Terence Corcoran: Canada’s First Nations make another power grab

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Defence Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Defence Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Defence Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeFP CommentTerence Corcoran: Canada's First Nations make another power grabReplacing the Indian Act is a great idea — depending on what replaces itLast updated 5 minutes ago Prime Minister Mark Carney, with Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak and Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty, speaks to journalists after a First Nations and First Ministers meeting in Ottawa, October 26, 2026. Photo by Blair Gable/PostmediaAccording to government statistics, there are 634 First Nations spread across Canada encompassing about 1.1 million individuals, with more than half of the population located in western provinces. Until a few decades ago, the word “nations” would not have been used to depict the political status of Indigenous Canadians who were then known under the 1876 Indian Act as members of “Indian bands.”THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Today, under the umbrella of prestige conveyed by the manufactured status of nationhood, Indigenous leaders are once again attempting to expand their economic and political power. Prior to a meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney and several premiers on Monday, Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak made general comments about the need to advance constitutional discussions over native rights.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againBut then, after the meeting, came Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew with what must be viewed as a lightning bolt of national revolutionary policy. During the closed-door formal meeting, Kinew said, he raised the idea that “it’s time to abolish the Indian Act, get rid of the Indian Act, move past the Indian Act.”On one hand, Kinew’s proposal must be seen as a long-overdue revolutionary move that has the potential to finally liberate Canada’s Indigenous communities from the oppressive confines of the Canadian reservation regime and economic restraints that deprive people of their right to own property and become free members of Canadian society.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The idea was cautiously supported by Prime Minister Carney, although he seemed unwilling to issue a full endorsement. He supported “moving on from” the Indian Act, which is not the same as abolishing it completely. Perhaps he didn’t like Kinew’s shot at Carney’s enthusiasm for liberating foreign nations but his lack of a plan for Canada’s First Nations.While the opportunity to begin discussing the liberation of Indigenous Canadians from the Indian Act’s oppression should be welcomed, there is also much need for caution. The legal, political and economic structures that are supported by the act cannot be easily stripped away. There is also risk that the substitute regime could be used to enhance the political powers of First Nations’ leaders at the expense of Indigenous individuals and non-Indigenous Canadians and all levels of government.Abolishing the Indian Act is not a new idea, and there may be no better introduction to the risks and pitfalls of such a move than the 1969 Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy issued by then minister of Indian affairs, Jean Chrétien.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The Chrétien proposal, known as a White Paper, highlighted good reasons to support removal of the legal restrictions on freedom. “To be an Indian is to lack power,” said Chrétien, “the power to act as owner of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.” Chrétien also made an appeal to freedom. “To be an Indian must be to be free — free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”For individuals to be free like other Canadians, however, means they must be liberated from the clutches of Indian Act economic and political structures. While the 1969 Chrétien proposal referred to the need to free people from the act, it also implied a transfer of power to band governance and forms of collective controls. Bands would assume land ownership, turning reservation lands into a form of Crown land under political First Nations control. (See Nota Bene below.)Other efforts to reform or replace parts or all of the Indian Act have been announced and attempted in the past. Will this attempt be different? One thing is certain: it will be complex, contentious and take years. Do members of the Indigenous communities want to follow their political leaders to enhance their political powers and economic control? Or would they rather join Canada as equal citizens with freedom to live, work and own property wherever they want? And what do the millions of other Canadians think should become the “First Nations” model for the future?This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.It would make for a helluva referendum.Nota Bene: The 1969 plan to end the Indian ActExcerpt from the Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy issued in 1969 by Liberal Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien.Control of Indian lands should be transferred to the Indian people.Frustration is as great a handicap as a sense of grievance. True co-operation and participation can come only when the Indian people are controlling the land which makes up the reserves.The reserve system has provided the Indian people with lands that generally have been protected against alienation without their consent. …The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. If an Indian band wishes to gain income by leasing its land, it has to do so through a cumbersome system involving the Government as trustee. It cannot mortgage reserve land to finance development on its own initiative. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them. The Indians have made this clear at the consultation meetings. They now want real control, and this Government believes that they should have it.Between the present system and the full holding of title in fee simple lie a number of intermediate states. The first step is to change the system under which ministerial decision is required for all that is done with Indian land. This is where the delays, the frustrations and the obstructions lie. The Indians must control their land. This can be done in many ways. The Government believes that each band must make its own decision as to the way it wants to take control of its land and the manner in which it intends to manage it. It will take some years to complete the process of devolution.This advertisement has not loaded yet.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.