Indian Act

Indian Act is a piece of Canadian federal legislation.

In Anishinabek News

• August 2013: The Indian Act impacts the lives of citizens in 633 First Nations, with federal bureaucrats determining status and managing estates on reserves. Under the Indian Act, band councils are required to seek federal permission for minor local matters such as spraying noxious weeds. Leaders have suggested that First Nations should move away from the constraints of the Indian Act to assert their own jurisdiction.
• November 2013: Presentations in Nipissing First Nation covered topics surrounding the Indian Act during constitutional consultations.
• May 2014: Critics of Bill C-33 compared the proposed education law to the 1876 Indian Act.
• June 2014: Duke Peltier stated that this legislation has had detrimental impacts on every facet of the community. The Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve sought to replace this authority with their own Gchi Naaknigewin.
• June 2014: Patrick Madahbee stated that this government-imposed policy has exerted too much leverage over First Nations. The ratification of the Wiikwemkoong GChi Naaknigewin is viewed as a way for a community to move beyond the constraints of this act.
• December 2014: As of December 2014, the act governs the elections of Pic Mobert First Nation. The short election terms mandated by this legislation are described as a challenge to maintaining consistent progress in First Nations.
• February 2015: Fort William First Nation considered providing CN with permits and road allowances under sections 28(2) and 35 of this law if the company acknowledged its maintenance obligations.
• February 2015: The Indian Act is described as a source of socially engineered poverty and a confining, colonialist framework. Clarence Louie led his community to overcome the poverty associated with the Indian Act.
• June 2015: By adopting a Land Code, Magnetawan First Nation opted out of 34 sections of this act related to land management. William Diabo stated that local land governance is more effective and efficient for economic development than management under this act.
• July 2015: The legislation is identified as a colonialist policy that has impacted Indigenous people.
• September 2015: First Nations can choose to opt out of specific sections of the Indian Act by ratifying their own land codes. The land code process allows communities to move away from the Indian Act regime while maintaining the legal status of their lands.
• September 2015: Don Rusnak argued that this legislation requires generational reform based on consultations with every First Nation in Canada.
• October 2015: Perry Bellegarde argued that this legislation must be amended to be nation-to-nation legislation.
• October 2015: As of October 2015, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg operates under this legislation for all its governance matters. The community intends to replace the authority of this act with its own constitution and laws.
• November 2015: Murray Sinclair emphasized the need for a formal review of this act as part of the reconciliation process.
• December 2015: Members of Dokis First Nation voted to opt out of the sections of this legislation that deal with land issues.
• December 2015: Stan Legarde identified this legislation as a factor in the linking portion of social capital for First Nation communities.
• April 2016: Patrick Madahbee stated that this legislation created the category of non-status Indians by disenfranchising many people. The Anishinabek Nation seeks to move away from the federal government's role in determining Indian Status through its own citizenship law.
• August 2016: Chief Wayne Sabourin stated that the new constitution allows Pic Mobert First Nation to move away from certain parts of this act.
• September 2016: According to Reginald Niganobe, Mississauga communities have not been together since the formation of this act.
• October 2016: In October 2016, the federal government introduced a bill in the Senate to eliminate sex-based inequities within the registration provisions of this act.
• December 2016: The approval of a local land code allows Long Lake #58 First Nation to move land management away from the requirements of this act.
• December 2016: Jenny Kay Dupuis studied how this legislation has impacted Indigenous people through gender discrimination and assimilation policies. The book I Am Not a Number explores historical issues that are buried within the policies of this act.
• December 2016: Scott McLeod argued that this legislation interferes with the implementation of First Nation community laws regarding resource management.
• February 2017: Arnold May argued that Nations should implement their own constitutions to move away from the control of this act.
• February 2017: The act historically caused Indigenous women to lose their legal status if they married non-Indigenous men. A participant at a North Bay education session shared how the law led to her grandmother being kicked from her reserve.
• June 2017: The 1876 legislation defined an Indian as any male "of Indian blood" or any woman married to an Indian. It restricted chiefs and headmen from hiring lawyers to protect their legal rights. Provisions of the act were used to outlaw traditional Indigenous dancing and ceremonies. An 1884 amendment made attendance at government-sanctioned schools compulsory for Indian children.
• June 2017: Scott McLeod described this law as archaic colonial legislation used to control First Nations and eliminate their identity. The act created a socio-economic gap in quality of life that continues to widen due to a lack of sustained funding for basic necessities.
• July 2017: This legislation was created in 1876 with the intent to eliminate Indigenous people as a distinct group. It is described as an archaic and colonial tool that continues to widen the socio-economic gap in Canada.
• August 2017: Netamisakomik moved away from the two-year leadership terms mandated by this act to establish four-year terms under its own election law.
• October 2017: Certain provisions of this act dealing with education will no longer apply to the 23 participating First Nations once the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement takes effect.
• October 2017: Legislation created under this act historically prohibited First Nations people from practicing their culture or creating traditional artworks. Many artworks were confiscated by Indian Agents under this authority and sold to collectors or placed in galleries and museums.
• December 2017: The Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement allows participating communities to opt out of the education-related sections of this act.
• December 2017: The federal government announced it would remove sex-discrimination from the act. Consultations were put in place to include the pre-1951 group who were previously excluded from being appointed Indigenous status.
• December 2017: The Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement allows participating communities to remove their education systems from the jurisdiction of this act.
• January 2018: The act historically stripped First Nations women of their status if they married non-Indigenous men. Legal challenges by Jeanette Corbiere Lavell and others led to various reforms of the act's status provisions in 1985 and following years. The 1985 amendments introduced a two-generation cut-off rule that critics argue could lead to the eventual loss of status for many Indigenous people.
• February 2018: Leaders argued that this legislation is tearing communities apart through piecemeal status rules. The Anishinabek Nation seeks to move away from this law's membership complications by using their own citizenship criteria. The act's definitions were contrasted with the inherent rights of a sovereign nation.
• February 2018: Scott McLeod noted that this legislation negatively impacted the lands, fisheries, and culture of Nipissing First Nation.
• February 2018: Aylan Couchie studied this legislation during a year-long research period to inform her artistic practice.
• March 2018: The act provides an exemption from property taxation for First Nations reserve lands.
• June 2018: The act was used in 1895 to forbid gift-giving ceremonies, called Potlatch, on the west coast. Under Canadian law, the wearing of regalia and dancing off-reserve was banned in 1914, and pow-wows and other ceremonies were outlawed in 1925.
• November 2018: The legislation previously prohibited First Nations from hiring legal counsel to protect their land rights or pursue interests. Discriminatory provisions in the act caused many individuals to lose their status if they left their home reserves.
• December 2018: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement aims to remove participating nations from the governance-related portions of this law.
• April 2019: Waubgeshig Rice noted that the act historically forbade Indigenous culture and language. The legislation contributed to identity struggles within Wasauksing First Nation due to its colonial legacy.
• April 2019: Chief Scott McLeod noted that this legislation contributed to the erosion of traditional family structures.
• April 2019: The 6(1)a All the Way! campaign demands the total removal of sex discrimination from this legislation. Proponents argue that discrimination against First Nations women within this act has no place in Canada.
• June 2019: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is designed to allow member nations to transition away from this federal legislation. Current governance funding for First Nation communities is determined by the regulations of this act.
• June 2019: Birth registration is required for an individual to have registration under this Act.
• June 2019: Section 46 of this act was used to sell reserve lands at Shoal Lake without the consent or surrender of the local First Nation.
• July 2019: This act is cited as a tool used to complete the subjugation of Indigenous peoples in Canada. It is described as treating Indigenous peoples as wards of the state and inferiors.
• July 2019: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to help First Nations move away from the restrictions of this legislation.
• July 2019: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is designed to remove certain governance areas from the jurisdiction of this act. Matters not covered by the new agreement will continue to be managed under this legislation.
• July 2019: The Anishinabek Nation seeks to move its member communities away from specific sections of this legislation. As of July 2019, the act dictates how First Nations elect their leadership and define their citizenship.
• August 2019: The Indian Act is described as a patriarchal and colonial document that solidified federal control over Indigenous lives in the late 19th century. Many nations remain dependent on the Indian Act because Canada maintains a fiduciary responsibility to Indigenous people through the legislation.
• August 2019: The act originally enforced laws that gave the federal government significant control over First Nations bands and people. Historical provisions in the act favoured paternal lineage, causing women who married non-status men to lose their legal status. Amendments to the act aim to ensure women and their descendants have equal access to treaty rights and post-secondary education funding.
• August 2019: Four parts of this act dealing with governance would no longer apply to communities that ratify the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement. The Anishinabek Nation is working to move its member communities beyond the restrictions of this legislation.
• October 2019: Patrick Madahbee argued that the Indian Act has controlled the lives of Indigenous people from birth to death. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to help First Nations move away from the registration systems and governance structures of the Indian Act.
• October 2019: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is designed to take participating First Nations out from under this patriarchal legislation in four specific law-making categories. The proposed deal would replace this act's rules regarding citizenship, language, leadership, and finances for ratifying communities.
• November 2019: This legislation historically prevented Indigenous people from hiring lawyers or leaving their reserves without written permission. The act remains the only Canadian law specifically designed to manage a single ethnic group. Under this act, the rights of First Nations were often ignored despite the existence of legal treaties.
• November 2019: Local leaders at Fort William First Nation argued that this legislation holds their community back and ties their hands on most issues. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to allow First Nations to move beyond the restrictions of this act.
• November 2019: Four parts of this act dealing with governance will be replaced for First Nations that ratify the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
• November 2019: The act has been the subject of legal challenges regarding matrilineal discrimination. Provisions within the act, such as 6(1)a and 6(2) registration, determine the status of Indigenous individuals in Canada.
• November 2019: The act is described as being built upon the foundation of the Doctrine of Discovery.
• December 2019: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is designed to allow First Nations to opt out of certain governance provisions of this act. Marina Plain noted that past and present leaders have expressed a desire for their communities to move beyond the restrictions of this legislation.
• December 2019: The filmmaker Caroline Monnet intended for her film to address how this legislation has aggressively impacted First Nations communities. The film Bootlegger examines the ongoing influence of this act on Indigenous self-determination and local politics.
• January 2020: The legislation racialized Indigenous peoples through the legal category of Indian and imposed nineteenth-century European male patriarchy. The act is described as a tool of racist patriarchy used by the state to eliminate Indians and confirm control over First Nations. As of January 2020, changes to the act have been limited to addressing status definitions determined by court decisions rather than addressing the history of colonialism.
• January 2020: First Nations that ratify the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement will no longer be subject to the sections of this act concerning governance.
• January 2020: Scott McLeod argued that staying under this legislation is not a form of sovereignty and that communities must move away from it. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is proposed as a mechanism for First Nations to exit certain sections of this act.
• January 2020: As of January 2020, just over half of the member Anishinabek First Nations continue to elect their leaders under this act. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement aims to allow communities to develop their own election laws without the prior review and approval required by Canada under this act.
• January 2020: The Anishinabek Nation argued that the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement allows for law-making that looks radically different from the regulations in this act.
• February 2020: The act has been described as a colonial tool that has kept Anishinabek Nation citizens in shackles for over 150 years. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to provide a way for communities to move past the act.
• February 2020: A section of this law caused Indigenous women to lose their status if they married non-Indigenous men until it was overturned in 1985. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell unsuccessfully challenged the sex discrimination in this legislation at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973.
• February 2020: The Indian Act was amended by Bill C-31 in 1985 to end enfranchisement, though some discriminatory sections remained. Section 108 of the 1952 Indian Act allowed for voluntary enfranchisement if an individual met specific age and self-support criteria. As of February 2020, the Indian Act continues to use rules from 1952 to determine the Indian Status of descendants of those who enfranchised.
• March 2020: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement aims to remove First Nations from the governance sections of this act. Participating communities would replace the act's provisions with their own laws for selecting leadership and determining citizenship.
• April 2020: Bob Wells described the Indian Act as a repressive system that has negatively impacted both individuals and communities.
• April 2020: Atikameksheng Anishnawbek sought to move away from elections held under this legislation in favour of a custom code. Leadership argued that a custom code is safer than an election under this act because it permits online voting.
• May 2020: The legislation was created with an underlying intent of assimilation or extinction of First Nations within Canada. The act underwent significant revisions in 1951 and 1952 that altered various rules while maintaining discriminatory provisions against women. The history of the act is described as a complex narrative involving both Indigenous and settler support and opposition over time.
• May 2020: The 1876 version of this law introduced a rule that removed individuals from membership lists if they lived outside Canada for five consecutive years. Section 13 of this legislation was used by the federal government to deny treaty rights to those residing in the United States. The specific provision regarding the five-year residency rule was repealed during a legislative overhaul in 1952.
• May 2020: The act was created in 1876 and has been used to subjugate First Nations people and communities. Policies derived from the act included the imposition of elected councils, denial of status to women, and the establishment of the pass system. The legislation banned traditional ceremonies, prohibited the use of Indigenous languages, and barred the right to vote.
• June 2020: The federal government claimed it has addressed some Calls for Justice by eliminating gender discrimination within the Indian Act. Lynn Gehl suggested that a national action plan should include assistance for women with registration under the Indian Act.
• July 2020: The legislation had its origins in 1839 laws designed to protect Indigenous lands from exploitation by white settlers and speculators. The Act was used by government agents to control Indigenous bands, eventually outlawing traditional spirituality, social customs, and the hiring of legal representation. As of July 2020, Indigenous people in Canada remain the only group governed by their own Act of Parliament and are still legally considered minors.
• July 2020: Mike Restoule noted that First Nations in the Robinson Huron territory have lived under program administration funding from this legislation. Chief Dean Sayers stated that his people have been unable to carry out plans due to the confines of this program.
• July 2020: Joan McLeod Shabogesic worked to remove Nipissing First Nation from the land-related clauses of this legislation. The act was originally passed in 1867 and was criticized for not reflecting the perspectives of Indigenous people regarding land management.
• August 2020: Section 87 of the act provides tax exemptions that do not apply to levies imposed by a First Nation Band Council on its own citizens.
• August 2020: The Indian Act dictates that a will made by a First Nations person living on a reserve has no legal effect until approved by the federal minister. Section 48 of the Indian Act provides default rules for property distribution if a person dies without a valid will. The Indian Act requires a will to be in writing and signed to be considered for approval by the minister.
• September 2020: Jonathan Pitt noted that it has been seven generations since this legislation was first imposed on First Nations.
• September 2020: A 2020 court ruling found that sections 108 and 109 of the act did not apply to unmarried women seeking voluntary enfranchisement. The act underwent various amendments in 1985, 2011, 2016, and 2019 which continued to rely on past enfranchisement policies. The 1952 version of the act was interpreted by a judge as being focused on the relationships of women to men.
• November 2020: Patrick Madahbee argued that the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement offers a way to replace governance under this act. As of November 2020, leaders expressed a goal of removing the influence of federal Indian Affairs from their communities.
• November 2020: The act is one of the crucial historical subjects covered in the book We Are All Treaty People.
• November 2020: The legislation contains provisions like Section 89 and Section 87 which govern property rights and taxation on reserves. Courts often apply a liberal and generous interpretation of this law to protect the anti-seizure rights of First Nations members.
• November 2020: Section 87 of the Indian Act exempts the personal property of an "Indian" or a Band from taxation if it is situated on a reserve. Personal property under the act includes employment income, business income, interest, and treaty or settlement funds. Tax courts and the Canada Revenue Agency frequently handle disputes regarding the interpretation of this legislation.
• January 2021: Rita Fenton stated that discrimination in this act regarding Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men caused her to have no identity. The history of this act was a topic of study for Rita Fenton during her college education.
• February 2021: The mother of George Armstrong reportedly lost her legal status under this legislation after marrying a non-Indigenous man.
• February 2021: The law includes Section 88, which allows provincial laws of general application to apply to First Nations people unless they conflict with treaties or federal laws. Amendments to the law in 1951 introduced Section 88, the Indian Register, and the Double Mother rule without significant input from First Nations leaders. The legislation is described as a paternalistic tool that historically aimed to encourage the assimilation of First Nations communities into provincial systems.
• February 2021: The Anishinabek Nation aims to remove its member communities from provisions of this act regarding leadership selection and citizenship. Jody Wilson-Raybould argued that the act allows the federal government to dictate how First Nations govern themselves.
• February 2021: Jeannette Corbiere Lavell challenged this legislation in 1971 to fight for the rights of First Nation women. Anishinabek Nation leaders reject the act's attempt to define and legislate who is considered an Anishinabek citizen. Barron King stated that the act's policies threaten the long-term survival of First Nation communities.
• May 2021: Duncan Campbell Scott supported the development of this legislation. The act is part of a history of suppressing and discouraging Anishinabek culture and ceremony.
• May 2021: The MMIWG2S Report cited this legislation as a colonial structure that empowers systemic violence against Indigenous populations.
• May 2021: The 1927 version of this act prohibited Indian Agents from profiting from the sale of Indigenous land. The act historically prevented Indigenous people from hiring legal services to protect their property. The legislation was used as a tool of oppression to control food rations and threaten the removal of children to residential schools.
• May 2021: The act was used to restrict the movement of reserve residents through a pass system. It was used as a tool for racist policies, including the prohibition of traditional cultural practices like pow wow dancing. The legislation created obstacles for First Nations and dictated the loss of Indian status for women who married non-Indigenous men.
• July 2021: Participants in The Blinding Light Walk – Tiger Lily called for the removal of colonial policies within this legislation. Vern Janvier argued that residential schools were an extension of this law used by the government and churches to control Indigenous people.
• August 2021: The history and effects of this legislation were taught to Northern Ontario School of Medicine students during their placement.
• August 2021: The Blinding Light Walk – Tiger Lily was organized to protest injustices contained within this legislation.
• September 2021: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement would remove participating First Nations from being governed by sections 8-14, 74-79, and 80 of the Indian Act. The tax exemption provided under Section 87 of the Indian Act will continue to apply even if the new governance agreement is adopted.
• September 2021: The Indian Act is described as a tool used to assimilate Anishinabek people and attack their traditional governing systems and language. Provisions of the Indian Act regarding education and governance are being replaced by negotiated agreements within the Anishinabek Nation. The Restoration of Jurisdiction process aims to remove the oversight of the federal Minister as dictated by the Indian Act.
• September 2021: Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux described this legislation as a link between the federal government and Indigenous communities but argued for a more appropriate alternative.
• September 2021: The Green Party of Canada has a policy motion to repeal this act in consultation with First Nations.
• September 2021: Duke Peltier argued that the federal government cannot unilaterally remove sections of this legislation without informed consent and robust conversation with First Nations.
• September 2021: Jason Henry advocated for the gradual removal of sections of the Indian Act that hinder First Nations development and self-government. The Indian Act is the mechanism through which Chief and Council are elected in federal elections.
• September 2021: The act is described as a system of legislative apartheid that continues to oppress Indigenous communities in Canada. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is noted to be in direct opposition to the policies of the Indian Act.
• October 2021: Author Jenny Kay Dupuis stated her upcoming book will address an important topic within this act.
• November 2021: The book Understanding First Nations: The Legacy of Canadian Colonialism examines the history and impact of this legislation. Karl Hele suggested that the book's explanation of this law and its attendant policies was sometimes oversimplified or misleading.
• November 2021: The legislation was updated in 1985 through Bill C-31 to address sex discrimination and align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The act created different tiers of status, which resulted in continued discrimination against Indigenous women and their children. Internal policies related to the act assumed non-status paternity in cases where a father was unstated, denying status to thousands of people.
• January 2022: The act imposed secret-ballot elections on First Nations. Gordon Waindubence used the mantra "Act Indian, not Indian Act" to encourage cultural sovereignty.
• January 2022: Wahnapitae First Nation is working to move away from the colonial influence and oppression associated with this legislation.
• January 2022: The Indigenous Governance program at the Weengushk Film Institute includes study of this legislation.
• February 2022: Speakers at the 2022 conference criticized the act for creating trauma by removing status from women and children. The act was described as a tool of exclusion that has divided families and communities for more than a century.
• February 2022: Reg Niganobe noted that Indigenous people are inherently oppressed by this legislation, unlike protesters who are merely experiencing a loss of privilege.
• March 2022: The Indian Act was designed to destroy the Anishinaabe way of life and assimilate Indigenous people into Canada. Negotiations by the Anishinabek Nation aim to restore jurisdictions that were previously suppressed by this legislation. Provisions of this act regarding elections and band meetings are being replaced by the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
• April 2022: The Indian Act was used to outlaw Indigenous songs and dances that were used to bring treaties into existence. The creation of federally-run Indian Residential Schools and Day Schools was one of the most negative impacts of the Indian Act.
• May 2022: Prior to this act, chiefs were selected based on dodems.
• May 2022: Caroline Brown described the legislation as a source of discrimination that divided her family. The act's status requirements led to a 27-year struggle for Peter Brown McMillan to be officially recognized.
• May 2022: Patrick Madahbee stated that this act is not the way of the Anishinabek Nation. The new governance developments aim to move communities away from the way they govern under this act.
• May 2022: Dave Mowat described the Indian Act as a racist colonial construct that sought to undermine First Nations self-government. The legislation is characterized as a reality that Indigenous peoples in Canada must work within.
• June 2022: Scott McLeod stated this legislation restricted access to traditional lands and resources. The act prevented Nipissing First Nation from creating laws that governed its members when they were off-reserve. It replaced inherent rights like self-government and ceremony with government-approved band councils.
• June 2022: The act included a permit system until 2014 that restricted the ability of First Nations to sell products off-reserve. Until 1951, the legislation forced Indigenous professionals like lawyers and doctors to give up their Indian Status.
• June 2022: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement allows First Nations to move away from this act toward greater self-determination. Signatory nations will no longer be subject to four specific provisions of this act concerning leadership, citizenship, language, and government operations.
• August 2022: The book describes how the act and its agents exerted significant power over the lives of people in Cowessess First Nation. Many community members found ways to navigate or bypass the rules imposed by this legislation to make a living.
• September 2022: The act historically contained a clause that only allowed men to hold title to properties, often forcing women and children to relocate. First Nations are working to move away from these colonial regulations in favour of traditional laws.
• October 2022: Sections of this act concerning governance will no longer apply to the First Nations that signed the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement. The new agreement allows communities to move out from under this legislation to transition toward self-government.
• October 2022: Provisions of this act regarding governance are replaced for First Nations that ratify the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
• October 2022: A specific clause in this act previously prevented Canadian human rights legislation from protecting First Nations people from certain discriminatory decisions. The act's influence on land status affects how wills and estates are managed when property is left to non-status family members.
• October 2022: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to move participating First Nations away from certain sections of this legislation. Pat Madahbee stated that the Anishinabek Nation is taking an incremental approach to leaving this act based on advice from the Nisga'a Lisims Government.
• November 2022: Tommy Prince worked through the Manitoba Indian Association to advocate for the abolition of this legislation.
• November 2022: Michele Solomon stated that the act was used to disenfranchise Indigenous veterans, meaning they were no longer considered citizens of their First Nations after serving. The act has undergone changes over the years to try and correct injustices related to the removal of veterans from their communities.
• December 2022: The Union of Ontario Indians recommended reforming this legislation to remove systemic obstacles and support the economic independence of Indigenous governments.
• January 2023: The book Heart Berry Bling educates children about gender discrimination found within this legislation. The law historically caused First Nation women to lose their status if they married a person without status, a rule that did not apply to First Nation men.
• February 2023: Definitions within this legislation regarding what constitutes a reserve have created legal and jurisdictional challenges for Nipissing First Nation.
• March 2023: The legislation historically discriminated against Indigenous women, causing them to lose their status and right to live in their communities if they married non-Indigenous men. These gender-based membership rules remained in place until 1985, affecting the identity and rights of many children and grandchildren. The law created divisions within families and communities by granting status to non-Indigenous women who married Indigenous men while denying it to Indigenous women.
• June 2023: Reg Niganobe highlighted that systemic racism exists within this legislation. The Anishinabek Nation educational resource highlights the systemic racism that exists within this act.
• July 2023: The Indian Act contains citizenship designations that Pat Wedaseh Madahbee stated are causing the Anishinabek Nation to lose its citizens.
• July 2023: Jonathan Pitt stated that the Chief and Council system imposed by this law replaced traditional matriarchal systems.
• July 2023: The act has historically rendered Indigenous women, Two-Spirit, and gender diverse people silent or invisible.
• July 2023: The Indian Act restricted the rights of Indigenous people to maintain direct relations with the Crown.
• October 2023: This legislation banned Indigenous dancing in Canada until 1951. Under this law, individuals who performed traditional dances faced the threat of incarceration.
• November 2023: The act previously prevented Indigenous veterans from entering Royal Canadian Legion branches because it prohibited them from being served alcohol. Amendments made in 1952 removed restrictions that had banned pow wows and alcohol consumption for Indigenous people.
• November 2023: Karen Restoule argued that this legislation is no longer relevant and needs to be replaced by modern policy solutions. The law historically restricted the movement of First Nations people and controlled their ability to engage in business and trade. Approximately 590 First Nations across Canada remain governed by this act rather than modern self-government agreements.
• December 2023: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement Act is intended to eventually move Anishinabek First Nations out from under this act. Chief Scott McLeod noted the agreement allows his community to exit parts of this act without certain consequences.
• January 2024: The Anishinabek Nation seeks to move away from this legislation through the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
• March 2024: The book Numbered Treaties A to Z uses the letter I to discuss this legislation and its impact on the treaty relationship.
• April 2024: The legislation was used to ban Indigenous cultural practices until 1951. Karen Pheasant-Neganigane highlighted how the act made traditional activities a criminal offence.
• April 2024: The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is intended to help First Nations move out from under the control of the Indian Act. Joseph Laford noted that the new agreement allows the community to govern themselves instead of being restricted by this legislation.
• September 2024: Anishinabe leaders described this legislation as an oppressive system that communities have lived under for 150 years. The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement is designed to help First Nations exit the governance provisions of this act. Some communities remain hesitant to leave the act due to fears regarding the loss of perceived protections.
• November 2024: The act historically caused some Indigenous soldiers to lose their status upon returning from military service. Michele Solomon noted that the rules made by Indian agents under this act were very prominent and taken seriously in the past.
• January 2025: Del Riley characterized this legislation as the basis of a system of apartheid in Canada. One of the primary goals of Del Riley during his career was the elimination of this act.
• February 2025: The Anishinabek Nation seeks to establish citizenship laws that move their 39 communities beyond the jurisdiction of this act. Section 12 of this act previously caused Indigenous women to lose their status if they married non-Indigenous men. The discriminatory section 12 was repealed in 1985 following legal challenges by activists like Jeannette Corbiere Lavell.
• March 2025: Chop Waindubence criticized this legislation, contrasting its private voting booths with traditional open Anishinabe election practices. The late Gordon Waindubence urged people to prioritize their own cultural ways over the regulations of this act.
• March 2025: Speakers at the Anishinabek Nation Governance Summit identified the act as a barrier to traditional governance because it has defined community leadership for over 150 years.
• March 2025: The Anishinabek Nation is seeking to implement its own citizenship laws as an alternative to the registration provisions of this act. As of March 2025, the government of Canada is considering amendments to or the eventual repeal of this legislation. Efforts are being made to make the provisions of this act more consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• June 2025: The Anishinabek Nation is opposing the use of this act's registration regulations to govern Anishinaabe people. As of June 2025, Canada reportedly intends to introduce legislative options in 2027 as a step toward eventually eliminating this act.
• October 2025: Linda Debassige stated that this act and its institutions taught people to keep each other down, creating barriers to economic development. The Anishinabek Nation leadership called for communities to break away from the influence of this legislation to find hope and purpose.
• October 2025: The act contains a second-generation cut-off that prevents descendants from being registered after two generations of parenting with non-registered people. Advocates argue the act continues to use sexist and assimilationist rules to reduce the number of people recognized as First Nations citizens. Proposed amendments in 2025 aimed to restore status to families affected by historical enfranchisement.
• November 2025: The act requires that all Band Council Resolutions be officially approved by the federal government in Ottawa.
• November 2025: The Anishinabek Nation argues that the act contains race-based and patriarchal rules that lead to the legislative diminution of First Nation populations. Proposed amendments to Bill S-2 seek to repeal the second-generation cut-off found in section 6(2) of this act.
• December 2025: Proposed amendments to the Indian Act seek to end the second-generation cut-off that has impacted First Nations populations for decades. The Anishinabek Nation argued that the Indian Act has been used to push Indigenous communities toward statistical extinction through discriminatory registration rules.
• December 2025: Rose LeMay argues in her book that this legislation is unconstitutional and racist in its intent. Karl Hele noted that the constitutionality and continued existence of this act is a key part of the "Great Canadian Lie."
• February 2026: Linda Debassige described the legislation as a barrier that prevents Nations from engaging in economic opportunities and municipal partnerships.
• February 2026: The act includes a second-generation cut-off that prevents parents from passing status to children unless both parents have status. Section 6 of the act determines eligibility for registration, which the Anishinabek Nation seeks to reform. The law was amended in 1985 by Bill C-3 as part of a historical process of assimilation.
• April 2026: The legislation was passed on April 5, 1876, to consolidate various laws regarding people, lands, and monies into one document. The act established a system where First Nations people were treated as wards of the state until the 1950s. Significant amendments were made to the act in 1951 and 1985 to address issues such as gender discrimination and band membership. Section 49A, added in 1911, allowed for the surrender of reserve lands located next to cities with a population of 8,000 or more.
• April 2026: The act historically stripped First Nation women of their legal status if they married non-First Nation men, a provision challenged by Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. Proposed amendments in Bill S-2 seek to address registration entitlements and gender-based inequities within the legislation.
• June 2026: Proposed amendments to this act regarding registration entitlements are being addressed through Bill S-2.
• August 2026: The act includes a second-generation cut-off that prevents descendants from being registered as Indians after two generations of out-parenting. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell stated the act was intended to dispossess and force the assimilation of Indigenous people. The act's registration rules have historically caused sex and racial discrimination against First Nation women.
• August 2026: Conference participants discussed the challenges and exclusions caused by the second-generation cut-off under Section 6 of this law. Leaders argued that communities should move away from this colonial framework toward their own traditional laws.
• October 2026: Scott McLeod described this law as legislation aimed at getting rid of Indigenous people in Canada. The act was identified as being still intact and responsible for leaving many scars.