Indian Act

About the use of the word “Indian”

In the Indian Act, the Government of Canada defines who is an “Indian” (please note that “Indian” is the word used in the Indian Act, but not a word we use today). If the government defines you as an “Indian,” you are said to have “Status.” For this reason, “Indian” is a legal word, but not one that many Indigenous people are comfortable using to describe themselves. Over time, there have been many different laws defining who is and who is not eligible for status. “Indians” are the only group of people where the Government of Canada decides who belongs and who does not.

Historically, the Indian Act applied only to Indigenous Peoples that the Crown recognized as “Indians.”  It excluded Métis and Inuit and created a group of people who were not entitled to Indian status, referred to as “non-Status Indians.” “Status” determines who the government considers to be entitled to rights that apply to some, but not all, First Nation Peoples in Canada, including the granting of reserves and the rights associated with them.

About the use of the word “Enfranchisement”

The Indian Act made enfranchisement legally compulsory. “Enfranchisement was the process that resulted in a person no longer being considered an Indian under the federal legislation. Indians, who were enfranchised, were removed from their band lists” (Assembly of First Nations, 2020). “When a person was no longer considered an Indian (when that person was enfranchised), he or she lost all benefits associated with being on a band list (pre-1951), or being a status Indian (after 1951). Their descendants were not considered Indians, and they could not receive any related benefits. This impact is still felt by current generations” (Assembly of First Nations, 2020)

Enfranchisement was offered to men (although if they were married, their wives and children would be considered enfranchised, too). Under the Indian Act from 1876 until 1955, Status Indians would lose their legal and ancestral identities (or Indian Status) for a variety of reasons, especially if they were women.

Until as recently as 1982, the legal status of First Nations women was affected by whom they married. First Nation women with Status lost their Indian Status when they married a non-status man. First Nations women also lost their Indian Status when they married Métis or non-Indigenous men. All the children in these marriages would not be entitled to Indian Status. Women also lost their status if their husbands died or abandoned them, in which case the woman would lose the right to live on reserve land and have access to band resources.

“The Indian Act has been a lightning rod for criticism and controversy over the years, widely attacked by First Nations people and communities for its regressive and paternalistic excesses. For example, Indians living on reserves don’t own the land they live on; assets on reserve are not subject to seizure under legal process, making it extremely difficult to borrow money to purchase assets; and matrimonial property laws don’t apply to assets on reserve. On the other hand, it has also been widely attacked by non-Indigenous people and politicians as being too paternalistic and creating an unjust system with excessive costs that are considered uneconomical.”

Bob Joseph, founder and president of Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. and author of the book 21 Things® You May Not Know About the Indian Act.

According to Bob Joseph, there are 21 restrictions and impacts imposed on First Nations by the Indian Act (some have since been removed in revisions of the Act). Read the 21 things you may not have known about the Indian Act.