The amendments, which came into force in December 2017, ensure that eligible grandchildren and great-grandchildren of women who lost their status after marrying a non-Indian are eligible for registration under Indian law. It also ensures that illegitimate born female children, as well as their descendants, have been eligible for registration since 1951. For a breakdown of specific changes, see the table below. Many people see Indian status as a tool for assimilation, a mechanism for the Canadian government to eventually “legislate” Indian identity. The Canadian government has historically recognized its unique relationship with First Nations and therefore its commitment to First Nations, which is why the government has created a definition of “Indian” to manage services and resources for the corresponding individuals (i.e. Indigenous peoples). However, when they have used the legislation to determine who is eligible for “Indian status” and the rights attached to it, some have argued that this creates a conflict of interest. For example, some might argue that it is in the government`s interest to reduce the number of eligible Indians, thereby facilitating the associated responsibilities and expenses of the Crown. India`s “legislative” status would ultimately exempt them from these obligations. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” within the meaning of subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and that the federal government has jurisdiction over them (Daniels v.
Canada). So far, there has been little progress on this decision. Historically, the government has also explained how to lose one`s Amerindian status and become a full Canadian citizen. The process of losing India`s citizenship status was called “suffrage.” There are complex rules for Indian status, which are detailed in section 6 of the Indian Act. Indian status did not depend solely on ancestry. As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted, “recognition as an `Indian` under Canadian law often had nothing to do with whether a person was actually of Indian origin.” 4 The Indian Act of 1867 defines “Indians” as follows: Amendment C-31 created new categories of Indian status, making determining a person`s status even more complex. One is no longer listed or not listed – they can also be called “6 (1)” or “6 (2)”. Subsection 6(1) of the Indian Act specifies who is eligible for Indian status. Following the passage of Bill C-31 in 1985, a new subsection was created to apply to persons whose status was restored and their descendants: subsection 6(2). Clause 6(2) states that a person has the right to be registered if a parent (regardless of sex) has been registered as a registered Indian. While the government is not eligible for programs and services for “Status Indians” and Inuit, it works with Métis and non-status organizations, as well as provincial governments, where appropriate, to support Métis and Non-Status Indian initiatives.2 Indian law applies only to Status Indians and has not always recognized Métis and Inuit.
As a result, Métis and Inuit did not have Indian status or the rights conferred by that status, despite being Aboriginal in Canada and participating in Canadian nation-building. (This should not be confused with the recognition of Indians, Métis and Inuit as Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian Constitution and, therefore, with constitutionally protected rights. See section 35 of the Constitution Act for more information on this particular topic.) In addition, 50% of blood is the minimum amount required to obtain Amerindian status, although Bill C-31 seeks to amend discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, which granted generations of women and children the right to marry into another race or culture based on their sex. in exchange for the surrender of the rights and status of indigenous peoples, etc. People here in Canada are really scared and have learned to be ashamed and hide their Aboriginal origins, roots and ancestors. The Metis in my family in the 1800s and early 1900s lied about the census and claimed that their ethnic origin was only “French” and not “mixed Indian” or “Métis” or “other race.” Other Aboriginal family members who were entirely Aboriginal obviously had a much harder time trying, and instead had many surnames that changed every time they moved to a new city or province. The grandmother`s rule was introduced into the Indian Act in 1951 and deprived 21-year-old grandchildren, whose mother and paternal grandmother both obtained status through marriage to an Indian. The rule was repealed in 1985 under Bill C-31.
As noted earlier, a long struggle and determined opposition to this policy by women who had lost their status led to the passage of Bill C-31 to amend the Indian Act. It is now impossible for a status Indian to lose their status, and those who have involuntarily lost their status could be reinstated. However, these amendments have not completely resolved the discriminatory history, as descendants of women who have lost their status continue to face challenges. As a result, amendments to India`s status law continue to be challenged and revised. For more information, see our section on Bill C-31. Section 6 of the Indian Act defines how a person is entitled to be registered under the Indian Act. The federal government has exclusive authority, through the Indian Registrar, to determine who is entitled to be registered. Registered persons with Indian status are entitled to services and benefits provided by federal authorities. Although registration is divided into two main categories, commonly referred to as §§ 6(1) and 6(2), persons registered under Article 6, paragraph 1, or Article 6, paragraph 2, have equal access to services and benefits. Despite common interests, many non-status Indians have difficulty finding forums where these concerns can be addressed, as the Canadian government claims that it is not responsible for non-status Indians. As a result, many Aboriginal organizations represent only Status Indians.
The Indian Act`s treatment of “status” has created misconceptions about authenticity – the misconception that a non-status Indian is less Aboriginal or a non-genuine Indian. These ideas permeated both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups.
