the canadian government has been trying to abolish the indian act for decades, which would do away with indigenous status. broadly speaking, indigenous people consider this to be an attack on their status rights and don't support it.

i have some indigenous ancestry but i prefer to identify as scandinavian. i do not speak for indigenous peoples or want to identify as metis. i don't support a one drop rule.

i do support the rights of indigenous people to struggle against statism, but it's because i'm an anarchist, not because i'm indigenous. there's a long tradition on the libertarian left to look at indigenous culture as a model to build on, rather than an anachronism to do away with. i strongly disagree with all statist models on this point.

that said, no law can or should be trapped in time. laws have to be amended and changed to reflect changing realities.

i would support a consultative process to amend the indian act (including updating it's name) to take the concerns of indigenous communities into account. i would not support abolishing it. 

i do not believe that a referendum proposing abolishing the indian act would pass, or even get close to passing, if response was restricted to status indians. it is a policy crafted by the colonial state to do away with the indian, not an idea that indigenous people are asking the government to enforce. rather, indigenous groups are seeking a stronger codification of indigenous rights. while they do have some constitutional protection in canada, abolishing the indian act would make that codification process harder. 

it is impossible to miss the suggestion that the intent of abolishing the indian act is to undermine the ongoing codification process and return to a policy of official or unofficial assimilation, which was never fully abandoned.