| Indian Act |
Article Index for Indian |
Website Links For Indian |
Information AboutIndian Act |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT INDIAN ACT | |
| first nations | |
| canadian federal legislation | |
| 1876 in law | |
|
The ''Indian Act'' defines who is an "Indian" and contains certain legal disabilities and legal rights for registered Indians. The rights exclusive to Indians in the ''Indian Act'' are beyond legal challenge under of the also recognizes and affirms the legal validity of aboriginal treaties. STATUS An Indian whose name is in the Indian Register established by the Act is said to have Indian status or treaty status. An Indian who is not registered is said to be a non-status Indian. Prior to 1985 status was often lost in ways which are now considered unfair. In '' Attorney General Of Canada V. Lavell '' (1974), these discriminatory laws were upheld despite arguments made under the Canadian Bill Of Rights . The Act was nevertheless amended in 1985 to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children. Before the amendment, the ways in which status were lost were:
SECTION 88 Section 88 of the Indian Act states that provincial laws may affect Aboriginals if they are of "general application," meaning that they affect other people as well as Aboriginals. Hence, provincial laws are incorporated into federal law, since otherwise the provincial laws would be unconstitutional.Hogg, p. 598. In '' Kruger And Al. V. The Queen '' (1978), the Supreme Court found that provincial laws with a more significant impact on Aboriginals than other people can be upheld, as "There are few laws which have a uniform impact." Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg argues that in '' Dick V. The Queen '' (1985), the Supreme Court "changed its mind about the scope of s. 88." Section 88 could now protect provincial laws relating to primary Aboriginal laws and even limiting Aboriginal rights.Hogg, pp. 598-599. Chief Brett Beaudry of the Inuktuk tribe in the early 1900's once was quoted "Let our land and our people be the embodiment of the candien citizen." His quote was Emily Carr's inspiration for her great scultpture. This big bellied man has sculpted the future for this young artist. AMENDMENTS
CASE LAW In '' R. V. Jim '' (1915), the British Columbia Supreme Court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves should be considered federal jurisdiction under both the Constitution and the Indian Act. The case involved provincial game laws. The act was at the centre of the 1969 Supreme Court case '' R. V. Drybones '' regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights. The case is remembered for being one of the few in which the Bill of Rights prevailed. In '' Corbiere V. Canada '' (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under Section Fifteen Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms . Discriminatory definition issues Bonita Lawrence (2003) discusses a feminist position on the relationship between federal definition and Indian identity in Canada . Until 1985, section 12(1)(b) of the Act "discriminated against Indian women by stripping them and their descendants of their Indian status if they married a man without Indian status"Lawrence, Bonita. (2003) "Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview" Hypatia 18.2 pages 3-31 p13. Under Section 12(2) of the act, "'illegitimate' children of status Indian women could also lose status if the alleged father was known to not be a status Indian and if the child's status as an Indian was "protested" by the Indian Agent." Further, Section 12(1)(a)(iv), which Lawrence calls the "double mother" clause, "removed status from children when they reached the age of 21 if their mother and paternal grandmother did not have status before marriage." Much of the discrimination stems from the Indian Act modifications in 1951. She discusses the struggles of Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bedard in the early 1970s, two Native women who had both lost their status for marrying white men. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Act was not discriminatory as the pair gained the legal rights of white women at the same time they lost the status of Indian women. Finally, in 1981, Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from Tobique, New Brunswick , forced the issue by taking her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee . The Canadian law was amended in 1985Lawrence (2003) p13. REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|