[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Indian Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SleepyB, Makeitmakesense.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Article?

[edit]

I made a few corrections to some factual errors in the text. First of all, the Act does not deal primarily with the "rights" of status Indians. Aboriginal rights derive from treaties or inherent rights which come from pre-contact customs of aboriginal societies, and were recognized by s. 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. The Act imposes as many leagl disabilities as it provides "rights". Second, the Act is not made constitutionally valid by s. 25 of the Charter. It is valid because of s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 25 of the Charter makes sure that the charter doesn't derogate from the aboriginal rights recognized in s. 35. Third, aboriginal rights are not "racial" in nature. They are based on a historical political relationship between Britain/Canada and the aboriginal Nations of Canada. This is a nation to nation relationship.

Also, the act was originally intended to be a step toward integration, although it doesn't look like it now. It was supposed to be a temporary holding pen of sorts until Indians were ready to be "enfranchised" and become "good land-owning citizens". Most of the enfranchisement provisions have been removed now, however. So yes, now the Act does perpetuate a cultural apartheid of sorts, and provisions of South Africa's apartheid laws were based on the Indian Act (including the pass system; no longer in the Indian Act). However, some of the federal government's policies are still pretty much assimilationist in nature.


I changed the statement about the act's purpose because I don't think an act which describes in great detail the laws and regulations governing reserves and the benefits received by residents of reserves is intended to integrate Indians. I also couldn't find any such statement in the act, or any measures which would promote integration. As Desmond Tutu said when he visited Canada, Canada's treatment of Indians looks more like apartheid. Trontonian

In fact, South Africa's initial apartheid law was modelled on the Indian Act.


Dude shut up

I disagree that the Indian Act establishes the rights of Registered Indians in Canada. Rather, it is government legislation and best it can be viewed as an administrative tool, at worst, colonial policy grounded in ethnocentric notions of European superiority. The rights of Registered Indian people flow from a number of areas including Aboriginal rights, which are inherent rights that we possess by virtue of original occupation of Turtle Island, and Treaties signed with the Crown. Neither of which can be changed by the stroke of a pen by the officials in ottawa.

The first editor is wrong on a few counts. Firstly, section 25 does not apply only to section 35. Who told you that? Section 25 also mentions "other rights", and because it's not limited in that way, it applies also to rights in the Indian Act, and yes, the Indian Act includes rights, such as those discussed in the Corbiere case. According to Hogg's Constitutional Law of Canada, those rights, under section 25, cannot be held invalid even though they apply to one "race." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about "other rights" under section 25 is a good one. However, I think it is important to make the distinction between "other rights" under section 25 (which are not constitutionalized, although they are protected from the application of the Charter) and aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 (which are constitutionalized). Clearly, the Indian Act could never be a source of s. 35 aboriginal and treaty rights in and of itself because it is neither a treaty nor an aboriginal practice that has been around since the time of contact. However, some of its provisions may recognize existing rights that would in and of themselves qualify as aboriginal or treaty rights (this is arguably the case for the tax exemption, for example).

Also, I will leave in the point based on the Hogg citation, but I have to respectfully disagree with Hogg. The rights in the Indian Act do not apply to one racial group. They apply to status Indians, who can be people of mixed race, or even people who are entirely caucasian (due to the old marriage provisions). Davidzukovny 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By and large, I love the changes, but I still maintain that stauts Indians are not a race: they are a statutorily defined group which includes people who are not at all of First Nations descent. Davidzukovny 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article has improved. Of course it still needs work, needs updating for instance. And it is true people who have no Aboriginal descent have been included under the Act. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the old (pre-1985) marriage provisions of the Act, women who did not have status who married a status Indian automatically became status Indians even if they were not of First Nations descent (although in some cases they would have had First Nations descent but not status), while women who did have status but married a male who did not have status lost their status. The 1985 amendments gave back status to those women who had lost it under these provisions, but did not take it away from those who had gained it in the same provisions. So yes, some women who were not of First Nations descent would still be status Indians. This continues to create various inequities, including the fact that the children of the women who gained status are considered "full" (or 6(1)) status Indians, while the children of those women who lost but regained their status are only considered "part" (or 6(2)) status Indians. Also, there continue to be people who are of First Nations descent who do not have status for various reasons. Davidzukovny 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Article

[edit]

What are some ways we could improve the article? OldManRivers 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Needs many more footnotes. (2) Section 88 section needs updating to include info on Dick v. The Queen, which revolutionized the meaning of that section. (3) Needs information on the movements to amend (or abolish) the Indian Act and the motives for such movements. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was also that stuff about the Governance Act that the Liberals put forward in the Early 1990's. I was really young at the time, but I remember the AFN gathering Vancouver. They voted on it and all the bands from BC voted against it. (And no wonder. What province has barely any treaties?) I've actually never heard of Dick v. The Queen. And I'll see what I can do about movement to abolish the Indian Act. OldManRivers 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I handled the Dick v. The Queen material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments

[edit]

I just realized the law banning the potlatch was actually an amendment to the Indian Act. Bill C-31 was also an amendment, as was the off-reserve voting in 1999. Perhaps we could find a list of all the amendments? - TheMightyQuill 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how many there were. It's an old law, there could be many amendments, some (relatively) trivial. A history of the law- who enacted it in the first place, who amended it in a notable way and why- would be good. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Potlatch ban ended in 1951. I'll have to look around for sources to reference, but, it was 1951. There was a 50's aniversity of it being lifted in 2001 with the Tribal Journeys. Unfortunately, there is no article on Anti-Potlatch laws, or something of that topic. I'll see if I can find some research time to look up things on the potlatch ban, but, I could use some help. OldManRivers 05:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist criticism

[edit]

I added a section about some criticism of the Act. I'm pretty ignorant overall, but the material was a part of a draft of another article I am writing, and I decided to remove it from there, so I put it here. Hopefully, I'm not totally off base. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the specific critique is, but I have heard the post-1985 Indian Act criticized as still discriminating along gender lines. Anyone know the details of that argument? Stevecudmore (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, it still treats the women who gained their status under Bill C-31 and their children and grandchildren differently than those of men. See the recent Sharon McIvor case in BC for more details. --Davidzukovny (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical evolution and tone

[edit]

Improving this article could be done by presenting the history of the Act more systematically. Also, reading about the Act without discussing (just a little) the colossal ramifications they had on aboriginals and the relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal tribes really makes this article tone deaf to the subject matter being dealt with. Yes, its nice to have main articles for further reading but other than stating that the goal was to assimilate the Indians, the article does not present any indication of success or failure despite 300 years of application and being the most important factor in Canada-Aboriginal relations. 131.137.245.209 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, orbyhwernm the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article on copyright list today

[edit]

should review.--Moxy 🍁 03:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty 9 (James bay treaty)

[edit]

James bay treaty (treaty 9) was signed August 9, 1905. The First Nations who signed the treaties did not get want they signed for. The government took most of the things and kept it for themselves.

One time, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.116.38 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons anecdote

[edit]

I see you had undone an edit which took considerable time to research.

The House of Commons anecdote is important for two reasons 1. It highlights that most politicians in Ottawa have no real connection to the laws they are proposing, This is important in Inidgenous history in Canada because it is endemic of how the system actually works. and 2. It also highlights why Senator Gladstone was appointed by PM Diefenbaker in 1958.

I also think that since this research is generally unpublished anywhere else its inclusion would allow people to be interested in doing additional research which they can cite. The first female Minister spoke about this law, but it also highlights why we need greater research, because essentially no one even knew this bill had been passed and its importance to Status Indians with metis heritage.

I hope you will reconsider its inclusion.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongShuMa (talk • contribs) 23:10:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the the above message from my talk page, as it concerns one article and I'd like other editors' input. It concerns this edit. My view is that the anecdote strays too far from the subject of the article, and is sourced directly from Hansard. This runs against WP:PRIMARY. I don't think it has lasting notability. In fact, did it have any notability at the time? Was Fairclough's goof-up covered by the press at all? I think it would have to be in the news for at least a week to be considered for inclusion in our article. Also we should be conscious of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and just stick to the facts and don't try to tell readers how to feel about the facts. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who sat in the House of Commons as an MP, I think this information is objective and clear and would be useful to people researching this hard to find information. These quotes from officials like Duncan Campbell Scott are more important than you think because they put a face on history . If you think it should be clearer or even more objective than clean it up. But erasing history should not be part of what we do. SongShuMa (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous assent?

[edit]

Hi all,

At present, the last paragraph of the introductory section makes some rather spurious claims about Indigenous assent to the Indian Act.[1] It reads (emphasis mine):

However, as the governor general mentioned when the act was passed on April 12, 1876, many of its provisions were suggested by the Indian Councils of the older provinces. Dr. Jones, the Chief of the Mississauga Indians, reported that the measures were generally very highly approved by the Indians, especially those clauses and arrangements relating to the election of chiefs and the gradual enfranchisement of members of the tribes.

The first cited source for this claim is the following passage from the proceedings of the House of Commons (emphasis mine):

The Bill you have passed relative to the management of Indian affairs and the gradual enfranchisement of Indians will not only be useful as a consolodation of existing Statutes, but will aford further evidence of the interest taken by the people of Canada in the welfare of their Indian fellow-countrymen. It is interesting to know that many of its provisions were suggested by the Indian Councils of the older Provinces.

The second cited source is a Globe & Mail article from 10 March 1876 ("NOTES FROM THE CAPITAL"):

Dr. Jones, the chief of the Mississauga Indians, is here to watch the progress of Mr. Laird's Bill through the House. He reports the measure as generally very highly approved by the Indians, especially those clauses which relate to the election of chiefs and the arrangements for the gradual enfranchisement of members of the tribes.

Both of these sources are insufficient to support this claim; I will address them in sequence. Regarding the first: it is rather outrageous to suggest the opinion of the Canadian Governor General represents the opinions of the myriad First Nations across Canada, particularly in the nineteenth century. Regarding the second: even if we grant the veracity of the opinion expressed in the report, it is not clear how one alleged representative of the Mississauga nation could possibly represent, again, the myriad nations affected by the Indian Act.

The article rightly notes that many First Nations were outraged at the passage of the act because it is a fundamental violation of their sovereignty. Moreover, this was the very same act of Parliament that established the genocidal Residential Schooling System. At the very least, I think we can conclude that these two sources do not sufficiently support the sweeping claim made in the article.

I move that we excise this controversial and unsupported statement from the body of the article. 198.84.235.23 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The source of the claims I contest here appears to be the 14 April 2022 revision of this page by a user called JohnGrit9.

Status voters becoming non-status

[edit]

In Akwesasne#Governance: Canada and the United States it says "In 1960, First Nations people were enfranchised in Canada. In 1985, Status Indians who voted in a Canadian election were allowed to retain their status. Previously they would have become non-Status, as per the Indian Act." I don't think it's correct that status people who voted in 1984 automatically became non-status, but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to edit this passage. But the editors of this article presumably are. Would you take a look, please? Indefatigable (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Act&oldid=1217214613"