Throughout its long history the Act has been an ongoing subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Aboriginal Canadians and non-Aboriginal Canadians. The legislation has been amended many indian act list pdf, including “over twenty major changes” made by 2002. The act is very wide-ranging in scope, covering governance, land use, healthcare, education, and more on Indian reserves.
It says how reserves and bands can operate. Bands do not have to have reserve lands to operate under the act. It defines who is, and who is not recognized as an “Indian”. The act defines a number of types of Indian people who are not recognized as “registered” or “status” Indians and who are therefore denied membership in bands. The Indian Act replaces any laws on the topic passed by a local legislature before a province joined Canadian Confederation, creating a definitive national policy on the subject. Canada’s legal response to the treaties.
Nevertheless, its unilateral nature, imposed on indigenous peoples by the Canadian government in contrast to the treaties, is itself a source of discontent among Native peoples in Canada. The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change. Canada’s federal government exclusive authority to govern in relation to “Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians”. The purpose of the act, as stated by its drafters, was to administer Indian affairs in such a way that Indian people would feel compelled to renounce their Indian status and join Canadian civilization as full members: a process called enfranchisement.
The idea of enfranchisement predated the 1876 version of Indian Act and survived in some form until 1985. 1961, the enfranchisement process was compulsory for men of age 21 able to read and write English. Reserves, under this legislation, were islands within Canada to which were attached a different set of rights. Enfranchisement” derives from the idea of “franchise”, which has gradually been degraded as “vote”. Indigenous people with the franchise were allowed to vote for representatives, were expected to pay taxes and lived “off-reserve”. By contrast, groups of people who lived on a reserve were subject to a different set of rights and obligations.
One needed to descend from an Indian to be allowed to live on a reserve. The tenure of land in a reserve was limited to the collective, or tribe, by virtue of a Crown protectorate. The 1985 amendment to the Indian Act extinguished the idea of enfranchisement. Under the section entitled “Reserves” in the Indian Act, it is stated that reserves are “to be held for use and benefit of Indians. Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band. Marginal note:Use of reserves for schools, etc.
The Minister may authorize the use of lands in a reserve for the purpose of Indian schools, the administration of Indian affairs, Indian burial grounds, Indian health projects or, with the consent of the council of the band, for any other purpose for the general welfare of the band, and may take any lands in a reserve required for those purposes, but where an individual Indian, immediately prior to the taking, was entitled to the possession of those lands, compensation for that use shall be paid to the Indian, in such amount as may be agreed between the Indian and the Minister, or, failing agreement, as may be determined in such manner as the Minister may direct. Governor in Council to be a band for the purposes of this Act. Indians” of the Indian Act? Indians” under the terms of the act. Status Indians, subject to the full legal benefits and restrictions of the Indian Act. Various amendments and court decisions have repeatedly altered the rules regarding who is eligible for Indian Status.
Many bands now maintain their own band lists. Though people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians, Bill C-31 clarified that various sections of the Indian Act would apply to such members. Often property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line. Attorney General of Canada v.
Indian women by stripping them and their descendants of their Indian status if they married a man without Indian status. Indian women could also lose status if the alleged father was known not to be a status Indian and if the child’s status as an Indian was “protested” by the Indian agent. Lawrence calls the “double mother” clause, “removed status from children when they reached the age of 21 if their mother and paternal grandmother did not have status before marriage. Much of the discrimination stems from the Indian Act amendments and modifications in 1951.
1970s, two women who had both lost their Indian status for marrying white men. The Canadian law was amended in 1985. Indian woman who married a man who was not a status Indian became non-status. Subjecting Aboriginal female status to that of their father or husband, the Canadian government applied gender bias requirements to the legal status of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.