| Revision as of 08:46, 10 August 2006 editDavidzukovny (talk | contribs)134 edits Fixed a few factual errors (see discussion)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 26 August 2006 edit undoCanadianCaesar (talk | contribs)18,694 edits add info, also restore info deleted incorrectly.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Indian Act''' of ] (]) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an ] which deals with ] ], their bands, and the system of Indian ]. The Act is administered by the ]. The constitutionality of the Act is upheld under Section 91(24) of Canada's ], which enables the Federal Government to legislate in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians." | The '''Indian Act''' of ] (]) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an ] which deals with ] ], their bands, and the system of Indian ]. The Act is administered by the ]. The constitutionality of the Act is upheld under Section 91(24) of Canada's ], which enables the Federal Government to legislate in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians." Despite being somewhat exclusive, rights in the Indian Act are also upheld by ]. | ||
| ==Status== | ==Status== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| * having a mother and paternal grandmother who did not have status before marriage (these people lost status at 21) | * having a mother and paternal grandmother who did not have status before marriage (these people lost status at 21) | ||
| * being born out of wedlock of a mother with status and a father without. | * being born out of wedlock of a mother with status and a father without. | ||
| ==Section 88== | |||
| Section 88 states that provincial laws may affect Aboriginals if they are of "general application," meaning that they affect all other people as well as Aboriginals. In '']'' (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." | |||
| ==Case law== | ==Case law== | ||
| The act was at the centre of the |
The act was at the centre of the 1969 ] case ] 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 ] (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under ]. | In ] (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under ]. | ||
Revision as of 00:53, 26 August 2006
The Indian Act of Canada (1876) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an Act which deals with registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. The Act is administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The constitutionality of the Act is upheld under Section 91(24) of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, which enables the Federal Government to legislate in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians." Despite being somewhat exclusive, rights in the Indian Act are also upheld by Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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:
- marrying a man who was not a Status Indian
- enfranchisement (until 1960, an Indian could vote in federal elections only by renouncing Indian status)
- having a mother and paternal grandmother who did not have status before marriage (these people lost status at 21)
- being born out of wedlock of a mother with status and a father without.
Section 88
Section 88 states that provincial laws may affect Aboriginals if they are of "general application," meaning that they affect all other people as well as Aboriginals. 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."
Case law
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.