CAP Corbiére Commission Report - Issues Raised
 

Those people CAP did hear from provided a great deal of valuable information and insight. Overall, they made it very clear that the right to vote in band elections and/or on issues that impact on their rights as
status Indians is very important to them. They said that the matters over which band councils have control is so important that it is crucial for them as non-resident band members to be involved in the band electionand decision making processes as equals to resident band members.

As it currently stands in the majority of bands across the country, non-resident band members have no say in the selection of the band council. That band council, however, claims to represent them in land
claims and treaty negotiations, other negotiations regarding land and in political discussion on a range of other issues. Furthermore, participants stated that, as total band membership is used to determine a variety of things, from the per capita dollars received by the band to the size of the band council, it is only right that they have a say in all band affairs. Exercising the right to vote provides non-resident band members with input into major decisions such as expenditures relating to education and healthcare.

A very small percentage of the consultation participants expressed some concern about non-resident band members voting in band elections. These individuals, non-resident band members themselves, felt that the right to vote comes with the responsibility of getting to know your community and the issues of importance to it. They felt that people who have no relationship with the community, other than financial (for example no extended family, they never visit friends or keep up with local news) must think carefully before involving themselves in local politics.

Their concern was that the votes of large numbers of uninformed non-residents voters could have a disastrous impact on the day to day lives of reserve residents. Those who expressed this viewpoint,
however, also said that they welcomed, and had every intention of exercising, their own right to vote in band elections. They felt that they had sufficient ties in their reserve community and enough knowledge of the issues and personalities, to enable them to vote responsibly. They also looked forward to being able to influence community decision-making in a manner that had not previously been available to
them.

Other participants said that they felt that they did not have sufficient ties in their reserve community or enough knowledge of the issues and personalities, to enable them to vote responsibly. They also did not believe that voting would give them any real influence community decision-making. These participants said that they would rather not participate in band elections and would rather exercise their voting rights in a new band established in their place of residence.

Some of the issues that are addressed by a band council may be viewed from a different perspective depending on whether a person lives on or off-reserve. Some matters may be of a purely local nature and may not affect the non-resident members. CAP did not find however, any support among the off -reserve band members for the Supreme Court's suggestion of a two tier voting system in which non-resident band members vote on some but not all of the issues that resident band members vote on. Those who participated in the consultations stated that non-resident band members must be able to vote on any issue whether it be a by-law, an election, a referendum, a land surrender or whatever. They stated that they are not lesser Indians, therefore they must have exactly the same voting rights as band members residing on reserve. When asked what issues it would be important to be able to
vote on, participants stated that they must have a right to vote on all of the band decisions and issues that resident band members vote on. Of particular note is decision-making relating to band assets, such as land or royalties (stumpage fees). Participants said that it must be up to the individual to decide whether or not to participate in their bandís decision-making process on a specific issue.

In addition to being able to vote in elections and referenda, off-reserve band members want to be able to influence the bandís decision-making in other ways. As the Indian Act presently stands, non-resident band members can run for chief but they cannot run for the position of band councillor. Participants said that Indian leadership is not doing anything for the off-reserve people, a situation which must be changed by implementing the right of non-resident band members to not only vote in band elections, but to be candidates for all leadership positions.

Participants in the consultations said that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate in the elections must go hand in hand. These participants interpret the courtís decision to mean the following: the seven words struck down by the court are the basis for determining who may be nominated to run for Council (anyone can be nominated to run for Chief), therefore the denial of eligibility for nominations for councillor, based on residency, is also unconstitutional.

Some participants in the consultations saw the Supreme Courtís decision as an opportunity for Indian communities to take back control over the determination of their membership. They interpreted the Court as having said that an Aboriginal person is an Aboriginal person, no matter where they live. The participants said that relying on the Indian Act definition of ìstatus Indianî to determine an Aboriginal community's membership is a flawed process. They said that their band members are marrying individuals who do not qualify for Indian status under the Act, thus their children also do not qualify. They indicated that if Indian bands continue to use "Indian status" as the means of determining band or
community membership, in 20 to 50 years, there will be no members and their communities will fade away.

The participants stated that Aboriginal communities must determine who their community members are through inclusive policies that welcome all of their members, whether they are Metis, non-status or status Indians and regardless of where they currently live. They further believe that the Court's decision has provided them with an opportunity to be pro-active in welcoming their non-resident members into the community's decision making processes - something they feel is not as difficult or complicated
as it might appear to be.

Consultation participants stated that Indian communities must work together, with respect for one, another to develop an electoral system that works for Indian people. The Supreme Court has presented
Aboriginal people and the Government of Canada, with the opportunity and the responsibility to make something better out of something that is flawed, that stereotypes people and has a legacy of discrimination. The opportunity exists to abolish the Indian Act and to build an arrangement
that is sensitive to the realities that are workable and which enables all band members to participate in the decision making processes of their reserve communities.