exercise the rights of minorities. They conclude that Bill C-31 violates article 27 by imposing restrictions on who can reside in, or share in the economic and political life of the community. “freedom of association with others” (article 22, paragraph 1)has been interfered with, in that they cannot themselves determine membership in their small farming community. They can be forced to share their limited land and resources with persons who acquire Indian status and membership, while their own direct descendants may lose the right to be part of the community. 3.8 The Shuswap consider themselves a distinct people and thus entitled to determine the form and membership of their own economic, social and political institutions, in accordance with article I, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Control of membership being one of the inherent and fundamental rights of indigenous communities, the authors invoke article 24 of the draft Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights. 3.4 It is submitted that the implementation of Bill C-31 constitutes “arbitrary and unlawful interference” with the authors’ families (article 17, paragraph 1), on account of the fact that the Government, and not the Band, determines who may live on the reserve. Moreover, this interference is said to be arbitrary in that it distinguishes among family members on the basis of whether they were born before or after 17 April 1985, and in that it distinguishes among family members on the basis of whether one or both of their parents were Indians, a purely racial criterion contrary to articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant. 3.9 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors state that they endeavoured to counter the detrimental effects of Bill C-31 by attempting to assume control of Band membership. On 23 June 1987 they adopted rules which were duly transmitted to the Ministry of Indian Affairs. On 25 January 1988, the Minister replied that the proposed rules were inconsistent with Bill C-31, in that they excluded certain classes of persons eligible for reinstatement. In this connection the authors invoke Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was intended to secure “aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada” against future legislative erosion. The authors admit that, in theory, the Supreme Court of Canada could determine that Bill C-31 is of no effect if it is found to conflict with the authors’ “aboriginal rights”. But they claim that it would take several years of litigation to settle the issue at a financial cost considerably beyond the means of three farm families. According to the authors, an attempt to solve the matter by appeals to the Canadian courts would entail “unreasonably prolonged” proceedings in the sense of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. Moreover, once the legal issue is determined by the Supreme Court, it would be too late to reverse the effects on the community of losing some of its members and accommodating others under Bill C-31. Therefore, the authors seek immediate measures to preserve the status quo pendente lite and request the Committee, pursuant to rule 86 of the rules of procedure, to urge the State party to refrain from making any additions to or deletions from the Band List of the Whispering Pines Indian Band, except as may be necessary to ensure that every direct descendant of the authors is included for the time being as a member of the Band. 3.5 The implementation of Bill C-31 allegedly conflicts with article 23 of the Covenant, in that it restricts the freedom of Band members to choose their own spouses, particularly considering that marriage to nonIndians would result in disenfranchising the children. 3.6 Further, the authors claim a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, which prohibits “any discrimination” on the ground of race, in that it makes racial quantum, rather than cultural factors and , individual allegiance, the basis for allocating indigenous rights and indigenous peoples’ lands. Traditional Shuswap law regarded as Shuswap anyone who was born in the territory or raised as a Shuswap. Bill C-31 requires that, in the future, both parents be “Indian” as defined under Canadian law. Children born to a Shuswap mother or father and raised on Shuswap territory in the Shuswap culture would still be denied Indian status and Band membership. 3.7 Concerning article 27. of the Covenant, the authors point out that they regard themselves as an indigenous people rather than an “ethnic (or) linguistic minority”, but that since the indigenous and minority categories overlap, indigenous peoples should also be entitled to 18