2. Women's Perspectives - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure ...

parents and the records are covered by the Privacy Act or withheld because of the
confidentiality of provincial adoption records. 59
Moreover, and more alarmingly for future generations of First Nations people, the
consequences of falling within subsection 6(1) or subsection 6(2) are felt by the woman's
children and grandchildren. For these descendants, the way their parents and
grandparents acquired status will be important determinants of whether they will have
Indian status and, if they do, whether and to what extent they will be able to pass it on to
their children. The effects of the 6(1) and 6(2) designation are felt most acutely in the
third generation (see Figure 2.1).
Comparing examples 3 and 5, it is clear in the situation of marriage to a non-Indian that
the children of a 6(1) parent and a 6(2) parent have different rights under the amended
Indian Act. Where the parent marries out, the child in example 3 will still have Indian
status, while the child in example 5 will not. Yet each will have one parent with Indian
status and one without. When one recalls that the children of women who lost status
under the discriminatory provisions of the earlier versions of the Indian Act will have
gained their own status through subsection 6(2), it is clear that they will be at a relative
disadvantage.
A woman who gained status under subsection 6(2) will see the impact immediately if she
marries out: her children will not have Indian status. All other factors being equal, this
rule creates a situation in which the descendants of a woman who married out before
1985 will have fewer Indian rights than those of her brother who married out at the same
time, despite the fact that their degree of Indian ancestry is the same.
An example helps illustrate the inequality that results from these rules. The following is
taken from the Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (which
recommended that this form of discrimination cease):
John and Joan, a brother and sister, were both registered Indians. Joan married a Métis
man before 1985 so she lost her Indian status under section 12(1)(b) of the former Act.
John married a white woman before 1985 and she automatically became a status Indian.
Both John and Joan have had children over the years. Joan now is eligible to regain her
status under section 6(1)(c) and her children will qualify under section 6(2). They are
treated as having only one eligible parent, their mother, although both parents are
Aboriginal. John's children gained status at birth as both parents were Indians legally,
even though only one was an Aboriginal person.
Joan's children can pass on status to their offspring only if they also marry registered
Indians. If they marry unregistered Aboriginal people or non-Aboriginal people, then no
status will pass to their children. All John's grandchildren will be status Indians,
regardless of who his children marry. Thus, entitlement to registration for the second
generation has nothing to do with racial or cultural characteristics. The Act has
eliminated the discrimination faced by those who lost status, but has passed it on to the
next generation. 60
38