|
Bill C-31, referred to as "The Act to Amend the Indian Act",
was introduced to Parliament in April of 1985 and received Royal
Assent on June 28 of that same year. It was created with the
intent to alleviate some of the difficulties resulting from the
laws outlined in the Indian Act and to bring the Indian Act up
to speed with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill
C-31 was focused on two major areas: the removal of
discrimination against certain Aboriginal peoples --- especially
women and children --- as well as those who had been
enfranchised, and the increased control of bands over their own
affairs.
At the root of Bill C-31 is the Indian Act, a federal statute
dating back to 1867. This legislation, which was last altered in
1951, outlines the federal government’s position on all issues
relating to Aboriginal peoples, including those of status,
governance, and the use of land. The Indian act was initially
meant to assist the federal government with the assimilation of
Aboriginal Peoples into the dominant culture. Over the years,
the Act has undergone more than twenty alterations, most of
which saw assimilation as their final goal. For example, laws
were passed to force Aboriginal children to receive a European
education or to ban traditional Aboriginal ceremonies.
Before the inception of Bill C-31, the Indian Act made
discrimination against certain Aboriginal Peoples legal.
Moreover, this discrimination was widespread and had been
occurring for more than a century. It was rooted in the issue of
status, and propelled forward by the ever-present goal of
assimilation. The prime victims were Aboriginal women. The
standing law stated that status Aboriginal women would lose
their status and any rights that went with it, including band
membership, if they married a non-status individual. Children,
too, were affected. A child who had one half-Aboriginal parent
and one non-Aboriginal parent was, in the eyes of the
government, non-Aboriginal. This type of classification
threatened to remove peoples of Aboriginal descent from their
heritage and caused disjunction in the passing of age-old
Aboriginal traditions.
Status restrictions of this kind also applied to enfranchised
individuals. Enfranchising involved the relinquishing of one’s
Aboriginal status in exchange for permission to take part in
activities that were granted to non-Aboriginal citizens freely.
For example, Aboriginal Peoples could enfranchise if they wished
to drink alcohol openly in public before 1951 or vote in federal
elections before 1960. In effect, enfranchisement was simply
another way for the government to assimilate Aboriginal Peoples
into mainstream society. At certain times in Canadian history,
it was even mandatory. Bill C-31 made it possible for these
peoples to restore their Aboriginal status and band membership
years after having lost them due to the strict rules of the
Indian Act.
Changes made to the Indian Act under Bill C-31 also
recognized the right of Aboriginal bands to control their own
memberships and affairs. However, certain regulations still
applied. Though each band now had the opportunity to create
their own constitutions and membership codes, all decisions had
to be approved by Indian Affairs. This fact angered Peoples
across bands who claimed that the organizational band formats
they had been using for years were fit for their needs.
Furthermore, many were offended by the implication that the
government thought it could "grant" them this right instead of
recognizing that it already existed throughout many bands.
Today, twenty years after the passing of Bill C-31, much has
been done to alleviate the discrimination suffered by thousands
under the Indian Act. Yet, despite these advancements towards an
equal and just society, many remain dissatisfied. The
overwhelming response to the offer for re-instatement of status,
which saw hundreds of thousands of people apply, shows that
Aboriginal Peoples of Canada are not willing to easily part with
their culture or identities. Yet, in 2005, over 10,000 people
are still waiting in line to have their Aboriginal status
restored as was promised to them twenty years earlier. Many
loopholes still exist under the act that make the loss of
Aboriginal culture very possible. The definition of Aboriginal
status has been changed, but is still strict enough to pose a
threat to certain peoples who, despite having Aboriginal blood
in them, do not qualify for status. For example, children with
unidentified paternity are considered non-Aboriginal by default.
Much of the discrimination suffered by Aboriginal peoples
today is still directly tied to the laws outlined in the Indian
Act, which has remained largely unchanged since 1951. Acts such
as Bill C-31 were meant to help bring this "legal"
discrimination to a halt; however, much still has to be done to
ensure the preservation and continuation of some of Canada’s
oldest traditions.
Sources:
http://www.canadiana.org
http://www.socialpolicy.ca
|
Heritage Community Foundation Presents
)
