Indian Act of 1951
The Indian Act of 1951 is a significant piece of legislation in Canada, serving as a comprehensive revision of the original 1876 Indian Act. While it aimed to address some of the more overt discriminatory elements of its predecessor, it largely maintained the paternalistic control exerted by the federal government, particularly through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). The act continued to enforce provisions that disenfranchised Indian women who married non-Indians, a point that sparked legal challenges and was upheld by the Supreme Court in a notable case in 1973.
Notably, the 1951 act lifted certain prohibitions on Indian religious practices and political activities, and allowed for alcohol consumption off reserves, which marked a shift in policy. Additionally, it retained tax exemptions for Indian lands and income earned on reserves, although these protections complicated economic development, as Indigenous peoples faced challenges in accessing capital due to the inability to mortgage their lands. Despite ongoing restrictions, many Indigenous communities resisted proposals to fully repeal the act, fearing a loss of federal support for their welfare. The Indian Act was further amended in 1985, yet many provisions remained intact, highlighting the complexities of Indigenous governance and rights in Canada.
Indian Act of 1951
Date: 1951
Tribes affected: Native Canadians, including status and non-status Indians, Metis, Inuit
Significance: The first major revision of the Indian Act in seventy-five years softened, but did not eliminate, the blatant discrimination against native peoples institutionalized by earlier legislation
Although the Indian Act of 1951 was the first comprehensive revision of Canada’s 1876 Indian Act, it did little to undo the paternalism of its predecessor. Like the previous law, it gave nearly absolute control of Indian activities to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). This included the development of Indian lands and resources as well as oversight of band councils. The new act also retained the enfranchisement provisions of the earlier legislation, including those that denied Indian status to women who married non-Indians. In a well-known sex discrimination suit brought by Jeannette Lavell, an Ojibwa who was denied Indian status as a result of her marriage, the Supreme Court in 1973 upheld those provisions of the act. A Maliceet woman, Sandra Lovelace, took a similar case before the United Nations in 1981. Although Canada was found to have violated international human rights covenants, the enfranchisement provisions of the Indian Act were not repealed until 1985 with the Indian Act of 1985.
The new act did, however, repeal the most blatant discrimination inherent in the Indian Act of 1876. It no longer prohibited Indian religious ceremonies, political fund-raising, or consumption of alcohol off reserve lands. Later amendments permitted the consumption of alcohol on reserves and gave Indians the right to vote in Canadian elections.
The 1951 act continued a number of benefits of the earlier legislation including the exemption of Indian lands from property and estate taxes and exemption of income earned on reserves from taxation. Although these provisions have protected Indian property from seizure, they have also hindered economic development on the reserves. Because Indians have been unable to mortgage their lands, it has often been difficult for them to raise capital for development projects.
Despite the restrictions imposed by the 1951 Indian Act, natives have fought efforts to discard it altogether. Fearing that the federal government would abandon its responsibilities to native welfare, many natives fought the 1969 White Paper proposal to repeal the Indian Act. The Indian Act was rewritten in 1985, but other than the repeal of enfranchisement provisions, it remained virtually unchanged.