While only 1% of the Canadian population lives on Indian reserves, that tiny population is constantly in the news. From court cases that pit Aboriginal title against basic homeownership, to Indian chiefs threatening to block development — or even the upcoming Alberta independence referendum — their increasingly aggressive demands fill our courtrooms and newspapers.All of this flows from one statute passed early on. The Indian Act. It creates a system for reserve residents that is very different from the rules and laws that apply to everyone else. It is regarded as a relic of the past, but attempts to get rid of it over the years have all failed.Why did we need it?The foundation of the Indian Act was the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857, which was itself based on recommendations from the 1844 Bagot Commission. Until that time, the colonial government had treated Indians only as tribes. During early colonization, when the French and British were fighting for control of the continent, this made sense. The various tribes allied with them in ways that suited each party’s agendas. Even after Britain eventually prevailed over the French, the fur trade lent itself to cooperation between the British and the various tribes who participated in the enterprise in a way that let Indians keep their tribal life generally intact.But as the fur trade waned, and settlers began arriving, it was clear that Indians would have to adapt to the white man’s world. This would not be easily accomplished. Indians of the Northwest had resided from 1670 to 1870 mainly within Rupert’s Land, which offered virtually nothing to the inhabitants in the way of government or educational opportunities. Worse still, disease, intertribal warfare, and whiskey had decimated the small, scattered Indian population. Indeed, that entire Indian population at the time of Confederation would have fit easily into a medium-sized prairie city, such as today’s Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.Canada’s founders concluded that the only solution to what was even then known as “the Indian Problem” was to place Indians in a special legal category as registered or “status” Indians. They were made “wards in tutelage” — similar to children in school — and placed on reserves, where they would be temporarily protected and educated before being left to fend for themselves..But not all Indians were made “status” Indians. An Indian who had graduated from university, or become a minister or professional, was not entitled to be a status Indian for the simple reason that he was presumed to be literate, capable, and independent. His enfranchisement was automatic.The next step was for the Indians to gradually become part of mainstream Canadian society by a process called “enfranchisement.” It’s necessary to look at the terms “assimilation” and “enfranchisement” because they are both largely misunderstood.First of all, “assimilation” does not mean “forced assimilation.” Indians were offered the chance to become ordinary Canadian citizens through “enfranchisement,” but there was no compulsion to do so. Another term for “assimilation” is “integration.” That was the same policy applied to all of the settlers arriving in Canada from different parts of the world. Both settlers and Indians were free to keep as much as they wanted of their culture and ethnic identity.The term “enfranchisement” is associated with voting. But it meant much more. An Indian choosing to be enfranchised was eligible to receive a per capita share of his band’s trust funds and an allotment of 50 acres of reserve land in fee simple. He could stay on his reserve, or sell his land to an indigenous or non-indigenous purchaser and move off the reserve.Reserves would gradually morph into stand-alone municipalities, or merge with existing ones. In time, the reasons for a separate Indian system would disappear. Indians would be Canadian citizens with equal individual rights. Tribal rights would be a thing of the past.It didn’t work out that way. The federal government made the enfranchisement process unnecessarily complicated. More importantly, the chiefs did not want to see their band proceeds and reserve lands devolve to individuals, so those desperate to find a better life off reserve left with nothing. They arrived in cities completely unprepared for modern life. A short walk north on Winnipeg’s Main Street graphically reveals the results..The myth that enfranchisement failed because Indians wanted to hold on to their culture is false. Most status Indians now live off reserve. They left because reserve culture had given them nothing. They would gladly have accepted an enfranchisement that would have put some money in their pockets.But enfranchisement failed. So the vision of our founders — namely that the separate Indian system would naturally come to an end — did not happen. A race-based system that was meant to offer temporary protection has now become entrenched. Halfhearted attempts by the federal government in 1920, 1930, and 1969 to restore the founders’ vision and end the separate system were all successfully resisted by the chiefs. Our courts and governments since then — inexplicably — seem intent on preserving and aggressively expanding the chiefs’ vision of a 635 “First Nations” Canada..GIESBRECHT: Cory Morgan doesn’t back down — and shouldn't.No liberal democracy that insists on special race-based rights for one group — much less 635 — can be successful. At some point, we must bite the bullet and begin the tortuous process of opening up the Constitution and bringing to an end the separate Indian system — making Canada a nation of equal rights for all.Some argue that it’s too late to do so. I say we had better do so before it’s too late.
