Law Essay

Submitted By jagpreet_74
Words: 1663
Pages: 7

Should The Indian Act Be Repealed?

Should The Indian Act Be Repealed?
Jagpreet Singh
Ms.Chaudhry
CLU 3M0
January 12, 2015

Should The Indian Act Be Repealed?

Should the Indian Act Be Repealed? Over the years Aboriginals living in Canada have lost their land, families,traditions, language, and much more due to the Indian Act. The Indian Act was created in 1876 by the Canadian government and this piece of legislation was created to “protect” the land of the First Nations and is the only act involving the First Nation people to still be in place today. The act states that all the first nation land belongs to the crown and the Aboriginals would merely just live on the reserves created on the land.
The Indian Act also states the many restrictions and rules for Aboriginals, rules such as how leaders are to be elected, how the children have to be educated and how real estate is dealt with after the death its resident. The Indian Act lead to one of the most discriminatory acts in Canadian history ,caused by the
Canadian government, which was residential schools. The main goal of these schools were to assimilate
Aboriginal children and have them abandon their traditions and integrate into European culture. Also as a result of the rules of Indian Act, many First nations have been driven into poverty and many have no jobs and have become drug and alcohol addicts. Due to the Indian act of 1876 being restricting, discriminatory and the fact that it is an economic deterrent, it should be repealed. Although the Indian Act had promised to allow the Aboriginals to live freely on their own land, it has not done that. The Indian act, has set many rules for the Aboriginal people causing it to be very restricting, which is why it should be repealed. According to the Indian Act, First Nations are required to get permission from Indian agents, if they want to leave the reserve or sell goods. Indian Agents are people who interact with the First Nations people on behalf of the Canadian government. As stated in, Section 20 subsection 1 of the Indian act, “No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in

Should The Indian Act Be Repealed?

a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.” This goes to show that the Canadian government is taking away the land that rightfully belongs to the Aboriginals and then going and putting restrictions on the land so they are not free to do as they please. Furthermore, the First Nations Governance Act, also known as Bill C­7 was added to the Indian act in 2003, this was meant to allow the First Nations a bit more freedom to do what they wanted to with their government. This bill did in fact provide some government freedom but the bill also stated how and only how the Aboriginal government was allowed to spend the money given to them. This Act further proves that the Indian act does nothing besides restrict the first nations from their constitutional rights, which is why the indian act should be repealed. Additionally, in the
Indian Act, Section 91,subsection 1, it states that Aboriginals are not allowed to obtain property of, unless they are given consent to do so, “91. (1) No person may, without the written consent of the
Minister, acquire title to any of the following property situated on a reserve, namely,
○ (a) an Indian grave house;
○ (b) a carved grave pole;
○ (c) a totem pole;
○ (d) a carved house post; or
○ (e) a rock embellished with paintings or carvings.”
This section states that the first nation people are not allowed to claim the right to certain properties such as a grave house, a grave pole, a totem pole, a house post or a painted or carved rock without authorization from a minister or an Indian agent which shows that there are many restrictions in the
Indian act that prevent Aboriginals from receiving