abolishing the indian act: who gets to decide what comes next?

By Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I've been thinking about Wab Kinew's call to abolish the Indian Act, Isaac Murdoch's arguments about Indigenous citizenship and self-governance, and the concerns raised by First Nations leaders.

The more I think about it, the more I believe we need to look beyond the headline.

Yes, the Indian Act is a colonial law that has caused profound harm. It has given the Canadian government enormous power over First Nations people, their communities and their affairs.

But here's the question that keeps coming back to me:

If we abolish a colonial law, who gets to write the rules that replace it?

Because getting rid of a law and getting rid of colonial control are not necessarily the same thing.

the danger of replacing one system with another

Imagine the Indian Act disappears tomorrow.

What happens next?

Who determines Indigenous citizenship? Who governs reserve lands? What happens to existing legal protections, community governance and the responsibilities Canada has under treaties?

These are not minor administrative details. They affect people's identities, rights, homes, communities and futures.

Canada's Constitution recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights independently of the Indian Act. Abolishing the Act would not automatically erase those constitutional rights. However, the laws and arrangements governing many aspects of First Nations life would need careful attention.

And what if Ottawa simply creates a new framework and tells First Nations how things will work?

Would that really be liberation from colonial control?

Or would it be the same relationship dressed up in different language?

who gets to decide?

This is where Isaac Murdoch's argument, as I understand it, raises important questions.

The conversation is not just about abolishing a piece of legislation. It is about Indigenous nations having the authority to determine their own citizenship, govern their own communities and build their own futures.

It is about moving beyond a system in which the Canadian government decides who qualifies for legal recognition under its rules.

First Nations are not all one people with one opinion. Different nations and communities have different histories, laws, priorities and visions for the future.

That is precisely why they must have a meaningful role in deciding what comes next.

The 1969 White Paper is a reminder of what can go wrong when the federal government proposes sweeping changes without Indigenous consent. Many First Nations leaders opposed its approach because they feared losing their distinct rights and protections.

Good intentions are not enough. The details matter.

and then there is the pipeline question

I also have questions about the timing of Wab Kinew's proposal.

Kinew has expressed openness to discussing a new oil pipeline. Meanwhile, Canada is pursuing major economic and resource-development projects that can have profound consequences for Indigenous lands, waters and communities.

These are separate issues, but they intersect.

If the Indian Act is abolished, what will protect First Nations from political and economic pressure? How will their rights be respected when governments want access to their lands and resources?

Will Indigenous nations have the genuine authority to say yes or no to projects affecting their territories?

Will they be able to make those decisions according to their own laws, priorities and responsibilities to future generations?

Or could a new system make it easier for governments to pursue projects that serve Canada's economic interests?

I am not suggesting that this is necessarily Kinew's intention. I am saying these questions must be answered before we celebrate any proposed change as a victory.

white supremacy, colonialism and the fine print

Colonialism is not only about the laws written in the past. It is also about who holds power in the present.

A government can remove an old law while retaining the power to decide what replaces it, whose voices count and whose interests take priority.

That is why I worry about reforms that sound progressive but leave the underlying power structure untouched.

If the people who designed and maintained a colonial system retain exclusive control over its replacement, how much has really changed?

We need to look at the fine print, the decision-making process and the real-life consequences for the people affected.

We also need to recognize that First Nations communities face difficult internal questions, including citizenship, accountability, governance and lateral violence. Those challenges deserve serious discussion, but they should never be used to justify taking authority away from Indigenous peoples.

Self-government means having the freedom to work through those challenges on their own terms.

what would a better future look like?

Imagine a future in which First Nations determine their own citizenship, exercise meaningful self-government and protect their lands and waters according to their own priorities.

Imagine Canada honouring its treaty obligations without treating Indigenous peoples as communities that must be managed by the federal government.

Imagine economic partnerships built on genuine consent, rather than pressure or the assumption that resource development must always come first.

That would require more than repealing legislation. It would require a fundamental change in the relationship between Canada and Indigenous nations.

And it would require listening.

Not simply announcing a proposal at a meeting and expecting everyone to fall in line. Not allowing headlines to substitute for consultation. Not assuming that one premier, one prime minister or one Indigenous leader can speak for every First Nation.

The people whose lives will be affected must help determine the outcome.

a question for canada

I believe the Indian Act deserves serious scrutiny, and the possibility of moving beyond it deserves serious discussion.

But I do not believe abolition, by itself, guarantees justice.

The real test is what happens to Indigenous peoples' rights, their lands, their citizenship and their ability to govern themselves afterward.

If we want to end colonial control, we cannot simply hand the pen to another government and ask it to write a new set of rules.

First Nations must have the authority to shape their own futures. Canada must honour its constitutional and treaty responsibilities. And no replacement system should become a back door for weakening Indigenous rights or overriding Indigenous decisions about their lands.

That is what I want to see from reconciliation: not just a change in legislation, but a change in who holds the power.

What do you think? Should the Indian Act be abolished, reformed or replaced by arrangements developed nation by nation? And what safeguards would ensure that First Nations gain genuine self-determination rather than a new form of government control?

Let's talk about it.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I blog about nouns — people, places and things. Even when the subject is difficult, I try to put a positive spin on it.

#AbolishTheIndianAct #IndigenousRights #FirstNations #SelfDetermination #IndigenousSovereignty #TreatyRights #Reconciliation #SelfGovernment #Colonialism #Canada