This is the wrong subreddit for your question. /r/AskHistorians answers questions about history in an academical sense. It's all about facts and conclusions drawn from evidence.

You are asking for opinions.

One reason the practice was seen as discriminatory and unfair and ultimately abolished (and I do think disenfranchisement morally wrong, but "wrong" is a complex question and answering it on these issues often boils down to ideological debates with white supremacists) is that Status Indians are not sovereign states with international recognition, seats in the United Nations, and the right to negotiate treaties with non-Canadian nations, but subject to the Canadian federal government. While they're certainly governed differently than an ordinary municipality, land belonging to Indian Reserves is marked as "Canada" on maps and First Nations, no matter how annoyed they get with Canadian policy, do not have the treaty right to unilaterally abrogate their association with Canada.

The use of the term "nation" should not be confused with representing a sovereign state. Quebec is also described as "A nation within Canada" and its assembly is called "national" but Quebec residents have always had the right to send representatives to parliament.