Tabling of Stewart Clatworthy s Report: An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act

Transcription

1 Tabling of Stewart Clatworthy s Report: An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act In summer 2017, Mr. Clatworthy was contracted by the Government of Canada to produce demographic estimates on the number of individuals who would become newly entitled to Indian registration based on various scenarios of amendments to the Indian registration provisions. As a recognized leading demographer on the impacts of Bill C-31 and Bill C-3, and expert witness in both the McIvor and Descheneaux cases, Mr. Clatworthy has developed methods for estimating a newly entitled population that would result from potential legislative amendments to Indian registration. Mr. Clatworthy's report relies on the only two sources of data available at this time to determine population impacts for registered Indians under the Indian Act. They are the Indian Registration System (Indian Register) and the 2011 National Household Survey. Both sets of data have limitations; therefore, the range of estimated impact varies greatly. The Indian Register was originally compiled from treaty and band lists following the 1951 Indian Act and many individuals who had been removed from these lists prior to that time (and their descendants) cannot be identified using this source. As a result, the estimates based on the Indian Registration System greatly underestimate the demographic impact of the potential amendment. The 2011 National Household Survey data relies on individuals who self-report on Indian registration, Indigenous ancestry and Indigenous identity, and therefore is sensitive to shifts in self-declaration over time. Estimates based on the 2011 National Household Survey are considerably higher than those generated from the Indian Register. Given the limited value of Indian Register data for individuals who lost status before 1951 and their descendants, census data is the best currently available source of information to estimate the potential impacts of related amendments. However, this is an indicator of how many people self-reported Indigenous ancestry who could potentially apply for Indian registration, and is not necessarily reflective of how many would ultimately be found eligible for Indian registration. These estimates likely overestimate the number of individuals who would successfully obtain Indian status. On October 25, 2017, Statistics Canada released the 2016 data on Aboriginal peoples. Mr. Clatworthy was contracted by the government to update his estimates using data from the 2016 Census. Although the overall Aboriginal population has grown between 2011 and 2016, Mr. Clatworthy s analysis reveals that the population of non-registered individuals with North American Indian origins has been virtually stable for the same period. The absence of noticeable growth for this population is in part attributable to the implementation of Bill C-3 and the creation of the Qalipu Mi kmaq First Nation, which have meant that many individuals who were non-registered in 2011 now self-declare as registered Indians. Mr. Clatworthy s reports are attached for further details on impacts of potential amendments to the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

2 An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act Prepared for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada by Stewart Clatworthy Four Directions Project Consultants September 22, 2017 Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017

3 Contents Page Summary of Major Findings List of Tables List of Figures iii viii ix Background 1 Scope of the Research 2 The 6(1)a All the Way Amendment and Its Relationship to Scenarios Addressed Using the Indian Register Data 3 Limitations of Estimates Based on the Indian Register 4 Estimated Baseline (2016) and Longer-Term Impacts of Hypothetical Scenarios Based on the Indian Register 6 Scenario 1: Cousins : No 1951 or Second Generation Cut-Off 6 Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 1 6 Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 1 7 Scenario 2: Other Sex-Related Inequities (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) 10 Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 2 10 Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 2 12 Scenario 3: Non-Sex-Related Issues (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) 12 Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 3 13 Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 2 13 Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) 15 Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 4 15 Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 4 16 Summary of Results of Scenarios Examined with Indian Register Data Comparison of Current Results with Those of Prior Research Estimates of Potential Population Impacts of 6(1)a All the Way Based on 2011 National Household Survey Data Comparison of Current NHS Estimates with Prior Research Summary and Limitations References Four Directions Project Consultants, September ii

4 Summary of Major Findings Background In October 2106, the Government of Canada introduced legislation (Bill S-3) proposing several amendments to the Indian Act to address known sex-based inequities in Indian registration highlighted by a recent ruling of the Quebec Superior Court (Descheneaux). During the legislative review process, several changes to the amendments proposed in Bill S-3 were suggested and other issues were raised that could be addressed in the bill. One specific issue raised in the Senate of Canada called for Bill S-3 to incorporate an amendment (referred to as 6(1)a All the Way), that would extend registration entitlement under Section 6(1)a to all descendants of registered Indians born prior to April 17, Some uncertainty continues to exist with respect to the scope of this proposed amendment. Study Objectives This report presents estimates of the baseline (2016) and projected longer-term impacts on the population entitled to Indian registration associated with additional amendments that would remove the 1951 cut-off 1 and second generation cutoff 2 provisions contained in the 2010 Indian Act. Removal of these provisions would respond to many of the suggested changes to Bill S-3 raised in the review process, including the 6(1)a All the Way amendment proposed in the Senate. Analyses Based on the Indian Register Data Using data contained on the Indian Register, population impacts associated with removing the 1951 cut-off and second generation cut-off provisions have been estimated in relation to three issues, including: 1. cousins (i.e. the descendants of women who where removed from the Register pursuant to marriage to non- Indians (Scenario 1); 1 The 1951 cut-off provision contained in the 2010 Indian Act and retained in the original version of Bill S-3, requires descendants of women who were removed from the Register through marriage to a non-indian individuals, to be born on or after the date of the 1951 Indian Act (or to have a sibling born on or after that date) to qualify for entitlement under 6(1)). 2 The second generation cut-off provision refers to the loss of registration entitlement for descendants of the second successive generation of inter-marriage (i.e. parenting between Indians and non-indians). Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 iii

5 2. other sex-related inequities (i.e. descendants affected by other sex-related issues including: the siblings issue, double mother clause, unstated paternity, and enfranchisement due to their mothers removal from the Register, etc.) (Scenario 2); and 3. other non-sex-related issues (i.e. the extension of 6(1) registration entitlement to descendants of those registered under Section 6(1)d or 6(1)e) (Scenario 3). A broad interpretation of the proposed 6(1)a All the Way amendment would include the impacts of all three issues (Scenario 4). A narrower interpretation of the proposed 6(1)a All the Way amendment that was limited to sex-related inequity issues would include the combined impacts of issues 1 and 2. Results of analyses based on the Indian Register are summarized in Table 1a below. Incremental impacts appearing the table are measured in relation to the population entitled to registration under Bill C-3 (the 2010 Indian Act). Table 1a Summary of Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Associated with Alternative Scenarios Examined With Indian Register Data, Canada, July, 2016 Scenario Issue Examined 2016 Population Entitled to Indian Registration 2016 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration (versus Bill C-3) -- Fully Adjusted Bill C-3 Population 1,021, Cousins: Removal of 1951 Cut- Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 1,071,794 50, Other Sex-Related Inequities: Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 1,055,989 34,355 3 Non-Sex-Related Issues: (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 1,024,036 2,402 4 (1+2+3) Total 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off - No exclusions) 1,108,551 86,917 Source: Based on analysis of data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding error 3 The estimate for Cousins (Scenario 1) includes the original Bill S-3 cousins estimate of 25,588 plus an additional 24,572 associated with removal of the 1951 cut-off provision. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 iv

6 The Indian Register-based estimate of the incremental population in 2016 that would entitled to registration under the broad interpretation of the 6(1)a All the Way amendment totals 86,917. If applied only to sex-related inequity issues, the Indian Register-based estimate of the incremental population entitled to registration in 2016 totals 84,515 (50,160 (re cousins Scenario 1) plus 34,355 (other sex-related inequities Scenario 2)). Population projections reveal that under all of the scenarios, substantial incremental growth in the population entitled registration would be expected in the future. Limitations of the Indian Register Analyses As the Indian Register was originally compiled from treaty or band lists following the 1951 Indian Act, many individuals who had been removed from these lists prior to that time (and their descendants) cannot be identified from the Indian Register. As such, the incremental population entitled to Indian registration derived from data contained on the Indian Register will be under-estimated. The extent of under-estimation can be expected to be large within the context of amendment scenarios which eliminate the 1951 cut-off for eligibility. Estimates of Population Impacts of 6(1)a All the Way Based on 2011 National Household Survey Data The proposed 6(1)a All the Way amendment, if interpreted broadly, would extend registration entitlement under Section 6(1) to all individuals (born prior to April 17, 1985) who could trace their ancestry to at least one person who is or ever was entitled to be a registered Indian on or before April 17, Such a person (i.e. the ancestor) could be a parent, a grand-parent, a great-grand parent, a great-greatgrandparent, etc. Estimates based on the 2011 National Household Survey are likely to provide a more complete picture of the potential population that could become eligible for registration under a broad interpretation of the 6(1) All the Way scenario. Analyses of the population impacts of the proposed 6(1)a All the Way amendment based on the 2011 National Household Survey explore three scenarios. NHS Scenario 1 includes the population reporting Indian registration and the population that reported North American Indian ethnic origins (single or multiple responses) but not Indian registration. NHS Scenario 2 includes the NHS Scenario 1 population, as well as the non-registered population that reported Métis ethnic origins (single or multiple responses). Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 v

7 NHS Scenario 3 also includes additional individuals who reported North American Indian and/or Métis identity, but who did not report Aboriginal ethnic origins or Indian registration. Application of the hypothetical 6(1)a All the Way remedy to the NHS Scenario 1 population (i.e. Registered Indians and those reporting North American Indian ethnic origins) would increase the total population entitled to registration to 1,494,384, an incremental increase of 743,764 (or 99.0%). If one assumes that the population reporting Métis ethnic origins was also eligible for the remedy (NHS Scenario 2), the total population entitled to registration would rise to 1,873,307, an incremental increase of 1,122,238 (or 148.1%). If one further assumes that the remedy could also apply to those who report North American and/or Métis identity (but not ethnic origins) (NHS Scenario 3), the total eligible population would rise further to 1,992,322, an incremental increase of 1,241,252 (or 165.3%). Under all three of the NHS scenarios, the vast majority (close to 99%) of the estimated incremental population that could become entitled to registration under the 6(1)a All the Way provision resides off-reserve. Limitations of the NHS Estimates Estimates based on the 2011 National Household Survey are considerably (roughly times) higher than those generated from the Indian Register. Nevertheless, the 2011 NHS was a voluntary survey and appears to have experienced higher rates of non-response in lower income areas off reserve. Furthermore, the survey did not attempt to include individuals residing outside of Canada or those in institutional and collective living arrangements. As such, analyses based on the 2011 NHS may also yield under-estimates of potential population impacts associated with a broad interpretation of the 6(1)a All the Way amendment. The 2011 data are also somewhat out of date. More current estimates from the soon to be released 2016 NHS are likely to yield a larger Aboriginal population based on ethnic origins and identity and as such even larger estimates of the population entitled to registration under the proposed amendment. Limitations of Further Research on the Issue Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 vi

8 There does not appear to be any viable option for refining the estimates of the potential population impacts of removing the 1951 cut-off provision or the proposed 6(1)a All the Way amendment. As part of this study, consideration was also given to alternative analytical approaches using other historic administrative data (e.g. treaty and annuity payment lists) in an attempt to identify the size of the Indian population that existed at some earlier point(s) in time that could serves as a baseline for projecting the descendant population. Two significant difficulties exist in this regard. First, the treaty and annuity payment lists also fail to provide complete information concerning the population of interest and as such provide a weak basis for estimating the total Indian population for time periods prior to Secondly, even if one could generate an accurate Indian population estimate for an earlier time period (for example circa 1870), our understanding of the key demographic parameters that determine population growth (i.e. fertility and mortality) among Aboriginal populations are woefully inadequate for pre-wwii time periods and would not support the construction of plausible estimates of the projected number of descendants that might qualify under the proposed amendment scenarios. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 vii

9 List of Tables Table Page 1 Hypothetical Amendment Scenarios Addressed in Research Based on the Indian Register 5 2 Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 1: Cousins (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 2: Other Sex-Related Inequities (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 3: Non-Sex-Related Issues (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off No Exclusions), Canada, July, Summary of Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Associated with Alternative Scenarios Examined with Indian Register Data, Canada, July, National Household Survey Based Estimates of Potential Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Hypothetical 6(1)a All the Way Scenarios 23 Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 viii

10 List of Figures Figure Page 1 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 1 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 10 2 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 2 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 12 3 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 3 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 15 4 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 4 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 17 Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22, 2017 ix

11 An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act Background In October, 2016, the Government of Canada introduced a package of legislative amendments to the Indian Act in Parliament through Bill S-3. These amendments were intended to address known gender-based inequities in Indian registration highlighted by a recent ruling of the Quebec Superior Court (Descheneaux). During the study of Bill S-3, several individuals/organizations raised issues with the proposed amendments and brought forward other issues that could be addressed in the bill. Following a recommendation made by the Senate, in January, 2017, a fivemonth extension was granted by the court (until July 3, 2017) to allow the Government to further assess Bill S-3, to confirm that the proposed amendments provide the appropriate remedies for the situations found in the Descheneaux case, and to ensure that the bill addresses other known gender-based inequities in Indian registration. Some initial research conducted previously for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) during the process of formulating Bill S-3 provided estimates of the short and longer-term population impacts associated with addressing three specific issues of perceived gender discrimination. These issues were central to several of the amendments proposed in Bill S-3 and included: The siblings issue; The cousins issue; and Children who enfranchised with their mother as a result of her marriage to a non-indian. In response to information and advice received during the legislative review process, INAC has identified a number of additional issues and topics that require further demographic research. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

12 Scope of the Research This report presents estimates of the baseline (2016) impacts on the population entitled to Indian registration associated with amendments to the Indian Act that would remove the 1951 cut-off and second generation cut-off provisions contained in the 2010 Indian Act. The 1951 cut-off provision contained in the 2010 Indian Act and proposed in the original version of Bill S-3, requires individuals to be born on or after the date of the 1951 Indian Act (or to have a sibling born on or after that date) in order to qualify for remedy (i.e. entitlement under 6(1)). The second generation cut-off provision refers to the loss of registration entitlement for descendants of the second successive generation of inter-marriage (i.e. parenting between Indians and non-indians). Bill S-3 proposed the removal of the second generation cut-off provision contained in the 2010 Indian Act, by extending entitlement under Section 6(1) to the grand-children of women who lost status through marriage to a non-indian. For purposes of this study, removal of the second generation cut-off is assumed to mean that entitlement under Section 6(1) would be extended to all descendants (great-grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, etc) provided they were born prior to April 17, 1985 or have a sibling born prior to that date. The population impacts associated with the proposed amendments to the 1951 cutoff and second generation cut-off provisions discussed above are examined in relation to three issues. These issues include: 2. cousins (i.e. the descendants of women who where removed from the Register pursuant to marriage to non- Indians; 2. other sex-related inequities (i.e. descendants affected by other sex-related issues including: the siblings issue, double mother clause, unstated paternity, and enfranchisement due to their mothers removal from the Register, etc.); and Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

13 3. other non-sex-related issues (i.e. the extension of 6(1) registration entitlement to descendants of those registered under Section 6(1)d or 6(1)e). Collectively, these three issues address the registration entitlement of all individuals born prior to April 17, 1985, who are (or were prior to death) registered under Section 6(2) of the Indian Act and their descendants. The 6(1)a All the Way Amendment and Its Relationship to Scenarios Addressed Using the Indian Register Data As a result of deliberations undertaken by the Senate of Canada, it was proposed that Bill S-3 incorporate an amendment referred to as 6(1) All the Way. The proposed amendment would grant entitlement under: 6(1)(a.1) to a person born prior to April 17, 1985 and who is a direct descendant of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or of a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) as they read immediately prior to April 17, (a.2) The purpose of this provision is to entitle to registration under s.6(1)(a) those persons who were previously not entitled to registration under s.6(1)(a) as a result of the preferential treatment accorded to Indian men over Indian women born prior to April 17, 1985, and to patrilineal descendants over matrilineal descendants born prior to April 17, (This is an interpretive aid for paragraph (a.1)). Based on preliminary discussions with INAC staff involved in the Bill S-3 legislative process, it is not entirely clear as to how the proposed amendment should be interpreted. The proposed amendment, for example, makes specific reference to persons referred to in paragraph 11(1) a to f of the pre-1985 Indian Act. Section 11 of the pre-1985 Indian Act essentially described all those persons who were entitled to Indian registration. These individuals were subsequently assigned registration entitlement under Section 6(1)(a) of the 1985 Indian Act. A strict (narrow) interpretation of the proposed amendment would suggest that it would have little or no incremental effect on the population entitled to Indian registration. The clarifying paragraph (a.2) identifies sex equality objectives as the underlying basis for the proposed amendment. An interpretation of the proposed amendment Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

14 which limited the 6(1)a All the Way remedy to issues of sex equality in registration entitlement seems consistent with the overall intent of Bill S-3. With respect to the analyses conducted for this study, this interpretation is captured by issues 1 and 2 (i.e. the cousins and other sex-related inequities issues, collectively). Alternative interpretations of the proposed amendment exist. For example, Section 11 of the pre-1985 Indian Act was not intended to be interpreted in isolation from other provisions of the Indian Act, most notably Section 12 which described those persons who were not entitled to registration, as well as those who could be removed from the Indian Register. The proposed 6(1)(a) All the Way amendment might, therefore, be interpreted to mean that entitlement under Section 6(1)(a) should be awarded to all those who were omitted or removed from the Register due the provisions of Section 12. A broad interpretation of the amendment could be viewed as extending the 6(1)a All the Way remedy to all individuals born prior to April 17, 1985 who descended from a band member/registered Indian. Within the context of analysis based on the Indian Register data undertaken for this study, this broad scenario (which is referred to as Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way) would upgrade the registration entitlement of all 6(2) registrants (and their descendants) born prior to April 17, 1985 (and those born on or after that date who have siblings born prior to that date) to Section 6(1). This scenario reflects the sum of the impacts associated with the cousins, other gender-related inequities, and other non-gender-related issues). Table 1 provides a summary of the four hypothetical amendment scenarios addressed within the context of the Indian Register data. Limitations of Estimates Based on the Indian Register While estimates of the population changes associated with the four scenarios identified above can be made from data contained on the Indian Register, these Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

15 Table 1 Hypothetical Amendment Scenarios Addressed In Research Based on Indian Register Data Scenario Issue 1 Cousins: Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 2 Other Gender-Related Inequities: Removal of 1951 Cut- Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 3 Non-Gender-Related Issues: (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off 4 ( ) Total 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off - No exclusions) estimates will not capture the entire population that could become entitled to registration under the hypothetical amendments. As the Indian Register was originally compiled from treaty or band lists following the 1951 Indian Act, individuals who had been removed from these lists prior to that time (and their descendants) were not contained on the initial Indian Register. While many of these individuals (and some of their descendants) may have become entitled to reinstatement or registration pursuant to the 1985 and 2010 Indian Act amendments, the Indian Register includes only those individuals who were alive and applied for reinstatement or registration. An unknown, but potentially quite large, number of individuals who would have been entitled to reinstatement or registration under the terms of the 1985 and 2010 Indian Acts are likely to have died prior to the amendments and do not appear on the Indian Register. In the absence of information concerning these individuals, it is not possible to construct estimates of the number of their descendants. Given this situation, the incremental population entitled to Indian registration derived from data contained on the Indian Register will be under-estimated, especially within the context of amendment scenarios which eliminate the 1951 cut-off for eligibility. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

16 Estimated Baseline (2016) and Longer-Term Impacts of Hypothetical Scenarios Based on the Indian Register Scenario 1: Cousins : No 1951 or Second Generation Cut-Off As noted previously in this report, prior research conducted during the formulation of Bill S-3 provided estimates of the baseline (2016) and projected impacts on the population entitled to Indian registration associated with specific amendments concerning the Cousins issue. These amendments, however, retained the 1951 timing requirement contained in Bill C-3 (the 2010 Indian Act) for descendants of women who lost registration through marriage to a non-indian to qualify for a registration upgrade to 6(1)c.1. The upgrade did not apply to those descendants born prior to the 1951 cut-off. 4 The revised remedy considered in this study concerning Cousins (Scenario 1) would also extend eligibility under Section 6(1) to all descendants of women who lost registration through marriage to a non-indian male and who were born prior to April 17, 1985 or had a sibling born prior to that date. The remedy in effect removes the provision contained in the 2010 Indian Act concerning the 1951 cut-off for all descendants of women who lost registration through marriage to non-indians. The revised cousins scenario examined in this study includes the population identified in the earlier Bill S-3 study (estimated to be 25,588 in 2016), as well as the additional population that would become entitled pursuant to the removal of the 1951 cut-off. Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 1 Estimates of the baseline (2016) population potentially affected by the revised cousins remedy were developed using the same methodology and procedures used in the earlier research. 5 The methodology involves two stages, including: 4 The 2010 Indian Act amendments also provided for individuals born prior to September 5, 1951 to qualify for the registration upgrade if they had a qualifying sibling who was born on or after that date. 5 A detailed discussion of the methodology and estimation procedures used for estimating the population subject to remedy under the original Bill S-3 Cousins amendment is contained in a report entitled Estimating the Population Impacts of a Proposed Legislative Remedy Concerning the Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

17 the application of age-specific child-parent ratios to generate estimates of the 1 st, 2 nd and if applicable 3 rd generation of nonentitled descendants of children born to women who lost registration pursuant to marriage to the non-indian; the application of age-cohort specific probabilities which reflect the likelihood that a descendant born after the April 16, 1985 cut-off has a sibling born on or before that date to the populations of descendants. As with the prior analysis of the Cousins issue (see footnote 3), the estimates were developed for each INAC region and for the populations residing on and off reserve. Baseline impact estimates associated with the revised Cousins remedy (Scenario 1) are summarized in Table 2. Incremental impacts reported in the table reflect changes attributable to the hypothetical amendment in relation to the fully adjusted population entitled under Bill C-3. As revealed in the table, the revised remedy would result in an estimated increase of 50,160 individuals to the population entitled to registration as of July 2016, including 1,145 on reserve and 49,015 off reserve. 6 The remedy would also have the impact of increasing the share of the registered population entitled under Section 6(1). This increase in the concentration of individuals entitled to registration under Section 6(1) would be most pronounced off reserve and among older cohorts. Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 1 Custom projection models were developed for this study to explore the longer-term population impacts of the various scenarios addressed within the context of the Cousins Issue:, prepared by Four Directions Project Consultants for Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development Canada, December, As noted previously, the incremental impact of the revised Cousins scenario includes the 25,588 identified in the original cousins research referred to above, as well as an additional 24,572 individuals that would qualify pursuant to the removal of the 1951 cut-off provision. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

18 Table 2 Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 1: Cousins (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, 2016 Bill C-31 Status Quo Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 512, ,691 1,021,634 6(1) 423, , ,214 6(2) 89, , ,420 Not Entitled 13, , ,075 Scenario 1: Cousins (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 514, ,706 1,071,794 6(1) 424, , ,749 6(2) 89, , ,045 Not Entitled 12,660 69,255 81,914 Baseline Changes in Entitlement Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 1,145 49,015 50,160 6(1) 1,582 50,953 52,535 6(2) ,938-2,375 Not Entitled -1,145-49,015-50,160 Source: Based on analysis of data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding error Indian Register data. One projection model estimates the future population entitled to Indian registration assuming that the provisions of Bill C-31 (i.e. the 2010 Indian Act) remain unchanged and in force throughout the 75-year projection period ( ). A second model, using identical parameters (for fertility, mortality, migration and exogamous parenting rates), explores the population entitled to Indian registration assuming that the provisions of Scenario 1 are applied to the baseline Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

19 (2016) population. 7 Incremental impacts associated with Scenario 1 are estimated as the difference between the results generated by the two models. Figure 1 presents estimates of the projected incremental population entitled to Indian registration under Scenario 1. The table reveals that the incremental population entitled to registration under Scenario 1 (in relation to Bill C-3) is expected to increase over the initial 15 years of the projection period reaching a maximum of roughly 56,340 individuals. Thereafter, the size of the incremental population entitled to registration would decline. After 75 years, however, the entitled population under Scenario 1 would remain roughly 39,315 individuals larger than that projected under Bill C-3. The figure also reveals that the vast majority of the incremental population is projected to reside off reserve throughout the projection period. 7 The projection approach used for this study was originally developed by Clatworthy (2012) and used in prior research concerning the Descheneaux litigation and for the Registered Indian projections constructed by the author for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (Clatworthy (2011). The projections used in this study derive from the medium growth scenario developed for these studies. This scenario assumes that: Fertility rates of both males and females decline at a moderate pace (roughly 10% per decade) until such time as they reach the projected medium growth level (1.7 children per man/woman), as projected by Statistics Canada for the general Canadian population. Life expectancy among registered Indians and their descendants increases at a moderate pace (of about 4 years) over the initial 25 years of the projection and thereafter remains constant. Rates of exogamous parenting, which are estimated directly from data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register, are assumed to remain constant throughout the projection period. Exogamous parenting rates for individuals registered under Section 6(2) of the Indian Act are assumed to be the same as individuals registered under Section 6(1) who reside in the same region and location. Modest levels of net migration to reserves at rates observed for the time period, as measured from data contained on the 2006 Census of Canada. Future rates of migration used in the models assume the continuation of a gradual decline in net migration over time as observed by Statistics Canada s micro-simulation project based on data collected by the 2011 Census of Canada. Future rates of migration are assumed to gradually decline in scale over time until they approach zero net migration after 35 years. An additional 2,630 individuals are assumed to acquire registration through Bill C-31 s (i.e. the 1985 Indian Act) reinstatement and registration provisions over the course of the initial 20 years of the projection period (at a declining rate). After 20 years, the projections assume that no further registrations will occur under the 1985 provisions. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

20 Figure 1 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 1 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 75,000 Incremental Entitled Population 50,160 49,015 54,488 49,327 53,241 48,177 On Reserve Off Reserve Total (On and Off Reserve) 39,315 38, ,145 1,247 1,150 1, Year Source: Population projections based on the 2016 Indian Register. Scenario 2: Other Sex-Related Inequities (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) The second scenario addressed in this study focuses on the population presently registered under Section 6(2) (and their descendants) who are affected by one of several sex-specific provisions of pre-1985 Indian Acts (excluding the cousins issue). These provisions relate to the siblings issue, unstated paternity, the double mother clause, and children enfranchised pursuant to their mothers removal from the Register as a consequence of marriage to a non-indian. As in the case of the hypothetical Cousins scenario, descendants affected by one of the other sexrelated inequity issues would be entitled to registration under Section 6(1) provided that they were born prior to April 17, 1985 or have a sibling born prior to that date. Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 2 The baseline (2016) population impacts associated with this scenario were estimated indirectly (as a residual) by subtracting the incremental impacts associated with Scenario 1 (Cousins) and Scenario 3 (non- sex-related issues) from Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

21 the incremental impact of Scenario 4 (6(1a All the Way)). 8 Table 3 provides a summary of the estimated baseline impacts associated with Scenario 2. As of July, 2016, this scenario would result in an increase to the population entitled to registration of 34,355, including 7,473 on reserve and 26,883 off reserve, as well asn a considerable shift in the composition of the population to those entitled under Section 6(1). Table 3 Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 2: Other Sex-Related Inequities (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, 2016 Bill C-31 Status Quo Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 512, ,691 1,021,634 6(1) 423, , ,214 6(2) 89, , ,420 Not Entitled 13, , ,075 Scenario 2: Other Sex-Related Inequities (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 520, ,573 1,055,989 6(1) 443, , ,720 6(2) 77, , ,269 Not Entitled 6,332 91,387 97,720 Baseline Changes in Entitlement Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 7,473 26,883 34,355 6(1) 19,903 57,603 77,506 6(2) -12,431-30,720-43,151 Not Entitled -7,473-26,883-34,355 Source: Based on analysis of data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding error 8 As the digital version of the Register is missing data concerning the parent(s) of some individuals registered under Section 6(2), it is not always possible to determine the precise basis for assigning registration under Section 6(2). As such, it is possible that some portion of the residual population may be registered under Section 6(2) as a result of provisions which do not involve sex inequity. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

22 Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 2 A similar projection approach was used to estimate the incremental population entitled to Indian registration under Scenario 2. The incremental population reflects changes in relation to situation projected under Bill C-3. Figure 2 presents estimates of the incremental population entitled to registration under the hypothetical Scenario 2 amendment. As revealed in the figure the additional population entitled to registration is projected to rise for roughly 65 years from about 34,355 in 2016 to about 92,240 individuals in year The increase over time in the size of the incremental population entitled to registration under this scenario is projected to occur both on and off reserve. Most (about 75%) of the incremental impact, however, is expected to occur off reserve. Figure 2 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 2 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 100,000 86,949 89,842 Incremental Entitled Population 34,355 26,883 7,473 70,276 68,877 71,036 56,223 On Reserve Off Reserve Total (On and Off Reserve) 18,072 18,806 14, Year Source: Population projections based on the 2016 Indian Register. Scenario 3: Non-Sex-Related Issues (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) As discussed previously, a broad interpretation of the 6(1)a All the Way remedy could imply extending registration upgrades to Section 6(1) to descendants of other individuals who were removed from the Register as a consequence of provisions Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

23 contained in pre-1985 Indian Acts which (on the surface at least) do not appear to have sex biases. Most of these are believed to be descendants of those registered under Section 6(1)d and 6(1)e (i.e. descendants of voluntary enfranchisements, individuals who were removed from the Register for joining the military, clergy, or a profession, and those who resided outside of Canada for five years). As several of these provisions were removed from the Indian Act many decades ago, the surviving populations (as identified on the Register) tend to be relatively small and older. 9 Under Scenario 3, descendants of those registered under Section 6(1)d or 6(1)e would become entitled to registration under Section 6(1) if they were born prior to April 17, 1985 or if they have a sibling born prior to that date. Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 3 Based on analysis of the July 2016 Indian Register, the surviving descendants of individuals registered under Section 6(1)d or 6(1)e were estimated to total 7,483 in July 2016, including 4,394 registered under Section 6(2), and 3,089 not entitled to registration. Applying the hypothetical remedy to this population resulted in an increase of 5,063 individuals entitled under Section 6(1), including 4,132 currently registered under Section 6(2) and 930 currently not entitled, as well as 1,472 currently non-entitled individuals becoming entitled under Section 6(2). Table 4 provides a summary of the net effects on the population entitled to registration associated with this remedy. As revealed in the table the remedy would result in an increase in the total population entitled to registration of 2,402 individuals, including 54 on reserve and 2,348 off reserve. Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 3 Results of the custom projection models developed to estimate the incremental population impacts of Scenario 3 are presented in Figure 3. The projection results suggest that the size of the incremental population under this scenario would 9 There is a high probability that individuals affected by some of these earlier provisions died prior to the creation of the Indian Register and the reinstatement/registration provisions contained in the 1985 Indian Act. As such, the impacts associated with extending a 6(1) entitlement upgrade to descendants of those entitled under Section 6(1)d or e are likely to be under-estimated. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

24 Table 4 Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 3: Non-Sex-Related Issues (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off), Canada, July, 2016 Bill C-31 Status Quo Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 512, ,691 1,021,634 6(1) 423, , ,214 6(2) 89, , ,420 Not Entitled 13, , ,075 Scenario 3: Non-Sex-Related Issues (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off) Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 512, ,039 1,024,036 6(1) 423, , ,276 6(2) 89, , ,759 Not Entitled 13, , ,673 Baseline Changes in Entitlement Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 54 2,348 2,402 6(1) 310 4,753 5,063 6(2) ,405-2,661 Not Entitled -54-2,348-2,402 Source: Based on analysis of data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding error increase gradually over the initial 50 years of the projection period, reaching a maximum of roughly 3,685. Although increases in the size of incremental population are projected both on and off reserve, a very large majority of the impact would occur off reserve. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

25 Figure 3 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 3 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 5,000 3,676 Incremental Entitled Population 2,402 2,348 3,356 3,584 3,279 On Reserve Off Reserve Total (On and Off Reserve) 2,926 2, Year Source: Population projections based on the 2016 Indian Register Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off No Exclusions) As discussed previously, the fourth scenario addressed in this study within the context of the Indian Register data examines the impacts on the population entitled to Indian registration of assigning entitlement under Section 6(1) to all descendants of registered Indians provided they were born prior to April 17, 1985 or have a sibling born prior to that date. Research conducted for earlier Bill S-3 research concerning the Cousins issue provided an estimate of the fully adjusted 2016 population (both registered and non-entitled descendants). 10 was applied to this population. The proposed 6(1)a All the Way remedy Baseline (2016) Impacts of Scenario 3 Results of the analysis are presented in Table 5. As revealed in the table, the 6(1)a All the Way scenario is estimated to result in an increase in the total population 10 The fully adjusted population was developed by adjusting the Indian Register data for late reported births and deaths. Non-entitled descendants of this population were estimated using the child-parent ratio technique described previously in this report and discussed more fully in the report entitled Estimating the Population Impacts of a Proposed Legislative Remedy Concerning the Cousins Issue:, prepared by Stewart Clatworthy of Four Directions Project Consultants for Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development Canada, December, Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

26 entitled to registration of 86,917 individuals including 8,671 on reserve and 78,246 off reserve. Composition of the population entitled to registration would also shift markedly in favour of those entitled under Section 6(1), especially off-reserve. Table 5 Estimated Changes in Registration Entitlement Resulting from Application of the Remedy to Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off No Exclusions), Canada, July, 2016 Bill C-31 Status Quo Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 512, ,691 1,021,634 6(1) 423, , ,214 6(2) 89, , ,420 Not Entitled 13, , ,075 Scenario 4: 6(1)a All the Way (Removal of 1951 Cut-Off and Second Generation Cut-Off - No exclusions) Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 521, ,937 1,108,551 6(1) 445, , ,318 6(2) 76, , ,233 Not Entitled 5,134 40,024 45,158 Baseline Changes in Entitlement Section 6 Entitlement On Off Total Total Entitled 8,671 78,246 86,917 6(1) 21, , ,104 6(2) -13,124-35,063-48,187 Not Entitled -8,671-78,246-86,917 Source: Based on analysis of data contained on the July 2016 Indian Register Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding error Estimated Longer-Term Impacts of Scenario 4 Figure 4 presents the results of custom projection models designed to isolate the incremental population entitled to Indian registration under Scenario 4. The figure reveals that the incremental impact associated with this scenario would increase Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,

27 gradually over the initial 55 years of the projection period reaching roughly 141,075 in year The increasing size of the incremental population entitled to registration is projected to occur both on and reserve. Figure 4 Incremental Population Entitled to Indian Registration under Scenario 4 (versus Bill C-3), by Location of Residence, Canada, (Projected) 150, , , ,083 Incremental Entitled Population 86,917 78, , , ,178 On Reserve Off Reserve Total (On and Off Reserve) 8,671 15,377 19,314 19, Year Source: Population projections based on the 2016 Indian Register. Summary of Results of Scenarios Examined With Indian Register Data Results of the analyses for all four of the scenarios examined within the context of Indian Register data are summarized in Table 6. The results suggest that elimination of the 1951 and second generation cut-off would have the largest shortterm impact on the population entitled to registration within the context of sexinequity issues (Scenarios 1 and 2), especially the Cousins issue (Scenario 1). The short-term impact of the hypothetical amendments is expected to be relatively small if applied to the population affected by non-sex related issues (Scenario 3). Projection models suggest that the incremental impacts under all of the scenarios examined would be expected to grow over time. This growth would be most pronounced under Scenarios 2 and 4. Four Directions Project Consultants, September 22,