Indian Act - Status

Status

See also: Squamish Nation and Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia

Though people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians, C-31 clarified that various sections of the Indian Act would apply to such members. The sections in question are those relating to community life (e.g., land holdings). Sections relating to Indians (Aboriginal peoples) as individuals (in this case, wills and taxation of personal property) were not included. An Indian whose name was in the Indian Register established by the act was said to have Indian status or treaty status. An Indian who was not registered was said to be a non-status Indian. Prior to 1985, Indians could lose status in a variety of ways including the following:

  • marrying a man who was not a status Indian
  • enfranchisement (until 1960, an Indian could vote in federal elections only by renouncing Indian status)
  • having at the age of 21 a mother and paternal grandmother who did not have status before marriage)
  • being born out of wedlock to a mother with status and a father without.

These provisions interfered with the matrilineal cultures of many First Nations, whereby children were born to the mother's clan and people, and gained their status in the tribe from her family. Often property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line.

In Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell (1974), these laws were upheld despite arguments made under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Indian Act was amended in 1985 (Bill C-31) to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children.

Read more about this topic:  Indian Act

Famous quotes containing the word status:

    “A genuine Left doesn’t consider anyone’s suffering irrelevant or titillating; nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the bottom.... Goodbye to all that.”
    —Robin Morgan (b. 1941)

    “What is clear is that Christianity directed increased attention to childhood. For the first time in history it seemed important to decide what the moral status of children was. In the midst of this sometimes excessive concern, a new sympathy for children was promoted. Sometimes this meant criticizing adults. . . . So far as parents were put on the defensive in this way, the beginning of the Christian era marks a revolution in the child’s status.”
    —C. John Sommerville (20th century)

    “At all events, as she, Ulster, cannot have the status quo, nothing remains for her but complete union or the most extreme form of Home Rule; that is, separation from both England and Ireland.”
    —George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)