Some First Nations people in Manitoba say they agree with Premier Wab Kinew that Canada should abolish the Indian Act — even if they believe it will take a long time to find a way forward.
As First Nations leaders and Canada’s first ministers convened in Ottawa on Monday, Kinew called on the federal government to do away with the 1876 law, which initially controlled almost every aspect of First Nations people’s lives. While it’s changed, the law remains the overarching legal document for First Nations.
Minegoziibe Anishinabe Chief Derek Nepinak said it’s “healthy” for the country to have that conversation, even if it can be polarizing.
“There’s a deep history here,” he said. It’s “not always on the agenda, but nonetheless a very critical conversation that needs to be had.”
Kinew made the comments during a meeting of federal, provincial and First Nations leaders to discuss Indigenous rights, saying his proposal received an “open-minded reception” from others at the summit.
But some were not enthused.
In Manitoba, Bunibonibee Cree Nation Chief Sheila North said Monday that chiefs she spoke to thought it was “inappropriate” for the premier to be calling for the abolition of the act given his position as leader of a province that’s historically broken its promises to First Nations.
‘Time to abolish the Indian Act,’ Manitoba premier tells PM in historic meeting with chiefs
A ‘reset’ or ‘one and done’? First Nations and first ministers set to hold historic meeting
Frank Deer, an Indigenous education professor at the University of Manitoba, said the premier — who is Anishinaabe — is in a “unique position” to push the issue forward.
“I agree with him that it is time to consider moving on from this rather dated approach toward categorizing native people in Canada,” Deer said.
“I think some of the history that’s associated with the Indian Act should give Canadians pause to consider why it is time to be looking at transferring the focus towards something new.”
The law dismantled traditional forms of governance and, at one point, outlawed ceremonial practices.
It even affects First Nations people after they die. The Indigenous Services minister is required to approve wills for people living on reserve and has the power to void them altogether.
After 150 years, Canada still has an Indian Act. Why is it so hard to get rid of?
The act has received many amendments over the years, but it remains in place.
In 1969, a proposal from Pierre Trudeau’s government to abolish the law, in what’s known as the White Paper, drew widespread criticism from First Nations leaders, who saw it as an attack on their rights and an attempt to assimilate Indigenous people.
The document, authored by Jean Chrétien while he was Indian affairs minister, called for an end to Indian status, the absorption of First Nations people as ordinary citizens, the termination of treaties and the privatization of reserve lands.
Prime Minister Mark Carney — who told reporters he was open to abolishing the act following Kinew’s comments — said Tuesday that a process to review the legislation would not necessarily lead to it being terminated.
The federal government will work with First Nations and the provinces and territories to suggest possible replacements for it, Carney said.
Most First Nations chiefs agree the Indian Act is outdated and restrictive, but there is little consensus on what should replace it.
Carney ‘very open’ to abolishing the Indian Act
Mike Sutherland from Peguis First Nation said abolishing the law is a “big ask.”
“It’s one thing to say, the other thing to do it,” Southerland said at an event marking the opening of an Indigenous-led business incubator in Winnipeg Tuesday.
“It’s something that we would like to see, but you know, how long is it going to take us to get there?”
Nelson Nepinak from Skownan First Nation said after 150 years, it’s time to get rid of the law altogether.
“It’s time for First Nations to go into self-government and start governing themselves appropriately,” he said.
“We have the young people that are highly educated. We have our staff in our First Nations communities that can do the same job [Indigenous Services Canada] is doing.”
The main conversation about the Indian Act for the past year has been about how it determines status. Amendments proposed by the Senate would introduce a one-parent rule that would allow families to pass on Indian status as long as one parent has it.
Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty has criticized the proposal a “one-solution blanket,” saying more consulations are needed.
There are policies in place if a First Nation decides to opt out of the Indian Act, with several communities having negotiated self-government over their territories.
Gull-Masty’s community, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, is one of those self-governing communities, under the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement — in which Chrétien played a leading role.
Carney government is stalling on Indian Act reform bill, advocates, lawmakers charge
Talk of reforming or abolishing the Indian Act comes as Carney works to speed up development of major projects alongside the provinces and Indigenous Peoples.
His government’s Building Canada Act initially gave Ottawa the power to sidestep the Indian Act. That provision was removed in response to calls from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois.
Janice Makokis, a lawyer and Idle No More organizer, said the current talk of abolishing the Indian Act is an echo of federal efforts decades earlier that triggered unrest among First Nations people and leaders.
“We must scrutinize whether the language of modernization and economic partnership is being used to shift power away from our nations, while opening our territories to development,” she said in the foyer of the House of Commons.
“Our rights existed before the Indian Act; they do not depend on the Indian Act. But abolishing it without a process directed by First Nations themselves risks another era of paternalism, of Canada deciding what our freedom should look like then writing the rules for us.”
