With 4.9% of Canada’s total population consisting of Aboriginal people, their voices and rights were always ignored throughout history. Canada’s reputation with Aboriginal rights is still developing and becoming better because of the changes to the Indian Act in 1951, the creation of Bill C-31, and the suicide crisis in 2016.
Firstly, the change to the Indian Act in 1951 is one of the main reasons why Canada’s reputation with Aboriginal rights is still developing towards a better reputation than before. Although the Indian Act removed the discriminatory restrictions against Aboriginal people, the restrictions against first nation’s women stayed intact, such as through the double mother clause. The double mother clause is when an Aboriginal …show more content…
This is because in 1985, when Bill C-31 was created, the government created it so that the Aboriginal people, who lost their status, were able to gain it back. Nevertheless, the government still had the power to choose who was eligible to have their status. In section 6 of the Indian Act, it has two categories of Status Indians, 6(1) and 6(2). Both of the categories were considered to have full Status because there was no such thing as half Status. These categories determined if children of Aboriginal people had Status or not. If a 6(2) Indian married someone with no status, their children would also have no status, but if a 6(1) Indian married someone with no status, their children would be considered 6(2) and would have status. Due to this, legally, many Aboriginal children were not considered Status Indians. Also, because of Bill C-31, women were responsible for registering their children for status, and for this, they would need to have to provide evidence of paternity and what type of status the child’s father has. This was a problem because if the father was not willing to say he was the parent of the child, the DIA immediately registers the child as having only one status parent. This made the child considered to be in Section 6(2) in Bill C-31 and could possibly make them unable to pass on status. Therefore, Bill C-31
Firstly, the change to the Indian Act in 1951 is one of the main reasons why Canada’s reputation with Aboriginal rights is still developing towards a better reputation than before. Although the Indian Act removed the discriminatory restrictions against Aboriginal people, the restrictions against first nation’s women stayed intact, such as through the double mother clause. The double mother clause is when an Aboriginal …show more content…
This is because in 1985, when Bill C-31 was created, the government created it so that the Aboriginal people, who lost their status, were able to gain it back. Nevertheless, the government still had the power to choose who was eligible to have their status. In section 6 of the Indian Act, it has two categories of Status Indians, 6(1) and 6(2). Both of the categories were considered to have full Status because there was no such thing as half Status. These categories determined if children of Aboriginal people had Status or not. If a 6(2) Indian married someone with no status, their children would also have no status, but if a 6(1) Indian married someone with no status, their children would be considered 6(2) and would have status. Due to this, legally, many Aboriginal children were not considered Status Indians. Also, because of Bill C-31, women were responsible for registering their children for status, and for this, they would need to have to provide evidence of paternity and what type of status the child’s father has. This was a problem because if the father was not willing to say he was the parent of the child, the DIA immediately registers the child as having only one status parent. This made the child considered to be in Section 6(2) in Bill C-31 and could possibly make them unable to pass on status. Therefore, Bill C-31