To abolish or not to abolish? To let it be or not to let it be? That is the question when it comes to the “archaic” Indian Act.
“It’s a complex piece of legislation,” Chippewas of Rama First Nation Chief Ted Williams said of the legislation that has returned to the spotlight in recent weeks.
The Indian Act applies to more than 600 First Nations across Canada in various stages of development.
A lot of conversation is required because even considering one part of the legislation leads to other sections that need to be addressed, said Williams.
Despite being surprised by Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew’s statements last week, Williams agrees the Indian Act is outdated.
“It’s an archaic piece of legislation,” he said, questioning how many other people in Canada are tied to a piece of legislation that dictates how they live.
The Indian Act was established as law in 1876 and it removed traditional forms of First Nation governance. Originally, it controlled every aspect of First Nations people’s lives.
It’s been amended several times since then, removing discriminatory elements, but still dictates who gets Indigenous status.
The idea of abolishing the Indian Act is a blanket approach that distracts people from the actual work required, Williams explained.
“We didn’t get here overnight, and we’re not going to get out of it overnight,” he said.
Questioning whether to abolish, repeal, or reform the act brings into question the present relationship the federal government has with First Nations across the country.
The Chippewas of Rama First Nation, he noted, are known to be progressive.
“We don’t necessarily see eye to eye, but you know, we’re still making things happen under the system, under the Indian Act system,” said Williams about working with federal officials.
The biggest concern, he said, is about including “First Nations wholly in this discussion of developing the country.”
The best way to do that is to listen.
Generally, Williams believes most First Nations are not against development. Listening to their concerns from each region is important because they each have their own pockets of resources.
When it comes to listening to First Nations voices, “there’s always room for improvement,” the Chief said. The federal government can do better at including them in the discussions and the decision-making process “instead of just railroading and driving things through.”
Abolishing the Indian Act also wouldn’t erase the issues many First Nations have with hunting and fishing rights, or mineral extraction in some territories, for example.
“Abolishment would not negate the responsibilities that the federal government has to First Nations … It’s not a get out of jail card,” said Williams.
Ultimately, according to Williams, time needs to be invested to allow for discussions, for the “right things” to happen with the Indian Act. Due to the breadth of subject matter, conversations will naturally include First Nations rights and treaties.
Williams points out that one meeting with “some general statements” won’t solve everything.
He believes advancing toward improvements is a gradual process.
“Let’s make some small progresses so we can basically learn to trust the federal government,” Williams urged.
Copyright 2026, OrilliaMatters.com. All rights reserved.
Danielle Pitman, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, OrilliaMatters.com.