In the beginning, Indian
Until very recently, the notion of enfranchisement
The enfranchisement clause was removed from the Indian Act in 1985.
Section 109: On the report of the Minister that an Indian has applied for enfranchisement and that in his opinion the Indian (a) is of the full age of twenty-one years, (b) is capable of assuming the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, and (c) when enfranchised, will be capable of supporting himself and his dependents, the Governor in Council may by order declare that the Indian and his wife and minor unmarried children are enfranchised.
Enfranchisement was therefore the method endorsed by the Indian Act for eliminating legal Indian status and acquiring all the attributes of citizenship. In Québec, however, the Civil Code has established the age of majority at 18 years since 1971. As can be seen in the above extract from the Act, 18 was not the age of majority for First Nations
Thus, a person might say that they’re from the Naskapi First Nation of Kawawachikamach, or the Atikamekw First Nation of Manawan, or the Mohawk First Nation of Akwesasne, etc., identifying both the nation to which they belong and their place of origin or residence.
And although for the majority of people the acquisition of citizenship was automatic and unconditional from birth, First Nations persons were subject to different requirements. The Minister of Indian Affairs, as guardian, had to be of the opinion that the First Nations person concerned was capable of assuming the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. The Minister also had to believe that the First Nations person was capable of supporting himself and his dependents. In addition, until 1985 the Indian Act went much further by providing that an entire community
Section 112: Where the Minister reports that a band has applied for enfranchisement, and has submitted a plan for the disposal or diversion of the funds of the band and the lands in the reserve, and in his opinion the band is capable of managing its own affairs as a municipality or part of a municipality, the Governor in Council may by order approve the plan, declare that all the members of the band are enfranchised, wither as of the date of the order, and may make regulations for carrying the plan and the provisions of this section into effect.
From the standpoint of human rights and at a time when equal rights are being promoted, such measures appear to be rooted in another century. However, as previously mentioned, and as unbelievable as it may seem, this outdated enfranchisement provision was not abolished until 1985. In fact, the only choices open to First Nations peoples have always been permanent guardianship
Within the context of the Indian Act, the concept of guardianship takes on a unique meaning as it applies not only to individuals but also to entire communities. The lawyer Renée Dupuis, author of a book on First Nations issues in Canada, summarizes this guardianship regime well: “Revised in 1951, the federal Act clearly constitutes a regime of guardianship of Indians (both individually and collectively) and of the lands reserved for them. Actually, the Indians have a status equivalent to that of a minor child, since they are subject to the control of the government, which has the authority to make decisions on their behalf. All aspects of the lives of individuals and communities are supervised, from an Indian’s birth to his death, from the creation of a band to the cessation of a reserve.”
Note that several First Nations in Canada, including the Cree and Naskapi nations in Québec, are no longer subject to the Indian Act.
First Nations populations that wished to maintain their identities and survive as communities had no choice at all: maintaining collective identity meant living under guardianship. However, most non-Aboriginal citizens were kept in the dark regarding these regressive dimensions of the Indian Act, believing that the Act conferred special status and numerous privileges on First Nations people.
