, the community of Garden River, by petition asked the people, mainly those residing on the reserve, whether they wished to take control of their own membership. Two hundred signed the petition in favour of taking control. Bill McKnight, who was the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time approved of the

Citizenship Registry Regulations for the Garden River First Nation. The ministry indicated that this code could be challenged in a court of law. The Chief and Council appointed a Membership Committee and a tribunal in accordance with the membership code. No registrar was appointed at this time despite the requirement of tone in the code. In February of 1988, under a newly elected chief, a Band Council Resolution was passed stating that all children of restored original band members were to be given full band membership into the Garden River First Nation. Restored original band members are persons, who at birth were registered as Garden River First Nation members, had ceased to be a member due to the Indian Act and regained their membership under Bill C-31. In October of 1988, the children of two or one parent families who are band members were accepted into the band as full members. Other names, submitted to Chief and Council, at subsequent meetings were not dealt with. In August of 1989, some status Indians, who wished to transfer into the Garden River Band were approved for membership. The committee became inactive. In 1994, information was released to band members informing them of the Citizen Registry Code that had been adopted in June of 1987 and remains in effect. Many members who had received their status were unaware that they were considered affiliated band members. Some consider themselves members and refuse to sign application forms. Others did not realize that their children who were registered with the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) also had to apply for Band membership. The control of who is registered as an Indian and eligible for services and funding remains with the DIA. There is a clear distinction between a status Indian affiliated with a band and a status Indian who is a band member. When one is a status Indian, who is a member of a band, one may enjoy the privileges of residing on the reserve and voting for the governing body. Not having full band membership may affect one's opportunity for serving as a councillor, receiving a housing allotment, obtaining a job or receiving a pay out' (funds entitled to a band member). In Garden River this distinction appears to be inconsistent. Some affiliated band members sit on council, own houses and are employed by the band. Other affiliated band members are not considered for housing or employment. At a general monthly band meeting it was established that Garden River did not have a band membership list. The admission of no membership list was shocking to everyone present. The membership clerk requested C&C to approve the use of the registry list as the band membership list. Approval was granted. Realization set in of the gravity of this situation as there are so many things dependent on this membership list. Many questions were left unanswered. Who are our members? Where did they get a housing list from? How did staff make up a voting list? The importance of determining band membership was blatantly apparent. In 1995, it was determined to establish a membership committee. Notices were posted

asking for volunteers to sit on the membership committee. The three applicants, who responded to the notice were accepted by the Chief and Council. Information workshops were held for the committee, the Chief and Council and interested band members to review the Citizenship Registry Code. Following is a page with a diagram and explanations about the Main Benefits of Indian Status and Band Membership. This page was used by the membership clerk during a workshop to clarify the main benefits. [Insert: Main Benefits of Indian Status and Band Membership, page 5] At this workshop, members gained deeper awareness of the significance of the code. Children of band members were not considered band members unless a registration form was completed and approved by the committee and the Chief and Council. It was reiterated that affiliated band members could be denied housing allotments, certificates of possession, jobs and other services. Many more members indicated their interest in serving on the membership committee. Chief and council approved of the additions to the committee. Further workshop meetings ensued where the committee was instructed by technical staff as to their mandate and the procedure that they were to follow in reviewing applicants for band membership. An oath of confidentiality was sworn by each committee member. A chair person and secretary were determined. Progress of the committee in reviewing applicants was hampered by the size of the committee, by the conflicting views held by technical staff and by the committee members. The time consumed by meetings proved too demanding on several members, who subsequently dropped from the committee. The chairperson expressed a view that the committee did not want to deal with transfers at this time. This view was challenged as not being the view of the entire body of the committee. The Chief and Council had instructed the committee to deal with transfers because these people were our own' - original band members. As a result the chairperson resigned. At the September 1996 monthly meeting, a letter was presented to chief and council from a group of elders and their supporters expressing concerns that increased membership would have on available funding. They felt that there would be only a modest increase in funding as to the increase in the membership. The letter called for the transfer issue to be dealt with in "an open and public forum" and only after those who were considered "their own" or those entitled to membership were given full membership. Facing difficult issues, frustrated committee members resigned. The progress of the committee was deemed too slow and a request that the transfers be dealt with along with the original band members and their children was put forth. Many of those requesting a transfer into the Garden River Band had originally been a member. The membership meeting of September 26, 1996, was well attended. A Band Council

Resolution accepting 60 original band members and their children into full membership was unanimously passed. Then the names of others who had been accepted into the band at working meetings held in the council chambers were read out to the members. Approximately 14% of the names on the Ottawa Registrar's List for Garden River or 255 affiliated members are now recognized as full band members since the formation of the committee, June 22, 1995. To date there have been 486 applications made which is close to 27% of the band population. During the remainder of the meeting the Chief, Council and the members present expressed their views towards admitting transfers into the band at this time. The council felt uncomfortable at choosing names from the list. The Chief stated that transfers had been dealt with at the council level in earlier years and recommended that they be processed now. Then a petition surfaced. The petition, drafted March 29, 1997, brought forth two major concerns. Some Committee members expressed that confidentiality had been violated. Other band members brought to the attention of the Chief and Council that the majority of the 46 names on the petition were that of band employees. Concern was expressed that people in administrative positions and on the governing body - the band administrator, councillor, the membership clerk and members of the Membership committee itself, who had signed the petition were in a conflict of interest position. They had been directed by the governing body to deal with the transfer requests, and this petition was asking that the transfer issue be dealt with at a later date. The petition was also asking that the people stand before the whole community, so that the whole community could voice their concerns as to whether "these people [should] be part of our community". Many of these people requesting transfers were born and raised on the Garden River Reserve and are relatives of Garden River band members. Also, it must be remembered that employees and elected council members are working for the band. After this emotionally charged meeting, the chief called another meeting for October 8, 1996. The chief specifically directed the membership clerk to bring the names, the applications, and the history of the transfer applicants. At the October 8th meeting a petition, signed by over 200 band members was presented to the chief and council requesting that the transfers be brought into the Garden River Band. The petition had been brought personally to the homes by concerned women. On the petition were the names of those wishing to transfer which were familiar to many. It was explained that these people wishing to transfer had once been members of the band, while others had grown up on the Garden River Reserve. It was pointed out that: (A) due to a paternalistic Act the wife was transferred to her husband's band and subsequently the children were as well; (B) others had been raised on the Garden River First Nation and considered it their home. (This was due in part to the close proximity of the Batchewana First Nation. Before Batchewana secured their land base most of their members resided on the Garden River First Nation.

The following is part of a letter sent to the Chiefs and Warriors of the Sault Ste. Marie and Batchewannaug in the 1800's we...invite you to join us on our Reserve at Garden River, wherein we offer an equal share of land to what we have and promise to consider you in all respects as members of our Band. signed Thomas Ogista, Head Chief Henry Pahgwahehenine, Chief(Footnote 2) Up to this point, anyone seeking a transfer into the Garden River First Nation sent a letter to the membership clerk. The committee requested that a Transfer Request Application Form, based on the application form documented in the Citizenship Code be drawn up. Three meetings followed before approval of the Transfer application form was given on November 19, 1996. The debate concerned the wording of the form and the inclusion of a Canadian Police Information Centre Search (CPIC). Councillors opposed to the CPIC asked why a search should be made mandatory for status Indians while non-natives could live in the community without being subjected to a search. A meeting for December 3rd was called to accept the transfers who had completed the required forms and were approved by the committee. Immediately prior to the November 19th membership meeting, the press was called to attend a demonstration held in favour of the chief and council accepting the transfers into the band. Interviews with various band members brought forth the realization that many of those seeking a transfer were women who had been transferred to their husband's band after marriage as specified in the Indian Act. The reporter was told that the housing shortage on the reserve had always been a problem and would continue to be a problem. An elder remarked that even if one could afford to build their home they required membership in the band to acquire land. The chief called on each councillor to state their views on the matter at hand. Two councillors who could not accept the process that had been established and were not willing to vote on the transfer issue walked out of the meeting. The names of those requesting a transfer into the Garden River First Nation were read out. All councillors present approved the Band Council Resolution accepting the transfer requests. Since the acceptance of the transfers no further meetings have taken place. Applicants continue to bring in their documentation for approval. Two of the original committee members are pressuring the chief to set meeting dates for the coming year so that their work can continue. As of March 1997 no meeting dates have been set for the committee. Although the intent of the Canadian Government was to rectify the injustice that native women were forced to live under, it appears that Band Membership codes have been adopted in an attempt to exclude reinstated Indians, who have been labelled Bill C-31'. The reservation system as developed by the Canadian Government divided Indian from

non-indian. Definitions of status-indian' were developed to limit the access of non- Indians' to reserve resources and capital. First Nations who have assumed the right to determine their own members are attempting to grapple with this legacy. "Why should I not be allowed to participate in reserve life because I dared to step over the boundaries to follow my dream?"(footnote 3) 1. Samuel Javis Indian Papers Toronto Metropolitan Reference Library File //S125 Title Shingwauk 20 August 1859 2. rg 10 vol 612 p. 116-118 3. An elder of the Garden River First Nation

These materials (including without limitation all articles, text, images, logos, compilation, and design) are Copyright 2000 University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Management. All rights reserved. These materials may not be copied or redistributed for any purposes or for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from The University of Lethbridge and The Faculty of Management. If you have questions about these terms or would like information about materials from The Faculty of Management, please send an email to Will Long Time Squirrel.