tansi ninôtemik,
Yesterday the Faculty of Law had a visiting speaker from Vancouver, Ryan Beaton, who presented on The Legacy of “Enfranchisement” Under the Indian Act.[1] Beaton is a lawyer at Juristes Power Law, and a member of the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario.[2] In his presentation, he discussed the process of enfranchisement under the Indian Act, the amendments that have happened already, and the section 15 arguments advanced in Nicholas v Canada (AGC).[3] Beaton is the lead representation for the plaintiffs of Nicholas v Canada (AGC).[4]
Beaton did an amazing job at breaking down the process of enfranchisement and used diagrams to explain how this process still unfairly impacts some Indigenous people today; even with the current amendments. We discussed these issues in previous blogs that we recommend checking out to better understand the identity issues that many Indigenous people face.[5]
In Nicholas v Canada (AGC), there are 16 plaintiffs from three families.[6] They are all descendants of “enfranchised” Indigenous people who applied under the earlier iterations of the Indian Act.[7] Nadia Salmaniw is one of the 16 plaintiffs who does not have Indian status under the Indian Act.[8] However, Salmaniw has Haida citizenship under the laws of the Haida Nation and is a citizen of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska.[9] Even though she has a community that accepts her under their own laws, the Indian Act does not see her as a status Indian due to her great-grandfather, Wilfred Laurier Bennett, enfranchising in 1944.[10] Bennett chose to enfranchise so his children would not have to go to residential schools, a choice that may have saved his children's lives.[11] However, the government refuses to recognize his family's legacy due to the enfranchisement.[12] As we have discussed in previous blogs, Indian status is a complicated colonial document that many people correlate to their own feelings of Indigeneity.[13] Salmaniw likens her Indian Status being rejected to the feeling of receiving “a rejection letter saying that you're not Indigenous when you know that's part of who you are [and it] is deeply, deeply impactful.”[14]
Finding a resolution to Nicholas v Canada (AGC) is still ongoing.[15] Bill C-38 was introduced to parliament in December 2018 and would have made it so that nobody should be denied status today due to enfranchisement.[16] Thus, Bill C-38 would have affirmed the key legal changes sought out by the Nicholas plaintiffs. However, it only passed the first reading and stalled at the second reading.[17] The case was reactivated in the Summer of 2024 and they filed an amended notice of Civil Claim in October of 2024.[18] This amended notice added “race and ethnic origin” as a claimed basis of discrimination, contrary to section 15.[19] The defendant, Attorney General of Canada, conceded the violation and found it unjustifiable under section 1 in January 2025.[20] However, as Beaton explained in his presentation, the remaining disagreement lies in what is an appropriate remedy to this harm.[21]
Many of the questions and disagreements around this issue stem from the worry of Indigenous extinction due to the limitations of the Indian Act and people “parenting out”. However, another issue that many Indigenous people have is the influx of Indian status, of people not connected to any community and registering purely for the benefits, that would result from broadening the criteria.
What do you think could be potential remedies for the Nicholas plaintiffs?
ekosi,
The ReconciliACTION Team
Citations
[1] Ryan Beaton, “The Legacy of “Enfranchisement” Under the Indian Act: Loss of “Status” and Current Constitutional Challenges” (Lecture delivered at the University of Alberta, hosted by The Centre for Constitutional Studies, 27 March 2025) [unpublished] [Enfranchisement Presentation].
[2] Juristes Power Law, “Ryan Beaton” (last visited 28 March 2025), online (firm profile): <powerlaw.ca> [perma.cc/T954-88UD] [Firm Profile].
[3] Enfranchisement Presentation, supra note 1.
[4] Ryan Beaton, Power Law, Summary of Charter Challenge to Indian Act Registration Provisions and Remedy Sought (brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, 2 May 2022), online: <sencanada.ca> [perma.cc/W2U8-7LMQ] [Beaton].
[5] ReconciliACTION YEG, “Understanding Bill C-31 and Sections 6(1) and 6(2)” (15 November 2024) online (blog): <reconciliationyeg.ca> [perma.cc/MXE6-PUMJ].
[6] Beaton, supra note 4.
[7] Enfranchisement Presentation, supra note 3.
[8] Olivia Stefanovich, “‘Old wounds’: Descendants of families who lost Indian status launch Charter challenge” (5 July 2021) online: <cbc.ca> [perma.cc/PU6X-NH4D] [Old Wounds].
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] ReconciliACTION YEG, “Status Card – Double Edged Sword” (15 November 2022) online (blog): <reconciliactionyeg.ca> [perma.cc/R3LU-8PT6].
[14] Old Wounds, supra note 12.
[15] Enfranchisement Presentation, supra note 7.
[16] Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2023, House of Commons, (first reading 14 December 2022).
[17] Enfranchisement Presentation, supra note 15.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[IMAGE] Firm Profile, supra note 2.
Kommentare