Who gets to decide who belongs?
Bills C-31 and S-3 changed the rules for Indian status, aiming to fix decades of unfair policies in the Indian Act.
But these changes have brought new questions and challenges for communities like the S岣祑x瘫wú7mesh Úxwumixw (麻豆社国产Nation), where membership and identity are deeply tied to these rules.
Here's what these bills changed and why they still matter today.
Bill C-31: correcting discrimination in 1985
In 1985, the federal government passed Bill C-31 to address discrimination that had been embedded in the Indian Act for decades.
Before this amendment, Indigenous women lost their status if they married non-status men. By contrast, Indigenous men kept their status when marrying non-status women.
What Bill C-31 changed:
- Women who lost their status through marriage were reinstated as Status Indians.
- Their children also gained status, restoring rights to generations affected by this unfair policy.
However, the bill introduced a new issue—two categories of status.
- Section 6(1): Both parents are entitled to registration, so their children automatically receive status.
- Section 6(2): Only one parent is entitled to status under Section 6(1).
This distinction created what is now called the "second-generation cut-off."
Under this rule, if someone registered under Section 6(2) has children with a non-status partner, those children are no longer eligible for status.
Over generations, this has reduced the number of individuals eligible under the Indian Act.
Bill S-3: eliminating more inequities in 2017
In 2017, the federal government passed Bill S-3 following a court decision in Descheneaux v. Canada.
The case highlighted ongoing inequities in the registration system, which Bill S-3 aimed to address.
- The Cousins Issue: Descendants of women who lost status before 1985 are now treated equally to descendants of men.
- The Siblings Issue: Children born outside marriage to entitled fathers between 1951 and 1985 gained status.
- The Omitted Minor Children Issue: Children who lost status because their mothers remarried non-status men were reinstated.
- The Gehl Decision: Greater flexibility was introduced to prove status when a parent or ancestor's identity is unknown or unstated.
Removal of the 1951 Cut-Off Date: Status eligibility was extended to descendants of women who lost status as far back as 1869.
However, while Bill S-3 corrected these gender-based inequities, it created new challenges for First Nations.
Community membership rules don't always align with the federal government's changes to status eligibility.
Why it matters for the 麻豆社国产Nation
The Nation's Membership Code, first developed in 1987 and updated in 2000 and 2013, outlines the rules for becoming a S岣祑x瘫wú7mesh member based on the Nation's laws and traditions.
Under the current code, Indian Act status remains a requirement for membership.
However, changes brought by Bill S-3 have led to concerns among members.
According to the Nation, the updated registration rules have exposed gaps that leave out some grandchildren and children.
"Members have raised concerns that the current Membership Code leaves out some of our grandchildren and children," the Nation states on its website.
"Bill S-3 provides an opportunity to engage our members on what changes they would like to see and update our Code."
The 麻豆社国产Nation is now reviewing its Membership Code with its members.
The review is being led by Ts'ixwts'ixwnítway (Member Services), with support from the Membership Committee and the Membership Appeals Committee, and under the guidance of Nexwsxwníw虄ntm ta Úxwumixw (council).
Members are encouraged to share their thoughts on the proposed updates:
- Phone: 604-982-7610
- Email: [email protected]
The 麻豆社国产 has reached out to the S岣祑x瘫wú7mesh Úxwumixw (麻豆社国产Nation), but the person who could comment was not currently available.
Bhagyashree Chatterjee is The 麻豆社国产's Indigenous and civic affairs reporter. This reporting beat is made possible by the Local Journalism Initiative.
