WHAT IS BILL C-31
AND BILL C-3?
LEGAL AFFAIRS
AND JUSTICE
WHAT IS BILL C-31
AND BILL C-3?
WHAT IS BILL C-31
AND BILL C-3?
What is Bill C-31 and Bill C-3?
Bill C-31
• In 1985, Bill C-31 was used to amend the Indian Act to conform
with the equality rights guaranteed by s.15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). When introduced,
the amendments were thought to be neutral with respect to
a person’s gender or marital status.
• The amendments allowed women who previously lost their Indian
Status to regain their status, as well as their children’s status.
• In addition, after Bill C-31 was adopted, a person’s marriage
could no longer affect his or her receiving or losing Indian status.
Bill C-31 brought about several changes, such as:
• Indian women, who married a non-Indian man, no longer lost
their Indian status;
• Indian women, who lost their Indian status before because of
their marriage to non-Indian men, were allowed to apply to
have their Indian status returned to them. Their children were
also given the same right;
• non-Indian women could no longer get Indian status by mar-
rying Indian men;
• non-Indian women, who got their Indian status through mar-
riage before 1985, did not lose their status;
• the process of enfranchisement was completely removed. In ad-
dition, the Indian Registrar could no longer remove those people
from the Indian Register who had the right to registration; and
• individuals, who were voluntarily or involuntarily enfran-
chised under the Indian Act before, were allowed to apply
for the return of their Indian status.
The federal government continued to have control over Indian
registration. Also, new categories of registered Indians were created
in the Indian Act through sections 6(1) and 6(2).
Bill C-31 Issues
• While Bill C-31 was meant to eliminate sex based discrimina-
tion, the amendments created new forms of discrimination.
• For example, the second-generation “cut-off” was introduced.
It meant that after two generations of parenting (one generation
after the other) with a person who had a right to Indian registration,
and another person who did not have that right (that person was
a non-Indian), then the third generation would not be entitled to
register for Indian status.
• The amendments to Bill C-31 tried to create equality between men
and women when it came to transferring status to children. They did
it by creating a standard that was not dependent on the gender of
the people who were involved in it. In addition, these amendments
considered financial concerns voiced by First Nations. Moreover, it
considered protecting their nationhood and integrity of traditions.
An attempt to balance individual and collective rights was the rea-
son why the second-generation cut-off was introduced.
Bill C-31 – Band Membership
• Bill C-31 introduced new authorities to regulate band member-
ship. It was done under sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Act.
• Section 10 let Bands create and control their membership
lists if they meet certain conditions.
6(1)
6(2)
6(2)
Non-
Status
Non-
Status
Non-
Status
6(1)
6(1) 6(1)
6(1)
6(1) 6(1)
6(2)
6(2)6(2)
WHAT IS BILL C-31
AND BILL C-3?
• Under Section 11, the Indian Registrar maintains the band
lists for those bands that do not control their membership
lists under Section 10.
• The introduction of two membership systems has created a new
relationship between Indian registration and band membership.
There are situations which can be present when an individual
doesn’t have Indian status, but that individual is on Section 10
band membership list and is recognized as a Band member. The
opposite situations can occur when an individual has a federal
Indian status but does not appear on a band’s Section 10 list.
Funding
Bill C-31 allowed more than 174,500 people to become eligible
for registration. The federal government did not provide enough
funds to cover this great number of people. As a result, Band
Councils faced funding issues and could not provide adequate ser-
vices to the new Band members who received Indian Status. For
example, not all new registrants could not get housing on reserve
or receive post-secondary funding.
Bill C-31
Soon after Bill C-31 was passed, Women started to challenge
the registration provisions of the Indian Act under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argued that sex-based dis-
crimination continued to exist. They also thought that the certain
registration rules in the Indian Act were still unfair. The first chal-
lenge was initiated by Sharron McIvor in 1987.Sharon McIvor lost
her Indian Status when she married a non-Indian man. After the 1985
amendments to the Indian Act were introduced, her right to Indian
registration was returned to her using section 6(1)(c). Her son, Jacob
Grismer, had only one Indian parent, and he had the right to have
Indian registration under section 6(2). Yet, he couldn’t transfer his
Indian status to his children because he parented with a non-Indian
woman. On the other hand, Jacob’s cousins in the male line, who
were born to a man who married a non-Indian woman before
1985, could pass their Indian status on to their children. The status
of the other parent did not matter there.
The McIvor case was decided by the British Columbia Court of
Appeal (BCCA) in 2009. In its decision, the BCCA widened the
definition of who an “Indian” was. It was done through the Gen-
der Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3). Bill C-3 resulted in
the following changes: individuals registered under section 6(2),
such as Mr. Jacob Grismer, were entitled to register under section
6(1)(c.1) provided they met all of the following conditions.
• Have a mother who had lost her right to registration because
she married a non-Indian man before April 17, 1985;
• have a father who does not have a right to be registered, or,
if he is no longer alive, did not at the time of death have the
right to Indian registration;
• were born after the date of his/her mother’s marriage that led to
that mother losing her right to Indian status, and prior to April 17,
1985 (unless his/her parents were married before that date); and
• were a child on or after September 4, 1951 of a person who
did not have the right to Indian registration on the day when
that child was born or adopted.
Since amendments changed registration rules for these people
under section 6(1)(c.1), their children were then allowed to reg-
ister under section 6(2) of the Indian Act. For that, they have to
meet certain requirements. For example, they need to have:
• a grandmother who lost her entitlement because she married
a non-Indian man;
• a parent entitled to be registered under section 6(2); and
• a birth date or they had a sibling who was born on or after
September 4, 1951.
As a result, in the period from 2011 to 2017, Bill C-3 allowed more
than 37.000 people to get registered as a Status Indian.
The charts below show the difference in the rights of siblings to
Indian status – siblings are represented by a brother and a sis-
ter. These differences took place when the sister got her right to
Indian registration back after she married a non-Indian man be-
fore April 17, 1985. This was under Bill C-31. Then, the chart shows
the same situation after Bill C-3 was passed – the Gender Equity in
Indian Registration Act. Now, section 6(1) allows children of both
brother and sister to have registration. Their grandchildren are
also entitled to registration under section 6(2).
WHAT IS BILL C-31
AND BILL C-3?
Brother
retains status
under section
6(1)
Brother’s
child retains
status under
section 6(1)
Sister’s child
gains status
under section
6(2)
?
Sister regains
status under
section 6(1)
?
Brother
retains status
under section
6(1)
Brother’s
child retains
status under
section 6(1)
Sister’s
child gains
status under
section 6(1)
? ?
Sister regains
status under
section 6(1)
Bill C-31 – Amendments (1985) Bill C-3 Amendments (2011)
