Bill S-3 is designed to address the longstanding discrimination against women in the Indian Act. But once again the needed changes are being delayed.
Entitlement to equal status for women in the Indian Act has once again been delayed, after the House of Commons voted in favour of an amended form of the Senate’s Bill S-3 this week.
The legislation is supposed to eliminate the long-standing discrimination against Indigenous women embedded in the Act , and to go beyond what is narrowly required by the Quebec Superior Court’s 2015 ruling in Deschenaux v. Canada . But the provisions designed to do this won’t come into force with the Bill’s passage, and there is no fixed date for their implementation. That means that, for Indigenous women and their descendants, full equality is put off again to some unknown future date.
This is discouraging, given that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told us repeatedly that he is committed to women’s equality, to a new nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples, and to ending the crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women. Canada will fail on all these fronts until it removes the sex discrimination from the Indian Act .
Discrimination against Indigenous women is as old as Canada. It is a marker that defines Canada as a colonial, patriarchal nation-state. Since 1876, the Indian Act has treated Indigenous women and their descendants as nonpersons and, more recently, as second-class “Indians,” which is the term used in the legislation. In early versions of the Indian Act, an Indian was “a male Indian, the wife of a male Indian, or the child of a male Indian.”
For the most part, from 1876 to 1985, Indian women could not transmit their status to their descendants. There was a one-parent rule for transmitting status, and that parent was male. Indian women lost their status when they married a non-Indian, while Indian men who married non-Indians kept their status and endowed status on their non-Indian wives.
In anticipation of the coming-into-force of Canada’s new constitutional equality rights guarantee in 1985, the federal government introduced Bill C-31. It removed some of the sex discrimination, but it did not remove the male-female hierarchy. Instead, Bill C-31 entrenched it by creating category 6(1)(a), for (mostly male) Indians and their descendants who already had full status prior to April 17, 1985, and the lesser category 6(1)(c), for women whose status had been denied or whose status had been removed because of marriage to a non-Indian. The women were considered “re-instatees,” and were assigned a lesser status that restricted their ability to transmit that status to their children.
From this flows all the current discrimination problems. Since 1985 a string of court cases — McIvor , Matson , Gehl , Deschenaux — have tried to undo this entrenched sex discrimination. The Government of Canada has responded to these cases by removing the sliver of discrimination identified by each litigant, while leaving the sex-based hierarchy of 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) status in place. To make the situation more complicated, in 2010 Stephen Harper’s government introduced a new twist by barring the descendants of women born before 1951 from eligibility for status.
The Senate of Canada made a valiant attempt to remove the discrimination entirely in June 2017 by passing “6(1)(a) all the way,” an amendment to Bill S-3. The Senate’s amendment was dubbed “6(1)(a) all the way” because it would have entitled Indian women and their descendants to 6(1)(a) status on the same footing as their male counterparts. Placard from 2010 demonstration protesting continuing sex discrimination in the Indian Act. But the federal government resoundingly rejected it. The government’s compromise with […]
(Visited 11 times, 2 visits today)