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

by Bob Joseph

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. The Bagot Report provided the framework for the Indian Act, 1876.

When the British North America Act (BNA), or what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867 was issued, it gave, under Section 91(24), exclusive jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” to the federal government. With

Despite the recommendations, a 1951

The dismissal of Indigenous forms of government in favour of the European-style municipal government displaced traditional political structures and did not reflect, consider, or honour Indigenous needs and values. A chief was more likely to be elected based on his ability to communicate and negotiate with government agencies as well as maintain his commitment to community, values, and traditions. The federal government also did not recognize that each Nation had its own style of governance with specialized skills, tools, authority, and capacity developed over centuries.

The two-year election cycle also makes it difficult for tribal groups to work together on larger initiatives because elections are all held at different times. Different chiefs, who may not be up to speed on an initiative or who may have a different vision, join the group at different

times, which can impede the progress of the initiative.

Denied women status 1869 TO 1985

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.

Federal law in the late 1800s defined a status Indian solely on the basis of paternal lineage—an Indian was a male Indian, the wife of a male Indian, or the child of a male Indian.

Indian men, however, did not lose their status when they married non-Indian women. Between 1958 and 1968 alone, more than 100,000 women and children lost their Indian status as a result of these provisions.9

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.

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. If an Aboriginal woman leaves the reserve to escape domestic abuse, she can lose her home. There are long waiting lists for housing on-reserve and often a great deal of pressure on band councils to re-allocate housing as soon as possible. Many Aboriginal women who wish to live on-reserve cannot do so, because of a lack of housing... At present, Indian women do not have the same human rights or protection of their rights as Canadian women.

3 Created reserves

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

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.

The reality for the bands under the reserve system was they lost land, which constricted their ability to hunt, trap, fish, and harvest traditional foods to sustain themselves. The scarcity of traditional foods combined with the introduction of foreign foodstuffs, the change in lifestyle, and exposure to European viruses and diseases caused Indians’ immune systems to weaken and made them more vulnerable

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 people who live in them.

Some communities were removed altogether from their traditional lands, breaking their connection to the land that was part of their history, culture, and identity. In other words, all they had known all their lives was gone and they were left facing a future impoveri...

4 Encouraged voluntary and enforced e...

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

An Indigenous person’s only avenue to being recognized as a “person” was to give up their Indian status, which was known as voluntary enfranchisement.

the Gradual Civilization Act,

Created a permit system to control Indians’ ability to sell products from farms

“Restricted Indians from leaving their reserve without permission from an Indian Agent”). To solidify the effectiveness of the permit system, settlers were prohibited from purchasing goods and services from Indian farmers.

In 1884, it became a felony for Indians to purchase alcohol, consume alcohol, and enter a licensed establishment; likewise for anyone to sell alcohol to an Indian person. No form of prohibition has ever been 100 per cent effective. This particular prohibition created the scenario of Indians purchasing liquor from black market dealers and consuming it rapidly in back alleys and bushes.

In addition, Aboriginal veterans seldom had access to Royal Canadian Legion branches and newsletters. These were very helpful to most other veterans, informing them about the benefits available and helping them find out how to obtain them.

by colonialism experience drug and alcohol problems.” He has observed that it takes many generations to resolve these problems.6 What Thatcher says is supported by psychologist B.F. Skinner, who asserts that we are all products of our environment, and that we learn our values, behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs from the worlds in which we grow up. When we look at Indigenous populations through Skinner’s lens, we can see that there has been a breakdown to the social fabric of communities as a result of Indian residential schools and Canadian Indian policies of assimilation.

The parents and the children were affected by residential schools: the parents suffered the trauma of losing their children and the children suffered the trauma of feeling abandoned by their parents.

Instead they grew up in prison-like environments where they learned prisoner survivor skills, and most of the children were completely traumatized by the experience. Many survivors—and this is what they call themselves—came out and tried to cope with the breakdown in the core family and community environments. Some used alcohol and other means to cope, and have passed those behaviours down from generation to generation.

The federal government believed that true assimilation could be attained only by legally abolishing all cultural practices. Hence, under the Indian Act, the government created the potlatch law in 1884, making the potlatch and other cultural ceremonies, such as the Sun Dance, illegal.

individual was allowed to be off reserve, the purpose

Residential schools brought immeasurable human suffering to the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, the effects of which continue to reverberate through generations of families and many communities. Other policies were harsh but could be worked around. The government banned the potlatch, so practitioners went underground to continue to hold ceremonies; the government pushed people onto small reserves but they still were with their families. But when the government took the children from their families, it was unbearable.

The report provided grim facts regarding the devastating effects of tuberculosis on the

children and recommendations on how to improve the standards of the schools to stem the spread of the disease both in the schools and in the home communities of the students.

In 1998, with the “Statement of Reconciliation,” the federal government acknowledged the damage inflicted upon First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and put Canada on the slow, painful path of reconciliation with its shameful relationship with Indigenous Peoples. It was not until 2008, however, that a formal apology, which opens with

language of the 21st century, cultural genocide.”

The legacy of the residential school system continues to impact Indigenous people, families, and communities. On its doorstep we can lay the responsibility for the high poverty rates, the large number of Indigenous children in foster care, the disproportionate number of incarcerated Indigenous people, and the hundreds of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

Punishment for speaking their language ranged from the relatively mild practice of washing their mouths out with soap to the inconceivable punishment of piercing of their tongues with sewing needles.

By 1967 just nine Saskatchewan residential schools reported “an emphasis on relating course content to the Indian culture as imaginative and a sign of progress in

making the educational experience meaningful for the Indian child.”4 Many generations suffered from the trauma of not being allowed to speak their Indigenous language and, as a result, many Indigenous languages today are in severe danger of disappearing. In 1996, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared that Canada’s Aboriginal languages were among the most endangered in the world.

In oral societies, when the words are gone, so are the histories, the value systems, the spiritual, ecological knowledge, the worldviews, the stories and the songs. It is an irreplaceable loss. The loss of a language severs the connection between a people and their culture.

Forbade western Indians from appearing in any public dance, show, exhibition, stampede, or pageant wearing traditional regalia

In the late 1800s settlers were flooding into the Prairies and their demand for land put pressure on the government to open up unused (uncultivated) land. In 1894, the Indian Act was amended to allow for reserve land held by physically disabled Indians, widows, orphans, or others who could not cultivate their lands to be leased out, and to do so without band approval or surrender of title.

In the period from 1896 to 1911, 21 per cent of reserve land in the Prairie provinces was surrendered to accommodate western expansion. Following World War I in 1918 there was an additional clamour for reserve land.

The Indian Act also directed where Indians were allowed to seek amusement. By prohibiting Indians from going to pool rooms, the government was ensuring they did not amuse themselves in the same pursuits as non-Indians.

Christian faith-based settlers and policy makers generally were dismissive of Indigenous spirituality and creation beliefs.

The loss of culture and connection to the land experienced today by Indigenous people is considered a contributing factor to the high rate of suicide in Indigenous communities.

It was not until 1960, under the leadership of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, that the right to vote was extended, unconditionally, to all Indigenous Peoples.