One of the bigger news items today, if you ignore the swine flu, was that the Pope made an apology for residential school abuse in Canada. This follows apologies from other major players, including the Canadian Government last year. I’m sure this statement is very important to numerous Aboriginal and First Nations persons and their descendants who were subjected to residential schools.

Another story that came to my attention today is that I missed a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling issued 3 weeks ago on the topic of Indian Status (Indian of course used in the legal definition under the Indian Act). I had been tipped off about the McIvor case when it was in the B.C. Supreme Court 2 years ago. The new ruling limits the first one and gives the federal government a year to amend the Indian Act or appeal to the Supreme Court. I see no mention of it on the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada site, so I assume the government is preparing its response. The Globe speculates as to the result (stupid Globe makes you pay after 2 weeks so I am linking to blog spam).

Take for example a status native women who’s parents were both status native, who married a non-native man, who’s status native daughter married a non-native man. As a result of this legislation, it appears that their children, who currently could only register as Metis, could be status native. (This is my reading from the ruling and the Indian Act on eligibility for status – feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) I would presume that there are thousands of cases of Canadians who would now be eligible to be status native.

It is not particularly hard to grant status to these people, but status comes along with numerous social, political, cultural, and economic benefits. Membership in bands would increase and services provided by them would have to receive funding. There would be an impact on reserves. The federal government would be impacted by the numerous economic benefits and services it provides to status natives.

One of the more interesting things would be to address past compensation by the discrimination in the Indian Act. The Act was modified in 1985 and in the 24 years since, an individual could have benefited significantly from native status. For example, if the child of the above situation I mentioned was born in 1986, in the last 23 years that individual did not receive the tax breaks, additional healthcare benefits, hunting and fishing rights, support for post secondary education, and membership in a band (which may have during that time received treaty settlements which they did not share in), to name a few.

I’ve been of the opinion for a long time that the Indian Act and the reserve system is flawed. Maybe over the next year some of these issues can be reviewed and the Indian Act can be amended or superceded.