top of page
Writer's picturereconciliactionyeg

The United Nations Recommendations to Canada: The Indian Act

tansi ninôtemik,


For the purpose of this blog, we use the term “Indian” when discussing the Indian Act and citizenship under the Indian Act such as “status Indian” and “non-status Indian”. These terminologies were created by the federal government and contributed to the loss of identity among Indigenous people.[1]


The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) includes 23 independent experts on women’s rights worldwide.[2] Their role is to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘the Convention’).[3] CEDAW is considered the most important human rights treaty for women.[4] Countries that have become parties to it must submit regular reports on how the rights of the Convention are being implemented. The Committee then reviews these reports and gives recommendations. 


On October 29, 2024, the Committee issued recommendations for eight countries, including Canada.[5] Among the recommendations, they called for Canada to remove the discrimination against women and their descendants within the Indian Act.[6] This includes the need for Canada to eliminate the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act. The Committee called on Canada to “ensure that women and men have equal rights to pass on their Indian status to their children”.[7] With these recommendations, they called for Canada to “grant status to Indigenous women and their descendants who were previously denied that status, and to remove any legal barriers that limit access to full reparations for human rights violations against Indigenous women and their descendants, including those tied to the Indian Act”.[8]


The second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act refers to the provision that after two generations of “out-parenting”, Indian status will not be transmitted to the child.[9] This second-generation cut-off raises many issues. While some of these issues involve identity and community belonging, others may disproportionately affect Indigenous women. In some cases, women can face negative consequences or barriers in the identification of the father of their child.[10] This could put the mother “at risk of violence or social ostracization (such as in cases of rape or infidelity)”.[11] The possible and real consequences of the second-generation cut-off penalize women and their right to pass status to their children. 



Although the government has made amendments in the past to who can receive status, the second-generation cut-off still can be used as an assimilation tactic to determine who an Indigenous person is. It is a hard topic with many polarizing views on who should be considered ‘status Indian’. However, one common theme that most Indigenous people can agree on is that the government should not be in charge of this determination. 


What do you think are some possible solutions to amending this second-generation cut-off? How do you feel about the government determining who is an ‘Indian’? 


For more conversation on Indigenous identity consider reading past blogs from ReconciliAction YEG such as: Indigenous Identity & Self-Identification and Status Card: A Double-Edged Sword.[12]


ekosi.


The ReconciliACTION Team



Citations

[1] “Identity and Terminology” (last visited 6 November 2024), online: College of Alberta School Superintendents <https://cass.ab.ca/indigenous-education/identity/>.

[2] United Nations, “Introduction to the Committee” (last visited 6 November 2024), online: <ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cedaw/introduction-committee>. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] United Nations, Press Release, “UN women’s rights committee publishes findings on Benin, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Japan, Lao, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia” (29 October 2024) online: <ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/un-womens-rights-committee-publishes-findings-benin-canada-chile-cuba-japan>. 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada”, UNHRC, 2024, UN Doc CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10 online (pdf): <tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F10&Lang=en>.

[10] The Native Women’s Association of Canada, “Ongoing Indian Act Inequity Issues: Second Generation Cut-Off Rule” (last visited 6 November 2024), online (pdf): <nwac.ca/assets-knowledge-centre/Appendix-C-Second-Generation-Cut-off.pdf>. 

[11] Ibid.

[12] ReconciliACTION YEG, “Indigenous Identity & Self-Identification” (16 November 2022) online: <reconciliactionyeg.ca/post/indigenous-identity-self-identification>; ReconciliACTION YEG, “Status Card: A Double-Edged Sword” (15 November 2022) online: <reconciliactionyeg.ca/post/status-card-a-double-edged-sword>. 

[Image] Government of Canada, “Remaining inequities related to registration and membership” (last visited 6 November 2024), online: <rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1540403281222/1568898803889>. 


16 views0 comments

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page