A book that came out in 2018 was high on
Canadian non-fiction bestseller lists in October
2022: 21 Things You May Not Know About the
Indian Act by Bob Joseph, Indigenous Relations
Press, 2018. So I read it. The book grew out of
an article in 2015 on a blog Working Effectively
with Indigenous People. The big response to that
article indicated that the information was
useful. Bob Joseph wrote his book.
The Indian Act has shaped the reality and the
lives of first nations people for many
generations. The author is an Indigenous
relations trainer and an indigenous person. He
is clear that it is now time to put an end to
the Indian Act once and for all. He knows that
will be difficult, but also that it has already
been done by the Nisga’a Nation.
The Bagot Report 1844 provided the framework for
the 1876 Indian Act. The British North America
Act – now the Constitution Act, Section 91(24)
gives the federal government exclusive
jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved
for Indians”. Government papers of the
time note that the legislation rests on “the
principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in
a condition of tutelage as wards or children of
the state …”
After WWII, in which there were Indigenous
soldiers, a Special Joint Parliamentary
Committee of the Senate and House was begun. It
held hearings for two years with to my mind
mixed outcomes, from a call for “the complete
revision or repeal of every section of the
Indian Act,” to “Indian education should be
geared for assimilation; and … should take place
with non-Indian students.” The resulting 1951
amendments brought little relief to Indians from
the federal government’s control over their
lives. The book draws mainly on the Indian Act
between 1869 and 1951 versions.
Most of the book is in a Part 1 called “Dark
Chapter.” It comes in five numbered sections
containing the 21 things to know about the Act,
and the 21 are numbered over the sections. A
shorter Part 2, “Dismantling the Indian Act”,
comes with just two sections, 6 & 7.
Five very useful appendices follow: 1.
Terminology; 2. Chronology of the Residential
Schools; 3. Truth & Reconciliation
Commission Calls to Action; 4. Classroom
Activities etc.; and 5. Quotes from Sir John A.
MacDonald and Duncan Campbell Scott. These
quotes are in addition to the quote before each
of the 21 facts. They reveal attitudes of the
colonial era, showing why it is so hated!
PART 1, Dark Chapter
1. The Beginning
1. Imposed the elected chief and band council
system
“Indigenous nations had effectively and
sustainably governed themselves before European
contact.” European style elections for chief and
councils were introduced in 1869 seemingly to
displace the authority of leaders and erode
cultural traditions and belief systems. The
elections did not reflect Indigenous needs and
aspirations. The role of this elected chief was
to administer the Indian Act. The traditional
band and tribal government were in the way of
the government’s plans!
Elections began as annual, then they became
every 3-years, and finally, in 1951, these
municipal style elections settled into a 2-year
cycle. The Department of Indian Affairs
controlled the land, resources and finance of
the reserve and the Department had the power to
depose an elected chief. Indian women got the
right to vote in these elections after the 1951
amendments. An elected chief could make
decisions: on public health; order and decorum
at events; prevention of intemperance and
profligacy; prevention of trespass by cattle;
maintenance of roads, ditches and fences;
construction and repair of schools, council
houses and Indian public buildings; establishing
pounds and pound-keepers; and the location of
land on the reserve and keeping a register of
these locations. People tended not to vote in
these elections, but indigenous people are
increasingly participating in the wider
municipal, provincial and federal elections.
2. Denied women status 1869-1985
An Indian woman who married a non-Indian man
ceased to be an “Indian” and the children
resulting from the marriage could not be Indian.
If the woman married an Indian man of another
tribe, she now belonged solely to his tribe, as
did any children from the marriage. This was
particularly offensive to matriarchal societies
like the Iroquois-speaking nations in which a
woman’s lineage passed to children and in which
women might play roles in spiritual ceremonies.
Section 12 of the1951 Act provided that an
Indian woman who married a non-Indian man was
not entitled to be registered and so lost her
status. It also provided for removal of status
from a woman whose mother and paternal
grandmother had not been Indian before their
marriages. Between 1958 and 1978 some 100,000
women and children lost status. The 1985 Bill
C31 amendment to the Indian Act allowed women
who had lost Indian status before 1985 to pass
Indian status to their children, but not to
their children’s children. Amendments to Bill
C31 provided a process by which women could
regain their lost Indian status. But the process
is complex and required the producing of
documentary evidence required by the Department
of Indian and Northern Affairs (DIAND). Women
had to find the cost to travel from sometimes
remote places to one of the few DIAND offices.
They had also to pay research and documentation
fees. The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples noted that amendments to Bill
C31 did little to change the discrimination
against women in the Indian Act. Bill C-3 2010
was supposed to respond, but continued
discrimination. Grandchildren born before
September 4, 1951 who trace indigenous heritage
via maternal parentage are denied status whereas
those who trace status via paternal counterparts
are not. In this way the Indian Act
disrespected, ignored and undermined the role of
women. This reduction of women’s stature coupled
with the residential school system has been a
significant contributor to the current
vulnerability and high level of abuse of
indigenous women.
3. Created reserves
A reserve is a tract of land set aside under the
Indian Act and treaty agreements for the
exclusive use of an Indian Band. Under 19th
century thinking the reserve was a place to
which Indians were confined until they became
civilized, when they could be released or
“enfranchised” into general society as full
citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.
Moreover, they would then take with them a
proportional share of reserve assets. In
reality, reserves controlled and contained
Indians while giving European settlers full
access to fish, game, water, timber and mineral
resources that had formerly sustained the
Indians.
The vision of a Canada coast to coast involved
laying a railway through the Indian tribes and
their lands, and making the best farmland
available to new European settlers. Reserves
became a portion of the Indigenous Peoples’
traditional land, or in other cases tracts of
land far away from their traditional lands.
There was no consistent formula for the amount
of land in a reservation. Treaties 1 and 2
allowed a ratio of 160 acres per family of five.
Treaties 3 to 11 allowed 640 acres. BC allowed
20 acres per family.
Under the reserve system, bands lost land. That
limited their ability to hunt, trap, fish and
harvest traditional foods. Scarcity, foreign
foodstuff, change in lifestyle, and European
viruses brought vulnerability to malnutrition
and disease. In addition, the bands were forced
into European style single family homes owned by
the government and often unsuitable for the
climate. This ended the collective dwelling
model of many indigenous cultures. The loss
became huge when bands were also moved away from
traditional lands and everything with which they
were familiar, to become wards of the Indian Act
with the malnutrition and diseases and alien
housing.
4. Encouraged Voluntary and Enforced
Enfranchisement
Enfranchisement, loss of status and its rights,
aimed to assimilate Indians and reduce the
number the federal government was financially
responsible for. “Status Indians” were not
considered “people” under Canadian law and only
became so with the 1951 revisions to the Indian
Act. The only way to become a person was to give
up the status by “voluntary enfranchisement”.
Then a former Indian enjoyed the rights of
Canadians but lost the associated rights,
benefits and restrictions of Indian status. This
also broke down the reservation. Indian men over
21 years of age who were deemed sober and
industrious could apply. If they qualified, they
got an allotment of land carved from their home
reserve and after 3 years they got a title deed
to it. If they died without heirs, the allotment
returned to the Crown. If they married, the
family was enfranchised. If they died leaving
children younger than 21 years old, these became
wards of the government.
Indian leaders and their communities strongly
opposed these provisions of the Gradual
Civilization Act, refused to take part in census
or to allow surveyors to mark out allotments.
The previously cooperative relationship between
band councils and government representatives
became one of acrimony and distrust. The
government responded with an 1880 amendment to
the Indian Act. That made enfranchisement
compulsory for any Indian that became a clergy
person or obtained a degree or qualified to
practice law “upon petition to the
Superintendent-General to ipso facto become and
be enfranchised”. The provision, with
variations, remained in the Act until 1951. At
this time, women who married a non-Indian were
compulsorily enfranchised. That remained in the
Act until 1985.
Enfranchisement was extended to Indians who
joined the military. Indian veterans from WWII
returned to find they had lost Indian status in
the process and had no home to return to. The
right to vote was tied to enfranchisement until
1969 when Indians were allowed to vote
federally.
2.
Resistance is Futile
5. Could expropriate portions of reserves for
public works
From Indian Acts between 1876 to 1985 indigenous
people were to be treated as anybody else when
railways or roads or other federal or provincial
public works were put on their land, and the
government negotiated some form of compensation.
In 1876, the assumption was that any group that
wanted a way through a reserve could get one.
Ten years later, expropriation for such purposes
required government consent, and the government
negotiated. Not too long after that, the reserve
could be moved if it was too close to a town or
city of 8,000 or more. The book tells the
history of lands for indigenous peoples around
the Burrard Bridge in Vancouver BC that involved
a right of way for Canadian Pacific Railway. In
1913 the province convinced Squamish leaders to
sell the land and leave, but the land remained
under the Indian Act. In 1916 The Harbour
Commission expropriated land. In 1930 Vancouver
expropriated 6.2 acres for public works. In 1934
The Department of Defense was granted 4 acres.
In 1942 Indian Affairs leased 41.74 acres to the
Department of Defense for WWII. From 1947- 1965
the reserve was broken into lots and sold. In
2002 the Squamish Nation’s legal action resulted
in its reclaiming a small portion of its former
reserve.
6. Could rename individuals with European
names
As early as 1850 the colonial government began
records of individual Indians and their bands.
In 1951 the Act was changed to maintain an
“Indian Register”. The 19th century policies
focused on assimilation, so registering favoured
European names. Also officials found Indian
names confusing. Indians had neither Christian
names nor surnames. They had hereditary names,
spirit names, family names, clan names, animal
names or nicknames. In some cultures, the
hereditary names carried responsibilities and
certain rights, analogous to royal titles – Duke
of Edinburgh. Birth names tend to be just for
birth – after which other names mark milestones
in a life like feats of bravery or strength.
None of this was captured in the renaming.
Traditional names made no sense to the Indian
agents who had to record the names of all the
people on a reserve. Generally, Indian agents
assigned each man a Christian name and often a
non-Indigenous surname. Women were given a
Christian name and the surname of their husband
or father. When the name was written on the
list, that person became a status Indian.
7. Created a permit system to control
Indian’s ability to sell products from farms
(1881 -2014)
Agriculture was a path chosen to “civilize”
Indians, even though the land provided was often
unsuitable. So Indian agents and farm
instructors worked with Indians to teach them
how to farm. Growing crops was not new to some
indigenous cultures. In Saskatchewan some
Indians were successful and could compete with
settlers commercially. Settlers complained. The
government responded with the permit to sell
system. Indian farmers then faced a permit to
leave the reservations and faced a permit to
sell. Settlers were prohibited from buying goods
and services from Indian farmers. [Even if the
Indians had the permits to sell? They
could only sell to other Indians, or
what?] Many Indian farmers helped each
other, but they could not mortgage reserve land
together to purchase farm equipment. When they
tried to pool their resources to buy farm
equipment, the government required the approval
of the Indian Agent for them to buy any. Indians
working together went against some kind of
policy opposing Indian culture and cohesiveness
and promoting the European social standard of
individuality.
Livestock had been initially overlooked, but
selling livestock was later included under the
farms policy in 1892. Then in the 1951 Indian
Act the permit system was extended to include
all Indians! However, the enforcement gradually
disappeared until this provision was repealed in
2014 over the objection of some chiefs who
wanted a real change away from the Indian Act.
3.
Tightening Control
8. Prohibited sale of ammunition to Indians
(1882 - )
The root of the prohibition was fear that
discontented Indians might hinder the settlement
of the West and North. As the railway pushed
through, settlers came, and with them traders
who sold guns and ammunition to Indians. The
government feared that if Indians were armed it
would be harder to deal with agitation amongst
western Indians and Metis – agitation that was
to finally blow up in the 1885 North-West
rebellion. After this, the Indian Act was
amended to go beyond the Criminal Code to
imprison anyone “inciting to riot 3 or more
Indians or half-breeds”. These and the
permit-to-pass provision all aimed to divert
further uprisings.
9. Prohibited the sale of intoxicants to
Indians (1884 -)
Early fur traders used alcohol along with their
other items to barter with Indians for furs.
Preventing sale of alcohol became a feature of
the Indian Act between 1884 and 1970 with
penalties for being intoxicated or providing
intoxicants or for brewing intoxicants on
reserves. In 1884 it was a felony for Indians to
purchase or consume alcohol or enter a licensed
establishment. This resulted in the scenario of
Indians purchasing liquor on the black market
and consuming it quickly in dark alleys or in
bushes. Part of the thinking was that Indians
should be farming their barren reserves from
which they couldn’t sell anything that did
manage to grow. Then there was the fear that
Indians in bars would keep other customers away.
During WWI and WWII the enlisted Indians could
buy drink. But with rare exceptions, on return
from war Indian veterans were banned from the
Legion halls. This jeopardized access to
veterans’ benefits. The Indian agent became the
only conduit for important information about
those benefits. The 1951 amendments to the Act
added the offence of being in possession of an
intoxicant whether on or off a reserve.
The Saskatchewan of Tommy Douglas petitioned the
federal government about “trouble because we are
reaping the harvest of 50 years or more of
making the Indian a second-class citizen. … If
he is drunk or causing a disturbance, then he
should be put out of the premises the same as a
white man should. But he should not be put out
just because he is an Indian.”
Indians would often consume alcohol quickly to
avoid being arrested and fined – leading to the
myth that Indians suffered from alcohol
intolerance. Also, residential schools caused
trauma for parents as well as their children.
Children were taught that everything about them
and their language and culture was wrong. They
left families and were put in prison-like
environments where they learned prisoner
survival skills. Families were left stripped of
their children. People turned to alcohol as a
coping mechanism. In 1985, discriminatory liquor
offences on and off reserve were repealed and
band councils were given by-law powers to
control the sale and possession of liquor. But
the damage caused remains.
10. Declared potlatch and other cultural
ceremonies illegal (1884-1951)
The Act supposed that assimilation of Indians
required legally abolishing cultural practices
by a Potlatch law under the Indian Act.
Potlatches are central to the culture of coastal
Indians. Some are for passing the names, titles
and responsibilities of a chief to the eldest
heir. Others are for distributing wealth,
establishing rank, marking the death of a chief
or head of house or celebrating a wedding. If
this was abolished, it was supposed, the void
could be filled by Christianity. Children in
residential schools were told potlatches were
outdated superstitions that led to poverty.
Potlatches went underground. In a famous
incident an island potlatch was discovered and
45 people were arrested and charged and 22 sent
to prison. The crimes – giving speeches, dancing
and gift sharing. As a result of the ban,
priceless cultural artefacts were removed,
including masks and regalia that were dispersed
across museums. The government eventually
realized they were fighting a losing battle.
Also, WWII led to the 1951 Act and the Potlatch
law disappeared. Yet during the 17 years of this
law, 3 generations grew up deprived of their
cultural heritage and countless cultural
artefacts were lost.
11. Restricted Indians from leaving their
reserve without the permission of an Indian
Agent (Policy – 1885 to 1951)
The Red River Rebellion 1869-70 made it
difficult to encourage settlers to go to
Saskatchewan. The Northwest rebellion added to
that in 1885. Prime Minister J A Macdonald
endorsed a pass system to prevent Indians from
leaving reserves. While not formally part of the
Act, it was used effectively. There were cases
of rations and other privileges withheld when
people refused to comply. Alternatively, police
could arrest those found off reserve and
prosecute them for trespass or vagrancy.
The permit had the time off reserve, the reason,
and whether the individual was allowed to carry
a gun. The Indian Agents knew those under
their jurisdiction so they could decline a pass.
The pass was first applied to any involved in
the rebellions, but then to all Indians. To get
a pass Indians had often to travel to an Agent’s
house and catch him there. The pass was also
used to keep apart settlers and Indians – hardly
likely to encourage assimilation, but it did
help restrict the potlatches. Beginning 1889,
parents required passes to visit children in
residential schools.
12. Created residential schools (1886-1996)
Any children under 16 with Indian blood could be
compelled to go to residential schools until age
18. When the federal government signed 11
treaties in 19871, it assumed responsibility for
the education of children in Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and parts of Ontario, British
Columbia and Northwest Territories. Indian
signatories wanted their children to have an
education for the wage economy. They did not
envision the residential schools. Many
provisions of the Act were hurtful, and had a
deep impact. Of the 150,000 who passed through
the schools, 6,000 died or disappeared. The
government had no policy for punishment, and the
punishments used were very harsh.
In 1914 the Deputy Superintendent of Indian
Affairs was aware of a bad situation saying: “It
is quite within the mark to say that 50% of the
children that passed through these schools did
not live to see the benefit of the education
they received therein.” The schools were
underfunded, the buildings drafty and unsanitary
and the food insufficient and often rotten.
Before 1876 children received education at day
schools built on reserves, but low attendance
limited their impact. It was the Devin Report of
1879 that gave the basis for the shift – and it
was based on assimilation of Indian children
from an early age. In 1882 J.R. Macdonald took
this argument before the House and the Act
resulted.
A Dr Bryce looked into health conditions and
produced a devastating report in 1907 that was
never published by the Department of Indian
Affairs. In 1910 the deputy superintendent
acknowledged Indians died at a higher rate at
the schools than in their villages, but noted
this did not justify changing a policy geared to
the “final solution of our Indian problem.” The
government was more concerned with affordable
assimilation. And by 1920 the frustration with
assimilation produced the 1927 Act that allowed
Indian Agents to enter an Indian home and
forcibly remove the children. Children could be
excused from class to work on the schools’ farms
or to cook or clean to offset the cost of the
school, but they were not excused for
traditional Indian activities. They could visit
parents over Christmas provided parents followed
certain rules - like paying for travel and
bringing the children back.
The last school closed in 1996. In 1998 the
federal government issued a statement of
reconciliation acknowledging the damage done by
the schools and in 2008 issued a formal apology.
That began the study by the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission that in 2015 produced
its report and its 94 calls to action (listed in
Appendix 3). In its report the Commission refers
to government policies as a “cultural genocide”
and this phrase was used by former chief Supreme
Court Justice Beverley McLachlin in a 2015
speech. The United, Anglican and Presbyterian
churches apologized in 1986, 1993, 1994
respectively and Pope Benedict gave a form of
apology in 2009. When this book was published,
the schools had been converted to other purposes
or torn down. [More recently has been the
discovery of, and public reaction to, hidden
graves.] The legacy of the schools has a
continuing impact on native communities and
individuals.
4.
They rose up against us
13. Forbade Indian students from speaking
their home language
(Late 1880s-
early 1960s)
When children entered a residential school the
home language they spoke and all they had
learned in that language was forbidden. Students
had to speak, write, understand English at all
costs. There were punishments for those speaking
their own language. When they returned home,
they felt alien in their families. Fear of
speaking meant they kept the horrors to
themselves. In later years there was a slight
shift away from the language ban. By 1967
Saskatchewan had 9 schools that took into
account Indian culture. In 1996 UNESCO declared
Canada’s aboriginal languages the most
endangered in the world.
14. Forbade western Indians from appearing in
any public dance, show, exhibition, stampede
or pageant wearing traditional regalia
(1906-1951)
In the early 1900s there was a trend of inviting
Indians to dance at agricultural exhibitions as
novelty acts. Prohibiting them from
participating extended the attempt to prevent
them from expressing their culture or
congregating. To do so was indictable and fell
outside the jurisdiction of Indian Agents. In
1918 the Act was adjusted so that the offence
fell under the scope of the Indian Agent. In
1933 the Act was adjusted so that the mere
presence of Indians was an offence whether or
not they wore regalia.
15. Leased uncultivated reserve lands to
non-Indians (1918- 1985)
As settlers flooded into the Prairies in the
late 1800s their demand for land pressured the
government to make available unused land – which
meant uncultivated land. In 1984 the Act was
amended to allow leasing of land without band
approval when the reserve land was held by
widows or orphans or physically disabled or
others who could not cultivate the land.
Uncultivated did not mean unused by Indians. It
was a habitat for plants and animals that had
sustained Indians. The Indian Act provided that
the land could not be acquired without band
approval. The government negotiators told the
bands the money from sale would alleviate
poverty and clear up debt. They were offered 10%
of the sale price. When there was little uptake,
the 10% was adjusted to 50% in 1906. Between
1896 and 1911 21% of Indian prairie lands were
sold. Following WWI there was a rush for the
lands. First, some of the best land was held for
soldiers. Then the rush was for settlers. The
government had to cancel earlier leases before
it could issue new ones. Leases became a
hindrance. Indians were unlikely to surrender a
lease if it was earning income.
Unfortunately, the Department of Indian Affairs
didn’t foresee problems of livelihood and
occupation for Indians on reservations at a time
when land crops and stock raising were the
foundation of the economy. The Department that
was supposed to protect the interests of those
qualifying as Indian eagerly offered the land,
creating open season on Indian reserve land when
there was other, vacant, land owned by powerful
companies. Following WWII, the Department took a
more sober took at the need for land for
soldiers and realized that the reserves were
best reserved for Indians.
16. Forbade Indians from forming political
organizations (1927-1951)
Fighting in WWI brought Indians together. Since
they were not “citizens” they were exempt from
conscription and they could not vote but some
4,000 enlisted as it was a way of escaping the
harsh conditions on reserve. There was also a
fear that, if the allies lost, the treaties held
with the crown would cease to exist. They talked
about expropriation of land and the hardships.
Lieutenant Loft, Mohawk from the Six Nations
Band, managed to meet with the King to describe
living conditions of Canadian Indians. On his
return, he wrote to chiefs inviting them to
meetings and sharing his vision of a League of
Indians of Canada, unified to better argue for
land rights, conditions and education. The first
3 annual meetings were held in Ontario (1919),
Manitoba (1920) and Saskatchewan (1921). The
government instructed Indian Agents to attend
the meetings. The initiative was contrary to the
assimilation agenda. In 1927 the Indian Act was
amended to ban Indians from forming political
organizations like the League. Political
organizations ended and went undergrounds. It
was not until after WWII that Native
organization was attempted.
17. Prohibited anyone, Indian or non-Indian,
from soliciting funds for Indians to hire
legal counsel (1927-1951)
It became an offense, without the written
approval of the Superintendent General, to
receive or solicit money for the prosecution of
a claim by any Indian band for their benefit.
The arrival of Indian organizations in the 20s
led the government to tighten the restrictions
to prevent hiring lawyers or legal counsel. They
were thus denied their land and a legal remedy.
18. Prohibited pool hall owners from allowing
Indians entrance (1927 -)
It was acceptable for non-Indians to go to
licensed premises, play pool or go to dances. It
was not for Indians. They were to pursue
industrious pursuits, be it on reserve or in
school. The Indian Act 1985 continued to allow
the Governor General powers to control places of
amusement on reserves!
5. And
its days are numbered
19. Forbade Indian students from practicing
their traditional religion (1940s)
Christian settlers and policy makers were
dismissive of Indigenous spirituality. The
Indians were deemed to be heathen and to need
the light of Christ. The residential schools
denigrated cultural beliefs and taught students
to pray in the manner of the particular school.
The dismissal of Indigenous spiritual beliefs
contributed to the erosion of their cultures.
When they went home children frequently felt
disassociated from family and culture after
being told their former lives were invalid and
their spirituality and beliefs were pagan and
primitive. They had a sense of not belonging –
not in their own community or the world beyond
it. This is a contributing factor to the
high suicide rate in Indigenous communities.
20. Denied Indians the right to vote (until
1960)
In most parts of Canada Indians were offered the
right to vote at Confederation – provided they
gave up their treaty rights and Indian status.
Understandably, few were willing to do this.
Metis were not excluded from voting because few
were covered by treaties. Inuit were excluded
and no steps were taken to include them because
they were isolated. Without special measures
they had no means of exercising the right.
Before the arrival of the Europeans the
Indigenous peoples had elaborate systems of
government and saw enfranchisement unfavorably.
1. It signaled the end of their recognition as
distinct nations as signified by the treaties
with France, England and, later, Canada. 2. It
meant helping to elect an alien system of
government. Moreover, voting was seen as
redundant since the traditional system was in
place for choosing leaders and governing
nations.
The franchise was offered in 1885 in the
Electoral Franchise Act but was then repealed in
1898 because the popular view of the time was
that Indians were incapable of using the vote,
did not have appropriate property interests for
it, were under discretionary government care and
it was an encroachment on the rights of white
men. After WWII there was an effort to offer the
franchise. Inuit had no treaties or reserves so
the franchise was offered, but in general only
to those Indians who waived their rights as
status Indians. Only in 1960 under prime
Minister John Diefenbaker was the right to voted
extended unconditionally to all Indigenous
peoples.
21. Is a piece of legislation created under
colonial rule for the purpose of subjugating a
group of people
The royal proclamation of 1763 laid out the
basis for a positive relationship between
settlers and Indigenous peoples. Indigenous
peoples were not to be disturbed in the
possession of such parts of the Dominions and
Territories not ceded to or purchased by the
crown, or reserved to them as their Hunting
grounds. King George III used the conventions of
the day that colonizing countries should conduct
government business on a nation-to-nation basis
and recognize the inhabitants as the owners of
the lands.
These ideas began to unravel with the British
North America Act (now known as Constitution
Act) in 1867 that created Canada as a country in
which the Federal government could make laws
about Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
Indians became wards of the Crown who should be
forced to assimilate. That began a 150-year era.
For Canadians and Indigenous peoples to
reconcile, the regime of the Indian Act has to
be rethought.
The 2008 formal apology by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper to residential school survivors
and their families was a much needed first step.
And the book gives a transcript in full. However
Indigenous peoples were shocked to hear Stephen
Harper tell the 2009 G20 meeting that “We also
have no history of colonialism.”
The book makes a detour to refer to a White
Paper of the Trudeau government in 1969. Some
Aboriginal peoples have pointed to mixed
feelings on the Indian Act. It is bad
legislation, discriminatory, but there is the
danger that dropping it could take away “sacred
rights”. Trudeau’s White Paper proposed
eliminating Indian as a legal status, repealing
the Indian Act, voiding all treaties between
Canada and Indigenous Peoples, dismantling the
Department of Indian Affairs, making Indigenous
Peoples equal to other Canadians by removing
their distinctiveness as a People and their
relationship to the land and forcing them to
assimilate into mainstream society with no
Aboriginal or Treaty rights. There was a wrath
of opposition from Indigenous Peoples that the
government had not anticipated. The book
provides extracts to show the paternalistic and
accusatory tone. When forced to withdraw the
Paper, Trudeau said: “We’ll keep them in the
ghetto as long as they want.”
PART 2,
Dismantling the Indian Act
6. If not the Indian Act,
Then what?
Ovide Mercredi in 1993 noted that even with the
right to self-government recognized and the
treaties honoured there needed to be some
federal legislation to deal with obligations the
federal government bears. Self-government is not
something to be granted but to be recognized, as
in the 1995 Federal Policy Guide: Aboriginal
Self-Government – The Government of Canada’s
Approach to implementation of the Inherent Right
and the Negotiation of Aboriginal
Self-Government. This Policy Guide is
clear that the negotiations will be under the
Canadian Constitution and subject to Canadian
sovereignty. There was some ambivalence heard by
the Royal Commission because of the present deep
need for personal and community healing.
Self-Government would cover: structure and
accountability of governments; revenues from
land-based resources; financial revenues from
transfer payments i.e. taxes to fund a range of
areas.
July 2017 the Department of Justice released 10
Principles on Indigenous Peoples of which
principles 4, 8 and 9 are cited in full.
Principle 4 is Indigenous self-government within
a cooperative federalism and distinct forms of
government. Principle 8 is a renewed fiscal
relationship for economic partnership and
resource development. It must ensure that
Indigenous nations have the fiscal capacity as
well as access to land and resources to govern
effectively, with a share in the wealth
generated by the lands. It also envisages new
tax and transfer and resource sharing
frameworks. Principle 9 is recognition of
evolving Indigenous/Crown relationships guided
by recognition and implementation of rights.
While self-government is not a quick-fix, it is
a step to empowering Indigenous communities to
rebuild.
7.
Looking forward to a better Canada
This short chapter begins by pointing out that
the purpose of the Indian Act no longer exists
in the world of reconciliation and
self-government, and that the focus should
therefore be on dismantling it. Self
determination goes along with self-government.
It means the right to decide who your people
are. Status and non-status could both be members
of a self-governing community driven by the
community’s own membership code. Along
with self-government and self-determination,
self-reliance is a third component – getting
away from underfunded arrangements. Indigenous
peoples need the opportunity to run efficient
and self-sustaining communities, collecting
their own revenues such as royalties and taxes
from development on their lands or property
taxes if desired.
In 2017 the federal government began a shift
recommended by the Royal Commission to a
Department of Crown Indigenous Relations and
Northern Affairs, and a Department of Indigenous
Services. At this point the costs of maintaining
the mandates of the current Indian Act are
greater than the cost of dismantling the Act.
If Canadians examine the 94 Recommendations of
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and
implement those that apply to them, we might see
a strengthening of the nation-to-nation
relationship and create a better more prosperous
Canada that lives up to its aspiration for human
rights, not just abroad, but at home too.