The Forgotten People and the Indian Act

The Indian Act regime imposed on Aboriginal peoples over the past 120 years is held officially, by the government and by CAP, to be out-dated, paternalistic and contrary to the objectives of Aboriginal self-government. The current federal goal of eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act regime is applauded by CAP. As the following outline of the constituency of CAP clearly indicates, the need for distinct representation of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples continues.

CAP is of the view that many federal policies remain significantly biased by the "old regime" of the Indian Act, notwithstanding the public objective of government to terminate that regime. This is perhaps the single most important obstacle to establishing a new relationship between the government and the CAP's constituency, which includes:

Status Indian people - who reside off-reserve, numbering 230,000 and including the 100,000 who have achieved "reinstatement" under Bill C-31. These individuals either cannot participate in band government by virtue of residency rules or wish to have their own needs and interests addressed by off-reserve collective organizations recognized by governments as at least the equivalent of "bands". Some elements of this population seek "new band" recognition, while others, perhaps the majority, seek new initiatives to secure their identities in an off-reserve environment while retaining some civil and political rights and a cultural and social connection to their communities of origin.

Non-status Indian people - are those who are socially or genetically connected to federally-recognized bands but who are not entitled, under Indian Act regulations, to registered Indian status and, in most cases, are therefore not technically entitled to band membership. The 1991 Census implies that some 250,000 persons identify as Indians who are not technically eligible for "status".

This population pursues two broad goals. Where they are intermixed with other Aboriginal people, the goal is one of achieving common programs and services and self-government, whether on a land-base or not. In circumstances where they seek reinstatement for benefits unconnected with band membership, such as health and education, the goal is amendments to the Indian Act to widen "status" entitlements.

Indians who were never-registered - Estimated at approximately 40,000, these people and their traditional communities are completely outside the Indian Act system because the system has been applied so as to exclude them, as in Labrador (Innu), Newfoundland (Micmac), Ontario/Quebec (vagrant Indians and "irregular bands" such as Ojibougamou) and in parts of Alberta, as well as in parts of central and northern Manitoba. These are fairly well defined communities, but they have and are subject to being factionalized as families and individuals because of the vagaries of the Indian Act (e.g., the Half-Breed Treaty Adhesion Band at Rainy River, the Alberta Metis settlements, "late additions" to Bands in Ontario and the Prairies and B.C. and, most recently, in the case of the Woodland Cree Band.

The main objectives for these groups have been recognition of Aboriginal rights, including lands and resources and self-government. There is also some remnant band splintering effects caused by previous choices to assimilate into already recognized bands. Almost all of the people involved in this category live in rural or remote areas.

Metis people - are located in all of the provinces and territories of Canada. These persons, who may or may not be entitled to status under the Indian Act, are Metis culturally, historically, and for purposes of constitutional recognition. Some of this group are a distinctive mixed blood population, others are closely identified with the history and culture of the French/Cree Metis in southern Manitoba and central Saskatchewan in the 1860s.

A third group identifies themselves in terms of specific Tribal connections but are collectively distinct as social communities (e.g., Bush Cree/Metis; "Bay-Metis" in Northern Ontario, and Gwitchin Metis in the northern McKenzie). Specific objectives of these groups vary considerably, but usually include claims settlement in connection with related bands/Inuit settlements (the MNNWT and LMA), claims settlements for small groups of Metis in Ontario and joint initiatives for programs, services and self-government for rural and urban groups, usually in common with rural and urban non-status and status off-reserve Indians.

To Next Page The Rights of CAP Constituents