The Indian Act: A Tool of Colonial Oppression Against First Peoples in Canada
The Indian Act, enacted in 1876, is one of the most enduring pieces of legislation in Canadian history. It is also one of the most damaging. Designed and enforced by the federal government of Canada, the Indian Act has long been used to control, assimilate, and marginalize First Nations peoples. More than just a statute, it has been a powerful colonial tool of cultural genocide, systematically undermining Indigenous rights, governance, land, identity, and ways of life for nearly 150 years.
While the Indian Act has gone through numerous amendments—some removing the most blatant discriminatory sections—it remains a central mechanism of Canada’s relationship with First Nations and continues to impose state control over Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Understanding how the Indian Act has functioned as an oppressive tool is essential to confronting Canada’s colonial history and addressing its ongoing legacy.
Legal Framework of Colonialism
The Indian Act consolidated prior colonial laws such as the Gradual Civilization Act (1857) and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act (1869)—which aimed to assimilate Indigenous people into Canadian society by encouraging them to give up their “Indian status” in exchange for full citizenship rights.
The architects of the Indian Act believed that Indigenous peoples were inferior and that their cultures would eventually disappear. As John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister, said during Confederation debates:
“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.”
This assimilative goal was not just ideological—it was embedded in law.
Erasure of Indigenous Governance
Before colonization, First Nations had diverse governance systems, ranging from hereditary chiefs and clan mothers to consensus-based decision-making models. The Indian Act replaced these with the band council system. Under Section 74 of the Act, traditional systems were outlawed, and federally appointed or elected councils—based on Euro-Canadian models—were imposed.
These councils operated with limited authority, under the constant supervision of the Department of Indian Affairs. Indian Agents had the power to approve or override decisions made by band councils, effectively making First Nations leaders functionaries of the state rather than representatives of sovereign nations.
To this day, many First Nations are governed by systems that were never chosen by them, undermining their inherent right to self-government recognized under international law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Land Control and the Reserve System
The Indian Act introduced a rigid system of land control and confinement through the reserve system. Reserves were (and remain) tracts of land held “in trust” by the Crown for the “use and benefit” of First Nations. This means that First Nations people do not legally own the land they live on—even though it is their ancestral territory.
Key mechanisms of oppression include:
Land Surrenders: The Act permitted the federal government to pressure or manipulate communities into surrendering land, often without proper consultation.
Lack of Title: Individuals could not hold land titles or use land as collateral, which prevented them from participating in the mainstream economy.
Displacement: Communities could be relocated or have land reduced without meaningful consent.
This created a condition of permanent economic disadvantage, as First Nations were denied control over their lands, which were often in poor condition or unsuitable for agriculture or development.
The Pass System: Restricting Movement
While not formally written into the Indian Act, the pass system was a policy created and enforced under its authority. Beginning after the North-West Resistance in 1885, the Canadian government required Indigenous people to carry a pass signed by an Indian Agent to leave their reserve for any reason.
This practice, used until the 1940s, was meant to:
Prevent organizing and resistance
Isolate communities from each other and from non-Indigenous society
Disrupt cultural practices and trade networks
Indigenous people caught off-reserve without a pass could be arrested, fined, or jailed. The system operated as a form of apartheid, controlling movement and severing people from their relationships, jobs, and spiritual sites.
Cultural Genocide: Outlawing Ceremony and Identity
One of the most oppressive features of the Indian Act was its role in the criminalization of Indigenous culture.
Outlawed Practices:
Potlatch (banned in 1884): A sacred ceremonial feast central to governance, wealth distribution, and spirituality, particularly among the Northwest Coast nations.
Sun Dance (banned in 1895): A ceremonial gathering of the Plains peoples rooted in prayer, sacrifice, and renewal.
Wearing traditional regalia or practicing Indigenous spiritual beliefs was also discouraged or penalized.
These laws targeted the spiritual foundations of Indigenous nations, seeking to erase identity and replace it with Christianity and Euro-Canadian values. Ceremonial leaders and participants were arrested and humiliated. Sacred objects were seized and sent to museums or destroyed.
Residential Schools and Indian Day Schools: Tools of Cultural Genocide
While the residential school system is more well-known, Indian Day Schools were also a major instrument of cultural erasure. Both were supported by the Indian Act and federal policy:
Residential Schools (1870s–1990s)
Children were forcibly removed from their families and placed in church-run boarding schools
Speaking Indigenous languages and practicing culture was forbidden
Survivors report physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, alongside psychological trauma
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) called this a policy of “cultural genocide”
Indian Day Schools (1860s–2000)
Over 200,000 Indigenous children attended these federally operated, church-run schools
Unlike residential schools, students returned home each day—but endured similar abuse, assimilationist teaching, and cultural suppression
Many parents were legally required under the Indian Act to send their children to these schools
Teachers often shamed students for their identity and punished them for speaking their language
The Indian Act enabled and enforced both systems, turning Indigenous education into a tool for dehumanization and assimilation.
The Sixties Scoop: Family Separation as Policy
The Sixties Scoop (mid-1950s–1980s) refers to a federal and provincial policy, supported indirectly by the Indian Act, that led to the mass removal of Indigenous children from their families. Social workers, operating under racist assumptions that Indigenous parenting was inferior, removed children and placed them with white foster families or adopted them out internationally—often without parental consent.
Tens of thousands of children were taken
Many lost their languages, culture, family connections, and identity
Some were told they were white and discovered their true heritage only as adults
This policy mirrored the goals of residential schools—eliminating Indigenous culture by removing the next generation. The damage from the Sixties Scoop continues today through intergenerational trauma, broken family lines, and loss of cultural connection.
Sexism and the Disenfranchisement of Indigenous Women
The Indian Act was deeply patriarchal, erasing the matrilineal and egalitarian traditions that existed in many Indigenous societies. One of its most harmful provisions was the loss of status for Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men. This law:
Stripped women of their legal identity as Indians.
Removed them and their children from their communities.
Denied them access to housing, services, and land.
This gender-based discrimination was not corrected until Bill C-31 in 1985, and even then, it left a complicated legacy. Many families were still excluded, and problems with registration persist to this day, leading to ongoing disenfranchisement.
Denial of Legal and Political Rights
Between 1927 and 1951, the Indian Act made it illegal for Indigenous people to form political organizations, hire lawyers, or raise funds to pursue land claims. This effectively silenced political resistance and ensured that communities could not challenge Canada’s violation of treaties.
Until 1960, First Nations people could not vote in federal elections unless they renounced their Indian status through a process called enfranchisement. This forced Indigenous people to choose between their rights as citizens and their identity as Indigenous people.
Ongoing Control and Contemporary Impacts
Despite amendments, the Indian Act continues to:
Define who is and is not a “Status Indian”
Control reserve land and resources
Impose federal oversight on band governance
Fragment Indigenous nations through imposed structures
Critics argue that the Act remains a form of institutional racism that preserves Canada’s colonial control. At the same time, many rights, programs, and services (e.g., health, education, tax exemptions) are tied to the Act—making its immediate abolition complex and risky without an Indigenous-led replacement.
A Living Legacy of Colonialism
The Indian Act is not just a historical artifact—it is a living structure of colonial domination. While Canada has made public commitments to reconciliation, the continued existence and use of the Indian Act demonstrates the unfinished work of decolonization.
True reconciliation requires more than apologies and symbolic gestures. It requires:
The restoration of Indigenous governance systems
The recognition of land and title rights
The implementation of UNDRIP
And the eventual dismantling of the Indian Act, replaced by Indigenous-determined legal and political frameworks
As the late Secwepemc leader Arthur Manuel once said:
“The Indian Act is the rope that Canada uses to tie us up. It is also the noose around our neck.”
Until that rope is untied—by Indigenous peoples themselves—Canada’s colonial project remains incomplete, and justice remains out of reach.
