The Second-Generation Cut-Off: Effect on Indigenous People in Canada
This report evaluated policy alternatives that would assist in resolving the registration issue of the second-generation cut-off. After two consecutive generations of parenting with an individual who does not hold status, the third generation cannot be registered to obtain Indian status. The eventua...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
School of Public Policy
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1880/114210 https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/39452 |
| Summary: | This report evaluated policy alternatives that would assist in resolving the registration issue of the second-generation cut-off. After two consecutive generations of parenting with an individual who does not hold status, the third generation cannot be registered to obtain Indian status. The eventual result of the second-generation cut-off will be a decline in the population of individuals holding status under the Act, and thus membership in their First Nations community. The Indian Act is the primary law that Canada used to administer Indian status, First Nations governments, management of reserve land and outline obligations to First Nation peoples. The Act contains colonial laws aimed to eliminate First Nations culture by assimilation into Euro-Canadian society. The 1985 Bill C-31 amendment created the second-generation cut-off, and the subsequent 2011 and 2017 Indian Act amendments do not address the second-generation cut-off because it is not a sex-based inequity. The second-generation cut-off is problematic because of the ongoing role the federal government has in registration and the systemic racism it represents, the impact it has on individuals and communities affected, and the eventual impact on the population of Indigenous people who hold Indian status. This paper evaluates policy alternatives by four criteria: 1) Reconciliation, 2) Timelines, 3) Individual Rights, and 4) Population. The alternatives need to further the process of reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous people. Timeliness is important because if an alternative is too lengthy, it could increase the number of descendants affected by the cut-off. Individual and collective rights need to be balanced in an alternative because the cut-off mainly impacts individuals. Lastly, an alternative should increase the population of Indigenous people. The five policy alternatives suggested in this paper are: 1) One-parent Rule for Status, 2) Treaty-Based Status, 3) Re-launch Section 10 Program, 4) Self-Governance Agreements, 5) Dual ... |
|---|