31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al

F44
1 There has been reference to Bill C31, and that, of course, is referred to in the Public
2 Trustee’s submissions; and they have described to you what they say is the history of that
3 litigation. With the greatest of respect, that doesn’t describe the history of the litigation
4 that the Sawridge First Nation was involved in; and it’s not necessary that you hear a lot
5
6
about that, but we will speak to it briefly.
7 The -- if you go to Tab 16 of the Public Trustee’s Volume 2, you will find one of the
8 many decisions of the Federal Court that dealt with a matter in issue that was part of the
9 Sawridge litigation related to Bill C-31; and it was the decision of Mr. Justice Hugessen
10 in relation to the motion for the interlocutory injunction essentially compelling Sawridge
11 to recognize the acquired members as members of the First Nation, but the part of this
12 decision that I’d like to take you to is found on page 12 and paragraph 28 where Justice
13
14
Hugessen refers to the debate in the House of Commons; and he states:
15 The debate in the House of the Commons, prior to the enactment
16 of the amendments, reveals Parliament’s intention to create an
17 automatic entitlement to women who had lost their status because
18
19
20
they married non-Indian men. Minister Crombie stated as follows:
21 Today, I am asking Honourable Members to consider
22 legislation which will eliminate two historic wrongs in
23 Canada’s legislation regarding Indian people. These wrongs
24 are discriminatory treatment based on sex and the control
25
26
by government of membership in Indian communities.
27 The Indian Act, asyou may or may not be aware, continues to be, what I would submit,
28 is a racist and discriminatory piece of legislation today; however, in 1985, the
29 Government of Canada decided that one of the wrongs that it would correct was the
30
31
government control of membership in First Nation communities.
32 Bill C-31 recognized the long-accepted view in other countries like the United States of
33 America that the right to control membership is an aspect of residual sovereignty retained
34 by First Nations. And my friend on behalf of the Public Trustee has made some
35 submissions in relation to the C-31 litigation advanced by Sawridge; and with respect, we
36 submit that she has mischaracterized that litigation. She has described it as the position
37 being advanced by Walter Twinn, the former Chief of Sawridge First Nation, in opposing
38
39
taking back of women.
40 The Bill C-31 litigation on behalf of Sawridge was a claim in which Sawridge challenged
41 the constitutionality of Bill C-31. It was argued that Bill C-31 infringed its Aboriginal