Ever since its inception in 1876, the central premise of the Indian Act has been that Indian people - and Aboriginal peoples generally - should and would eventually be integrated/assimilated into mainstream society. [4] It should be remembered that it was for this purpose that the concept of "enfranchisement" was introduced in the first place. Technically, "enfranchisement" involved the revocation of Indian Status for any Indian who fell under one or other of the many enfranchisement provisions of the Old Act. Bill C- 31, as we know, rescinded all these enfranchisement provisions, including the infamous 12(1)(b). But why did the Old Act consider it so important to revoke Indian Status? What was the point? What purpose did this serve?     

Revocation of Indian Status was only a means to an end. And that end was to remove Indians off reserves so as to progressively integrate them into the dominant culture. By denying them Status, the federal government was withdrawing from them the right to live on a reserve and membership in an Aboriginal community. In the process, "enfranchisement' also effectively denied Aboriginal and Treaty rights to numbers of Indian people, placing them in the same position as the Metis in this regard, and made them ineligible to receive benefits from the federal government under the Indian Act.     

But an Indian did not become less of an Indian just because he or she no longer resides on a reserve. The proof of that is the significant number of Status Indians who left reserves voluntarily, either on a temporary or permanent basis, without ever having their "Indian-ness" put into question. The effect of federal Indian policy was simply to treat Indian people differently depending essentially on whether they lived on reserve or off-reserve. [5] So it was that the Old Indian Act gave rise, after over a hundred years of operation, to two classes of Indian: Status Indians, most of whom lived on reserves or in Indian settlements of Northern Canada; and Non-Status Indians, virtually all of whom lived off-reserve, mainly in the urban centres of the Southern Canada. Status Indians had rights and access to benefits; Non-Status Indians and Metis did not.     

This essentially legal and legalistic distinction between Status and Non-Status Indians came, in the minds of many, to represent all at was wrong with the Indian Act. Merely eliminate this distinction, it was said, and all would be made right again: all Indians would be recognized as Indians under the law, and all would have access to the rights and benefits that is their due and their heritage.     

The experience of the past ten years has made it abundantly clear that the hope that equality of off-reserve and on reserve Indians could be achieved simply by eliminating the Status/Non-Status distinction was an illusion. If the Status/Non-Status distinction has ever close to being erased, it is certainly during the period when the "reinstatement" process under Bill C-31 was at its height in the late 1980's and early l990's. Some l00,000 formerly Non-Status Indians acquired Status during this period; and in some regions, particularly in Western Canada, so many were reinstated that Non-Status Indian and even Metis populations were dramatically reduced. [6] For all practical purposes, formal legal distinctions between Indians had reputedly ceased to exist.     

But has this done anything to eliminate disparities in legal status and official treatment of off-reserve Indians relative to Indians on reserve? Have C-31 Indians any more of an opportunity to live on a reserve than they did before? Have they had their Band membership restored? Are they any more able to receive treaty entitlements than before? Do they have the same access to federal benefits as reserve Indians? Have their Aboriginal and Treaty rights been affirmed and recognized in any meaningful way? In short, how has  their status really changed now that they are Status Indians? 

The vast majority of C-31 Indians continue to live off-reserve; only 15% report having a reserve address.[7] Certainly, many do not wish to return to reserves, but those who do must confront the realities of housing shortages and, often too, community resistance to the acceptance of new members. Moreover, Bill C-3 1 has given Bands the authority to revoke the right of many C-31 Indians to reside on reserve. About 40% of Indian Bands have opted to control their own membership lists, including many of the largest Bands in the country, and presumably most new Band membership codes exclude C-31 Indians, as Bill C-3 1 enables them to do.. The proportion of Bands that have done this varies tremendously by region with a low of 7.7% in Quebec and a high of close to 70% in Alberta. [8]     

C-31 Indians have difficulty as well having their treaty rights and entitlements respected. Treaty payments are administered through Bands, and many Bands do not included C-31 Indians on their treaty rolls, nor, for that matter, on the distribution lists of Band trust funds. The Twin Case is an example of the extent to which some Bands will go to deny C-31 Indians - who would otherwise be entitled to Band membership - access to Band revenues.     

In like manner, most C-31 Indians have seen little of the benefits reputably available to Status Indians under the Indian Act and certain federal programs. The most important practical benefit that they have obtained is the Status Indian card can exempt them from having to pay sales tax on retail purchases. However, the fact of the matter is that most Indian Act benefits are available only to persons living on reserve. Since the vast majority live off-reserve, C-31 Indians do not, for the most part, enjoy the income tax exemptions that the Act recognizes to Status Indians on reserve; nor do they qualify for INAC-funded programs and services, most of which are directed exclusively at reserves. And though they qualify for assistance under the federal government's Non-Insured Benefits program and Post-Secondary Education Grants - the two major programs available to Status Indians as of right - take-up off reserve has been slight, in part because few C-31 Indians are aware of these programs. [9] The federal government has moreover been threatening to limit eligibility for Non-Insured Health Benefits to Indians on reserve, and has recently cut-back post-secondary education grants so dramatically that we fear that this program too will eventually be restricted to reserve Indians. [10]     

Bill C-31 has not only failed to eliminated inequalities in the treatment of Indians, depending on whether they live on or off reserve, but it actually serves to make this demarcation more evident and more important than ever before. The old legal distinction between Status and Non-Status Indians has essentially been perpetuated under the guise of protecting reserve communities from the influx of off-reserve Indians. Whereas in the past, it was Status Indians who had rights and access to benefits, and Non-Status Indians who did not, today, it is Status Indians on reserve who have rights and access to benefits, while Status Indians off-reserve for the most part do not. It is not surprising therefore that a growing number of Aboriginal people are becoming disenchanted with Bill C-3 1. The Bill is viewed with suspicion on reserve, while, off-reserve, it is considered feeble and ineffective. Rather than eliminating legalistic distinctions between Aboriginal peoples, it divides the Indian peoples of Canada in new ways. The integrationist policy of the Indian Act regime has not been changed in any fundamental way as a result of Bill C-3 1, it has merely taken a new garb.