21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act: Helping Canadians Make Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples a Reality

by Bob Joseph

In reality, there was a foregone conclusion that Indians would simply die out, cease to exist, thereby absolving the government of any financial responsibility and giving clear access to the lands reserved for Indians.

This book is for people who want to walk with informed minds and hearts along the path to reconciliation.

In fact, it has been done by the Nisga’a Nation. They are self-determining, self-governing, and, most importantly, self-reliant.

In Kwak’wala we have the term “i’tusto,” which means “to rise again.”

The roots of the Indian Act lie in the Bagot Report of 1844 that recommended that control over Indian matters be centralized, that the children be sent to boarding schools away from the influence of their communities and culture, that the Indians be encouraged to assume the European concept of free enterprise, and that land be individually owned under an Indian land registry system in which they could sell to each other but not to non-Indians.

Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State...

But that paternalistic attitude gave way to increasingly punitive rules, prohibitions, and regulations that dehumanized Indians.

“I want to get rid of the Indian problem... Our objective is to continue until there is not an Indian that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department...”

When details about the atrocities of World War II became known, coupled with the contributions by Indigenous soldiers during the war, Canadians began to judge how the government treated Indians.

The Indian Act remains in effect today, with basically the same framework it had in 1876, despite the numerous amendments.

It is an incredibly broad topic and a vast body of law that, in its entirety, continues to touch on every aspect of an Indian person’s life, from the womb to the tomb.

I use the word “Indian” in the first two sections of the book because of its legal and historical context.

A status Indian (registered Indian) has legal rights to benefits and restrictions offered by federal agencies and provincial governments. Usage of “Indian” will continue as long as there is an Indian Act.

“Indigenous Peoples” is also the collective term for First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Peoples who live in Canada. In 2016, the federal government replaced “Aboriginal” with “Indigenous” in government communications.

Long before European contact, Indigenous nations had effectively and sustainably governed themselves.

European-style elections for chief and council were introduced to Indigenous communities in 1869 under An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Provisions of the Act. The imposed system was and still is similar to municipal-style government in which a leader and council members are elected, based on the terms and conditions of the government. The role of the elected chief is to administer the Indian Act, and in no meaningful way does this reflect their former self-government.

Imposing European-style elections was designed for assimilation—to remake traditional cultures in the image of the colonizers.

The arrogance of the federal government in assuming that existing systems were “irresponsible” blindfolded them to existing wise, inclusive, and foundational Indigenous governance systems.

The Department of Indian Affairs, not the people who elected the chief, held the power to depose a chief. Only males over the age of 23 were allowed to vote and Indian women were not given the right to vote in band elections until the 1951 Indian Act.

The two-year election cycle exacerbated the inability of chiefs and councils to make any significant progress on long-term development initiatives, govern and act in the best interests of their citizens, or build effective foundations for community development.

The cohesive, traditional belief that rights are collectively held tends to get lost in the quest to win an election.

As the goal of the elected band council system was to undermine traditional governance and augment assimilation, many Indigenous people refuse to vote in band elections. Additionally, many refuse to vote in federal elections, although that trend is slowly changing and Indigenous individuals are increasingly running for office in municipal, provincial, and federal elections.

Denied women status 1869 TO 1985 Provided always that any Indian woman marrying any other than an Indian, shall cease to be an Indian within the meaning of this Act, nor shall the children issue of such marriage be considered as Indians within the meaning of this Act; Provided also, that any Indian woman marrying an Indian of any other tribe, band or body shall cease to be a member of the tribe, band or body to which she formerly belonged, and become a member of the tribe, band or body of which her husband is a member, and the children, issue of this marriage, shall belong to their father’s tribe only. An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, 18697

Prior to European contact, and the ensuing fundamental disruption to the traditional lifestyle of Indigenous communities, women were central to the family. They were revered in the communities that identified as matriarchal societies, had roles within community government and spiritual ceremonies, and were generally respected for the sacred gifts bestowed upon them by the Creator.

In 1742, Joseph-François Lafitau, a French Jesuit missionary and ethnologist, wrote about his observations of the role of women in the Iroquois-speaking nations: Nothing is more real, however, than the women’s superiority. It is they who rea...

The Indian Act disrespected, ignored, and undermined the role of women in many ways. This dissolution of women’s stature, coupled with the abuses of the residential school system, has been a significant contributor to the vulnerability of Indigenous women.

Indian Act policies made women unequal to Indian men (who did not lose status when they married non-Indian women) and to non-Indian women (who acquired Indian status by marrying Indian men).

Despite amendments, federal law continues to be a quagmire that discriminates against, dishonours, and disrespects Indigenous women.

Grandchildren born before September 4, 1951, who trace their Indigenous heritage through their maternal parentage are still denied status, while those who trace their heritage through their paternal counterparts are not.

Indian Act regulations devalue women and are considered the primary cause of the vulnerability of Indigenous women today.

“These systemic issues have directly caused poor health and mental health, economic insecurity, homelessness, lack of justice, addictions and low educational attainment for Aboriginal women and girls, placing them in pre...

Aboriginal women are more likely to face domestic abuse than other women in Canada. While one in ten women in Canada is abused by her partner, almost one in three Aboriginal women is abused.

At present, Indian women do not have the same human rights or protection of their rights as Canadian women.

Reserves were regarded for much of the 19th century as places for Indians to be confined until they became “civilized.”

In reality, reserves were created as a means of containing and controlling Indians while providing European settlers full access to the fish and game, water, timber, and mineral resources that had formerly sustained Indian life and culture.

Early examples of reserves date back to attempts by French missionaries in 1637 to encourage Indians to settle in one spot and embrace both agriculture and Christianity.

Standing in the government’s way were hundreds of Indigenous communities comprised of thousands of people living their traditional lives on their traditional lands.

Indigenous people were also forced into European-style homes that were inappropriate for the traditional concept of family and often inappropriate for the climate. Traditional dwellings were contingent on the environment and on food-gathering or hunting traditions.

The European, single family–style housing was counter to the tradition of community collectivity of many Indigenous cultures in which a number of families lived together with open space for meeting, eating, and practising spirituality.

It must be understood that the houses are owned by the federal government, not the...

It needs to be recognized that “status Indians” were not considered “people” according to Canadian laws and did not become “people” until the Indian Act was revised in 1951.

Prior to 1951, the Indian Act defined a “person” as “an individual other than an Indian.”

A less apparent objective of enfranchisement was to break up reserve land, undermine the collective worldview of the people, and promote the adoption of a European worldview of individual rights. It had the potential to be a slow dismemberment of land and culture.

To become a British subject—to shed the confines of the Indian Act, embrace full rights of colonial citizenship, and become “civilized”—was considered a privilege by the government.

All red men are brethren and our hearts would bleed to see one of our brethren wandering about the highway without the right of returning to his tribe when in distress.

One aspect of the assimilation process was the renaming of the entire population for the purpose of registering Indians; this was partly to extinguish traditional ties and partly because Euro-Canadians found many of the names confusing and difficult to pronounce.

Traditional names went against the government’s assimilation objectives; the government feared that leaving Indigenous people with their traditional names would take away their motivation to assimilate.

Traditionally, Indians had neither a Christian name nor a surname. They had hereditary names, spirit names, family names, cla...

Hereditary names have been described as being analogous to royal titles such as Duke of Edinburgh.

In many cultures, the birth name was just for that one stage of life, and additional names were given to mark milestones, acts of bravery, or feats of strength.