# data[].attributes.body
A timeline of Indigenous History.
Use this timeline to learn about key moments of Indigenous History

# data[].attributes.headline
1870's Residential Schools were established. They were in operation from the 1880's until 1986.

# data[].attributes.subject
1870's Residential Schools were established. They were in operation from the 1880's until 1986.

# data[].attributes.body
Residential schools were established across Canada, the goal of these residential schools was to assimilate indian children into white society because there was belief their culture and traditions were inferior. Thousands of children died in these schools, the remainder suffered mental, physical and sexual abuse at the schools.
Not one single person who harmed or caused death to an indian child has been charged with any criminal crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Erin Hanson (2009), with updates and revisions by Daniel P. Gamez & Alexa Manuel (September 2020). The original version of this article has been archived, but may be accessed here. To cite this article, we have recommendations at the bottom of the page. Note on terminology: There is constant debate and reflection on the use of specific terms as umbrella categories to designate multiple Aboriginal, Indigenous, or Native peoples. For the most recent version of this article, we have decided to follow the terms Indigenous, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, or alternatively Indigenous Peoples, in the plural, following the guidelines of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the most widely accepted international instrument today. The term Indigenous Peoples can also be found in UBC's Indigenous Peoples Language Guidelines.
In this section:

What Were Residential Schools?

The term residential schools refers to an extensive school system set up by the Canadian government and administered by churches that had the nominal objective of educating Indigenous children but also the more damaging and equally explicit objectives of indoctrinating them into Euro-Canadian and Christian ways of living and assimilating them into mainstream white Canadian society. The residential school system officially operated from the 1880s into the closing decades of the 20th century. The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Indigenous students with inappropriate education, often only up to lower grades, that focused mainly on prayer and manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing.

Residential schools systematically undermined Indigenous, First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures across Canada and disrupted families for generations, severing the ties through which Indigenous culture is taught and sustained, and contributing to a general loss of language and culture. Because they were removed from their families, many students grew up without experiencing a nurturing family life and without the knowledge and skills to raise their own families. The devastating effects of the residential schools are far-reaching and continue to have a significant impact on Indigenous communities. The residential school system is widely considered a form of genocide because of the purposeful attempt from the government and church to eradicate all aspects of Indigenous cultures and lifeworlds.

From the 1990s onward, the government and the churches involved-Anglican, Presbyterian, United, and Roman Catholic-began to acknowledge their responsibility for an education scheme that was specifically designed to "kill the Indian in the child." On June 11, 2008, the Canadian government issued a formal apology in Parliament for the damage done by the residential school system. In spite of this and other apologies, however, the effects remain.

What led to the residential schools?

The early origins of residential schools in Canada are found in the implementation of the mission system in the 1600s. The churches and European settlers brought with them the assumption that their own civilization was the pinnacle of human achievement. They interpreted the socio-cultural differences between themselves and Indigenous Peoples as "proof" that Canada's first inhabitants were ignorant, savage, and-like children-in need of guidance. They felt the need to "civilize" Indigenous Peoples. Education-a federal responsibility-became the primary means to this end.

Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald commissioned journalist and politician Nicholas Flood Davin to study industrial schools for Indigenous children in the United States. Davin's recommendation to follow the U.S. example of "aggressive civilization" led to public funding for the residential school system. "If anything is to be done with the Indian, we must catch him very young. The children must be kept constantly within the circle of civilized conditions," Davin wrote in his 1879 Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds (Davin's report can be read here.)

In the 1880s, in conjunction with other federal assimilation policies, the government began to establish residential schools across Canada. Authorities would frequently take children to schools far from their home communities, part of a strategy to alienate them from their families and familiar surroundings. In 1920, under the Indian Act, it became mandatory for every Indigenous child to attend a residential school and illegal for them to attend any other educational institution.

Living conditions at the residential schools

The purpose of the residential schools was to eliminate all aspects of Indigenous culture. Students had their hair cut short, they were dressed in uniforms, they were often given numbers, and their days were strictly regimented by timetables. Boys and girls were kept separate, and even siblings rarely interacted, further weakening family ties. Chief Bobby Joseph of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society recalls that he had no idea how to interact with girls and never even got to know his own sister "beyond a mere wave in the dining room." ¹ In addition, students were strictly forbidden to speak their languages-even though many children knew no other-or to practise Indigenous customs or traditions. Violations of these rules were severely punished.

Residential school students did not receive the same education as the general population in the public school system, and the schools were sorely underfunded. Teachings focused primarily on practical skills. Girls were primed for domestic service and taught to do laundry, sew, cook, and clean. Boys were taught carpentry, tinsmithing, and farming. Many students attended class part-time and worked for the school the rest of the time: girls did the housekeeping; boys, general maintenance and agriculture. This work, which was involuntary and unpaid, was presented as practical training for the students, but many of the residential schools could not run without it. With so little time spent in class, most students had only reached grade five by the time they were 18. At this point, students were sent away. Many were discouraged from pursuing further education.

Abuse at the schools was widespread: emotional and psychological abuse was constant, physical abuse was metred out as punishment, and sexual abuse was also common. Survivors recall being beaten and strapped; some students were shackled to their beds; some had needles shoved in their tongues for speaking their native languages. These abuses, along with overcrowding, poor sanitation, and severely inadequate food and health care, resulted in a shockingly high death toll. In 1907, government medical inspector P.H. Bryce reported that 24 percent of previously healthy Indigenous children across Canada were dying in residential schools. This figure does not include children who died at home, where they were frequently sent when critically ill. Bryce reported that anywhere from 47 percent (on the Peigan Reserve in Alberta) to 75 percent (from File Hills Boarding School in Saskatchewan) of students discharged from residential schools died shortly after returning home.

The extent to which the Department of Indian Affairs and church officials knew of these abuses has been debated by some. However, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) and John Milloy, among others, concluded that church and state officials were fully aware of the abuses and tragedies at the schools. Some inspectors and officials at the time expressed alarm at the horrifying death rates, yet those who spoke out and called for reform were generally met with silence and lack of support. The Department of Indian Affairs would promise to improve the schools, but the deplorable conditions persisted.

Some former students have positive memories of their time at residential schools, and certainly some might have been treated with kindness by the priests and nuns who ran the schools as best they could given the circumstances. But even these "good" experiences occurred within a system aimed at destroying Indigenous cultures and assimilating Indigenous students.

The Shift Away from Residential Schools

"Sister Marie Baptiste had a supply of sticks as long and thick as pool cues. When she heard me speak my language, she'd lift up her hands and bring the stick down on me. I've still got bumps and scars on my hands. I have to wear special gloves because the cold weather really hurts my hands. I tried very hard not to cry when I was being beaten and I can still just turn off my feelings.... And I'm lucky. Many of the men my age, they either didn't make it, committed suicide or died violent deaths, or alcohol got them. And it wasn't just my generation. My grandmother, who's in her late nineties, to this day it's too painful for her to talk about what happened to her at the school."

- Musqueam Nation former chief George Guerin,
Kuper Island school
Stolen from our Embrace, p 62

Church and state officials of the 19th century believed that Indigenous societies were disappearing and that the only hope for Indigenous people was to convert to Christianity, do away with their cultures, and become "civilized" British subjects-in short, assimilate them. By the 1950s, the same officials were doubting the viability of such project. The devastating effects of the residential schools and the needs and life experiences of Indigenous students were becoming more widely recognized. ² The government also acknowledged that removing children from their families was severely detrimental to the health of the individuals and the communities affected. In 1951, with the amendments to the Indian Act, the half-day work/school system was progressively abandoned, conceding power to the provinces to apprehend children, and transitioning from the school system to a 'child welfare system'. This time is referred to as the 'Sixties Scoop' because of the systematic removal of Indigenous children from their families without consent from their parents or authorities.

In the 1960s the drastic overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the welfare system consolidated, and authorities would constantly place Indigenous children with white middle-class families in an attempt to acculturate them. This practice, as well as the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in 'child welfare systems' continues today. In 1969, the Department of Indian Affairs took exclusive control of the system, marking an end to church involvement in residential schooling. Yet the schools remained underfunded and abuse continued, and many teachers and workers continued to lack proper credentials to carry out their responsibilities. ³

In the meantime, the government decided to phase out segregation and began incorporating Indigenous students into public schools. Although these changes saw students reaching higher levels of education, problems persisted. Many Indigenous students struggled in their adjustment to public school and to a Eurocentric system where Indigenous knowledges were excluded, fostering discrimination by their non-Indigenous peers. Post-secondary education was strongly discouraged for Indigenous students because those who wanted to attend university would have been enfranchised.

The process to phase out the residential school system and other assimilation tactics was slow and not without reversals. The residential school system in Canada lasted officially for almost 150 years, and its impacts continue on to this day. As mentioned above, the system's closure gave way to the 'Sixties Scoop,' during which thousands of Indigenous children were abducted by social services and removed from their families. The 'Scoop' spanned roughly the two decades it took to phase out the residential schools, but child apprehensions from Indigenous families continue to occur in disproportionate numbers today. In part, this is the legacy of compromised families and communities left by the residential schools.

Starting in 1969, residential schools in Canada began to decline in numbers. In 1970, the Department of Indian Affairs calculated fifty-six remaining schools, excluding the Northwest Territories. By 1980, the same institution reported sixteen, and one decade later, eleven. In 1996, Gordon Reserve Indian Residential School in Saskatchewan, the last of its kind, was closed and demolished. By 1999, the Department of Indian Affairs registered no remaining residential schools in operation. ⁴

Ongoing Impacts

"So why is it important to understand the history of genocide in Canada? Because it's not history. Today's racist government laws, policies and actions have proven to be just as deadly for Indigenous peoples as the genocidal acts of the past."

-Pamela Palmater, Mi'kmaq lawyer, professor, activist, and politician
(National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Canada) et al. 2019, 53).

The residential school system is viewed by much of the Canadian public as part of a distant past, disassociated from today's events. In many ways, this is a misconception. The last residential school did not close its doors until 1996, and many of the leaders, teachers, parents, and grandparents of today's Indigenous communities are residential school Survivors. Although residential schools have closed, their effects remain ongoing for both Survivors and their descendants who now share in the intergenerational effects of transmitted personal trauma and loss of language, culture, traditional teachings, and mental/spiritual wellbeing.

According to the Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, several generations of Indigenous Peoples were denied the development of parenting skills not only through their removal from communities and families but also from the severe lack of attention paid to the issue by school officials. ⁵ In addition, children were taught that their traditional ways were inferior, including their languages and cultures. The residential schools were operational through several generations of Indigenous Peoples so the process of healing from these damages will also take several generations -a process that has already begun, but has not been easy nor has it been simple.

The historic, intergenerational, and collective oppression of Indigenous Peoples continues to this day in the form of land disputes, over-incarceration, lack of housing, child apprehension, systemic poverty, marginalization and violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples, and other critical issues which neither began nor ended with residential schools. Generations of oppressive government policies attempted to strip Indigenous Peoples of their identities not only through residential schools but also through other policies including but not limited to: the implementation and subsequent changes to the Indian Act; the mass removal of Indigenous children from their families into the child welfare system known as the Sixties Scoop; and legislations allowing forced sterilizations of Indigenous Peoples in certain provinces, a practice that has continued to be reported by Indigenous women in Canada as recently as 2018; and currently, through the modern child welfare systems which continue to disproportionately apprehend Indigenous children into foster care in what Raven Sinclair has called the Millennium Scoop. ⁶

In 2019, BC ended its practice of "birth alerts" in child welfare cases, which allowed child welfare agencies and hospitals to flag mothers deemed "high risk" without their consent -a practice which disproportionately targeted Indigenous mothers and was found to be "racist and discriminatory" and a "gross violation of the rights of the child, the mother, and the community". ⁷ One of the findings of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Report (MMIWG) asserts that the Canadian State "has used child welfare laws and agencies as a tool to oppress, displace, disrupt, and destroy Indigenous families, communities, and Nations. It is a tool in the genocide of Indigenous Peoples." ⁸ Child welfare laws and agencies, like the residential schools, effectively aided in the removal of Indigenous children from their families and continue to aid in the genocide of Indigenous Peoples.

Survivors Demand Justice
"...the Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this".

I have just one last thing to say. To all of the leaders of the Liberals, the Bloc and NDP, thank you, as well, for your words because now it is about our responsibilities today, the decisions that we make today and how they will affect seven generations from now.

My ancestors did the same seven generations ago and they tried hard to fight against you because they knew what was happening. They knew what was coming, but we have had so much impact from colonization and that is what we are dealing with today.

Women have taken the brunt of it all.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here at this moment in time to talk about those realities that we are dealing with today.

What is it that this government is going to do in the future to help our people? Because we are dealing with major human rights violations that have occurred to many generations: my language, my culture and my spirituality. I know that I want to transfer those to my children and my grandchildren, and their children, and so on.

What is going to be provided? That is my question. I know that is the question from all of us. That is what we would like to continue to work on, in partnership.

Nia:wen. Thank you.

-Beverley Jacobs, President, Native Women's Association of Canada, June 11, 2008

Read the full transcript and watch the video here.

The residential schools heavily contributed to educational, social, financial and health disparities between Indigenous Peoples and the rest of Canada, and these impacts have been intergenerational. ⁹ Despite the efforts of the residential school system and those who created and maintained it, Indigenous Peoples largely escaped complete assimilation and continue to work to regain what was lost, while also seeking justice for years of wrongdoing; including from the Canadian government, the churches, and the individuals responsible for specific cases of abuse.

It was not until the late 1980s that the Canadian legal system began to respond to allegations of abuse brought forward by Survivors, with fewer than fifty convictions coming out of more than 38,000 claims of sexual and physical abuse submitted to the independent adjudication process. ¹⁰ Notable cases include 1988's Mowatt v. Clarke, in which eight former students of St. George's Indian Residential School in Lytton, B.C., sued a priest, the government, and the Anglican Church of Canada; both the Anglican Church and the government admitted fault and agreed to a settlement. In 1995, twenty-seven Survivors from the Alberni Indian Residential School filed charges of sexual abuse against Arthur Plintwhile also holding Canada and the United Church vicariously liable. In addition to convicting Plint, the court held the federal government and the United Church responsible for the wrongs committed.
The Indian Residential School Survivors Society was formed in 1994 by the First Nations Summit in British Columbia and was officially incorporated in 2002 to provide support for survivors and communities in the province throughout the healing process and to educate the broader public. The Survivors Society provides crisis counselling, referrals, and healing initiatives, as well as acting as a resource for information, research, training, and workshops. It was clear that a similar organization was needed at the national level, and in 2005, the National Residential School Survivors Society was incorporated.
Meanwhile, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had been interviewing individuals from Indigenous communities and nations across Canada about their experiences. The commission's report, published in 1996, brought unprecedented attention to the residential school system-many non-Indigenous Canadians did not know about this chapter in Canadian history. In 1998, based on the commission's recommendations and considering the court cases, the Canadian government publicly apologized to former students for the physical and sexual abuse they suffered in the residential schools. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation was established as a $350 million government plan to aid communities affected by the residential schools. However, some Indigenous people felt the government apology did not go far enough, since it addressed only the effects of physical and sexual abuse and not other damages caused by the residential school system.
Books & Articles Canada. Royal Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Report of the Royal Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Chapter 10, "Residential Schools." Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1996.
The St. George and Alberni lawsuits set a precedent for future cases, proving that the churches and the government of Canada could be sued as an entity. As the number of cases grew, a National Class Action was filed in 2002 for compensation for all former Indian Residential school Survivors and family members in Canada. In 2005, Canada and nearly 80,000 Survivors reached the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement in which Canada committed to individual compensation for Survivors, additional funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In September 2007, while the Settlement Agreement was being put into action, the Canadian government made a motion to issue a formal apology. The motion passed unanimously. On June 11, 2008, the House of Commons gathered in a solemn ceremony to publicly apologize for the government's involvement in the residential school system and to acknowledge the widespread impact this system has had among Indigenous Peoples. You can read the official statement and responses to it by Indigenous organizations here (scroll down to " Choose a topic" and select " Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools"). The apology was broadcast live across Canada (watch it here). Former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper issued a 'statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools ', noting that

Echoing Stephen Harper, former Chief Justice of Ontario Warren Winkler also observed that the residential school system removed children

"from their families and communities to serve the purpose of carrying out a "concerted campaign to obliterate" the "habits and associations" of "Indigenous languages, traditions and beliefs," in order to accomplish "a radical re-socialization" aimed at instilling the children instead with the values of Euro-centric civilization"( Library and Archives Canada, RG10, volume 6113, le 351-10, part 1). ¹¹

The federal government's apology was met with a range of responses. Some felt that it marked a new era of positive federal government-Indigenous relations based on mutual respect, while many others felt that the apology was merely symbolic and doubted that it would change the government's relationship with Indigenous Peoples. Although apologies and acknowledgements made by governments and churches are important steps forward in reconciliation, Indigenous leaders have argued that such gestures are not enough without supportive action . Communities and residential school survivor societies are undertaking healing initiatives and providing opportunities for survivors to talk about their experiences and move forward to create a positive future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Recommended resources

Erasmus, George. Notes on A History of the Indian Residential School System in Canada

Fournier, Suzanne and Ernie Crey. Stolen from our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Indigenous Communities. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1997.

Haig-Brown, Celia. Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1998. First published by Tillicum Library, 1988.

Manitoba. Public Inquiry into the Administration and Indigenous People. "Indigenous Women." Vol. 1, chap. 13, in Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. Winnipeg: Public Inquiry into the Administration and Indigenous People, 1999.
Websites Apologies and Reconciliation
This chapter of the Indigenous Justice Inquiry of Manitoba's report on Indigenous people in the justice system examines how the residential school system has contributed to the abuse and discrimination that many Indigenous women face regularly.

Miller, J. R. Shingwauk's Vision. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive, key texts on the residential school system, in Shingwauk's Vision Miller has included the perspectives of government and church officials, school staff, and students to create a rich history of the residential school system from its original inception to its phasing out. Cree scholar Winona Wheeler calls Shingwauk's Vision "the most thorough and comprehensive study of Indian residential schools in Canada to date and most noted for its good use of a wide range of Indigenous life histories and personal reminisces" (Wheeler, "Social Relations of Indigenous Oral Histories," in Walking a Tightrope: Indigenous Peoples and their Representations, 2005. 193)

Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, Indian Residential Schools: The Nuu-Chah-Nulth Experience. Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, 1996.

Roberts, John. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples: Exploring their Past, Present, and Future. Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2006.

Secwepemc Cultural Education Society, Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Indian Residential School. Penticton: Secwepemc Cultural Education Society & Theytus, 2000.

Endnotes

[1] Milloy, John S. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986.University of Manitoba Press, 1999. 91-2; Fournier and Crey, Stolen from Our Embrace. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1997. 49.

[2] Royal Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Chapter 10, "1.2 Changing Policies." Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1996. 344-353.

[3] Milloy, John S. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986. University of Manitoba Press, 1999. Xvii, 91-2.

[4] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada's Residential Schools: The History, Part 2 1939 to 2000. The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Montreal; Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 103.

[5] Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. 1999. The Justice System and Aboriginal People. Ch. 14 ( http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html)

[6] National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Canada), Marion Buller, Michèle Audette, Brian Eyolfson, and Qajaq Robinson. 2019. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. 104; Longman, Nickita. 2018. "Examining the Sixties Scoop and Beyond." Discourse Magazine, 2018.

[7] National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Canada), 355.

[8] National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Canada), 355.

[9] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada's Residential Schools: The Legacy: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 5. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press. 3.

[10] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada's Residential Schools: The Legacy: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 5. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press. 7.

[11] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada's Residential Schools: The History, Part 2 1939 to 2000. The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Montreal; Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 574.

To Cite This Article

MLA:
Hanson, Eric, et al."The Residential School System." Indigenous Foundations. First Nations and Indigenous Studies UBC, 2020. Website. [Date accessed].

Chicago:
Hanson, Eric, Daniel P. Games, and Alexa Manuel. "The Residential School System". Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.web.arts.ubc.ca/residential-school-system-2020/. (accessed Month, day, year).

APA:
Hanson, E., Gamez, D., & Manuel, A. (2020, September). The Residential School System. Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.web.arts.ubc.ca/residential-school-system-2020/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Erin Hanson (2009), with updates and revisions by Daniel P. Gamez & Alexa Manuel (September 2020). The original version of this article has been archived, but may be accessed here. To cite this article, we have recommendations at the bottom of the page.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education guide on learning about Indian Residential Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Education guide on learning about Indian Residential Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Treaty 7 was signed on this day. It was one of the last treaties to be signed. Many of the agreements made in these Treaty's were not honored. Some tribes are still in the process of settling land claims from the land promised in the treaty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Treaty 7 is the last of the Numbered Treaties made between the Government of Canada and the Plains First Nations (see Indigenous Peoples: Plains). It was signed on 22 September 1877 by five First Nations: the Siksika (Blackfoot), Kainai (Blood), Piikani (Peigan), Stoney-Nakoda, and Tsuut'ina (Sarcee). Different understandings of the treaty's purpose, combined with significant culture and language barriers and what some have argued were deliberate attempts to mislead the First Nations on the part of the government negotiators, have led to ongoing conflicts and claims.

Treaty 7 lands (courtesy Victor Temprano/Native-Land.ca).
The written treaty ceded roughly 130,000 km² of land from the Rocky Mountains to the west, the Cypress Hills to the east, the Red Deer River to the north, and the US border to the south. All nations kept the rights to use the land for hunting.

Historical Context

In 1870, the newly created nation of Canada acquired Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company. Rupert's Land was an enormous area of land stretching north and west. One year later, British Columbia entered Confederation based in part on the promise that a transcontinental railway would connect it to the rest of Canada within 10 years. In order to construct the railway and encourage future settlement, the government considered it necessary to extinguish Aboriginal title to the land ( see Indigenous Territory). Bound by the terms of the Royal Proclamation, Canada was responsible for the protection of its Indigenous people and promised to preserve their rights to unceded (unsurrendered) traditional territories.

The mid-19th century was a time of upheaval for the Indigenous nations that eventually signed Treaty 7. There had been repeated outbreaks of smallpox, and the buffalo herds upon which they had relied began to diminish, in part due to increased competition from Cree and Métis hunters ( see Buffalo Hunt). At the same time, settlers from the United States set up trading forts and introduced whiskey into communities, causing significant chaos at trading forts. In 1874, the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) arrived under Colonel James Macleod and put an end to the trade. The First Nations were thankful and, by many accounts, came to trust Macleod. However, the extent to which this trust determined their willingness to sign a treaty has been disputed.

Impetus

While the federal government sought to extinguish (take away) Aboriginal title to the land prior to settlement, the First Nations sought to make peace between themselves, the government and incoming settlers.

In the summer of 1875, Crowfoot, one of the leaders of the Siksika, was informed by a local Methodist missionary named John McDougall (who had a year earlier taken a government commission to explain the arrival of the NWMP to local Indigenous nations) that treaties were being planned for Blackfoot territory. Soon after, Crowfoot had a meeting with Major General Edward Selby Smyth, who was out west inspecting the NWMP, to discuss the government's plans for his territories.

That fall, Crowfoot and the Siksika met with the other members of the Blackfoot Confederacy, the Piikani and Kainai. A petition was drawn up and sent to the lieutenant-governor of the North-West Territories, Alexander Morris. The petition listed a series of complaints, such as the arrival of settlers and Cree and Métis buffalo hunters, and requested the presence of an Indian commissioner so that the "invasion" of their country would stop until a treaty had been negotiated.

Meanwhile, the Lakota, who had just defeated the US Army at the Battle of Little Bighorn, arrived in Canada and met with the Blackfoot. In 1877, Sitting Bull met with Crowfoot face-to-face. Although they made an alliance of peace rather than war, the possibility of facing off against a large, united group of Indigenous nations gave the Canadian government yet another reason to negotiate a treaty.

Negotiations were eventually set for the fall of 1877. Although the nations involved in Treaty 7 had not had extensive contact with the Canadian government, each had a history of treaty-making in order to resolve conflicts with other Indigenous groups. Some leaders from the Blackfoot Confederacy had also been involved in an 1855 treaty with the US government; many of the promises on the American side had not been fulfilled, leaving them frustrated and skeptical.

Negotiations

The treaty commissioners were David Laird, who had recently been appointed lieutenant-governor of the North-West Territories, and James Macleod, commissioner of the NWMP. The question of who was given authority to negotiate on behalf of each Indigenous nation involved is more complex. The Blackfoot Confederacy, for example, did not have a distinct hierarchical structure; the person in charge varied depending on the situation. Although Crowfoot negotiated on their behalf, it is uncertain if his people saw him as their leader in this negotiation.

It is also clear, based on First Nations testimony, that they had a different understanding of the purpose of the negotiation. Each understood it to be primarily a peace treaty, whereby they allowed settlement and promoted peaceful cohabitation in exchange for a series of promises. None thought that it was a land surrender. Part of the confusion arose from cultural misunderstandings, but also from serious translation issues. Jerry Potts, one of the interpreters brought along by the commissioners, has been accused not only of having little or no fluency in the languages spoken by the Treaty 7 nations, but also of having a poor grasp of English - especially with legal terms.

The site for the treaty was originally set to be Fort Macleod, but the Siksika preferred to meet at Blackfoot Crossing, a site on their territory. This was a problem for some of the other nations, as it was distant from their hunting grounds. In addition, a few Kainai chiefs said they would not attend - another suggestion of the relative unimportance that many attached to this negotiation. When the treaty commissioners arrived on 16 September 1877, the Siksika, Stoney-Nakoda and Tsuut'ina were already there. At a meeting the next day, it was decided that they would postpone the treaty-making process for two days to give the Kainai and Piikani time to get there.

On 19 September, the commissioners and some of the leaders met to discuss terms. Not all the leaders had yet arrived, including the main Kainai bands. Negotiations continued, however. Laird gave a speech in which he listed the positive efforts of the government, including passing laws to protect the buffalo, on which everyone was dependent for food, and putting an end to the whiskey forts. He added, however, that the buffalo would soon be gone, and that the government wanted the Indigenous people to switch to agriculture and ranching and would be given support to do so. Many of the leaders wanted assurances that they would be able to continue to hunt and fish in their traditional lands. Annual payments, reserve land, and education were also discussed. However, Crowfoot said a decision could not be reached until the arrival of Red Crow, the head chief of the Kainai.

On 21 September, Red Crow arrived. He was a friend of Macleod and trusted him. After Crowfoot explained what he believed to be the terms of the treaty, Red Crow assented (agreed). While some leaders were still hesitant, a consensus was soon reached and, on 22 September, all parties signed the agreement.

Terms of the Treaty

Crowfoot (centre) with his family in 1884.

In exchange, each group was to receive land equal to 2.59 m ²(6.47 km ²) per family of five, and in proportion to that number depending on whether the family was larger or smaller. The Siksika, Tsuut'ina and Kainai were given a reserve along the Bow River; the Piikani were assigned a reserve at an area near the Porcupine Hills called Crow's Creek; and the Stoney-Nakoda, on the advice of John McDougall, the Methodist who had been ministering to them, were granted a reserve near the Methodist mission in Morleyville.

An immediate payment of $12 was given to every man, woman and child. Annual payments of $25 would be given to every chief, $15 for every minor chief or councillor and $5 to all others. All chiefs were also to receive a Winchester rifle, while head chiefs and Stoney chiefs were to receive a medal and flag to commemorate the treaty. Chiefs and councillors were also to receive a new suit of clothing every three years.

The government agreed to pay the salaries of teachers on reserves. It also agreed to distribute $2,000 worth of ammunition each year. Various tools were also promised by the government, including axes and handsaws.

Finally, each family was to be given cattle in proportion to their size (two for a family of five; three for a family of five to ten; four for a family of ten and up); chiefs were promised one bull each for the use of their band. It was possible to receive one less cow in exchange for farming tools, if that was the band's wish.

Modern Interpretations and Implications

Spiritual-Cultural Advisor Dr. Reg Crowshoe and CEO Ryan Robb, Treaty 7 Management Corporation (7 July 2011).

It is generally agreed that none of Indigenous nations involved in the treaty realized they were surrendering their land, and that none would have agreed to it had they understood the consequences. For the most part, the treaty did not have the effect the First Nations desired: Cree and Métis hunters continued to trespass, the buffalo disappeared, and settlers continued to arrive. The promised support for the transition to an agricultural lifestyle did not take place, and in most cases the land was unsuitable. Only two years after signing the treaty, a local Catholic priest who had encouraged the nations to sign a treaty described in a letter to David Laird their extreme poverty: "I have never seen them so depressed as they are now; I have never seen them before in want of food... They have suffered fearfully from hunger." He went on to argue that, as to the question of whether the Treaty 7 nations understood "the real nature of the treaty" - land surrender - "my answer to this question is unhesitatingly negative." There was, and remains, widespread feeling that the government has not lived up to its promises or dealt fairly with them.

The difference between written and oral cultures - including the settlers' favouring of written documents over oral tradition in terms of legality - has led many elders to claim that there were promises made during the negotiations that never made it into the text of Treaty 7. It is probable that this is the case, given the translation difficulties, differing cultural understandings of binding agreements and the haste with which the government wanted to conclude the negotiations. All the nations involved in Treaty 7 - now represented by the Treaty 7 Management Corporation - have since been involved in claims negotiations with the federal government relating to land surrenders, improperly performed surveys and fraudulent deals, many of which are still ongoing.

Making Treaty 7 (Highlights from 2015 Show) from Chris Hsiung on Vimeo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Treaty 7 is the last of the Numbered Treaties made between the Government of Canada and the Plains First Nations (see Indigenous Peoples: Plains). It was signed on 22 September 1877 by five First Nations: the Siksika (Blackfoot), Kainai (Blood), Piikani (Peigan), Stoney-Nakoda, and Tsuut'ina (Sarcee).

# data[].attributes.body
The Indian Act is a part of a long history of assimilation policies that intended to terminate the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of Aboriginal peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian life and values.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this section

Introduction

The origins of the Indian Act: A history of oppression and resistance

The Potlatch Law & Section 141

1951 amendments

The White Paper

Bill C-31 and gender discrimination

So why don’t we just abolish the Indian Act?

Recommended resources

Introduction to the Indian Act

To be federally recognized as an Indian either in Canada or the United States, an individual must be able to comply with very distinct standards of government regulation… The Indian Act in Canada, in this respect, is much more than a body of laws that for over a century have controlled every aspect of Indian life. As a regulatory regime, the Indian Act provides ways of understanding Native identity, organizing a conceptual framework that has shaped contemporary Native life in ways that are now so familiar as to almost seem “natural.”

–Bonita Lawrence¹

You can read the Indian Act online, at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/

The Indian Act is a Canadian federal law that governs in matters pertaining to Indian status, bands, and Indian reserves.  Throughout history it has been highly invasive and paternalistic, as it authorizes the Canadian federal government to regulate and administer in the affairs and day-to-day lives of registered Indians and reserve communities. This authority has ranged from overarching political control, such as imposing governing structures on Aboriginal communities in the form of band councils, to control over the rights of Indians to practice their culture and traditions. The Indian Act has also enabled the government to determine the land base of these groups in the form of reserves, and even to define who qualifies as Indian in the form of Indian status

While the Indian Act has undergone numerous amendments since it was first passed in 1876, today it largely retains its original form.

The Indian Act is administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), formerly the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). The Indian Act is a part of a long history of assimilation policies that intended to terminate the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of Aboriginal peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian life and values.

The origins of the Indian Act: A history of oppression and resistance

The Indian Act came to be developed over time through separate pieces of colonial legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples across Canada such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the. In 1876, these acts were consolidated as the Indian Act.

“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.”

– John A Macdonald, 1887

The Gradual Civilization Act, passed in 1857, sought to assimilate Indian people into Canadian settler society by encouraging enfranchisement.  In this sense the act was a failure, as only one person voluntarily enfranchised.² By 1869, the federal government had created the Gradual Enfranchisement Act which established the elective band council system that remains in the Indian Act to this day.

The Gradual Enfranchisement Act also granted the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs extreme control over status Indians. For example, the Superintendent had the power to determine who was of “good moral character” and therefore deserve certain benefits, such as deciding if the widow of an enfranchised Indian “lives respectably” and could therefore keep her children in the event of the father’s death. The Act also severely restricted the governing powers of band councils, regulated alcohol consumption and determined who would be eligible for band and treaty benefits. It also marks the beginning of gender-based restrictions to status. For a closer look as to why this is, see our section on the marginalization of Aboriginal women. For a more specific look at the process of excluding women from their status rights in the Indian Act, read Chapter 9, “The Indian Act,” in Volume I of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.)

The confederation of Canada presented the federal government with the challenge of uniting distinct and separate Aboriginal groups under one law. Therefore, despite the diversity of experiences and relationships between Aboriginal peoples and settlers across the country, including strong military and economic alliances in certain regions, Confederation established a very different relationship between these two groups by disregarding the interests and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples and uniformly making them legally wards of the state. Systems of control that had been established in prior legislation were now newly defined under one act, the Indian Act of 1867. This act effectively treated Aboriginal people as children—a homogenizing and paternalistic relationship.

Since the first pieces of legislation were passed, Aboriginal peoples have resisted oppression and sought active participation in defining and establishing their rights. Early on, Aboriginal leaders petitioned colonial leadership, including the Prime Minister and the British monarchy, against oppressive legislation and systemic denial of their rights. The legislation against Aboriginal peoples did not stop Aboriginal practices but in most cases drove them underground, or caused Aboriginal peoples to create new ways of continuing them without facing persecution.

Listen to an excerpt from CBC’s RevisionQuest with Darrell Dennis, in which an all-singing, all-dancing Indian Act explains what it really does. Keep up to date on new episodes of RevisionQuest by visiting its official site at http://www.cbc.ca/revisionquest/

The “Potlatch Law” & Section 141

One of the most famous examples of this oppression and subsequent resistance and adaptation is known as the “Potlatch Law.” In 1884, the federal government banned potlatches under the Indian Act, with other ceremonies such as the sun dance to follow in the coming years.  The potlatch was one of the most important ceremonies for coastal First Nations in the west, and marked important occasions as well as served a crucial role in distribution of wealth.

Non-native colonists and missionaries saw the sharing of wealth and food at potlatches as excessive and wasteful, but ultimately they knew how integral it was to sustaining First Nations cultures. Indian Agents and missionaries felt it interrupted assimilation tactics. They wanted Aboriginal people to shift from an economic system of redistribution to one of private property ownership—seemingly impossible as long as the potlatch existed.  The outlawing of the potlatch severely disrupted these cultural traditions, although many groups continued to potlatch. One of the most famous displays of resistance was an underground potlatch hosted by ‘Namgis Chief Dan Cranmer in Alert Bay. To celebrate a wedding, Cranmer hosted a six-day potlatch over Christmas, 1921. Indian Agents interrupted the potlatch and arrested approximately 50 people. The jail term was to be several months, but Indian Agents offered reduced sentences for anyone who would surrender their potlatch items, such as valuable masks, costumes, and coppers. 22 people went to jail for two months, and hundreds of potlatch items were confiscated, a devastating loss to the community. Judge Alfred Scow describes some of the impacts of the Potlatch Law:

This provision of the Indian Act was in place for close to 75 years and what that did was it prevented the passing down of our oral history. It prevented the passing down of our values. It meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have, and we did have forms of government be they oral and not in writing before any of the Europeans came to this country. We had a system that worked for us. We respected each other. We had ways of dealing with disputes.³

Judge Alfred Scow

Countless communities were similarly impacted by the restriction on ceremonies, facing legacies that continue to this day in the form of lost cultural practices, traditions, and oral history.
When Aboriginal political organizing became more extensive in the 1920s and groups began to pursue land claims, the federal government added Section 141 to the Indian Act. Section 141 outlawed the hiring of lawyers and legal counsel by Indians, effectively barring Aboriginal peoples from fighting for their rights through the legal system. Eventually, these laws expanded to such a point that virtually any gathering was strictly prohibited and would result in a jail term.  These amendments presented a significant barrier to Aboriginal political organizing and many organizations had to disband. However, it did not entirely stop political organizing—Aboriginal organizations such as the Nisga’a Land Committee and the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia managed to continue to organize the fight for their rights underground.

1951 amendments

For an excellent resource to compare and contrast different versions of the Indian Act, look at Sharon Helen Venne’s The Indian Act and Amendments 1868-1975 – an indexed collection. Saskatoon: Saskatoon Law Centre, 1981.

After the Second World War, Canadian citizens shocked by the atrocities of the war became more aware of the concept of human rights. Many Canadians recognized that Aboriginal people in Canada were among the most disadvantaged in the country. This was particularly troubling for Canadians after the participation of First Nations soldiers in the war highlighted Aboriginal peoples’ contribution to Canada as a nation.  This recognition, along with Canada’s commitment to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, led to the revision of the Indian Act in 1951.  The more oppressive sections of the Indian Act were amended and taken out. It was no longer illegal for Indians to practice their customs and culture such as the potlatch. They were now allowed to enter pool halls and to gamble—although restrictions on alcohol were reinforced. Indians were also now allowed to appear off-reserve in ceremonial dress without permission of the Indian Agent, to organize and hire legal counsel, and Indian women were now allowed to vote in band councils.

The federal government’s general purpose for the amendments at that time was to move away from casting Indians as wards of the state and instead facilitate their becoming contributing citizens of Canada. The Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) points out, however, that by taking away some of the more oppressive, and ultimately unsuccessful, amendments, the government simply rendered the Indian Act more similar to the original act of 1876.⁴

The White Paper

In 1969, Prime Minister Trudeau proposed a “white paper” policy with the aim of achieving greater equality for Indians. To do this, he proposed to abolish the Indian Act and dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs. Indians would essentially become like other Canadian citizens. Although it was widely agreed that the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act were hugely problematic, this “white paper” policy was overwhelmingly rejected by Aboriginal peoples across Canada who felt that assimilating into mainstream Canadian society was not the means to achieve equality. They wanted to maintain a legal distinction as Indian people. Due to this widespread resistance against the white paper, the policy was eventually abandoned by the federal government.  In fact, scholar John Milloy pinpoints the proposed white paper policy of 1969 as the turning point when the federal government finally abandoned their policy of assimilation for a policy geared toward establishing constitutionally protected rights for First Nations.⁵

Bill C-31 and gender discrimination

The Indian Act has been highly criticized for its gender bias as another means of terminating ones’ Indian status, thus excluding women from their Aboriginal rights. Legislation stated that a status Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would cease to be an Indian. She would lose her status, and with it, she would lose treaty benefits, health benefits, the right to live on her reserve, the right to inherit her family property, and even the right to be buried on the reserve with her ancestors. However, if an Indian man married a non-status woman, he would keep all his rights. Even if an Indian woman married another Indian man, she would cease to be a member of her own band, and become a member of his. If a woman was widowed, or abandoned by her husband, she would become enfranchised and lose status altogether. Alternatively, if a non-native woman married an Indian man, she would status.

In all these situations, a woman’s status was entirely dependent on their husband. As is explicitly stated in Section 12 (1)(b) of the Indian Act, “a woman who married a person who is not an Indian… [is] not entitled to be registered.”

In the 1970s, Aboriginal women began organizing to battle the discriminatory legislation.  In 1979, Jeanette Corbière Lavalle and Yvonne Bedard took the Canadian government to court, claiming that Section 12 of The Indian Act violated the Canadian Bill of Rights. They lost their case at the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1981, Sandra Lovelace resumed the fight and took her case to the United Nations. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in breach of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1977, Section 67 (originally subsection 63(2)) was created specifically to prohibit First Nations people from filing an official complaint that the Indian Act was a human rights violation.⁷ This in itself was later described as a “serious disregard for human rights.”⁸ The exemption of the Indian Act from Canada’s own Human Rights law is an implicit recognition by the Canadian government of how unreasonable the Indian Act truly is. In May of 2008, the House of Commons unanimously passed Bill C-21 to repeal this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In the 1980s, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Commission identified Section 12 of the Indian Act as a human rights abuse, as it removed a woman’s Indian status if she married a non-Indian man. This is in direct violation the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights that protects a minority’s right to belong to their cultural group.⁶

The UN ruling in 1982 coincided with the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees gender equality. The government allowed itself three years to change any law that was not in line with the new constitution and Charter. After consultations and negotiations, the Indian Act was amended in 1985, and Bill C-31 passed so that those who had lost their status could once again regain it.

However, Bill C-31 is still seen by many as unconstitutional, as those who have their status reinstated can only pass it on for one generation. This was very recently put before the courts when Sharon McIvor challenged Canada that this was not in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In June 2009, the Supreme Court  of British Columbia ruled that restricting inheritance of status to the children of women reinstated by Bill-C31 is in fact unconstitutional, and violates equality rights guaranteed in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government is currently in the process of amending the Indian Act. For further information on this topic, please see Bill C-31 and the marginalization of Aboriginal women in Canada.

So why don’t we just abolish the Indian Act?

The Indian Act is a very controversial piece of legislation.  The Assembly of First Nations describes it as a form of apartheid.⁹ Amnesty International, the United Nations, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have continually criticized it as a human rights abuse. These groups claim that the Canadian government does not have the right to unilaterally extinguish Aboriginal rights—something the government could legally do to status Indians up until 1985 through the process of enfranchisement, and can still control through status.

Yet despite controversy, the Indian Act is historically and legally significant for Aboriginal peoples.  It acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada. For this reason, despite its problematic nature, efforts to outright abolish the Indian Act have been met with widespread resistance. (See, for example, the White Paper, 1969). As Harold Cardinal explained in 1969,

We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isn’t. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation.¹⁰

RCAP identifies this situation as a paradox that is key to understanding the Indian Act and the relationship between the Canadian state and status Indians. The Indian Act legally distinguishes between First Nations and other Canadians, and acknowledges that the federal government has a unique relationship with, and obligation to, First Nations. At the same time, any changes to the Indian Act through history have historically been proposed or established unilaterally by the government. Although there are many differing opinions on how to confront the issues presented by the Indian Act, Aboriginal leaders widely agree that if any alternative political relationship is to be worked out between First Nations and the government, First Nations will need to be active participants in establishing it.

By Erin Hanson

Recommended resources

Milloy, John. “Indian Act Colonialism: A Century of Dishonour, 1869-1969.” Research Paper for the National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008. Available online at: http://fngovernance.org/ncfng_research/milloy.pdf

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. “Chapter 9: The Indian Act,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Volume 1. Ottawa: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996. 235-308.

Steckley, John L. and Bryan D. Cummins. “Chapter Twelve: The Royal Proclamation and the Indian Act.”  Full Circle: Canada’s First Nations. Second Ed.  Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. 121-131.

Tobias, John.  “Civilization, Protection, Assimilation: An Outline of Canada’s Indian Policy.” The Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology,  6:2 (1976): 13-17.

This article can also be found in:

Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada. Miller, J.R. [ed]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. 127-144.

And on its own at UBC’s Xwi7xwa library, Point Grey campus.

Union of British Columbian Indian Chiefs, The Indian Act and What it Means. Vancouver: UBCIC, 1988. Available online, courtesy of UBCIC: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ubcic/pages/1440/attachments/original/1484861468/13_TheIndianAct_WhatItMeans.pdf?1484861468

Venne, Sharon Helen. The Indian Act and Amendments 1868-1975 – an indexed collection. Saskatoon: Saskatoon Law Centre, 1981.

Endnotes

1 Lawrence, Bonita. “Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview.” Hypatia. 18:2. 2003. 3.1

2 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking back. Volume 1. Ottawa: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996. 250.

3  Scow, Alfred. Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP),  Transcriptions of Public Hearings and Round Table Discussions, 1992-1993, Ottawa, Ontario. Thursday, November 26, 1992. 344-5. Available online courtesy of the University of Saskatchewan Archives: http://scaa.sk.ca/ourlegacy/permalink/30466.

4  RCAP,  Report on the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back, 1996. 310-1.

5 Milloy, John. “Indian Act Colonialism: A Century of Dishonour. 1869-1969.” National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008. Available online at: http://fngovernance.org/ncfng_research/milloy.pdf

6 Article 27, International Covenant on Civil and Political rights:

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

7 Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states, “Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.”

8 Hurley, Mary C. “Bill C-21: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Law and Governance Division, 2008. Available online at: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/392LS577E

9 “This apartheid law prohibited traditional First Nation government systems from existing in the native communities and in its place established the present day ‘band council’ system.” Assembly of First Nations, “Assembly of First Nations- The Story.” Available online at: http://caid.ca/AFNHis2010.pdf

10 Cardinal, Harold. The Unjust Society. 2nd ed. Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre, 1999. 140.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To be federally recognized as an Indian either in Canada or the United States, an individual must be able to comply with very distinct standards of government regulation… The Indian Act in Canada, in this respect, is much more than a body of laws that for over a century have controlled every aspect…

# data[].attributes.body
A policy within the Indian Act that discriminated against indigenous women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indian Act policies subjected generations of Aboriginal women and their children to a legacy of discrimination when it was first enacted in 1876 and continues to do so today despite amendments. Federal law in the late 1800s that defined a status Indian solely on the basis of paternal lineage - an Indian was a male Indian, the wife of a male Indian, or the child of a male Indian continues to be a quagmire of discrimination and disrespect towards women. While there have been numerous amendments to the Act, Indian status continues to be transmitted by male Indians, never by female Indians.

From 1869 until 1985 (116 years), if an Indian woman married a non-Indian man, she and the children of the marriage were denied Indian status. In 1985, the Indian A c t was amended by the passage of Bill C-31 to remove discrimination against women, to be consistent with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[1], included in the 1982 amendment of the Constitution. Coming into effect on April 17, 1985, Section 15 provided that "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability".

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) notes that strong concerns have been raised among Aboriginal people regarding Bill C-31's effective replacement of original Indian Act discriminatory provisions with new ones: "For example, as noted in the Bill C-31 study summary report, "bands that control their own membership under the Act may now restrict eligibility for some of the rights and benefits that used to be automatic with status." Moreover, sex discrimination, supposedly wiped out by the 1985 amendments, remains. Thus, for example, in some families Indian women who lost status through marrying out before 1985 can pass Indian status on to their children but not to their children's children - the "second generation cut-off." However, their brothers, who may also have married out before 1985, can pass on status to their children for at least one more generation, even though the children of the sister and the brother all have one status Indian parent and one non-Indian parent." [2]

Here's a free ebook that will contribute to your understanding of Indigenous Peoples in Canada: An Overview of Indigenous Self-Government

Amendments to Bill C-31 provided a process by which women could apply for reinstatement of their lost Indian status. While such an amendment looks good on paper, it proved to be extremely difficult for women to actually execute the process. The first of many hurdles was the then Department of Indian and Northern Affairs' documentation system - the numerous requests for additional information coupled with the department's significant under-estimation of the sheer volume of applicants and its inability to process the applications due to inadequate staffing levels frequently left the applicants in prolonged states of limbo. Besides the daunting magnitude of red tape involved, a more heartless aspect of the reinstatement process was the cost applicants were forced to bear as they travelled from sometimes very remote communities to centres that had DIAND offices, plus the costs for research and documentation fees. These costs and travel requirements simply put the dream of reinstatement, which opened the door to better health and education services for the women and their children, out of reach for many who were already financially marginalized due to their lack of "status".

Learn more here:

Bill C-3, introduced in March 2010, was supposed to be the remedy but actually continued the discrimination because the status reinstated is of inferior status. Grandchildren born before September 4, 1951 who trace their Aboriginal heritage through their maternal parentage are still denied status while those who trace their heritage through their paternal counterparts are not.

These Bills do little to change the relationship of the Indian Act and women's status.

[1] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.

[2] Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 4, page 37, 1996. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2007, and Courtesy of the Privy Council Office.

We thought you might also be interested in this related article "The Indian Act and the Right to Vote"

We cover the Indian Act in our Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples® course, which we offer publicly and on-site at a location of your convenience.

There's so much interest in learning about the Indian Act, Bob Joseph decided to write a book on the topic!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indian Act and Women's Status Discrimination via Bill C31 and Bill C3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indian Act policies subjected generations of Aboriginal women and their children to a legacy of discrimination when it was first enacted in 1876 and continues to do so today despite amendments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Scooping" of Indigenous Children, 1951-80s

Patrick Johnston, a researcher for the Canadian Council on Social Development, first used the term "Sixties Scoop" in his 1983 report on Indigenous children in the child welfare system, entitled Native Children and the Child Welfare System. In the report, Johnston describes the large-scale apprehension of Indigenous children in the 1960s from their homes, communities and families of birth - often without their parents' or band 's consent - and their subsequent adoption into predominantly non-Indigenous families across the United States and Canada. The Sixties Scoop was not an isolated event propelled by inferior Indigenous parenting, but rather an extension of paternalistic policies in Canada that sought the assimilation of Indigenous cultures and communities.

The process began in 1951, when amendments to the gave the provinces jurisdiction over Indigenous child welfare (Section 88) where none existed federally. By the 1960s, after nearly a century living under devastating federal policies, such as the Indian Act and residential schools, many Indigenous communities - particularly those living on- reserve- were rampant with poverty, high death rates and socio-economic barriers. ( See also Economic Conditions of Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Social Conditions of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.) With no additional financial resources, provincial agencies in 1951 inherited a litany of issues surrounding children and child welfare in Indigenous communities. With many communities under-serviced, under-resourced and under the control of the Indian Act, provincial child welfare agencies chose to remove children from their homes rather than provide community resources and supports.

From the 1960s to the 1980s, provincial governments considered the removal of Indigenous children the fastest and easiest way of addressing Indigenous child welfare issues. In many cases, the child welfare system did not expect or require its social workers to have specific knowledge about, or training in, Indigenous child welfare. They also did not have to seek the consent of communities to "scoop" newborn and young children from their parents and place them into non-Indigenous homes. It was only until the Child, Family and Community Services Act in 1980 that social workers were required to notify band councils of a child's removal from the community.

Number of Affected Children, 1960-90

The process of the Sixties Scoop spread exponentially during the 1960s - a time when Indigenous children were particularly overrepresented in the child welfare system. For example, in 1964, the number of Indigenous children in provincial care in British Columbia (1,466) was over 50 times more than it had been in 1951 (29). Although Indigenous children only made up one per cent of children in protective services in the 1950s nation-wide, by the late 1960s, they made up just over one-third.

The number of children taken away from their birth families varied according to province, but the practice was most popular on the Prairies. In Saskatchewan, there were specific programs designed to facilitate these adoptions. In Manitoba, between 1971 and 1981, approximately 3,400 Indigenous children were adopted, with up to 80 percent to non-Indigenous homes.

The department of Indigenous Affairs indicates that the number of Indigenous children adopted between 1960 and 1990 was 11,132. However, more recent research suggests upwards of more than 20,000 First Nation, Métis and Inuit children were removed from their homes. Many children were also sent abroad, some as far away as New Zealand. Depending on the source, in 1981 alone, 45 to 55 per cent of children were adopted by American families.

Shifts in Child Welfare Policy, 1980s-Present

During the 1980s, the impact of the Johnston report, calls by Indigenous bands to amend provincial adoption laws and other reports critical of the Sixties Scoop, including Justice Edwin Kimelman's No Quiet Place (1985), led to changes in child welfare policies. Before children could be placed in non-Indigenous families, priority for their adoptions was first to be given to extended family and then to another Indigenous family.

More changes came in 1990, when the federal government created the First Nations Child and Family Services program (FNCFS). This gave local bands the power to administer child and family services according to provincial and territorial legislation. Since then, bands have increasingly taken control over their own child welfare services.

However, the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child welfare systems remains an issue of concern. In their 2015 Report to Canada's Premiers, the Aboriginal Children in Care Working Group highlighted the disproportionally high number of Indigenous children in protective care across the country. According to the 2016 census by Statistics Canada, while Indigenous children only make up 7.7 per cent of children in Canada, they account for 52.2 per cent of children in foster care.

Socio-cultural Impacts

The long-lasting effects of the Sixties Scoop on adult adoptees are considerable, ranging from a loss of cultural identity to low self-esteem and feelings of shame, loneliness and confusion. Since birth records could not be opened unless both the child and parent consented, many adoptees learned about their true heritage late in life, causing frustration and emotional distress. While some adoptees were placed in homes with loving and supportive people, they could not provide culturally specific education and experiences essential to the creation of healthy, Indigenous identities. Some adoptees also reported sexual, physical and other abuse. These varied experiences and feelings led to long-term challenges with the health and livelihood of the adoptees. As a result, beginning in the 1990s, class action lawsuits against provincial governments have been pursued in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and are still before the courts.

Government Apologies and Settlement

On 18 June 2015, the Province of Manitoba issued an apology for the Sixties Scoop and announced that this history will be included in school curricula. The apology coincided with the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) "Calls to Action," regarding residential schools. The TRC cites the Sixties Scoop as an important part of Canada's legislative "cultural genocide" against Indigenous peoples. ( See also Genocide.)

On 1 February 2017, the Canadian government announced that it was ready to negotiate a settlement to the $1.3 billion class-action lawsuit launched against it in 2009. On 14 February, Ontario Superior Court judge Edward Belobaba ruled in favour of Sixties Scoop victims, finding that the federal government did not take adequate steps to protect the cultural identity of on-reserve children taken away from their homes. This is the first victory for a Sixties Scoop lawsuit in Canada. On 6 October 2017, the federal government announced a settlement of $800 million with Sixties Scoop survivors.

In May 2018, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley apologized to Alberta's Sixties Scoop survivors in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta: "For the government practice that left you, Indigenous people, estranged from your families and your communities and your history, we are sorry. For this trauma, this pain, this suffering, alienation and sadness, we are sorry." Prior to the government's apology, Children's Services and Indigenous Relations ministries, working together with the Sixties Scoop Indigenous Society of Alberta (SSISA), held consultations across the province with Sixties Scoop survivors and Indigenous leaders. In all, 575 people took part in the consultation sessions, while another 286 made submissions by mail and online. Adam North Peigan, survivor and president of the SSISA, who worked with the government on the consultation process and apology, stated that he believed it was a "meaningful apology." To Peigan, it was the result of a "meaningful partnership" between Indigenous peoples and the government of Alberta. To survivor Suzanne Wilkinson, the consultation and apology process has led to healing: "Every time we tell our story, parts of our heart and souls and our spirits mend back together."

In January 2019, the government of Saskatchewan followed Manitoba and Alberta with an apology to Sixties Scoop survivors. Premier Scott Moe acknowledged the important role of the Sixties Scoop Indigenous Society of Saskatchewan (SSISS) during the consultation process and apologized on behalf of the people and government of Saskatchewan: "We failed the survivors we heard from...and so many others. We failed their families. We failed their communities. We failed." The SSISS hopes that the apology will lead to meaningful action, such as adding the Sixties Scoop to the school curriculum, the release of apprehension records to the public, and the creation of more "sharing circles" to help survivors heal.

In November 2020, the Sixties Scoop Healing Foundation, which was set up to assist in the healing of Sixties Scoop survivors, announced its permanent board of directors. The inaugural 10-person board consists of Cheryl Swidrovich, Danelle St. Laurent, Eric Phillips, Gary McDermott, Halie Bruce, Selina Legge, Wayne Garnons-Williams, Vicky Boldo, Anna Watts, and Justice Harry LaForme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Sixties Scoop" refers to the large-scale removal or "scooping" of Indigenous children from their homes, communities and families of birth throug...

# data[].attributes.body
In 2008 the Canadian Government Issues an Apology to residential school survivors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this live special broadcast from CBC Newsworld on June 11, 2008, then-prime minister Stephen Harper is heard recognizing the wrongs of the past.

"The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly. We are sorry," Harper says, delivering the apology in the House of Commons.

Harper's apology was followed by remarks from Stéphane Dion, then the Liberal leader, who acknowledged his party's complicity in the residential schools policy, having governed Canada for 70 years in the 20th century.

Two more federal party leaders, Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québecois and Jack Layton of the NDP, reflected on the apology and rebuked the Harper government for not endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

From a circle of 11 chairs on the floor of the House of Commons for five Indigenous leaders and six residential school survivors, Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, responded to the apology to cheers from the viewing galleries.

"Never again will we be the 'Indian problem,'" said Fontaine. "Today is the result of the righteousness of our struggle."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government apologizes for residential schools in 2008 | CBC Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this live special broadcast from CBC Newsworld on June 11, 2008, then-prime minister Stephen Harper is heard recognizing the wrongs of the past. "The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Residential school survivor explains the impact on her family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous Peoples in the Canadian Residential Schools: RISE (Clip)

# data[].attributes.headline
Truth and Reconciliation Calls to action 

# data[].attributes.subject
Truth and Reconciliation Calls to action 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada's cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Mandate of the National Inquiry

The National Inquiry must look into and report on the systemic causes of all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls, including sexual violence. We must examine the underlying social, economic, cultural, institutional, and historical causes that contribute to the ongoing violence and particular vulnerabilities of Indigenous women and girls in Canada. The mandate also directs us to look into and report on existing institutional policies and practices to address violence, including those that are effective in reducing violence and increasing safety.

While the formal name of the Inquiry is "the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls," our mandate covers all forms of violence. This makes our mandate very broad. By not being limited to investigating only cases of Indigenous women who went missing or were murdered, we can include women and girls who died under suspicious circumstances.

It also means we can address issues such as sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence, bullying and harassment, suicide, and self-harm. This violence is interconnected, and can have equally devastating effects. Expanding the mandate beyond missing and murdered also creates space for more survivors to share their stories. They can help us look to the future from a place of experience, resilience, and hope.

Our Vision

Indigenous women and Two-Spirit people have traditionally been revered as life-givers and caregivers. This is why we say, "our women and girls are sacred." But Indigenous women and girls, including those who are 2SLGBTQQIA, continue to be devalued. All too many become the victims of violence.

Our vision for the National Inquiry is to build a foundation that allows Indigenous women and girls to reclaim their power and place.

Because of Indigenous Peoples' rich diversity, this reclaiming will look different in different places. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples each have their own distinct cultures, languages, and ways of life. Their communities have their own distinct political, legal, social, cultural, and economic systems. There can be no one-size-fits-all, pan-Indigenous approach. Solutions must instead be culturally appropriate to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit women and girls, their respective communities, and their Nations.

Our Mission

We will find the truth by gathering many stories from many people.

These truths will weave together to show us what violence really looks like for Indigenous women and girls in Canada.

We will gather this information through:

Our research is rooted in Indigenous methodology. It is governed by traditional laws and ethics that affirm the resistance and resurgence of Indigenous women and girls, including 2SLGBTQQIA people. Indigenous women's experiences will guide our truth every step of the way.

We will honour the truth through public education.

For far too long, Indigenous women and girls have been publicly devalued or ignored. People's general perceptions have been shaped by harmful colonial stereotypes. People forget that every Indigenous woman or girl-no matter how she died or what she had been through-had an inherent strength and sacred worth. We need to transform the national conversation about Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. To build a strong foundation for healing, justice, and reconciliation, governments and institutions must change. So must our society's attitudes and understanding of the issue.

This public education begins by creating opportunities for family members and survivors to share their truths. It continues as Canadians learn more about Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Indigenous and non-Indigenous people will have the opportunity to learn about Indigenous women's rightful power and place: their historical and present-day roles, their leadership, and what they have to contribute. Many of these learning opportunities will take place through the Community, Institutional, Knowledge Keeper and Expert Hearings. We will further honour the truth in our findings, recommendations, and reports, and other public education materials. As much as possible, our information will be published in different audio, visual, and paper formats to make them widely accessible.

Learn more here.

We will give life to the truth by creating a living legacy through commemoration and artistic expressions.

Everyone affected by this issue will have the opportunity to participate in the National Inquiry by submitting an artistic response in whatever medium they choose. This will help create a new public record of history that centres on Indigenous women and girls' experiences.

Together with family members and communities, we will make recommendations on the best ways to commemorate and honour those we have lost. Public commemoration is a powerful way to make sure that survivors are acknowledged for the suffering they have endured. It also ensures that families can let Canada know that their loved ones were cherished human beings who are still missed.

Most importantly, we will give life to the truth by teaching and learning from our children and youth. We need to give them the best possible supports now, and help them build a safer, stronger foundation for their future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Mandate, Our Vision, Our Mission | MMIWG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Inquiry must look into and report on the systemic causes of all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls, including sexual violence. We must examine the underlying social, economic, cultural, institutional, and historical causes that contribute to the ongoing violence and particular vulnerabilities of Indigenous women and girls in Canada.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reclaiming Power and Place

The National Inquiry's Final Report reveals that persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada's staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. The two volume report calls for transformative legal and social changes to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities across the country.
The Final Report is comprised of the truths of more than 2,380 family members, survivors of violence, experts and Knowledge Keepers shared over two years of cross-country public hearings and evidence gathering. It delivers 231 individual Calls for Justice directed at governments, institutions, social service providers, industries and all Canadians.
As documented in the Final Report, testimony from family members and survivors of violence spoke about a surrounding context marked by multigenerational and intergenerational trauma and marginalization in the form of poverty, insecure housing or homelessness and barriers to education, employment, health care and cultural support. Experts and Knowledge Keepers spoke to specific colonial and patriarchal policies that displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and diminished their status in society, leaving them vulnerable to violence.

Supplementary report: Quebec

The National Inquiry is simultaneously releasing a report specific to Quebec in order to give particular attention to the issue of violence against Indigenous women and girls in that province. The report outlines specific issues such as language barriers, health and social services provide by religious congregations and interaction with Indigenous and provincial police forces.

Download PDF

Section 1 of the report, made up of Chapters 1-4, sets up the overall context that will be helpful for readers in approaching the information presented in the later sections of the report. In Section 1, we talk about the role of relationships, human and Indigenous rights, the history of colonization, and how each of these contexts can inform our understanding of the issue of violence against First Nations, Inuit, and Métis women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.
Chapter 1: Centring Relationships to End Violence
Chapter 2: Indigenous Recognitions of Power and Place
Chapter 3: Emphasizing Accountability through Human Rights Tools
Chapter 4: Colonization as Gendered Oppression

Overwhelmingly, the families who testified before the National Inquiry were seeking answers to perceived flaws in the investigations into the loss of their loved ones.

They discussed many ways in which they felt that police services had failed in their duty to properly investigate the crimes committed against them or their loved ones, leading ultimately to a failure to obtain closure and justice within the existing system. In response, the National Inquiry established the Forensic Document Review Project (FDRP), consisting of two teams conducting a review of police and other related institutional files. One team examined files of the Province of Quebec; the second group examined police files in all other provinces and territories throughout the rest of Canada. In this summary, when we refer to the FDRP, we are referring specifically to this second group. Information and recommendations of the Quebec FDRP are located in the Supplementary Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls devoted to Quebec. The purpose of the FDRP was to identify potential systemic barriers or problems and areas of weakness relating to the protection of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to make recommendations to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls about the systemic causes of their disappearances and deaths.

During the course of the project, the Forensic Document Review Project (FDRP), which was tasked with examining files outside of Quebec, obtained and reviewed 174 files and 35 previous reports and studies on policing related to Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and analyzed publicly available information related to those files.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Inquiry's Final Report reveals that persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada's staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. The two volume report calls for transformative legal and social changes to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities across the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alberta Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls In Alberta 

# data[].attributes.subject
Alberta Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls In Alberta 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Sisters In Spirit (MMIWG Documentary)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The definition of "myth", according to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary, is "a widely held but false notion." When it comes to the topic of Indigenous Peoples there are many widely held but false notions or myths.

Myths are different from stereotypes. A stereotype is "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image of a particular type of person or thing." There are also many widely held but false stereotypes about Indigenous Peoples.

Myths about Indigenous Peoples are varied but many have the common theme that Indigenous Peoples "have it easy" compared to non-Indigenous Canadians.

"Negative views of Aboriginal peoples (13%). Just over one in ten expresses his or her first impression of Aboriginal peoples in clearly negative terms pertaining to special treatment or negative attributes. This includes mention of tax breaks and other rights and privileges (5%), reliance on welfare or government handouts (3%), that Aboriginal peoples are lazy or don't work to contribute to society (2%), and generally negative feelings (3%). The proportion citing such impressions in urban Canada is essentially unchanged since 2009." [1]

How do we put an end to these myths? By educating ourselves and others with the realities so we and they can counter the myths with facts. Here are some of the most persistent myths:

1. Indigenous Peoples get a "free ride" from the federal government
The "free ride" myth is the foundation for many of the other myths and owes its genesis to s. 91(24) of the British North America Act 1867 when fiduciary duty for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" was assumed by the Canadian Parliament.

Fiduciary duty applies to Indians and lands reserved for Indians on reserves. A Fiduciary duty requires the Crown to act in accordance to its role as a trustee of "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians."

Eventually, fiduciary duty will disappear as it has in cases such as the where there are no bands, no reserves, there are no status or non-status Indians. It is a place where the Crown does not have fiduciary duty because the Nisga'a Final Agreement Indian Act is gone.

For the reserves that are still under the Indian Act, the federal government is responsible for providing programs and services that most non-Indigenous communities in Canada receive from provincial and municipal levels of government. In other words, the same services are provided but just through different levels of government.

In 2011, the auditor general's report Programs for First Nations on Reserves, concluded, "The education gap between First Nations living on reserves and the general Canadian population has widened, the shortage of adequate housing on reserves has increased, comparability of child and family services is not ensured."

8 Key Issues for Aboriginal Peoples
Note to Justin Bieber: There is no free gas for aboriginals

2. Indians have ample reserve lands
Canada is a vast country ( 9.985 million sq km) but just 0.2 per cent of its total land mass is reserve land. That 0.2 per cent of Canada's land mass is home 339,595 Indigenous people (2016 Census), or 0.2% of the land mass houses 20% of the Indigenous population.

8 first nation reserve faqs

Some reserves are tiny, some are vast distances from urban centres, education facilities, health centres, and employment opportunities. Don't make the mistake of equating reserves with traditional or treaty territories which can be vast.

Traditional lands refer to an area that a Nation has occupied and used for many generations, long before reserve borders were imposed by the Indian Act. When reserves were designated, traditional usage and ceremonial sites were not always considered. Some Nations were relocated to reserves in areas that were completely alien to their traditional lands.

As designated in the 3. Indians can do what they want with their reserve lands and resources
Indian Act:

"Reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band."

The Canadian government passed legislation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries allowing the government to expropriate portions of reserve land to provide land for public utility rights-of-ways (railways, transmission lines and highways) - often done without the consent of the Nation and without compensation. It is this expropriation that has resulted in the fragmentation and disruption of many reserves. In many cases, the province or Crown further retains subsoil rights on the reserve, which means band members do not 'own' the minerals found there.

Coastal waters and tidal lands do not form part of the reserve either in most cases. Although colonists tried to justify the small sizes of many reserves along coastal British Columbia by their access to waterways, Indigenous fishing grounds and their resources have been restricted by provincial and federal regulations.

"The issue of [independent] fishing licenses to Indians is especially to be depreciated. They are wards of the Dominion Government and specially treated and protected . . . It is not deemed advisable to grant Indians "independent" licenses as they are liable to become difficult to manage by the authorities." William Henry Barker, BC Packers, to the Hon. J.D. Hazen, Minister of Fisheries, August 19, 1913 [2]

4. Indigenous Peoples living on reserves get free housing
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) offers many programs to assist both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to meet their housing needs. For Indigenous people, the assistance programs are only applicable to dwellings on reserve lands. First Nations, or status Indians, can apply for social housing programs offered by the CMHC. The housing programs for Indigenous people are mainly designed to give low-income families access to rental housing.

8 Things You Need to Know About On Reserve Housing

Bands and First Nations that meet CMHC lending criteria apply to a bank for conventional mortgage funds to finance the social housing construction, usually with CMHC providing loan insurance. The band rents the housing units to its members and maintains the mortgage. On many reserves, except some that have developed self-government agreements, the house is owned but the land is not - therefore it cannot be sold - which makes it impossible to build up equity in your home, as is possible for non-Indigenous people. Additionally, the reality for most people is that they need to take out a loan in order buy a house and loans require collateral.

The housing shortage on-reserve is in the range of 20,000 - 35,000, according to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2011), with the shortfall growing by an estimated 2,200 units every year.

The population growth rate coupled with the shortage of adequate housing results in people living in unhealthy and overcrowded conditions.

Here are some "highlights" regarding housing conditions of Indigenous Peoples from the 2016 Census of Population:

Of the 977,230 First Nations people who lived in Canada in 2016, about one-quarter (24.2%) lived in a dwelling in need of major repairs. In comparison, 6.0% of the non-Aboriginal population reported living in a dwelling in need of major repairs.

In 2016, 18.3% of Aboriginal people lived in housing that was crowded.

Just over one in ten (11.5%) Aboriginal people lived in housing with a one-bedroom shortfall; 4.0% lived in housing with a two-bedroom shortfall, and 2.8% lived in a dwelling with a shortfall of three or more bedrooms. While a lower proportion of the non-Aboriginal population lived in housing that was crowded (8.5%), the distribution of the types of shortfalls was similar.

Maintenance is also a huge factor. Many reserves are situated long distances from hardware stores or have fly-in access only so have to bring in building supplies by air.

5. There's no connection between Indigenous unemployment and Indigenous health and social problems
Employment opportunities and rates on reserves vary considerably due to general economic circumstances in a particular region and the presence or absence of on-reserve resource bases that can generate employment. Given that in many circumstances incomes are low and employment prospects poor, it is not surprising that a large proportion of the Indigenous population is unemployed and lives in poverty.

Going back to the free housing myth, poor and scarce housing leads to too many people living in housing units that are frequently riddled with mould, not weatherproof, and insufficiently heated - the ideal incubation setting for respiratory conditions.

6. Indigenous Peoples don't pay taxes in Canada
This myth is proclaimed frequently and is presented as a testament that Indigenous People in Canada have a massive tax advantage. In order for this myth to be true, it would have to be all Indigenous people are exempt from paying all taxes but the reality is that it is only status Indians who are exempt from paying taxes and only in certain situations.

Federal tax exemptions for status Indians have existed at least since the consolidation of the Indian Act in 1876 but only apply in very specific and limited conditions. Under sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act, status Indians do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their personal and real property that is on a reserve. Personal property includes goods, services and income as defined under the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency policies. As income is considered personal property, status Indians who work on a reserve do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their employment income.

4 Facts About Indigenous Peoples and Taxes

Initially, the purpose of the exemption was to preserve the entitlements of status Indians to their reserve lands and to ensure that the use of their property on their reserve lands is not eroded by taxes. Section 87 also exempts from the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) the goods and services bought by status Indians at businesses located on-reserve. Goods and services purchased off-reserve by status Indians but delivered to the reserve are also tax exempt.

To put it in perspective, somewhat less than half of all registered status Indians live on reserve so less than 1% of the total population of Canada is exempt from paying certain taxes.

7. Indigenous students receive free post-secondary education
To say that all Indigenous Peoples receive free post-secondary funding is misleading because it implies all Indigenous Peoples are eligible for funding. This is not the case. Only status Indians are eligible to receive funding for postsecondary education through Indigenous Services Canada funding - non-status Indians, Inuit and Métis are not eligible for this funding. And again, post-secondary education funding is part of the legal and constitutional obligation of the federal government.

While in some communities the rate of high school graduation is increasing, the graduates often step off the path to higher education at that point due to the lack of available funds. If they live off-reserve, they are often not eligible to receive funding.

This section from Chapter 4 Programs for First Nations on Reserve of the 2011 June Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada gives a snapshot of the funding situation:

4.21 Post-secondary funding. In line with our 2004 audit, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that INAC review its post-secondary funding mechanisms, noting that existing mechanisms did not ensure equitable funding to as many eligible students as possible. . . Again, as in 2004, we found that the current funding mechanism and delivery model used to fund post-secondary education does not ensure that eligible students have equitable access to post-secondary education funding.

In order to create additional opportunities for their members some bands set aside funding within their budgets to assist their members in obtaining a post-secondary education. These programs are similar to scholarship programs established by post-secondary institutions and other organizations who want to see the advancement of youth. But it means they may have to take badly needed funds from housing, infrastructure, health budgets etc.

8. Indigenous Peoples are all the same
Cultural diversity within the Indigenous population is frequently not recognized nor respected in common practice. There is a misconception that Indigenous Peoples are one homogenous group who share the same histories, culture, traditions, worldviews , language, needs, and desires. Little could be further from the truth.

Respecting First Nations Cultural Diversity

Let's take a look at First Nations. There are over 600 bands and over 2,000 reserves - each one with a distinct history that shaped their particular cultural identity. They each have distinct economies, capacities, and challenges.

In BC alone there is an amazing diversity of Indigenous culture and language - there are over 200 First Nation communities in the province - each with its own unique culture, traditions, and history. These 200 communities represent 60% of the Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. Speaking of language, did you know that outside of Quebec, English is becoming the common language of Indigenous people in Canada?

Recognition of the unique history, culture and traditions of each community is a fundamental first step Canadians can take in respecting Indigenous Peoples.

9. Residential schools are ancient history
Residential schools are not " ancient history." It may seem as though they belong to a dark and ancient history due to the horrific conditions the 150,000 children (of which 6,000 died or disappeared) were subjected to but the last one closed in 1996. That's not ancient history.

What is residential school syndrome

The mandate of the schools was to assimilate the children into settler society. The actions taken to fulfil the mandate of assimilation were labelled "cultural genocide" by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in 2015. Genocide is not a term most people associate with Canada.

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and

2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Children as young as six were forcibly removed from their homes. From the moment they crossed the threshold of the school they were thrust into a harsh, unforgiving, linguistically and culturally alien world. Punishment was often severe, sexual, physical and psychological abuse common. The legacy of the trauma those children suffered is carried forth through the generations.

The Indian Act, residential schools and the tuberculosis coverup

A frequent extension of the "residential schools are ancient history" myth is the question "Why can't they just get over it?"

Senator Murray Sinclair, former head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, made these comments in regard to a fellow senator who posed the same question:

"My answer has always been: Why can't you always remember this? Because this is about memorializing those people who have been the victims of a great wrong. Why don't you tell the United States to 'get over' 9/11? Why don't you tell this country to 'get over' all the veterans who died in the Second World War, instead of honouring them once a year? . . . We should never forget, even once we have learned from it because it's part of who we are. It's not just a part of who we are as survivors and children of survivors and relatives of survivors, it's part of who we are as a nation. And this nation must never forget what it once did to its most vulnerable people."

10. The myth of the vanishing Indian
The reach and impact of this myth are almost mythical in proportion.

Its roots are in the "invisible Indian" myth, which in turn has its roots in the Doctrine of Discovery.

The Doctrine of Discovery was used by European monarchies, beginning in the mid-fifteenth century, as a means of legitimizing the colonization of lands outside of Europe. It was issued in 1493, the year after Christopher Columbus "arrived" on the shores of what is now known as North America. The Doctrine of Discovery provided a framework for Christian explorers, in the name of their sovereign, to lay claim to territories uninhabited by Christians. If the lands were vacant, then they could be defined as "discovered" and sovereignty claimed.

The presiding theory of the time was that Indigenous Peoples, because they were non-Christians, and therefore the land was empty or When Christopher Columbus in 1492, it is estimated that the Americas were actually occupied by 100 million Indigenous Peoples - which is about one-fifth of the human race at that time - who had been living their traditional lives on the land since time immemorial. But, because they were not Christians the land was deemed were not human terra nullius. arrived terra nullius. They were invisible. With confederation, they moved from invisible to savages, as termed in 1879 by John A. Macdonald:

"When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write."

It wasn't until amendments to the Indian Act in 1951, that they were actually recognized as "people." Prior to that, a person was "an individual other than an Indian."

Making them vanish was the goal of assimilation. They had to vanish in order for the government to gain access to their lands and resources, and encourage Europeans to settle in Canada. The government took a number of approaches to make them vanish, as listed here in 21 Things You May Not Have Known About The Indian Act.

But, vanish they did not. Today, Indigenous Peoples are the fastest growing segment of the population. Ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada published its report on residential schools and 94 calls to action for reconciliation in 2015, awareness of the treatment of Indigenous Peoples at least since confederation has increased sharply.

If you would like to download a pdf copy of this article, click the button:

[2] John Sutton Lutz, Makúk A New History of Aboriginal-White Relations, UBC Press 2009 p 239

Here's a handy little eBook with 23 tips on what not to do or say when Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples®.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Insight on 10 myths about Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The definition of "myth", according to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary, is "a widely held but false notion." When it comes to the topic of Indigenous Peoples there are many widely held but false notions or myths. Myths are different from stereotypes.

# data[].attributes.headline
RCMP discrimination against Indigenous people 

# data[].attributes.subject
RCMP discrimination against Indigenous people 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alberta RCMP deputy commissioner Curtis Zablocki on Wednesday became the latest person in authority to dismiss the idea of systemic racism.

He told a news conference in Edmonton he also doesn't believe racism is systemic through policing in Alberta or Canada.

It's a statement that flies in the face of my decade of reporting on Indigenous Peoples - and 150 years of Canadian history.

I've heard countless stories from Indigenous Peoples across this country who have had run-ins with the RCMP and other police forces.

There are injustices like the recent allegations that RCMP beat Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations Chief Allan Adam over an expired licence plate in Fort McMurray, Alta. There's the killing of 26-year-old Chantel Moore of the Tia-o-qui-aht First Nation, who was shot five times by police in Edmundston, N.B., last week. There's the fact that in April, Winnipeg police officers shot and killed 16-year-old Eisha Hudson, then, less than a day later, Winnipeg police shot and killed 36-year-old Jason Collins. Ten days later, the same police force shot and killed 22-year-old Stewart Kevin Andrews.

All of them were Indigenous.

I could fill books with the names and stories of Indigenous Peoples whose lives have been cut short due to systemic racism in this country.

The North-West Mounted Police, which eventually became the RCMP, has as its foundation an agenda of racism that widely plays out today.

In 1873, the NWMP were created to advance the agenda of the newly established dominion of Canada. In other words, the force was created to stop any opposition to its vision of a successful colonial state.

As authors Brown and Brown wrote in An Unauthorized History of the RCMP, "It (NWMP) was designed to keep order in the North West, to control the Aboriginal and Metis populations, and to facilitate the transfer of Indigenous territory to the federal government with (in theory) minimal bloodshed."

The NWMP and then the RCMP helped to force First Nations onto reserves - tracts of land designated for them by the Canadian government - then made sure they didn't leave unless they got permission.

The "pass system," which ran from 1885 to the 1940s in Canada, gave power to an "Indian agent" to decide whether a First Nations person could leave the reserve. It was made into law by John A. Macdonald and enforced by police. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples cites reserves began to "resemble prisons."

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) published June 3, 2019 highlights testimonies from family members who lived through the pass system.

Rande C., said of RCMP enforcement during this period: "I think about the early stories from that time when my gran said chiefs (were) dragged out of their homes and thrown on the ground and forced to shovel, like, pig shit and stuff like that, and beat, and RCMPs ... just like, standing around everyday waiting for them to even just say one word in our language so they could beat them and throw them and haul them to jail or whatever. You know, never allowed to leave the reserve, never allowed to shop in the same stores, never allowed to do anything. And my gran said that was her reality of her whole life growing up."

The report also states Métis Peoples suffered "brutally under the Mounties, who frequently paraded through native settlements in order to intimidate the people and remind the natives they had to 'stay in their place.'"

In the 1950s and 1960s, the report says, many Métis families in Manitoba lived on the urban edges of cities called "Shantytowns" or in rural communities along government road allotments; living in the "marginal spaces at the edge of Canadian society" known as "road allowances."

Road allowance communities were established by Métis in the aftermath of the failure of many families to receive their lands guaranteed by the Manitoba government. Métis living there were considered squatters, and the report says witnesses attested to many communities being "destroyed by the RCMP - in fact, some Metis Elders vividly recall the day their community was burned to the ground, and when people escaped with little more than the clothes on their backs."

For more than 100 years, the RCMP has enforced the Indian Act for the federal government. RCMP ripped Indigenous children from their parents' arms and forcibly took them to attend residential schools designed to assimilate them into the mainstream culture.

"The central goals of Canada's Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal Peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious and racial entities in Canada," said the Truth and Reconciliation of Canada's final report, describing it as "cultural genocide."

Thousands of Indigenous children were severely abused and thousands died attending residential schools. The last of these schools closed in 1996. This isn't ancient history.

Audrey Siegl, Musqueam activist, expressed, to the MMIWG Commissioners, "Safety and justice and peace are just words to us. Since its inception, we've never been safe in 'Canada.' The RCMP was created to quash the Indian rebellions. The police were created to protect and serve the colonial state."

The MMIWG Final Report states Canada is committing race-based genocide against Indigenous women and girls when it comes to enabling systemic violence through the crisis of MMIWG. The RCMP's role and actions, in our eyes, have made them contributors to the genocide.

Report commissioners also said the RCMP has not proven to Canada they're capable of holding themselves to account and cites numerous "truths," testimonies of witnesses who speak to "ongoing issues of systemic and individual racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination that prevent honest oversight from taking place."

How are Indigenous Peoples supposed to take seriously the supposed assurance from a high-ranking commissioner that Alberta, or Canada, for that matter, isn't racist?

The RCMP regularly enforce Crown-granted injunctions obtained by corporations to trample Indigenous rights like we recently saw when members of the Wet'suwet'en were forcibly removed from their homelands to make way for a pipeline.

In Canada, compared to all other categories of accused persons, Indigenous people continue to be jailed younger, denied bail more frequently, granted parole less often and released later in their sentence, over-represented in segregation, overrepresented in remand custody, and more likely to be classified as higher risk offenders.

As of January 2020, Indigenous Peoples make up more than 30 per cent of the inmates in federal custody despite making up just five per cent of the overall population. Dr. Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, suggested this indicates a deepening "Indigenization" of Canada's correctional system and referred to those trends as "disturbing and entrenched imbalances."

Both federal prisons in Zablocki's home province's capital city of Edmonton have higher than a 50 per cent Indigenous population.

Denying the truth of systemic racism within the policing forces in Canada is further oppressive and adds fuel to the fire of racist violence and beliefs toward minorities. It's also not helpful to the process of reconciliation. Maybe Zablocki needs to understand that truth before he's ready to face what's really going on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | As the RCMP deny systemic racism, here's the real history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alberta RCMP deputy commissioner Curtis Zablocki on Wednesday became the latest person in authority to dismiss the idea of systemic racism. He told a news conference in Edmonton he also doesn't believe racism is systemic through policing in Alberta or Canada.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animated video on Intergenerational trauma

# data[].attributes.subject
Animated video on Intergenerational trauma

# data[].attributes.headline
Indigenous Canada course- offered by the University of Alberta free of charge

# data[].attributes.subject
Indigenous Canada course- offered by the University of Alberta free of charge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Take online for free

Take the course for free by choosing the audit option on Coursera.

Get a certificate

Pay a modest fee to receive a certificate of completion at the end of the course.

Take for credit

University of Alberta students can sign up for NS 201 for credit.

About the Course

Indigenous Canada is a 12-lesson Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) from the Faculty of Native Studies that explores the different histories and contemporary perspectives of Indigenous peoples living in Canada.

From an Indigenous perspective, this course explores complex experiences Indigenous peoples face today from a historical and critical perspective highlighting national and local Indigenous-settler relations.

Indigenous Canada is for students from faculties outside the Faculty of Native Studies with an interest in acquiring a basic familiarity with Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships.
Registration is now open
Presented by:

Course Preview

Topics Covered

The fur trade and other exchange relationships,

Land claims and environmental impacts,

Legal systems and rights,

Political conflicts and alliances,

Indigenous political activism,

Contemporary Indigenous life, art and its expressions.

Course Format

Delivery: Online

Level: Beginner

Commitment: 12 weeks of study, 2-3 hours/week

This course consists of twelve modules, each with a series of:

video lectures,

a set of course notes and course glossary,

and required and recommended readings.

Not open to students with credit in NS200. Not designed for Native Studies majors.

Learn about course topics and outcomes, and find out how you can participate in the course.

Academic Lead

Paul Gareau, Associate Professor, Métis
Faculty of Native Studies

Dr. Paul L. Gareau is Métis from the Batoche Homeland and is an associate professor and associate dean (graduate studies) in the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta, Canada. His research, publications, and teaching explores the Métis (Indigenous) experiences of religion and spirituality, and the legacy of colonial discourses on Indigenous and ethno-cultural minorities. Grounded in Métis Studies and Indigenous Studies as well as Religious Studies, Gareau's work centres on theory and methodology around relationality, gender, Indigenous onto-epistemologies, land and place, nationhood/peoplehood, and sovereignty/self-determination.

Presenters

Savage Bear, PhD, Montreal Lake Cree Nation

Savage Bear was the project's academic lead, and an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Native Studies and Department of Women's and Gender Studies. Dr. Bear's research interests include Indigenous Erotics & Eroticanalysis; Indigenous Feminism, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Sovereignty, Land & Body Politics; Reproductive Justice, Indigenous Queer & Two-Spirit Studies; Contemporary Indigenous Art.

Alannah Mandamin-Shawanda, BANS (Honors), Wikwemikong First Nation

Alannah Mandamin-Shawanda is Anishnabee from Wikwemikong First Nation located on Manitoulin Island. She moved to Wetaskiwin at the age of seven, and mainly grew up in Alberta. She graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Native Studies (Honors) at the University of Alberta. She is currently working with the Government of Alberta speaking and encouraging youth to explore their post-secondary options. She has a strong interest in Film and Media studies, and Indigenous Fourth Cinema. On her days off she enjoys taking long road trips, hiking, pleasure reading and fancy dancing.

Isaac Twinn, BEd, BANS, Sawridge First Nation

Isaac Twinn is from the Sawridge First Nation, situated in Treaty 8 territory, in the Lesser Slave Lake region. He is currently doing work involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, culture, and education. In Isaac's free time, you may find him either reading, golfing, fishing, hunting, learning his language, or spending time learning from Elders.

Indigenous Canada Course Syllabus

Module 1 - Worldview

In this introductory module, students learn the significance of stories and storytelling in Indigenous societies. We explore history that comes from Indigenous worldviews, this includes worldviews from the Inuit, Nehiyawak, Kanien:keha'ka and Tlingit peoples.
" Module 1 Term List & Definitions
Module 2 - Fur Trade

This module discusses pre-contact trading systems between Indigenous peoples of North America with a focus on the geographical region of Canada. We examine the chronological events of contact with Europeans and the events leading up to, and during the fur trade. This module also explores the long lasting social, political and economic ramifications of the fur trade on Indigenous peoples.
" Module 2 Term List & Definitions
Module 3 - Trick or Treaty

Examines Indigenous and settler perspectives of treaty making. Discusses the variation of treaties in Canada and the unique circumstances surrounding these events. Outlines the temporal and geographical history of the numbered treaties (beginning on the east) and ends with a discussion of the historical events and policies leading up to Métis scrip.
" Module 3 Term List & Definitions
Module 4 - New Rules, New Game

This module begins with a discussion about what is distinctive in Indigenous legal traditions. Explores impacts of policies put in place as British North America attempted to solidify itself geographically and socially. Examines the ways in which the Indian Act contributed to assimilation.
" Module 4 Term List & Definitions
Module 5 - "Killing the Indian in the Child"

Outlines characteristics of teaching and learning in Indigenous communities, and discusses how relationships were critical in teaching and learning. Traces the development and implementation of the Residential school system in the period after Confederation. Discusses intergenerational impact of Residential school system and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
" Module 5 Term List & Definitions
Module 6 - A Modern Indian?

This module examines the burgeoning resistance of Indigenous leaders and the formation of Indigenous-led organizations as the Canadian government employed strategies to encourage assimilation of Indigenous peoples and communities into mainstream society, specifically relating to urbanization.
" Module 6 Term List & Definitions
Module 7 - Red Power

In this module students will learn about key characteristics of a few different Indigenous political structures and the impacts of colonialism on these structures (e.g. Indian Act, Red Power/AIM, White Paper, Red Paper -Citizens Plus) Concepts explored include self-government, self-determination, and Indigenous resurgence.
" Module 7 Term List & Definitions
Module 8 - Sovereign Lands

Utilizing contemporary and traditional examples, this module connects Indigenous worldviews and traditional ecological knowledge. As well, this module traces the historical impacts of settlement. Discusses key concepts of case law associated with Indigenous title, rights to land and resources. List the on-going threats to Indigenous lands and how these threats and challenges are being addressed.
" Module 8 Term List & Definitions
Module 9 - Indigenous Women

Exploring Indigenous concepts of gender, and the traditional roles and responsibilities, this module then moves into an examination of how colonization can be characterized as a gendered project. Identifies some concrete examples of the impact of colonialism on Indigenous women.
" Module 9 Term List & Definitions
Module 10 - Indigenous in the City

Looking critically at the statement: "Cities are the place where Indigenous culture goes to die", this module explores sites of urban Indigenous agency/active participation, urban Indigenous governance practices, and urban reserves.
" Module 10 Term List & Definitions
Module 11 - Current Social Movements

What is an Indigenous concept of community? How do Indigenous people form communities traditionally and today? This module will explain how social and environmental activism can mobilize and create communities. This module identifies key moments such as the Oka Crisis, Idle No More and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls are grassroots resistance movements.
" Module 11 Term List & Definitions
Module 12 - 'Living' Traditions - Expressions in Pop Culture and Art

Finally, we will explore how geographical location, trading networks and partnerships have influenced Indigenous art in the past. As well, we will examine contemporary iterations of Indigenous art and explore some of the artistic responses of Indigenous artists, musicians, and writers to the impacts of colonialism.
" Module 12 Term List & Definitions
Learn about course topics and outcomes, and find out how you can participate in the course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indigenous Canada is a 12-lesson course during which students can expect to acquire a basic familiarity with Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relationships. This Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) aims to expand the understandings held by many Canadians about these relationships.

# data[].attributes.headline
Local indigenous company that sells ceremony tobacco

# data[].attributes.subject
Local indigenous company that sells ceremony tobacco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ceremonial tobacco organically grown for ceremonial practices