Restoring Status and Band Membership Rights

Summary#

This bill changes the Indian Act to create new and clarified rights to register as a Status Indian and to enter Band Lists kept by the Department of Indigenous Services. It responds to Charter-based challenges, including Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General), by addressing remaining unequal treatment tied to past rules, especially for women who lost status by marrying and for pre-1951 cases (Summary; Clause 4). It also modernizes language about adults who need help managing their estate and allows people to ask to be removed from the Indian Register.

• Expands who can be registered, including people omitted under pre-1951 provisions (ss. 13, 111, 112), and aligns “posthumous” recognition for deceased ancestors (Clause 4; s.6(1)(a.1); s.6(3)(b)).
• Creates a right for certain married women and their direct descendants to be entered in Band Lists maintained by the Department (new s.11(3.2)).
• Lets a person ask in writing to be removed from the Indian Register and Department Band List; preserves descendants’ entitlement (s.5(8); Related Provisions “Entitlements continued”).
• Updates terms from “mentally incompetent Indian” to “dependent person” and keeps Minister powers over dependent persons’ estates (Clauses 1 and 6; s.51).
• Clarifies that, for listed sections, all band members on Department Band Lists are treated as “Indians” under those provisions (s.4.1).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • If you or an ancestor lost or were denied status under older rules, including pre-1951 provisions (ss. 13, 111, 112), you may now be entitled to registration (Clause 4; s.6(1)(a.1)).
  • If an ancestor who qualifies died before April 17, 1985, they are deemed entitled for lineage purposes. This can help their descendants register today (s.6(3)(b)).
  • If you want to leave the Indian Register, you can apply in writing to the Registrar. The Registrar must remove your name from the Register and the Department Band List (s.5(8)).
  • If you or an ancestor is removed under s.5(8), descendants keep their entitlement to register (Related Provisions “Entitlements continued”).

• Women affected by “marrying out” and their descendants

  • If you ceased to be a band member because you married under the old rules (s.14, before April 17, 1985), you are entitled to have your name entered in a Department Band List for that band (s.11(3.2)(a)).
  • Your direct descendants who are entitled to be registered are also entitled to have their names entered in that Department Band List (s.11(3.2)(b)).

• Band members and band governance

  • For bands whose lists are maintained by the Department (not custom-controlled lists), members on that list are treated as “Indians” for specified parts of the Act. This includes areas like land allotments, moneys, certain property and estate rules, and the listed tax provision (s.4.1; e.g., ss. 20, 22–25, 51–52.3, 87(1)(a)).
  • People newly entitled to register also have the right to have their names entered in a Department Band List (Summary; s.11; s.4.1).
  • No liability clauses limit claims against Canada or bands for past good-faith actions related to non-registration or removals (Related Provisions “No liability”).

• Dependent persons and families

  • The Act now uses “dependent person” (someone found unable to manage their estate due to an illness or impairment affecting cognitive capacity) and keeps the Minister’s authority over their estates (Clause 1; s.51).
  • Off-reserve property of a dependent person can be dealt with under provincial law if the Minister orders it (s.51(3)).

• Service users

  • If you become registered due to these changes, you may become eligible for federal or provincial programs that use registration status in their rules. Program eligibility is set by each program, not by this bill. Data unavailable.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill includes no appropriations or direct spending authorizations (Bill text).
• Administrative costs to process new registrations, update Band Lists, and manage communications are likely. Data unavailable.
• Program spending may change if more people qualify for services that use registration status, but no estimates are provided. Data unavailable.
• Impacts on band-level funding depend on program formulas and actual uptake. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Addresses Charter concerns by expanding registration to people excluded by historic rules, including pre-1951 provisions (ss. 13, 111, 112) consolidated under s.6(1)(a.1) (Summary; Clause 4).
• Restores fairness for women who lost membership due to marriage and for their direct descendants by creating a clear Band List entitlement for Department-managed lists (s.11(3.2)).
• Ensures that people newly entitled to register also have the right to be entered in a Department Band List, reducing gaps between status and band membership (Summary; s.11; s.4.1).
• Offers personal choice with a formal process to leave the Register, while protecting descendants’ rights so one person’s decision does not erase family entitlements (s.5(8); Related Provisions “Entitlements continued”).
• Modernizes outdated and stigmatizing terminology and clarifies estate-management powers for dependent persons, aligning with provincial processes for off-reserve property when ordered (Clauses 1 and 6; s.51).
• Reduces litigation and retroactive liability risks through targeted no-liability clauses for good-faith actions (Related Provisions “No liability”).

Opponents' View#

• Fiscal uncertainty: more registrants could increase demand for services and band-administered programs, yet no cost estimate is provided (Expenses: Data unavailable). Assumes significant uptake.
• Administrative strain: processing unknown volumes of new applications may extend wait times and create backlogs at the Registrar and bands (s.6; s.11). Data unavailable on capacity; assumes current systems are constrained.
• Band autonomy and capacity: for bands without control of their membership lists, automatic Department List entitlements may expand membership faster than housing, services, or governance capacity can grow (s.11; s.4.1). Assumes resource limits.
• Limited redress: no-liability clauses may prevent people from seeking compensation for past periods when they were not registered or on a Band List, even if now entitled (Related Provisions “No liability”).
• Centralized control over estates: despite updated language, the Minister retains broad authority over dependent persons’ estates, and cross-jurisdiction rules for off-reserve property could be complex (s.51). Assumes potential for oversight or coordination issues.