top of page
Writer's picturereconciliactionyeg

Identity and Status

tansi ninôtemik,


For the purpose of this blog post, we use the term “Indian” when discussing the Indian Act and registration under the Indian Act, including terms such as “status Indian” and “non-status Indian”.[1] These terminologies were created by the federal government and are still used when discussing Indigenous people under the Indian Act.


If you haven’t already, we highly recommend reading the previous blog post on Bill C-31 and sections 6(1) and 6(2).[2] The previous blog post gave foundational knowledge that can help you better understand the issues discussed in this post. 


Although Bill C-31 focused on amending the discriminatory issues in the Indian Act, it also resulted in new consequences. As we begin to dive further into these issues in future blog posts, we wanted to discuss the second-generation cut-off rule and the issues with identity. 


What is the Second-Generation Cut Off?


The second-generation cut-off refers to the provision in the Indian Act that “after two consecutive generations of parents who do not have Indian status (non-Indians), the third generation is no longer entitled to registration”. [3] The diagram below details how the second-generation cut off happens:[4]



In a previous blog post we discussed the second-generation cut-off and the United Nation’s recommendations to Canada regarding this issue.[5] To better understand the identity impacts of the second-generation cut-off rule, we wanted to highlight someone who took part in the session of the United Nations that helped reach the conclusions discussed in the previous blog post; Chief K̓áwáziɫ Marilyn Slett.[6] Chief Slett is the elected chief of the Haíłzaqv (Heiltsuk) Nation and she shared how the second-generation cut-off impacts her family. Due to the cut-off rule, her “grandchildren are impacted”.[7] This impact to her grandchildren causes them to “not [be] recognized as Haíłzaqv members by Canada and aren’t eligible for status”. [8] Canada’s Indian Act continues to control status rights and deprive them from people with meaningful connections to their communities. 


“We know that my children and grandchildren are Haíłzaqv, they have

a long and clear lineage, recognized in our community by our laws, but

discriminated against by Canada.” [9]

Chief K̓áwáziɫ Marilyn Slett


Many Indigenous people’s “identity as an individual is connected to the community, to which that individual belongs”. [10] It becomes problematic when the government is attempting to sever that connection. The Assembly of First Nations points out how most human rights portray an individualistic concept of rights and right-holders.[11] However, Indigenous people are more concerned for the protection of their collective rights as a group instead of the individualistic rights.[12] This is due to the strong connection of identity and community for Indigenous people.[13] It is extremely evident that the second-generation cut-off rule poses a huge risk to the identity and collective rights of Indigenous people. 


When thinking about the assimilation that the second-generation cut-off rule encourages, it is easy to think back to Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak’s comments in an open letter in 2017:


“Trade your status card for a Canadian citizenship, with a fair and negotiated payout to each Indigenous man, woman and child in Canada, to settle all the outstanding land claims and treaties, and move forward together just like the leaders already do in Ottawa.” [14]


The mentality of assimilation Beyak described in 2017 remains the same mentality seen in the second-generation cut-off rule. Indigenous identity and sense of belonging to Turtle Island predates Canada and should not be determined by a colonial government. 


How do you view your identity? Do you have ties to a community? Do you relate your sense of self to a group or team? Could you imagine being told by the government that these ties are non-existent when they have been in your family since before Canada? 


ekosi.


The ReconciliACTION Team



Citations

[1] Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5 [Indian Act]. 

[2] ReconciliACTION YEG, “Understanding Bill C-31 and Sections 6(1) and 6(2)” (15 November 2024) online (blog): <reconciliactionyeg.ca/post/understanding-bill-c-31-and-sections-6-1-and-6-2>.

[3] Assembly of First Nations, “Second-Generation Cut-Off Rule” (last visited 21 November 2024), online (pdf): <afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/06-19-02-06-AFN-Fact-Sheet-Second-Generation-cut-off-final-revised.pdf> [AFN]. 

[4] Ibid.

[5] ReconciliACTION YEG, “The United Nations Recommendations to Canada: The Indian Act” (11 November 2024), online (blog): <reconciliactionyeg.ca/post/the-united-nations-recommendations-to-canada-the-indian-act>. 

[6] Emilee Gilpin, “From Her Coastal Village to Geneva – Addressing Sex Discrimination in the Indian Act” (6 November 2024), online (article): <coastalfirstnations.ca/from-her-coastal-village-to-geneva-addressing-sex-discrimination-in-the-indian-act/>.   

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] AFN, supra note 3.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] John Paul Tasker, “Senator Lynn Beyak says First Nations should give up status cards” CBC News (13 September 2017), online: <cbc.ca/news/politics/beyak-indian-status-canadian-citizens-1.4284671>. 

[Image] AFN, supra note 3. 


37 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Opmerkingen


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page