One Thing You Didn’t Know About the Indian Act

Trying to understand the Indian Act in Canada is an attempt to understand over 250 years of colonialism in North America, and 500 years of European-driven imperialism worldwide. Over the course of a few months, this column, One Thing You Didn’t Know About the Indian Act, will cover different aspects of the Indian Act, a piece of legislation that has influenced Canada’s socio-economic development, often to the detriment of First Nations. This semester, this column will explore the past and present sections of the Act. It will uncover and discuss the inherent racism, misogyny, and classism of the Indian Act and the institutions built to support it, such as the Department of Indian Affairs.

The intent of this column is to inspire you, to enrage you, and to engage you. Whether you are First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or non-Indigenous, the Indian Act is an important aspect of Canadian history and the Canadian present. The Indian Act originated in 1876, but its current iteration is wrought with out-dated and paternalistic notions of governance. Canada initially developed the Act to manage the rights that were “allowed” to Indigenous peoples based on antiquated notions of conqueror and conquered, when in reality, these “rights” (Aboriginal rights) were never Canada’s to control or bestow. These rights were, and still are, inherent rights belonging to Indigenous peoples, proudly held before the arrival of colonial powers, and even more proudly maintained after the unjust seizure of the land.

To say that the Indian Act “bestows” or “grants” certain provisions would be akin to saying that the protection of human rights hinges upon the existence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Human Rights Conventions, or the Geneva code. In reality, these codes, conventions, and charters exist to solidify and defend the pre-existing, inherent, and inalienable rights of all people; they do not bestow them. The Indian Act is no exception. To say otherwise implies the existence of a second-class citizen/inferior being, someone whose rights are more like privileges and dependent on the goodwill of the state. While the Indian Act has undergone a significant amount of change since its inception (most notably in 1951 and 1985, which removed some of the more obvious discriminatory policies), the Act still has a long way to go before it amounts to anything resembling a fair piece of legislation aimed at bettering the lives of those still subjugated by it.

“The Act and its respective institutions are not benevolent.”

The Indian Act and its ideological predecessors are the mediums through which Canada, via British institutional frameworks, attempted to assimilate the Indigenous populations of North America. More recently, researchers are linking Canada’s Indian Act to genocide. The Indian Act and the federal agents who actuated it controlled many aspects of Indigenous life, from who qualified as “Status Indian” and could live on reserve to the transmission and demonstration of culture and religion through ceremony. The Act and its respective institutions are not benevolent. They did not originate to protect or preserve, but to destroy, dismantle, and decay the very fabric of Indigenous societies. They were intended to eliminate cultural and physical expressions of Indigenous being, such that the “problem” disappears. Recent amendments have left the act teetering on a rotten foundation, shot through with hollow sentiments, empty promises, and unimpactful efforts at reform. The Act, combined with the current status of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee and the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women paints a very poor picture of the Canadian governments attitudes towards Indigenous well-being. The disdain and mistreatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada is exemplified by Canada’s actions on the world stage. In 2007, Canada, along with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, voted against the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The UNDRIP is an “international instrument” adopted by the United Nations on September 13, 2007, to enshrine (according to Article 43) the rights that “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” The United Nations Human Rights Committee declared that Canada’s treatment of the Indigenous populations of North America fell far below international legal and moral standards, and would be held accountable by the international community. While Canada has since changed its stance on the UNDRIP, its decision to vote against and its continued mistreatment and mismanagement of the Indian Act speaks volumes.

Regardless of who fell under the dark shadow of the Indian Act, its historical and continued purpose is clear. In the words of Indian Affairs superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott (1913–1932), “I want to get rid of the Indian problem…. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question.” This is further echoed by the 1969 White Paper of the often-venerated Pierre Trudeau, who also believed, perhaps less maliciously, that Indigenous peoples should become “regular” Canadian citizens. Thus, the Indian Act of 1876 and subsequent amendments were the “solutions” to the “Indian Problem.” In reality, the original guardians and inhabitants of the land were (and are) subjected to harsh, paternalistic laws intended to make life as an “Indian” unbearable, such that they would forgo their “status” and opt for “enfranchisement” — all terms that will be dissected and discussed through this column. The goal of this column is to teach you one or two things about the origin and intent of the Indian Act. And they should make you angry.