In each box answer the following:
Who was considered Indian?
What were three key or important provisions of the act?
What evidence do you see of paternalism?
Indian Act 1876 / Indian Act changes 1877-1950
Who was considered Indian?
Any male of Indian Blood who is part of a particular band. Any child born from such a person (male side of the family). Any woman who marries an “Indian male.”
Key Parts and/or Provisions of the Act
· Natives did not have to pay land taxes on reserves (because the land is owned by the Government of Canada).
· No aboriginal territory can be seized for debts due.
· Broadened the system of enfranchisement – aboriginals could gain full citizenship and the right to vote if they gave up “Indian Status”.
· Compulsory Enfranchisement was put in place – aboriginal women who married a non-native lost their status and were forced into citizenship.
· Any aboriginal who obtained a university degree or became a doctor, lawyer or clergyman were forced into citizenship.
Evidence of Paternalism
· The Act contained “Protective Features” where only natives could live on reserves.
· Natives were classified as ‘wards’ or children of the state (the Government of Canada’s responsibility).
· The Act stated a key goal was to prepare the natives for ‘higher civilization’. / Who was considered Indian?
Same terms apply as before.
Key Parts and/or Provisions of the Act
· Native bands were assigned “Indian Agents”; legal representatives to ensure regulations were being followed on reserves.
· Leadership of bands through inheritance was officially banned.
· Government was allowed to remove/relocated aboriginals on a reserve who were near a town of 8000+ residents.
· Municipalities/companies could take portions of the reserves without surrender or permission for public works projects.
· Compulsory Enfranchisement terms still exist.
Evidence of Paternalism
· Indian Agents made sure native peoples living on reserves were following the law of the Act.
· Religious ceremonies and dances were not allowed. Permission had to be granted.
Indian Act 1951 / Indian Act 1985
Who was considered Indian?
Government still had the power to define Indian Status and band membership.
Key Parts/Provisions
· Responsibility of Aboriginals was handed over to “Indian Affairs”, who could make further decisions impacting their daily lives.
· The government still had control over the reserve land, compulsory and voluntary enfranchisement still applied.
· The act *removed* many of the bans on traditional Aboriginal practices and ceremonies.
· The province now had some authority (influence) over aboriginals on reserves within their province when new laws were passed that had not been outlined in the Indian Act. Before this time the Federal Government had sole jurisdiction.
Paternalism:
Many paternalistic elements remained at this time. For example, it was still an offence if an aboriginal drink or use other intoxicants. / Who was considered Indian?
The introduction of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights in 1982 started a major shift and revisions of the Indian Act that had discriminative roots. Indian Status was restored to several groups of people that had been forcefully enfranchised by the government because they hadn’t fallen under the outlined requirements defined by the Federal Government.
Key parts/Provisions:
· The Charter of Rights led to the removal of compulsory and voluntary enfranchisement.
· Granted aboriginals the right to determine which band they were a member of (before it was dictated by the Federal Government).
· Bands gained control to update their band lists and were allowed to establish their own rules of membership into the bands.
Paternalism:
Paternalistic elements still remain as aboriginals are still under jurisdiction of federal and provincial governments.
Thinking Questions:
1. Why do you think the word Indian was chosen in place of the word native or first nations?
2. What was the purpose of each of the Acts? How can we see the change over time in the attitudes toward native people?
Indian Act TermsAssimilation
Colonialism
Impose
Ward
Indian Act
Indian Agent
Paternalism
Enfranchise
Self-Government
Indian Act Terms
Across
2. Someone unable to manage their own choices and put under the care of another
7. Government of a group of people by its own elected members
Down
1. A system of controlling as a father would a son
3. Absorption of a minority group into a majority culture
4. A system of economics that has a home country use others for trade and political or military power
5. Force the will of one person or group on others
6. Act In 1876 the act of parliament which provided for the care and government of native peoples
8. Giving the vote and political power in mainstream society, in the case of a native person this also means leaving the native group and declaring yourself non-native
1951 Revision of the IndianAct
In the late 1940s, the federal government established a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine Aboriginal policy. While recommending broad changes to the Indian Act, the Joint Committee nevertheless continued with the previous philosophy of transitioning Aboriginals from wardship tocitizenship.
In response to the Joint Committee’s report, the federal government instituted some changes to the Indian Act in 1951 (although, overall, the new Act continued with many of the practices under the previouslegislation).
In regard to general administration, the 1951 Act assigned responsibility for Aboriginals to the minister of Indian Affairs, with broad discretionary powers over the implementation of the Act as well as the daily lives of Aboriginals on reserves. The Act also maintained the government’s power to expropriate Aboriginal lands, albeit in a significantly reducedmanner.
Concerning the definition of Indian status, the 1951 Act instituted some limited reforms. The Act maintained the federal government’s power to define Indian status and band membership, instead of transferring this power to Aboriginals themselves. However, the new Act abandoned the criterion of “Indian blood” in favour of a system of registration with strong biases in favour of descent through the maleline.
The 1951 Act continued with the band council system, with some small alterations. Band council authority was still limited. However, under the new Act, bands that reached “an advanced stage of development” could acquire additional powers, such as authority to tax local reserve property. The new Act also allowed the full participation of Aboriginal women in banddemocracy.
The practice of enfranchisement was kept in the 1951 Indian Act. Voluntary enfranchisement was still permitted, as well as the compulsory enfranchisement of Aboriginal women who married non-Aboriginal men was continued and Aboriginals who received a university degree or who became a doctor, lawyer or clergyman. Moreover, the 1951 Act introduced the double-mother rule, which provided for the compulsory enfranchisement of persons whose mother and grandmother had obtained Indian status only through marriage to a man with status. However, under the new Act, the minister could only enfranchise an individual or band upon the advice of a special committee established for thatpurpose.
The new Act removed many of the prohibitions on tradition Aboriginal practices and ceremonies, such as potlaches and wearing traditional “costume” at public dances, exhibitions and stampedes. The Act, however, continued many of the paternalistic elements of earlier versions. For example, the Act made it an offence for Aboriginals to be in the possession of intoxicants or to beintoxicated.
One of the more important reforms concerned the application of provincial law to Aboriginals. Previously, the federal government had asserted exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in the context of Aboriginals. Changes made in 1951, however, provided that whenever a provincial law dealt with a subject not covered under the Indian Act, such as child welfare matters, Parliament would allow that provincial law to apply to Aboriginals on reserves. This opened the door to provincial participation in Aboriginal lawmaking.
Amendments 1877-1950
· 1881: Amended to make officers of the Indian Department, including Indian Agents, legal justices of the peace, able to enforce regulations. The following year they were granted the same legal power as magistrates.[4] Further amended to prohibit the sale of agricultural produce by Indians in Prairie Provinces without an appropriate permit from an Indian agent.[4] This prohibition is, as of 2008[update], still included in the Indian Act, though it is not enforced.[5]
· 1884: Amended to prevent elected band leaders who have been deposed from office from being re-elected.
· 1885: Amended to prohibit religious ceremonies (such as potlatches) and dances (such as Tamanawas dances)[6][7]
· 1894: Amended to remove band control of non-natives living on reserve. This power now rested exclusively in the hands of the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs.[8]
· 1895: Amended to outlaw all dances, ceremonies and festivals that involved the wounding of animals or humans, or the giving away of money or goods.[7]
· 1905: Amended to allow aboriginal people to be removed from reserves near towns with more than 8,000 residents.[9]
· 1906: Amended to allow 50% of the sale price of reserve lands to be given to band members, following the surrender of that land.
· 1911: Amended to allow municipalities and companies to expropriate portions of reserves, without surrender, for roads, railways, and other public works.[9] Further amended to allow a judge to move an entire reserve away from a municipality if it was deemed "expedient."[8] These amendments were also known as the Oliver Act.
· 1914: Amended to require western Indians to seek official permission before appearing in "aboriginal costume" in any "dance, show, exhibition, stampede or pageant."[4]
· 1918: Amended to allow the Superintendent-General to lease out uncultivated reserve lands to non-aboriginals if the new lease-holder used it for farming or pasture.[8]
· 1920: Amended to allow the Department of Indian Affairs to ban hereditary rule of bands.[9] Further amended to allow for the involuntary enfranchisement (and loss of treaty rights) of any status Indian considered fit by the Department of Indian Affairs, without the possession of land previously required for those living off reserve. Repealed two years later but reintroduced in a modified form in 1933.[8]
· 1927: Amended to prevent anyone (aboriginal or otherwise) from soliciting funds for Indian legal claims without a special license from the Superintendent-General. This effectively prevented any First Nation from pursuing aboriginal land claims.[4]
· 1930: Amended to prevent a pool hall owner from allowing entrance to an Indian who "by inordinate frequenting of a pool room either on or off an Indian reserve misspends or wastes his time or means to the detriment of himself, his family or household". The owner could face a fine or a one-month jail term.[4]
· 1936: Amended to allow Indian agents to direct band council meetings, and to cast a deciding vote in the event of a tie.[8]
Civilization and Assimilation: The First IndianAct
Overview of the first Indian Act, passed in1876
The Government of Canada, now an independent nation, introduced the first Indian Act in 1876, with the purpose of consolidating all prior federal legislation regarding Aboriginals into one single piece of legislation. The following provides an overview of the underlying philosophy and key provisions of the Indian Act, 1876.
Philosophy of the Indian Act,1876
The first Indian Act adopted an explicit vision of assimilation, in which Aboriginals would be encouraged to leave behind their Indian status and traditional cultures and become full members of the broader Canadian society. In this context, Aboriginals were viewed as children or wards of the state, to which the government had a paternalistic duty to protect and civilize. This underlying philosophy was clearly expressed by the Canadian Department of the Interior in its 1876 annualreport:
“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. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require that every effort should be made to aid the Red man in lifting himself out of his condition of tutelage and dependence, and that is clearly our wisdom and our duty, through education and every other means, to prepare him for a higher civilization by encouraging him to assume the privileges and responsibilities of full citizenship.” (Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,1996)
It is important to note the change in Aboriginal policy from the Royal Proclamation, 1763 to the first Indian Act. The first Indian Act maintained the Crown’s role as trustee of Aboriginal interests, but had a very different view of that relationship. No longer were Aboriginal groups viewed as autonomous quasi-nations within the broader Canadian political system, to which the Crown had an obligation to protect from abuse and encroachment from European colonialsociety.
Key Provisions of the Indian Act,1876
The Indian Act, 1876 adopted much of the basic framework established in previous Aboriginal legislation, with some minoralterations.
First, the Act maintained the centralized administration of Aboriginal affairs, with a Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, which was a cabinet position, who had broad discretionary powers in dealing with Aboriginals and theirlands.
The Act also continued the practice of imposing a definition of Indian status on Aboriginal groups, thus ensuring that it was the Canadian government, and not Aboriginal groups themselves, that had the power to decide who was, and who was not, Aboriginal. However, the Act did place a stronger emphasis on male lineage in its definition of Indian status. Under the Act, the term “Indian” now referred to 1) any male of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band; 2) any child of such person; and 3) any woman who is or who was married to such a person. Moreover, the Act explicitly denied Indian status to the Métis of Manitoba, which were persons of mixed Aboriginal and Europeandecent.
The Act also maintained and broadened the system of enfranchisement, by which Aboriginals could lose their Indian status and gain full citizenship. Previously, Aboriginals could voluntarily apply for enfranchisement if they met certain criteria. Moreover, compulsory enfranchisement occurred for Aboriginal women when they married non-Aboriginal men. In addition to maintaining these provisions, the Act allowed for the compulsory enfranchisement of any Aboriginal who received a university degree or who became a doctor, lawyer or clergyman, regardless of whether they desired to lose their Indian status and gain fullcitizenship.