Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000Chapter 1 : Demographics |
 |
Focus:Bill C-31
1985 amendments to the Indian Act, commonly referred to as Bill C-31, have had a significant effect on Aboriginal demographics over the past 15 years. Intended primarily to eliminate gender discrimination in the Act, Bill C-31 contained three sets of provisions with the potential to affect First Nations and other Aboriginal populations.
Reinstatement of Indian Status
The provisions that have attracted the most attention are those enabling the reinstatement of registered Indian Status to individuals who lost or were not allowed Status through previous versions of the Act, usually women marrying non-Indians and children of these unions. The bulk of C-31 reinstatements occurred during 1986-1991, but there is no sunset on these amendments and small numbers of “C-31’s ” continue to be registered each year.
Across Canada, Bill C-31 has had its greatest effect on the Status population in Ontario, and relatively less effect in Manitoba and the other Prairie provinces. Still, in Manitoba there have been a total of 15,517 C-31 reinstatements, two thirds of which were processed in 1991 or earlier. Only 1,005 have been added between 1997-99. Of all the provinces, Manitoba has the highest proportion of C-31 ’s residing on reserve — 26% compared to the national average of 16% (and only 8% in Ontario). The vast majority of this group (over 90%) resided on reserve at the time of their registration. Therefore, the effect of Bill C-31 upon actual reserve populations has been minimal.
On the other hand, Bill C-31 reinstatement has had a major effect on the off-reserve Status Indian population. While C-31’s in 1996 constituted 6% of Status Indians on reserve, off reserve they constituted fully one third. As virtually all C-31’s are also members of individual First Nations, this has also meant that the off reserve component of many Bands’ membership lists has increased significantly, even in the absence of any actual net migration to or from the reserve.
Status Inheritance Rules
The second set of provisions in Bill C-31 impacting Aboriginal demographics were new rules governing entitlement to Indian registration among children born to a registered Indian parent after April 17, 1985. These are called “status inheritance rules.” Under the new rules, “registered Indian status is now determined at birth and cannot be lost or restored.” A child is entitled to registration under sub-section 6(1) if both parents are or are entitled to be registered Indians, and under sub-section 6(2) if only one parent is entitled to be a registered Indian under 6(1). However, if one parent is non-Indian and the other is registered under 6(2), their child is not eligible for Indian Status.
Therefore, after two successive generations of out-marriage, children are not entitled to Indian registration. The effect of this provision to date has been small, but in the long term there will be a growing segment of the population having at least one registered Indian parent which is not eligible to be registered. The size of this group will depend upon rates of out-marriage, and will impact individual First Nations differently depending on their location and on/off reserve demographics.
In 1995, the estimated rate of out-marriage among on-reserve Status Indians in Manitoba was 26%, out-marriage being defined as “the probability of a child being born to an Indian/non-Indian parent combination.” This rate has been relatively constant over the 1975-95 period. Assuming these children are correctly documented according to the logic of Bill C-31, this will mean about 75% of children of reserve Status Indians will be registered 6(1), over 20% under 6(2), with a small minority not eligible for registration.
Off-reserve,the rate of out-marriage is much higher, estimated at 62.5% in Manitoba. As the generation born off-reserve after 1985 reaches its reproductive years, a diminishing minority of their children will be 6(1) eligible, and a significant and ever-increasing segment of the children will be non-registered. In this sense, the increase in the Status Indian population produced by Bill C-31 reinstatement is, taking the longer view, temporary. Already, between 17 April 1985 and 31 December 1995, an estimated 13,336 children nationally were born to registered Indian parents but were ineligible for registration. Of these,over 90% were born to registered Indians living off-reserve.
Band Membership Rules
The third set of Bill C-31 provisions affecting demographics are those providing individual First Nations the opportunity to establish their own band membership rules. By 1992, almost 40% of First Nations across Canada had established membership rules substantively different from Indian Act status inheritance rules. Of these, 15% had adopted some form of unlimited one-parent inheritance, which means band membership can rise rapidly and include persons not eligible for registration. 5% had adopted some form of a blood quantum rule, where a person’s eligibility for membership is determined by their “amount of Indian blood,” usually set at 50%. Finally, 11% of First Nations had established restrictive two-parent inheritance rules, whereby a child is not eligible for membership unless both their parents are members of that band. Blood quantum rules and, to an even greater extent, two-parent rules may mean that as time goes on there will be a growing subclass of registered Indians, on and off-reserve, who are not eligible for membership in any specific First Nation.
Saskatchewan First Nations have been by far the most likely to adopt two parent rules at 24 bands or 35%, followed by the Atlantic region (19%) and British Columbia (12%). Blood quantum rules are more popular in Alberta (14%), Northern Canada (12%) and Ontario (11%). Manitoba First Nations, by contrast, are second only to Quebec bands in their likelihood to go with the Indian Act rules, thereby minimizing the disjuncture between Status and band membership. Of 60 Manitoba bands for whom information was available in 1992, 50 used Indian Act rules, two blood quantum, and eight unlimited one-parent rules.
Discussion based on Four Directions Consulting Group, “Implications of First Nations
Demography,” Winnipeg, Manitoba,1997, pages 14-34.
