Conclusions  

Bill C-31 was born of the necessity to amend those provisions of the Indian Act that offended the equality rights clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This it did, but in a manner that preserves the insidious integrationist bias of the Indian Act, so that, despite all the changes that it introduced, the fundamental goal of assimilating Indian peoples as indistinguishable members of the Canadian body politic remains intact. The Bill has three major failings:     

1. it raised expectations that all Indians would be recognized as Indians and treated equally before the law and by the federal government, yet it merely reproduced in a new form the old disparities in the treatment accorded off-reserve Indians relative to Indians on reserve; 

2. it eliminated the sexual discrimination inherent in the old patrilineal eligibility rules for Indian Status, only to impose new gender-neutral rules that are as detrimental in their own way to the Indian people of Canada as were the old rules that they replace; and 

3. it allows for the reinstatement of C-31 Indians, but then laces their rights in jeopardy by enabling Bands to deny them membership. 

Footnotes:     

[1] INAC, Indian Registration Branch, S-3 Report, November, 1997.     

[2] In the Twinn case three of the wealthiest Alberta Bands (Sawridge, Erminskin and Sarcee) are even challenging the constitutional authority of the federal government to impose new members on Bands that chose to limit membership essentially only current residents of the reserve. Though the case was initially dismissed by the Federal Court  Canada (Trial Division) in 1995, this decision was set aside on appeal and a new trial ordered by the Appellate Division Federal Court of Canada in June, 1997, a ruling which has since been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada when it refused leave to appeal the Appeal Court's decision.     

[3]  The protection given current Status Indians and Indians whom have had their Status restored to them is not as strong as Bill C-31 makes it appear. The Bill enables Bands to assume control of their Band List, and "control" is the operative word. In order to assume control in the first place, a Band must adopt a Membership Code that conforms to the Indian Act, as amended by Bill C-31. However, once control is transferred to the Band, neither the federal government nor the Department of Indian Affairs any longer has any say in how the Code is amended or administered. Thus the protections and guarantees of membership set out in the Bill are relatively weak and may not be enforceable against Bands who have already taken control of their Band List.     

[4]  This point has been made in a multitude of studies. See for instance: Sally M. Weaver, Making Canadian Indian Policy: The Hidden Agenda 1968-1970, University of Toronto Press, 1981; and Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal PeopIes. Volume 1, Canada Communications Group Publishing, 1996.     

[5]  The official policy of the Department of Indian Affairs is that federal responsibilities extend to Indians on reserve and Aboriginal people North of 60. Though there are very few reserves North of 60 - three only in the Northwest Territories for instance - the Department has traditionally distinguished between Indians who reside outside reserves but on Crown Land and off-reserve Indians proper. The bulk of Indians north of 60 live on Crown Land. The Department usually includes Status Indians on Crown Land within the on reserve population for policy purposes and in departmental statistics.     

[6] This occurred primarily in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, both provinces with relatively large Aboriginal populations (in both provinces, almost 10% of all residents are Aboriginal) which have among the lowest rate of out-marriage of Aboriginal people anywhere in Canada (close to 60% of the Aboriginal population is of     
single Aboriginal ancestry, as opposed to multiple Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal ancestry).     

[7]  Figures calculated from INAC, Indian Registration Branch, data for August, 1997.     

[8] Calculated from membership code data supplied by lNAC, Indian Registration Branch, for October, 1997. Note that Table I only lists Bands that have adopted their own Membership codes through Bill C-31 and excludes Bands that have done so through legislation other than the Indian Act (e.g. self-government agreements, such as Sechelt, or comprehensive land claims agreements, such as the Cree and Naskapi in Northern Quebec).     

[9] Though official statistics on the take-up of these programs by C-31 Indians have never been compiled, the consensus among officials who operate these programs is that benefits continue to be directed predominantly at the on reserve population, the traditional clientele for these programs before the advent of Bill C-3 1.     

[10] Funding for Post-Secondary Education Grants to Status Indians was reduced by 50% in 1998-99.     

[11]  Calculated from Basic Departmental Data INAC), 1996, Tables 4 and 5, and Indian Register Population by Age and Sex (INAC), 1984 and 1996.     

[12] Taken from Basic Departmental Data (INAC) 1996 Table 2

[13] In 1987, the average annual growth rate of the off-reserve Status Indian population was 15.39%, compared to only 1.97% for the on reserve population. by 1994, the off-reserve annual growth rate had fallen to 3.42% nearly the same as that of the on reserve Status Indian population which was 3.35% that year. See Basic Departmental Data (INAC) 1996. Table 1.