By Karyn Pugliese
Jarrod Miller, 26, is the editor and youth co-ordinator of Native Youth Today, a national bimonthly newspaper published in Centretown. His mother is Cree, his father Saulteux. But like many of his generation, Miller is not legally native.
In 1985, Miller’s mother, along with 10,000 other women, won the right to reclaim Indian status under legislation commonly known as Bill C-31. But the legislation kept some women, like Miller’s mother, from passing their status on to their children. Now, the law is being challenged in the courts.
Miller’s non-Indian status prevents him from enjoying treaty rights Ottawa negotiated with natives during the early years of Confederation, such as free health care and dental care.
Miller isn’t recognized as a band member, which means he isn’t eligible for post-secondary education funding, can’t vote for his chief, participate in band decisions or inherit a home on the reserve.
The federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs governs membership on his reserve in Manitoba. Their rules shut out non-status Indians, like Miller.
The identification of who qualifies for native rights dates back to the original Indian Act of 1876. Under the Act, native women who married non-natives lost their status along with their children.
But native men kept their status when they married non-native women. Status was also extended to their non-native wives and their children. Their male children can pass status down the male line indefinitely.
“Historically, native people were considered wards of the state,” says Lynne Boyer with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. “So when a native woman married a non-native man she became that man’s responsibility. But when a non-native woman married a native man, she and her children became wards of the state.”
The bill was designed to restore the women’s lost status. But c-31 women can only pass their status down two generations of marriage to non-natives, says Boyer. Miller’s grandmother and mother married men who were deemed non-status Indians.
But the law may soon change. A native from British Columbia is challenging the law to win legal status for her children. Sharon McIvor claims the law discriminates unfairly against women. She filed her case in 1990. It may be in court this year.
While acknowledging the law as outdated, the federal government has been slow to react.
“It’s archaic,” says Boyer about C-31. “The Department of Indian Affairs has defended its law in the courts because it’s all we have.”
Sources from the Department of Indian Affairs say their minister, Jane Stewart, is willing to discuss the problems with legislation.
“When our minister took over, she became aware of some of the problems of C-31 and she has decided to participate in talks . . . with a variety of native groups,” says Boyer.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada is lobbying Ottawa to revise the legislation. But president Marilyn Buffalo is not yet ready to discuss the details.
Meanwhile a meeting between the minister and native groups is being scheduled.
Miller says the government’s control over his status is offensive. He says he might like to have status and pass it to his future children, but he’d only accept status from a native organization.
“I have too much pride. It’s a big insult,” says Miller. “There’s no way I’ll take it from Indian Affairs — ever.”