The determination of entitlement to be registered as an Indian under the Indian Act was historically important in order to ascertain who was interested in and entitled to be protected on the lands reserved for Indians. Their descendants.”29 Spouses of such persons were also considered to be Indians. In 1869, the patrilineal character of the status system was established
when an enactment declared that Indian women and their children lost status ‘upon marriage to a non-Indian.” This change was imposed upon Indians in order to bring them into line with the then current European notions of the stibordinate status of women. In 1951 the band membership lists prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs were given statutory authority. Entitlement to be registered as an Indian was conﬁned essentially to those named on the band lists, descendants in the male line, and wives of those persons.
The Northern Quebec and James Bay Agreement of 1975 set the modern pattern prescribing the regional power to Indians. It also gave the Cree-Naskapi the right to manage lands surface, though subject to other societal group. These treaties influenced cases against Anishinaabe to helping in extinguishing their title to the land.
The third court case initiated by a First Nations woman that directly challenged the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act was by Sandra Lovelace: Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from Tobique in New Brunswick, when divorced, attempted to return to her reserve to find that she and her children were denied access to housing, health care, and education as a result of the Indian Act status provisions. In 1974 Lovelace took her case to the Canadian Supreme Court, after the Supreme Court Upheld the Indian Act she presented her case to the UNHRC in 1981 which found Canada to have breached the International covenant on civil and political rights. The constitution was later amended including the Charter of Rights and freedoms and further inclusion of section 15 which addressed the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act in 1982. These is due to the Lovelace vs. Canada court case addressing gender discrimination.
Aboriginal peoples never surrendered their historical inherent right to self-determination and Self-governmental. This right was granted by the Creator and is also based on ”their ancestors’ original and long-standing nationhood and their use and occupancy of the land” prior to contact. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is interpreted to acknowledge Aboriginal rights, is also used to legitimate their inherent rights.A new inter-cultural dialogue based on “a healthy dose of lived experience and self-awareness of convergence and connections thinking concretely and sympathetically” is necessary to create new justice.
Some as of the key elements that call for removal in the white paper includes the legislative and constitutional discrimination as provided for under the Indian act should be ousted. There is need to have a positive regard to the aboriginal culture that distinguishes it from the general Canadian lifestyle. Though uniquely distinguished the service provision for the Aborigines should be similar to the rest of the Canadians. As for the Red paper the only distinction with regard to the Aboriginals is the access to the same services as other Canadians, and the inclusion of additional rights and privileges that were non existent until the British North America Act established them.
Due to increased protests the white paper was officially withdrawn in 1970. Its is however critical to note that individuals who study this topic regard the white paper as alive through its spirits which are said to be operational in the Canadian government The Native people began to realize that they would have to make their claims to an international court. While seemingly a defeat, this was in fact a major ideological victory for all Natives.
Using master’s tools to dismantle master’s house applies to Anishinaabe people situation because the people used Canadian parliament to repeal the subsection 12(1) (b). Consequently, the repeal helped in tackling women discrimination giving them equal status to those of the aboriginals. The Canadian court also helped the Anishinaabe to overcome the gender bias that denied women some rights and freedoms such as women losing their citizenship after getting married to non-Indians.
R V Sparrow 1984- 1990 which set precedence for future cases regarding fishing rights and most importantly traditional way of living, it also pointed out how section 35 is not understandable and had not been clearly defined. The proposed regulation did not take precedence over constitutional rights; it determined future relation of this country. It further brought about fundamental understanding of “law” and “rights”