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:

    “Knowing how beleaguered working mothers truly are—knowing because I am one of them—I am still amazed at how one need only say “I work” to be forgiven all expectation, to be assigned almost a handicapped status that no decent human being would burden further with demands. “I work” has become the universally accepted excuse, invoked as an all-purpose explanation for bowing out, not participating, letting others down, or otherwise behaving inexcusably.”
    —Melinda M. Marshall (20th century)

    “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)

    “The influx of women into paid work and her increased power raise a woman’s aspirations and hopes for equal treatment at home. Her lower wage and status at work and the threat of divorce reduce what she presses for and actually expects.”
    —Arlie Hochschild (20th century)