Is it time for the Indian Act to go?

National chief suggests outdated legislation could be gone in 5 years
Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn Atleo made headline news when he suggested it was time to get rid of the Indian Act.
During the AFN assembly July 20-22 in Winnipeg, Man., Atleo posed the question “Is it time to boldly suggest within two to five years, the Indian Act will no longer be part of our lives?”
Atleo spoke of what the Indian Act system does provide. It provides the highest suicide rates, the highest incarceration rates in the country, the lowest education rates and the lowest income rates, he said.
So rather than have a department that governs First Nation lives, Atleo suggested the federal government could set up a ministry of First Nations-Crown relations, as well as a treaty rights tribunal. In this manner, items promised in centuries old treaties would be delivered such as health care and land, he said.
The Indian Act, created in 1876, deals with Indian status, local government, management of reserve land and funding.
Prior to the Indian Act, there were colonial laws and Royal Proclamations in place that governed Aboriginal people.
Leaders in northern Ontario are quite ready to implement change.
“When I travel to communities and listen to the Elders talk, even though they don’t understand (the Indian Act), they understand it is a connection to the government,” Mushkegowuk Council Grand Chief Stan Louttit said. “They understand there is a specific act or law that recognizes Indian people, even though it is paternalistic. They (the Elders) look at it as a relationship with the government.”
Louttit is supportive of a change to the existing governance structure.
“If it’s a plan of AFN representing 633 First Nations, (including the Mushkegowuk communities), to get rid of the Indian Act, we have to be part of that and drive it. We have to come up with alternatives. If he works by himself with the government, it’s not going to work.”
Louttit is keen on implementing the proposed changes.
“Let’s pull a team together. Let’s get a national body together so we can drive this process, but it has to be grassroots driven with Elders and leaders,” Louttit said.
Indian Act holding back First Nations: Beardy
Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Stan Beardy spoke of how Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to Atleo’s suggestion.
“When we signed the treaties, it was the vision of our ancestors 100 years ago for a positive relationship – one about co-existence,” Beardy said. “We are supposed to prosper with the natural resources but the Indian Act is holding us back.
“When you look at how much wealth is generated from natural resources, it is in the billions and billions of dollars, that is why the government refuses to recognize Section 35.”
Since the wealth from natural resources is not getting to First Nation communities, a cycle of poverty exists, he said.
“They make it in such a way we are not too hungry, but we keep hanging on,” Beardy said. “We have to go for self
sufficiency. The colonial government must acknowledge and recognize we have the ability to govern ourselves. We never gave up that right and there must be political will.”
Several local chiefs agree with Atleo’s suggestion.
“Yes, I agree with Shawn Atleo; with what he said,” Mattagami First Nation Chief Walter Naveau said. “As long as we are under the umbrella of Indian Affairs, there would always be a situation where there is not enough money for Indian people.”
Naveau shares the prophecy he once heard from an Elder.
“The Elder had said: ‘People called Indian Affairs will cut your treaty card a little at a time until you have nothing left, then they have full assimilation.’”
Naveau reflected on that Elder’s teaching.
“It is so mind baffling at this time and age something (like treaty erosion) can happen. They take away rights rather than uphold the treaties.”
All too often, mainstream society has a false impression of the wealth of Aboriginals, Naveau said.
“The public gets a concept that we are rich people, yet we have a lack of housing and a lack of infrastructure. We are like a generic brand. We don’t get the real deal. They (INAC) are too busy making money off of First Nations,” Naveau said.
Naveau would like to see the chiefs stand united to bring positive change for future generations.
“We have a legacy to leave behind. I call it nationhood building – to the east, to the south, west and north. We need to sustain that spirit of unity. Enough is enough.”
Unlike reserves acknowledged by Indian Affairs, one First Nation community faces greater challenges since their community has not been recognized and acknowledged by Indian Affairs.
Whitewater Lake First Nation hereditary chief Arlene Slipperjack represents 110 community members.
The reserve is located 60 kilometers north of Armstrong within the Treaty 9 boundary and is surrounded by the Wabakimi Provincial Park.
“We live on our land, but it’s not recognized by Indian Affairs,” Slipperjack said. “The Indian Act does not help us at all. In fact, it prevents us from getting ahead. It’s not good for our Native people. The federal government sets these rules down to control people.”
If the Indian Act were to become obsolete, the elimination of core funding for her community would not have any affect.
Whitewater Lake receives its funding from the Casino Rama Revenue Agreement. As such, there are no benefits for the membership in terms of education funding or resource development.
Slipperjack said self-government is the alternative to the Indian Act.
“I would like to see self-government based on our own laws. We have our own laws that people lived by for generations and generations. We never had any problems before.”