When Canada confederated in 1867 the new state inherited legal responsibilities from the colonial periods under France and Great Britain, most notably the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which made it illegal for British subjects to buy land directly from Indian nations, because only the Crown could add land to the British Empire from other sovereign nations through treaties.
During the negotiations around Canadian Confederation, the framers of Canada's constitution wanted the new federal government to inherit Britain's former role in treaty-making and land acquisition, and specifically assigned responsibility for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" to the federal government (rather than the provinces), by the terms of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Indian Act replaced any laws on the topic passed by a local legislature before a province joined Canadian Confederation, creating a definitive national policy.
The act's unilateral nature was imposed on Indigenous peoples after passage by the Canadian government, in contrast to the treaties, which were negotiated.
It was an attempt to codify rights promised to Native peoples by King George III in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 while at the same time enforcing Euro-Canadian standards of "civilization".
From the introduction in 1857 by the Taché-Macdonald administration of the Gradual Civilization Act until 1961, the enfranchisement process was optional for men of age 21 able to read and write English or French.
[9]The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.
Indigenous people with the franchise became official citizens of Canada (or British subjects before 1947), were allowed to vote for representatives, were expected to pay taxes, and lived "off-reserve".
[12] This occurred as a result of the act's enforcement of the patrilineal descent principle required to determine an individual's eligibility for Indian status.
Sections relating to Indians (Aboriginal people) as individuals (in this case, wills and taxation of personal property) were not included.
Lawrence discusses the struggles of Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bédard in the early 1970s, two Indigenous women who had both lost their Indian status for marrying white men.
In 1981, Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from western New Brunswick, forced the issue by taking her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, contending that she should not have to lose her own status by her marriage.
[17] Restricted from access to their native community, Aboriginal women without legal status were unable to participate in ceremonies and rituals on their traditional land.
[19] A decade later, nearly 100,000 people had their status' reinstated while bands had newly gained control of membership responsibilities which was previously administrated by the Department of Indian Affairs.
[19] Consequently, the reality of scarce access to essential services and resources amongst Indigenous communities became a primary factor driving the membership process and its outcomes.
[20] Bill C-31 attempts to recognise the United Nations' Human Rights Committee decision in the Sandra Lovelace case and Charter compliance issues.
[23] Under the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of Canada is required in 180 days to fulfill these requirements: to ensuring that paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act is understood in a way that allows registration of those who were not previously registered under the distinction of paragraph 6(1)(a) on the basis of sex and gender, account for the ongoing discrimination of Indigenous peoples in Canada of gender and sex in the Indian Act and to avoid future discrimination similar to this Bill.
Continuing to place restrictions on the status of reinstated women, Bill C-3 does not remove all gender bias provisions from the act.
[27][28] In 1894 amendments to the Indian Act made school attendance compulsory for Indigenous children between 7 and 16 years of age.
[29]: 254–255 The Canadian Indian residential school system subjected children to forced conversions, sickness, abuse and what has been described as an attempt at cultural genocide by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
[30] The residential school system severed family ties and diminished the transmission of traditional culture, in an attempt to assimilate Indigenous peoples into broader Canadian society for which on June 11, 2008, the government of Canada apologized.
Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg argues that in Dick v. The Queen (1985),[38] the Supreme Court "changed its mind about the scope of s.
[39] Numerous failed attempts have been made by Canadian parliamentarians to repeal or replace the Indian Act without success.
[57] These arrests were based on Aboriginal participation in festivals, dances and ceremonies that involved the wounding of animals or humans, or the giving away of money or goods.
[59] According to Canadian historian Constance Backhouse, the Aboriginal "give-away dances" were ceremonies more commonly known as potlatches that connected entire communities politically, economically and socially.
[60] These dances affirmed kinship ties, provided elders with opportunities to pass on insight, legends and history to the next generation, and were a core part of Aboriginal resistance to assimilation.
The act was at the centre of the 1969 Supreme Court case R. v. Drybones, regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights.