Background on Indian registration

This fact sheet was designed in support of the Collaborative Process on Indian Registration, Band Membership and Beginning Nation Citizenship. The fact sail provides information on the current situation or problems to ensure participants in the collaborative procedure can engage in well-informed and meaningful dialogues.

In that location are three other related fact sheets:

  • Removal of the 1951 cutting-off
  • Remaining inequities related to registration and membership under the Indian Act
  • Getting out of the business of Indian registration

For a complete bundle of the fact sheets, please send an email to aadnc.fncitizenship-citoyennetepn.aandc@canada.ca.

On this page

  • Overview
  • History of registration in the Indian Human activity
  • Section half-dozen(1) and 6(ii) registration
  • Bill C-31 and Pecker C-iii amendments
  • Bill S-3 amendments
  • Demographic impacts of past Indian Act amendments

Overview

Long earlier European contact, First Nations had their own systems for determining the "citizens or members" of their nations. While each Indigenous nation established its own societal rules for determining who was part of the First Nation kinship and community ties were common elements.

First Nation systems of governance and cultural norms were undermined and displaced by the many actors of colonialism. The efforts of colonial administrations included the introduction of legislation that adamant who could be considered "Indian" for the purposes of residing on Indian reserves. The definition of Indian Footnote 1 in colonial legislation (1850 to 1867) was broad based, mostly sex activity neutral and focused on family unit, social and tribal or nation ties. While the term Indian was often interpreted broadly, the authorization to decide who was an Indian shifted to government control offset in 1869.

The Gradual Enfranchisement Act in 1869 and the first Indian Act in 1876 introduced a narrower definition of an Indian. These early post-Confederation laws established sexual practice-based criteria, specifically rules of descent through the male lines in the definition of Indian. Women and children were unremarkably included under the man's name and not as separate individuals under the legislation. Farther, the legislation removed Indian status from an Indian adult female who married a non-Indian human and likewise prevented their children and futurity descendants from acquiring Indian condition and the associated benefits. Therefore, start in 1869, the definition of Indian was no longer based on First Nations kinship and community ties only instead, built on the predominance of men over women and children, and aimed to remove families headed by a non-Indian man from Outset Nations communities.

With the introduction of these laws, the concept of enfranchisement was introduced, where an Indian could gain "full citizenship", with the correct to vote and own property, and no longer be considered an Indian under the law. Enfranchisement could happen both voluntarily (by choice and awarding) and involuntarily (for example, by being forced to give up being an Indian due to professional or educational achievement every bit outlined in legislation). When a man enfranchised, his wife and children automatically lost their Indian status every bit well, regardless of whether they wanted to or not. This again led to entire families and their descendants losing status and any associated benefits. Families were torn apart and community ties were broken when they were forced to move away from Offset Nations communities.

Subsequent amendments to the Indian Act between 1876 and 1985 further entrenched sexual practice-based criteria and continued to narrow the definition of an Indian. In 1951, the Indian Act was amended to institute a centralized Indian Register and created the position of an Indian Registrar to determine who was, and who was not, an Indian under the legislation. It solidified sexual practice-based criteria, enfranchisement provisions and defined exclusive control by the federal authorities over Indian registration and subsequently ring membership. The 1951 amendments created the system where registration (or status) was synonymous with band membership.

Legislative amendments addressing sexual practice-based inequities

In 1985, in response to the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as international pressure level exerted by the Lovelace example which was heard by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the federal government acted to eliminate provisions of the Indian Deed that for years had been criticized as discriminatory. Bill C-31 was the first endeavour to address sex activity-based inequities in the Indian Human action. Women who married non-Indians no longer lost their status and Indian women who had previously lost their status through marriage to a not-Indian man became eligible to apply for reinstatement, equally did their children. Non-Indian women could no longer acquire status through wedlock to Indian men and those who had acquired condition through marriage prior to Bill C-31 did not lose their status. The concept of enfranchisement and the ability to take someone removed from the Indian Register, if they were eligible, was eliminated. The Indian Registrar maintained the ability to remove individuals from the Indian Annals who were non eligible to be registered. Individuals who had been previously enfranchised could also apply for reinstatement.

The federal government retained control over Indian registration and categories of registered Indians were established through sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Human activity (Neb C-31) as an attempt to accost the concerns raised by First Nations during parliamentary debates effectually Bill C-31. The concerns of First Nations leaders focused on resources pressures resulting from an expected population increment in First Nations communities, and the fear of ethno-cultural erosion within First Nations due to the large number of individuals with no apparent community or cultural ties that would become entitled to registration. Through the introduction of these registration categories a second-generation cut-off was created when two successive generations of mixed parenting between a person entitled to registration and a person not so entitled (Indian and not-Indian) results in the third generation of children losing entitlement to registration.

Bill C-31 besides created separate regimes for the control of band membership under sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Act. Section 10 granted the opportunity for Offset Nations to have control of their band membership by developing membership rules (membership codes) that had to be approved by the minister as defined by the Indian Act. For Offset Nations that did not choose to seek control of their membership under section 10, their band membership lists remained under the control of the Indian Registrar under department 11 of the Indian Human action. By including section 10 in the Indian Human action to allow Starting time Nations to control their own membership lists, the concepts of Indian status and band membership became distinct for the commencement fourth dimension since 1951. Cocky-government agreements also allowed Outset Nations to control their membership lists commencement in 1995.

Despite attempts to remove all sex-based bigotry from the Indian Act with the 1985 amendments, residuum sex-based inequities were carried forrard. These inequities continued to have adverse effects on First Nations' family unit and community cohesion and, along with the introduction of the registration categories nether sections six(1) and 6(two) and the second-generation cut-off, connected to be sources of grievances and legal challenges against the Authorities of Canada.

The first legal challenge that was heard by the courts following the passage of Nib C-31 was the McIvor 5. Canada example filed in 1987. The McIvor case challenged the registration provisions nether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the charter). The court ruled that sure provisions of the Indian Act violated the charter and ordered Canada to improve its legislation. In 2010, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3) received royal assent and the changes came into effect in Jan 2011. The amendments ensured that eligible grandchildren of women who had lost status due to marrying a non-Indian man became entitled to registration under the Indian Act to align how status was transmitted equally a upshot of rectifying the double mother rule Footnote ii in 1985. Notwithstanding, Bill C-3 did not address a further inequity that directly afflicted the great-grandchildren of such women. Therefore, information technology did not bring entitlement for descendants of female lines in line with the entitlement for descendants of male person lines in similar circumstances. This resulted in further litigation against Canada, including the Descheneaux instance.

The Superior Court of Quebec ruled in the Descheneaux case that provisions relating to Indian registration under the Indian Human activity unjustifiably violated equality provisions under department 15 of the charter because they perpetuated a difference in treatment betwixt Indian women as compared to Indian men and their respective descendants. Canada accepted the decision and launched a ii-office response, including:

  • legislative reform with Bill S-3 to eliminate known sexual activity-based inequities in Indian registration
  • a collaborative procedure on Indian registration, band membership and First Nation citizenship

Legislative response to Descheneaux

An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec determination in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) (Nib S-3) received royal assent on Dec 12, 2017, and some parts took effect on December 22, 2017. It addresses specific inequities identified in Descheneaux every bit well as other sex-based inequities. This included amendments related to unknown or unstated parentage in registration to grant flexibility in the types of bear witness provided by applicants with an unknown or unstated parent, grandparent or other antecedent.

Nib S-three too introduced provisions with a delayed coming into forcefulness for the removal of the 1951 cut-off from the registration provisions in the Indian Act. In one case these delayed provisions are in force, all descendants built-in prior to April 17, 1985 (or of a marriage that occurred prior to that date) of women who were removed from ring lists or not considered Indians because of their marriage to a non-Indian human prior to 1951 volition exist entitled to status, allowing the ability to further transmit entitlement to their descendants. This will remedy inequities back to the 1869 Gradual Enfranchisement Act.

Collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and First Nations citizenship

Canada committed to consult on the broader issues around Indian registration, band membership and First Nations citizenship when it introduced Pecker S-3 amendments to the Indian Act.

These commitments were written into the bill for Canada to consult with Offset Nations, Ethnic groups and impacted individuals on these bug likewise as on implementation of the removal of the 1951 cut-off. The listing of issues for consultation was further enhanced during the co-blueprint of the collaborative process with input from Beginning Nations and Indigenous organizations.

  • Study to Parliament on the design of a collaborative process

The comprehensive consultations nether the collaborative process were launched on June 12, 2018.

  • Collaborative process consultation plan

History of registration in the Indian Act

1850: An Act for the better protection of the lands and property of the Indians in Lower Canada

  • This is the first police Canada enacted to define who is considered an Indian
  • An "Indian" was defined equally:
    • all persons of Indian blood, reputed to vest to the particular trunk or tribe of Indians interested in Lower Canada lands, and their descendants
    • all persons married to such Indians and residing amongst them, and their descendants
    • all persons residing amid such Indians, whose parents on either side were or are Indians of such body or tribe or entitled to exist considered every bit such
    • all persons adopted in infancy past whatever such Indians and residing in the village or upon the lands of such body or tribe of Indians, and their descendants

1869: Legal modifications

  • Indian women who married not-Indians are no longer considered Indians and children of the marriage are also not considered Indians nether the act
  • Indian women who marry an Indian homo become a member of their husband'south band

1876: Indian Deed

  • the outset act to be clearly identified as an Indian Human activity in Upper and Lower Canada
  • "Indian" was divers as:
    • any male person of Indian claret reputed to belong to a item ring
    • whatsoever child of such person
    • any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person
  • involuntary enfranchisement for Indians who obtained a university caste or religious orders is introduced
    • wives and children are automatically enfranchised along with their husband or father
  • bands are eligible for enfranchisement equally a whole
  • voluntary enfranchisement is showtime introduced, allowing an individual to not exist considered an Indian and removed from their ring
  • an Indian who lived outside of Canada for a period in backlog of five years without the permission of the department was enfranchised

1918: An Act to amend the Indian Act

  • unmarried women and widows, along with their minor unmarried children could seek voluntary enfranchisement beginning in 1918

1919 to 1920: An Act to amend the Indian Act

  • the provision to enfranchise Indians who acquired university education or religious orders was repealed in an amendment to the Indian Act in 1919-1920

1951: An Human action respecting Indians

  • the Indian Register was established to record all individuals entitled to registration
  • the Indian Registrar tin can add together or delete (if they are ineligible) names from the register
  • individuals tin protest additions or deletions from the register
  • when a male is added or deleted from the register, his married woman and children are as well added or deleted
  • women who marry a not-Indian man are not eligible for registration, and they were removed from ring lists upon marriage
  • individuals are eligible for voluntary enfranchisement if they run into specific requirements
  • the married woman and children of a homo who is enfranchising must exist clearly named on the order of enfranchisement to be removed from the register or they keep their status
  • the double mother dominion was introduced to remove condition from grandchildren at age 21, whose female parent and paternal grandmother both caused condition through marriage to an Indian

1985: Pecker C-31, An Act to better the Indian Act

  • women do not automatically bring together their husband's ring through marriage
  • all enfranchisement provisions, both voluntary and involuntary, are removed and provisions are created to allow individuals, especially women who had lost status, to be reinstated as status Indians
  • section 10 introduces the ability for Indian bands to make up one's mind their own membership codes and rules
  • children are treated every bit whether they are born in or out of wedlock, and whether they are biological or adopted
  • the definition of "child" included in section two of the Indian Act was modified to recognize a legally adopted child (not only a legally adopted Indian child) and child adopted in accord with Indian custom

2011: Bill C-iii, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Deed

  • came into force in response to the McIvor 5. Canada conclusion
  • addressed inequities relating to the removal of the double female parent dominion under Bill C-31 in 1985 which created an added benefit for the male line of a family
  • grandchildren of women who lost condition due to marrying a non-Indian man prior to 1985 become entitled to registration for the commencement time
  • introduced the "1951 Cutting-Off" under department half dozen(1)(c.ane)(iv)

2017: Bill S-3, Act to amend the Indian Human action in response to the Superior Courtroom of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)

  • came into force in response to the Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) decision
  • provisions related to siblings, cousins, omitted or removed minors, and unknown or unstated parentage came into force on December 22, 2017
  • provisions related to the removal of the 1951 cut-off will come into forcefulness at a later date after the consultation stage of the collaborative process
    • First Nations, Indigenous groups and impacted individuals will be consulted on how to implement the removal of the 1951 cut-off
    • see the Removal of the 1951 cut-off fact canvas

Department vi(one) and 6(ii) registration

What is section six?

Section half dozen of the Indian Human action defines how a person is entitled to be registered nether the Indian Act. The federal government has the sole authorization, through the Indian Registrar, to determine who is entitled to be registered. Persons registered with Indian status are eligible for services and benefits delivered through federal departments. Although registration is divided into two primary categories, which are commonly known equally sections 6(1) and vi(two), individuals registered under sections half dozen(1) or 6(two) have the same access to services and benefits.

What is the difference betwixt half dozen(1) and half-dozen(ii) condition?

A person may be registered under section 6(1) if both of their parents are or were registered or entitled to be registered. There are 14 categories under section six(1) which identify how someone is entitled for registration.

Overview of sections 6(i) and 6(2) of the Indian Human action
Category How private is entitled for registration
6(1)(a) Entitlement of person who was registered or entitled to exist registered on or before April 17, 1985
6(one)(b) Entitlement for individuals who are members of a grouping alleged to be a band after April 17, 1985
six(1)(c) Reinstatement of individuals whose names were omitted or deleted from the Indian Annals, or a band list prior to September 4, 1951 considering of:
  • the "double mother" provision
  • the person was a woman who married a non-Indian
  • the person is a child omitted or removed due to their mother marrying a non-Indian
  • the person was removed past protest due to existence the illegitimate child of a human being who was not an Indian and a adult female who was an Indian
vi(1)(c.01) Amending the status of children whose parent was an enfranchised small kid
6(one)(c.02) Amending the condition of children whose parent was enfranchised because of the "double mother rule" and amending the status of children of an Indian grandmother who parented out of union with a non-Indian
half dozen(1)(c.1) Amending the status of children whose mother lost status due to marrying a not-Indian human being
6(ane)(c.ii) Amending the status for children whose parent is registered under 6(i)(c.1)
6(1)(c.iii) Amending the status of children born female to Indian men out of union
six(1)(c.4) Entitlement for children with a parent entitled under half-dozen(1)(c.2) or (c.3)
half dozen(ane)(c.5) Entitlement for grandchildren whose grandmother is entitled nether six(ane)(c.3) and a parent is entitled under 6(i)(c.4)
6(i)(c.6) Entitlement for a kid whose parent is entitled under 6(ane)(c.02) and grandparent was removed by protestation due to existence the illegitimate child of a man who was not an Indian and a woman who was an Indian
6(1)(d) Reinstatement for an individual who was enfranchised by voluntary application prior to April 17, 1985
6(one)(e) Reinstatement for an individual that was enfranchised prior to September four, 1951 for reasons of living abroad for v or more years without the consent of the Superintendent General or becoming ministers, doctors, lawyers ("professionals": merely until 1920)
6(1)(f) Entitlement for children with both parents entitled to registration
half-dozen(2) Entitlement for children when only ane parent is entitled to registration under 6(one) and the other parent is non entitled to registration

There is no departure in access to services and benefits available to registered Indians whether an individual is registered under 6(1) or 6(2). However, the ability to pass Indian status differs depending on whether a parent is registered under 6(1) or 6(two).

How does entitlement to Indian registration work post-1985?

The post-obit diagrams show unlike parenting scenarios and how those individuals would exist registered:

Effigy 1a: Ii parents registered nether section 6(ane)
Description of Figure 1a: 2 parents registered under section 6(i)

Effigy 1a presents two parents who are registered under department 6(1). The kid of these parents is entitled to annals under section 6(i).

Figure 1b: Ii parents registered under section 6(two)
Description of Figure 1b: Two parents registered under section 6(2)

Effigy 1b presents two parents who are registered under department 6(2). The kid of these parents is entitled to register under section 6(1).

Figure 1c: One parent registered nether section vi(1) and one parent registered nether section 6(2)
Description of Figure 1c: Ane parent registered nether section 6(1) and i parent registered under department 6(two)

Figure 1c presents ane parent who is registered under department six(1) and ane parent who is registered nether section vi(two). The child of these parents is entitled to register under section vi(1).

Effigy 1d: 1 parent registered nether department half dozen(1) and one parent not entitled to be registered)
Description of Figure 1d: One parent registered nether section 6(ane) and one parent not entitled to be registered

Figure 1d presents 1 parent who is registered under section six(1) and i parent who is not entitled to be registered. The child of these parents is entitled to register under section 6(2).

Figure 1e: One parent registered under section vi(2) and one parent not entitled to be registered (2nd-generation cut-off)
Clarification of Figure 1e: One parent registered under department 6(ii) and one parent non entitled to exist registered

Figure 1e presents one parent who is registered under section 6(2) and one parent who is non entitled to be registered. The child of these parents is not entitled to annals. This is known as the second-generation cut-off.

If a person registered under section 6(ane) has a kid with a person not entitled to registration (non-Indian), their child is entitled to registration under 6(2): Figure 1d. If a person registered under department 6(2) has a child with a person not entitled to registration (not-Indian), their child volition not be entitled to registration: Effigy 1e. Entitlement to registration under the Indian Act is lost after two successive generations of parenting with a person not entitled to registration (not-Indian). This is usually known equally the second-generation cut-off and was introduced in the 1985 Pecker C-31 amendments. For more on the 2d-generation cut-off please see:

  • Remaining inequities related to registration and membership

What makes department half dozen an important issue?

The creation of a division of entitlement to registration nether sections 6(ane) and vi(2), as well as the further breakdown of section half-dozen(1) into various sub-categories has resulted in the perception of one category of registration being better than others. For example, many women who were re-instated under section 6(one)(c) following the 1985 amendments were labeled and treated differently (oftentimes negatively) than individuals who were entitled under section 6(1)(a). Although there is no difference in access to government services and benefits available to registered Indians whether an private is registered nether 6(1)(a) or 6(1)(c) or section 6(two), there exists a perception that being registered under six(i)(a) is amend or the most desired category. The simply legal difference, as divers by the Indian Act, based on the category an individual is registered nether is in their power to pass on entitlement to registration to their children depending on who they parent with. If an private registered under section 6(one) parents with a not-Indian, their children will be entitled under department 6(ii). If an individual registered under section vi(2) parents with a non-Indian, their children will not be entitled to registration.

For Commencement Nations that control their own membership under section 10, their membership code defines who is entitled to membership. Some membership codes differentiate eligibility for membership by the category an private is registered under. This subsequently results in registered individuals beingness treated differently past Start Nations in determining who can be band members depending on the category they are registered nether.

This perceived hierarchy or viewpoints that there are "better" categories of registration is often described past some as being discriminatory. This can create lines drawn within families and disconnection of customs and family unit ties if individuals are not registered under the "right" category.

Bill C-31 and Nib C-3 amendments

What is Nib C-31?

In 1985, the Indian Act was amended through Bill C-31 to eliminate discriminatory provisions and ensure compliance with the Canadian Lease of Rights and Freedoms (the charter). As part of these changes:

  • Indian women who married a not-Indian homo no longer lost their Indian status
  • Indian women who had previously lost their status through matrimony to a non-Indian homo became eligible to apply for reinstatement, every bit did their children
  • non-Indian women could no longer acquire status through marriage to an Indian human being
  • non-Indian women who had acquired status through marriage prior to 1985 did non lose their condition
  • the process of enfranchisement was eliminated birthday as was the authority of the Indian Registrar to remove individuals from the Indian Register who were entitled to registration
  • individuals who had been previously voluntarily or involuntarily enfranchised under the Indian Human action could apply for reinstatement

Involuntary enfranchisement:
Enfranchisement occurred without the consent of the private(southward) concerned.

Voluntary enfranchisement:
An individual fabricated an application to show they were "civilized" and able to have intendance of themselves without being dependent upon the government.

The federal government retained command over Indian registration and new categories of registered Indians were established within the Indian Human action through sections 6(one) and half-dozen(2). The second-generation cut-off was introduced where afterward two sequent generations of parenting with a person who is entitled to registration and a person who is non entitled to registration (non-Indian), the third generation is no longer entitled to registration.

The Bill C-31 amendments were an attempt to establish equality between men and women past creating a standard free of sex-based distinctions in the manual of Indian status, taking into account Starting time Nations concerns around fiscal considerations and the protection of the ethno-cultural integrity of Starting time Nations. The principles and rationale for the inclusion of the second-generation cut-off was an attempt to residuum individual and collective rights.

New authorities to determine band membership were also introduced with Pecker C-31 under sections 10 and eleven of the Indian Act: section ten immune bands to determine and command their membership if they run into certain conditions. Under section 11, the Indian Registrar administers the band lists for bands that do not seek control of their membership under section 10.

What were the impacts of Bill C-31?

Registration

The 1985 Bill C-31 amendments did address some sexual practice-based discrimination. However, considering an individual's entitlement to registration is based on the entitlement of their parents and previous ancestors, residual sex-based discrimination stemming from past Indian acts were carried forward.

New issues arose as a directly consequence of the introduction of the categories nether sections vi(1) and 6(2), and the creation of the "2d-generation cut-off". Inadvertently, the creation of the unlike categories of registration resulted in the perception among many Starting time Nations that some categories were "better" or "worse" than others.

Membership

With the introduction of two systems for membership under sections 10 and eleven, the relationship between Indian registration and band membership began to diverge. For section 10 bands, registration and membership were no longer synonymous, whereas for bands nether section 11, they remain connected. Every bit a consequence, there are situations where an private is not entitled to registration pursuant to the Indian Human activity simply, because they originate from a section 10 ring whose membership rules are more expansive, non-registered individuals can be a ring member, and vice-versa.

Funding

Over 174,500 individuals became newly registered to registration under Neb C-31. Federal funding did not go on up with the influx in membership and equally a consequence, funding pressures increased for ring councils to provide programs and services to an increasing number of individuals newly entitled to registration and membership.

What is Pecker C-3?

Challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging continued residual sex-based and other inequities in the Indian Act registration provisions were launched relatively soon after the passage of Beak C-31. The showtime of these challenges, launched in 1987, was the McIvor instance. The plaintiff, Sharon McIvor, had lost entitlement to registration when she married a not-Indian man and was reinstated under section 6(ane)(c) following the 1985 amendments to the Indian Deed. Her son, Jacob Grismer, having only 1 Indian parent, was entitled to registration nether section 6(2) but was unable to transmit that entitlement to his children due to parenting with a not-Indian woman. In contrast, Jacob's cousins in the male line born to a man who married a non-Indian woman earlier 1985 could pass on their status irrespective of the status of the other parent.

The McIvor case was decided past the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) in 2009. In its decision, the BCCA expanded the definition of Indian and eligibility for Indian registration under the Indian Act. The McIvor decision prompted further legislative amendments to the Indian registration provisions of the Indian Act through the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3). Neb C-3 amendments resulted in certain individuals previously entitled to registration under department vi(2) such as Mr. Jacob Grismer, becoming entitled for registration under section 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act as long as they met all the following criteria:

  • take a mother who had lost her entitlement to registration as a consequence of marrying a non-Indian prior to April 17, 1985
  • take a father who is not entitled to be registered, or if no longer living, was not at the time of death entitled to exist to be registered
  • was born after the appointment of their female parent'southward spousal relationship resulting in loss of entitlement for their female parent and prior to April 17, 1985 (unless their parents were married prior to that appointment)
  • have had or adopted a child on or after September 4, 1951 with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the mean solar day on which the kid was born or adopted

Past alteration registration under section 6 (1)(c.i) for these individuals, their children subsequently become entitled to registration under section six(ii) of the Indian Deed if they take:

  • a grandmother who lost her entitlement as a effect of marrying a non-Indian
  • a parent entitled to be registered under department 6(two)
  • a birth date or had a sibling born on or after September 4, 1951

Equally a consequence, more than than 37,000 newly entitled individuals were registered from 2011 to 2017 through the implementation of Nib C-3.

The charts beneath demonstrate the differences in the entitlement of siblings (brother and sister) when the sis regained entitlement to registration following a marriage to a not-Indian man before April 17, 1985 under Neb C-31 and and then the same situation following the changes to nether the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Nib C-3). Both the brother'south and sister'southward children are now entitled under section six(1) and the grandchildren are entitled under section six(ii).

Figure 1a: Bill C-31 amendments (1985)
Description of Figure 1a: Nib C-31 amendments (1985)

Figure 1a describes the situation of a brother and sister registered under section 6(1) where both siblings married not-Indians. Prior to 1985, the sister lost entitlement to status post-obit marriage to a non-Indian. The brother retained his status under section half dozen(1). The child of the brother and the kid of the sis both married non-Indians. The brother'due south kid retains status under section 6(1) and the brother's grandchild retains status nether half-dozen(2). Later on the sister regains her condition under the amendments of Bill C-31, her child gains status under section 6(two) but the sister's grandchild is not entitled to status. The family lines are unequal.

Figure 1b: Bill C-3 amendments (2011)
Clarification of Figure 1b: Bill C-3 amendments (2011)

Figure 1b describes the situation of a brother and sister registered under section 6(1) where both siblings married non-Indians. The sis lost her entitlement to status under previous versions of the Indian Act but regained condition under section 6(ane) through the amendments in Neb C-31. The kid of the brother and the child of the sister both married not-Indians. The brother'southward child retains status under section six(1) and the brother's grandchild retains status under 6(2). After the amendments of Pecker C-3, the sister's child gains condition under department half dozen(1) and the sister's grandchild gains status nether vi(ii). The family lines are equal.

Neb S-three amendments

What is Bill Southward-iii?

In response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in the Descheneaux case, the Regime of Canada introduced Bill Due south-3 to correct sexual practice-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The Superior Courtroom of Quebec ruled that provisions relating to Indian registration nether the Indian Act unjustifiably violated equality provisions under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms considering they perpetuated a deviation in treatment between Indian women as compared to Indian men and their corresponding descendants.

Canada accepted the decision and launched a two-part response, including:

  • legislative reform with Pecker S-three to eliminate known sex-based inequities in Indian registration
  • a collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and First Nations citizenship

Changes from An Human action to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec determination in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) (Neb Due south-3) come into force at two dissimilar times:

  • those in directly response to the situations identified by the Superior Court of Quebec in the Descheneaux case that took effect on December 22, 2017
  • those that volition come into strength at a later engagement later consultation

What are the major changes that came into upshot in December 2017?

The changes that came into forcefulness in December 2017 ensure that eligible grandchildren and not bad-grandchildren of women who lost condition equally a result of marrying a non-Indian man become entitled to registration in accord with the Indian Human action. It as well ensures children born female and out of matrimony would be entitled to registration besides every bit their descendants going dorsum to 1951. See a breakdown of the specific changes in the chart below.

Bill S-3 changes that took consequence on December 22, 2017
Issue Bear upon
Cousins Addresses the differential handling betwixt start cousins of the aforementioned family unit then that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of women who married non-Indian men before April 17, 1985 are now treated the same as descendants of Indian men
Siblings Addresses the differential treatment of male person and female children of Indian men that were built-in out of marriage from September 4, 1951 to Apr xvi, 1985:
  • both the male and female children who were built-in out of wedlock of Indian men will now be entitled to be registered nether section 6(ane)
Omitted minors Adresses situations of Indian children born to an Indian mother and the Indian female parent afterwards married a non-Indian man and both the Indian mother and the Indian children were removed from the Indian Register prior to April 17, 1985:
  • the descendants of men and women are now treated the aforementioned
Corking-grandchildren of a parent affected past the double-mother rule Addresses the differential treatment of great-grandchildren, born prior to April 17, 1985 Footnote three of a parent affected by the double-mother dominion Footnote iv (created by cousins remedy)
Great-grandchildren of a parent affected past the siblings issue Addresses the differential treatment of bully-grandchildren, built-in prior to April 17, 1985, of a parent affected by the siblings event (created by the remedy to address groovy-grandchildren affected by the double-female parent rule Footnote 2)
Great-grandchildren of an Indian woman who parented out of wedlock with a non-Indian man Addresses the differential treatment of dandy-grandchildren, born prior to Apr 17, 1985 Footnote 1 of a groovy-grandmother who parented out of wedlock with a non-Indian and the Indian grandparent lost condition through protest (created by remedy to address the issue of smashing-grandchildren affected past the double-mother dominion Footnote two)
Unknown or unstated parentage Ensures that the Indian Registrar will consider all relevant bear witness, with reasonable inference in favour of an individual in situations where at that place is a parent, grandparent or other antecedent that is unknown or unstated on a birth certificate, when determining entitlement to registration
Consultation The minister must consult on a number of problems through the lens of the charter, the United nations Annunciation on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and, if applicable, of the Canadian Human Rights Act:
  • consultation must begin by June 12, 2018

What are the amendments that will take consequence after consultation?

The amendments that volition come into force at a later engagement, following consultation, chronicle to the removal the 1951 cut-off from the registration provisions in the Indian Act. One time these delayed provisions are in forcefulness, all descendants born prior to Apr 17, 1985 (or of marriage that occurred prior to that date) of women who were removed from ring lists or not considered Indians because of their marriage to a non-Indian man prior to 1951 volition exist entitled to status, allowing the ability to farther transmit entitlement to their children. This volition remedy inequities back to the 1869 Gradual Enfranchisement Act.

The consultation process will address the implementation of removing the 1951 cut-off and the broader issues of Indian registration, band membership and Start Nations citizenship. The consultation process was co-designed with Get-go Nations and Indigenous organizations.

What is the programme for the collaborative procedure?

Consultations under the collaborative procedure will address three streams:

  • the removal of the 1951 cutting-off from the Indian Act
  • remaining registration and membership inequities nether the Indian Deed
  • discussions around how Get-go Nations will exercise their responsibility for the determination of the identity of their members or citizens, and Canada getting out of the "business organization" of determining status under the Indian Act

Comprehensive consultations were launched on June 12, 2018 and will complete with a report to parliament due past June 12, 2019.

Demographic impacts of past Indian Human activity amendments

Demographic overview

As of March 2018, the total registered Indian population was 990,435 (502,953 women and 487,482 men). Of that population, it is estimated that 510,430 reside on reserve and 480,005 live off reserve.

Figure 1: 2018 registered Indian population past province)
Clarification of Effigy 1: 2018 registered Indian population by province

Figure 1 presents a map of Canada. The map is based on an analysis of data from the March 2018 Indian Register. The map is colour coded co-ordinate to the population of the province or territory. The population totals are as follows:

  • Alberta: 128,814
  • British Columbia: 147,124
  • Manitoba: 159,452
  • New Brunswick: xvi,161
  • Newfoundland and Labrador: 30,637
  • Northwest Territories: nineteen,444
  • Nova Scotia: 17,397
  • Ontario: 213,717
  • Prince Edward Isle:1,348
  • Quebec: 89,196
  • Saskatchewan: 157,670
  • Yukon: 9,475

Previous demographic impacts from legislative amendments to the Indian Act

The 1985 Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act resulted in an increment of the population entitled to Indian registration of 174,500 from 1985 to 1999. Most of this growth occurred through reinstatements and new registrations (106,781) as well as children born since Bill C-31 who would have non qualified under previous acts (59,798). The 2011 Bill C-three amendments to the Indian Deed resulted in more than 37,000 newly entitled individuals registered from 2011 to 2017 who would have not qualified under previous acts.

Firsthand impacts of Nib Southward-3: cousins, siblings, and omitted minors remedies

Based on an analysis using information from the Indian Register on July 2016, Bill Due south-3 amendments to the Indian Deed are expected to increase entitlement to Indian registration by 28,970. The majority of this increase comes from the cousins remedy (25,588), followed by the siblings remedy (two,905) and omitted minors (477). Information technology is expected that 4,557 individuals entitled to registration under section 6(2) volition become entitled nether section 6(one).

Immediate impacts of Nib S-3 excluding unstated paternity
On reserve Off reserve Total entitled
689 28,282 28,961
Source: Based on assay of information from the July 2016 Indian Register

This increase in entitlement to Indian registration will also apply to band membership. Of the estimated 28,961 newly entitled, 17,260 would be entitled to membership under section 11 bands and will automatically become a fellow member when registered nether the Indian Act. The remaining 10,533 would exist affiliated with section x bands and could achieve membership by application, if they authorize under the individual band membership codes. The remaining ane,168 would be continued to bands under self-government legislation or appear on the general lists (not affiliated with a band).

Delayed impacts of Pecker S-3: removing the 1951 cutting-off

The amendments that come into strength at a later date will remove the 1951 cut-off from the Indian Act. During the collaborative procedure, Canada will be consulting on the implementation of the removal of the 1951 cutting-off. Upon completion of this process, an implementation program will exist prepared, and the process will brainstorm to bring this subpoena into force.

At that place is meaning uncertainty effectually determining the population impacts for the removal of the 1951 cut-off every bit there is no information gear up that can directly identify the number of individuals that could exist impacted. Since the Indian Register only came into existence in 1951, crude estimates of the bear upon of this amendment tin only be obtained using the number of individuals who self-reported Ethnic ancestry from the 2016 Demography of Canada.

It is estimated that between 750,000 and ane.3 million individuals in Canada could be entitled to registration under Pecker S-3 based on the number of individuals who cocky-reported as having North American Indian ancestry or identity on the 2016 Census. These numbers are non reflective of how many individuals would eventually apply for Indian registration and likely overestimates the number of individuals who would go registered. The Parliamentary Budget Officer'southward report PDF format (369 Kb, 25 pages) on the demographic impacts of delayed amendments to the Indian Act estimated that 270,000 individuals could get registered.

Related links

  • Eliminating known sex-based inequities in Indian registration