Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
Photo retrieved from: <www.atlas101.ca/pm/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1969WhitePaper.jpg>
Today’s post will discuss the many ways in which First Nations peoples were forced into giving up their Indian status through enfranchisement. The purpose of enfranchisement was to assimilate Indigenous peoples into settler-colonial Canadian society under the guise of gaining the full rights of a British citizen. However, this required surrendering such rights as band membership, Indian property protection, and the right to live on reserve.[1]
Enfranchisement has a long history, first beginning with the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857. The preamble of the Act declares, “it is desirable to encourage the progress of Civilization among the Indian Tribes ... and the gradual removal of all legal distinctions between them and Her Majesty’s other Canadian Subjects.”[2] However, voluntary enfranchisement was incredibly unpopular and only resulted in one person opting for it;[3] thus, compulsory enfranchisement was legislated. (The Gradual Civilization Act will be discussed in greater detail in tomorrow’s post.)
19 years later, the Indian Act, 1876 introduced involuntary enfranchisement of university-educated status Indian men. Section 86(1) states:
Any Indian who may be admitted to the degree of Doctor of Medicine, or to any other degree by any University of Learning, or who may be admitted ... as an Advocate or as a Barrister or Counsellor or Solicitor or Attorney or to be a Notary Public, or who ... maybe licensed ... as a Minister of the Gospel, shall ipso facto become enfranchised.[4]
This also had the effect of automatically enfranchising a status Indian’s wife and children, guaranteeing the loss of their status rights as well.[5] An 1880 amendment to the Indian Act removed involuntary enfranchisement, allowing university-educated Indian men and professionals to retain their status.[6]
In 1920, another amendment to the Indian Act reintroduced compulsory enfranchisement. Under this amendment, the superintendent-general of Indian affairs could appoint a board of examiners to determine whether an Indian over 21 years old was fit for enfranchisement. Based on the board’s report, the superintendent-general could then seek an order-in-council to declare that person enfranchised.[7] Two years later this was repealed. However, a similar provision was reinstated in a 1933 amendment, which continued until 1951.[8] Status Indian veterans returning from World War II were also enfranchised because they were absent from their reserve for more than four years.[9]
In 1951, compulsory enfranchisement was again introduced for status Indian women who married non-status men; this applied to their children as well.[10] The only way to regain status would be for the woman to remarry a status Indian man.[11] This policy did not apply to status Indian men who married non-status women. This sexist double standard would not be corrected until 1985 with the passing of Bill C-31.[12] Even Bill C-31 had sexist double standards that had to be fixed in the 2010 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act.[13]
It was not until 1960, that the Diefenbaker government amended the Canada Elections Act to allow status Indians to vote federally without losing their status rights.[14] Later that decade, Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 White Paper sought to do away with the Indian Act entirely, resulting in the complete loss of any rights Indians were entitled to as status holders.[15] Due to outrage from Indigenous groups, the White Paper was eventually abandoned. Cree leader Harold Cardinal explained the protest when he wrote, “[the Indian Act] is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government ... we would rather live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights.”[16] The threat of compulsory enfranchisement would not end until after 1985, when enfranchisement was dropped from the Indian Act entirely.[17]
Enfranchisement was a key tool in the federal government’s assimilationist policy, forcing status Indians to make difficult choices between gaining an education, marrying someone without status, enlisting in military service, or losing their status rights. The fact that First Nations have defied assimilation, despite being under the oppressive regime of the Indian Act for over 150 years, is a testament to their resiliency.
Until next time,
Team ReconciliAction YEG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[1] Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol 1 (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1996) at 256, online (pdf): <caid.ca/RRCAP1.9.pdf> [RCAP].
[2] An Act to encourage the gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in this Province, and to amend the Laws respecting Indians, SC 1857, c 26, Preamble, para 1, online (pdf): <caid.ca/GraCivAct1857.pdf>.
[3] RCAP, supra note 1 at 264.
[4] An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians, SC 1876, c 18, s 86(1), online (pdf): <www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/1876c18_1100100010253_eng.pdf>.
[5] Ibid s 88.
[6] An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians, SC 1880, c 28, s 99(1), online (pdf): <www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/d80c28_1100100010273_eng.pdf>.
[7] RCAP, supra note 1 at 264.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Gord Peters, “First Nations contributions to WWI and WWII: Lest we forget”, CBC News (11 November 2014), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-contributions-to-ww-i-and-ww-ii-lest-we-forget-1.2830332>.
[10] An Act respecting Indians, SC 1951, c 29, s 108(2), online (pdf): <epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/aboriginaldocs/stat/pdf/1951.pdf>.
[11] RCAP, supra note 1 at 280.
[12] Ibid at 265.
[13] Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, SC 2010, c 18, online (pdf): <laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/2010_18.pdf>.
[14] An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, SC 1960, c 7.
[15] Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969, online (pdf): <www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/cp1969_1100100010190_eng.pdf>.
[16] RCAP, supra note 1 at 236.
[17] Ibid at 287.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.
To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to [email protected].
Recent Comments