E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3 page 9 27. After a quarter of a century of negotiation, the Nisga’a Final Agreement between the federal, British Columbia and Nisga’a First Nation governments became effective in 2000, applying to 5,500 people and covering land rights to 2,000 km² in the Nass Valley. Through the self-government provisions of the treaty, the Nisga’a have the legal authority to conduct their own affairs, including provisions for legal jurisdiction and the management of natural resources, in accordance with existing provincial legislation. 28. The Aboriginal signatories of all the modern treaties signed since 1975 have formed themselves into the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. They have called upon the federal Government of Canada to pay urgent attention to full and meaningful implementation of the socio-economic and developmental objectives of these agreements, warning that if conditions among signatory peoples continue to fail to improve meaningfully after the signing of such agreements, other Aboriginal peoples may conclude that there is no benefit flowing from such agreements, and would choose instead to litigate or pursue other approaches. 29. At the national level, the existing legal framework includes a number of distinct subcategories to which different sets of rights may apply. Thus First Nations are divided into status and non-status Indians, and the former in turn are distinguished in terms of being on or off reserve. The Métis and the Inuit claim land and territorial rights to which all of their identified members may not be equally entitled according to existing legislation. Between the cracks of these disparate sets of rights pertaining to the various legal subcategories are the rest of the Aboriginal people who may be First Nation members not recognized as status or non-status Indians, or unrecognized Métis or Inuit who identify themselves fully as Aboriginal people. In fact, most Aboriginal people of Canada, many of whom are urban dwellers, are not recognized as status Indians and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act and INAC. They are often referred to as “the Forgotten People”. 30. Specific human rights issues pertain to Indian status according to the Indian Act, such as the second and third generation loss of reserve membership if an Indian woman marries outside her community. This particularly sensitive human rights issue was inadequately addressed by the 1985 amendment to the Indian Act (Bill C-31, section 6), which according to the Aboriginal leaders has contributed to creating new divisions and new fears. 31. Similar concerns arise regarding matrimonial real property rights, which were denied under certain circumstances to Indian women living on reserves, an issue that the Native Women’s Association raised with the Special Rapporteur. Despite several initiatives carried out by INAC to address it, the situation remains of great concern for many First Nations women in the country, and the Special Rapporteur considers that it deserves urgent attention. 32. While recognized in the Constitution as an Aboriginal people, the Métis have not been able to achieve recognition of their rights through modern treaties or arrangements. A number of court decisions, such as Powley in 2003, have affirmed certain Aboriginal rights of the Métis. RCAP urges the Government of Canada to deal with Métis people, like all other Aboriginal peoples, on a nation-to-nation basis, and urges federal, provincial and territorial governments to proceed rapidly with nation recognition so that Métis nation(s) can negotiate treaties or