Indigenous Peoples of Canada

IndigenousAssignment2 xIndianstatus

Indigenous Peoples of Canada

NOTE: The bill I chose is Bill C-31 (remember you are focusing on the Indian Status part of Bill C-31)

· Write an introduction of what the paper will be talking about

· Describe the bill (give an overview of the bill), then compare and contrast the good and the bad part of the bill.

· Write about the impact of the bill on indigenous peoples of Canada in the colonization lens

Here is some information you can use:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bill-c-31

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-government-policy

aboriginal policy studies is an online, peer-reviewed and multidisciplinary journal that publishes origi-
nal, scholarly, and policy-relevant research on issues relevant to Métis, non-status Indians and urban
Aboriginal people in Canada. For more information, please contact us at apsjournal@ualberta.ca or visit
our website at www.ualberta.ca/nativestudies/aps/.

aboriginal policy studies Vol. 3, no. 3, 2014, pp.

This article can be found at:

ISSN: 1923-3299

Article DOI:

The Abandoned Ones: Non-Status Indians and Political
Organizing

David R. Newhouse
Business Administration Chair, Indigenous Studies, Trent University

Yale D. Belanger
Political Science Department, University of Lethbridge

Pamela Ouart
PhD Candidate, Trent University

4-26

http://dx.doi.org/10.5663/aps.v3i3.22226

Article

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/22226

aboriginal policy studies, vol. 3, no. 3, 201

4

www.ualberta.ca/nativestudies/aps/
ISSN: 1923-3299

4
The Abandoned Ones: Non-Status Indians and Political
Organizing
David R. Newhouse
Business Administration Chair, Indigenous Studies, Trent University
Yale D. Belanger
Political Science Department, University of Lethbridge
Pamela Ouart
PhD Candidate, Trent University

Abstract: This article explores contemporary issues facing Non-Status Indians in Canada,
and their struggles to politically organize in particular. Using James Scott’s theoretical position
that political states attempt to create legible populations in order to administer them more
easily, this article examines the category of “Non-Status Indians” and the impacts of federal
policy making on their ability to organize. The National Indian Council (NIC), established
in 1961, originally articulated the concept of Non-Status Indians as a category of Aboriginal
people. Internal pressures led the NIC to split into two groups in 1968: the National Indian
Brotherhood, representing status and Treaty Indians; and the Native Council of Canada
(NCC), representing Métis and Non-Status Indians. A second severance occurred in 1983
when the Métis National Council split from the NCC, after which the Council for Aboriginal
Peoples (CAP) emerged to represent Non-Status Indians and urban Aboriginal peoples.
During this period, public policy makers, Status Indians, and Métis literally abandoned the
Non-Status label. During the opening decade of the twenty-first century, Non-Status Indian
organizations have emerged as new players on the Aboriginal policy landscape. This article
explores this phenomenon, based upon key informant interviews with Non-Status Indian
leaders conducted specifically for this project.

The Non-Status Indians truly became the forgotten people. Even supposedly
informed status Indian leaders assumed that their brothers and sisters have
done something wrong to find themselves in their excluded position. Instead of
experiencing the “privilege” of enfranchisement, Non-Status Indian people found
themselves totally disfranchised from almost all tribal or band functions.

Bill Wilson (1985, 64)

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 5

Introduction

The contemporary Aboriginal1 political scene has come to be dominated by intense
debates about representation based upon state-sanctioned identities: Status Indians, Métis,
Inuit, Urban, and Treaty, among others. To date, this primary focus on identity tends
to overshadow the surprising and discreet emergence of a new set of representational
organizations, built around an identity category, that have been described as “administrative
rather than ‘real.’”2 Specifically, we mean the identity category of “Non-Status Indian,” a
category of Indian person that the pre-1960s set of Aboriginal representational organizations
claimed to represent and subsequently abandoned during the split between Metis and
Indian, now First Nation, representation; and the term’s early twenty-first century re-
emergence, symbolized by the arrival of a set of Non-Status Indian organizations.

Max Forte (2013), Bonita Lawrence (2004), and Pam Palmater (2013) efficiently explore
the politics of identity, at both the individual and collective level (i.e., nation, community),
resulting from the state definitions of Aboriginality. We contend that concentrating on
post-contact, state-imposed identity markers in this way obscures ongoing Aboriginal
political attempts at preserving what James Tully (1995) has described as “learning the art
of mutual recognition,” a cross-cultural practice dating to contact that fostered peaceful
working relationships between political contemporaries living side-by-side—in this case,
Aboriginal and colonial leaders. When two sides meet, the goal, as highlighted by Jeremy
Waldron (2000, 155), is ostensibly to “come to terms with one another, and set up, maintain,
and operate the legal frameworks that [are] necessary to secure peace, resolve conflicts, do
justice, avoid great harms, and provide some basis for improving the condition of life.” This
practice can lead to mutual recognition, which “is to emerge from anonymity, to be seen
and acknowledged for what you are,” concluded Michael Ignatieff (2000, 86–87), while
adding that groups seek recognition to have both “their equality recognized” and “their
differences acknowledged” (see also Taylor 1993). Albeit the political norm for the first
150 years of contact, Canadian colonial officials had, as of the 1850s, formally abandoned

1 The term “Aboriginal peoples” indicates any one of the three constitutionally defined groups that form
what is known as Aboriginal peoples in Canada (Métis, Inuit, and Indian) and who self-identify as such.
The term “First Nation” is used here to denote a reserve community or Indian band. The term “Indian,” as
used in legislation or policy, will also appear in discussions concerning such legislation or policy. The term
“Indigenous” here does not represent a legal category. Rather, it is used to describe the descendants of groups
present in a territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there, and
who identify as such. Statistics Canada measures Aboriginality in four different ways and, most importantly,
distinguish between Aboriginal ancestry and Aboriginal identity. Aboriginal ancestry measures Aboriginality
through a self-declaration of Aboriginal ancestry, whereas Aboriginal identity asks individuals if they self-
identify as Aboriginal (whether First Nations, Métis, or Inuit). Moreover, individuals are given the option of
identifying with more than one category (e.g., one might declare oneself both First Nations and Métis). For
the purposes of this study, “Aboriginal” refers to those who self-identify as Aboriginal (whether First Nations,
Métis, or Inuit) and only those who choose a single category.

2 Chris Andersen, Aboriginal Policy Forum, Congress of Social Sciences and Humanities, Montreal, 1 June
2010.

aboriginal policy studies6

political recognition of Indians in lieu of developing state criteria that categorized Indians
into two groups: legal (Status) and non-legal (Non-Status), for ease of bureaucratic
management. This management based on identity has, according to Lawrence (2004, 7),
“primarily been shaped by a system of regulation and control” that has led to Aboriginal
dispossession from territories, detachment from traditional identities, physical diaspora,
social marginalization, and lost political influence.

Lost in this identity dialogue is any concerted examination of how historic political
processes predicated upon the idea of mutually beneficial political interfaces continue to
inform Aboriginal political organizing and, specifically, Non-Status Indian organizing.
Similar to the early Aboriginal political organizers of the 1870s (and after), who encouraged
Canada’s leaders to restore what we describe as “the convention of recognition” through the
re-affirmation of historic political, economic, and social relationships, modern Non-Status
Indian leaders likewise propose to establish analogous relationships. Aboriginal political
organizing is not the only, or by any means the most successful, approach to re-establishing
political relationships, as evidenced by its judicious critics (e.g., Alfred 2009; Ladner 2003).
It was, all the same, a popular strategy, as confirmed by the twenty-four Aboriginal political
organizations to emerge between 1870 and 1946, and the dozens if not hundreds that
materialized afterwards seeking to advance Aboriginal political goals and stem the loss
of political influence attributable to federal Indian legislation and its attendant policies.
Primarily younger men educated in English and Canadian political traditions, the leaders
of most of these organizations had witnessed first-hand, as of the twentieth century’s
opening decade, the Crown’s enthusiasm for legislating on behalf of Indians, which was
framed as a form of inter-cultural political engagement (Belanger 2006). To Canadian
leaders, the level of associated organizational activity generated apprehension. In an effort
to stymie these efforts, the Indian Act was amended in 1927 to deter Indians from hiring
lawyers and gathering in groups, effectively restricting political organizing (Titley 1986).
The limitations did not dissuade Aboriginal leaders, who referenced traditional political
philosophies that favoured relationship building and ongoing dialogue, and then created
additional and more powerful organizations into the 1940s and beyond (Belanger 2006).
In most cases, the goals of Aboriginal political institutions have been broadly conceived as
directed towards solving the Canada Problem (Newhouse and Belanger 2010), a complex
set of goals involving the convention of recognition and quality of life improvements.

The Crown’s desire to simplify its political interface with Aboriginal peoples played
into these organizations’ growing popularity: instead of dealing with a wide variety of
First Nations, Métis, and Inuit organizations and leaders, federal officials now had the
luxury of working with a handful of leaders (Belanger 2006). One could argue that these
organizations were little more than reactive, anti-colonial agents, rather than organic
Indigenous political bodies anchored by historic political philosophies and ideologies.
Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that Aboriginal organizing was informed by historic
organizing models that integrated non-Aboriginal operational elements and were, all the
same, intent on safeguarding local economies and landholdings (Belanger 2006). By 1946,

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 7

these organizations had evolved to where Aboriginal leaders were invited to Ottawa to
participate in a Special Joint Committee of Parliament and the Senate. There, they spoke
with federal officials and presented their concerns about Indian affairs administration, and
about federal policies and laws (Kulchyski 1993; Leslie 1999; Shewell 2004). This, to many
Aboriginal leaders in attendance, signalled federal efforts at a return to the abandoned
convention of recognition. Little came of this effort and, in subsequent decades, federal
officials attempted to further simplify the Federal–First Nations organizational interface.
Increasingly frustrated with the lack of federal response in 1968, the National Indian
Brotherhood (NIB) surfaced as Canada’s national Aboriginal organization (McFarlane
1993; Manuel and Posluns 1974).

Despite its existence as a visible category of Aboriginal person, existing Aboriginal
political organizations in the late 1960s started abandoning Non-Status Indians due in
part to the fact that federal officials had identified Status Indians as Canada’s “legitimate
Indians” in both policy and law. This influenced Non-Status access to federal programming,
further driving a wedge between Status and Non-Status Indians,3 and led to political
marginalization that made it seem as though Non-Status Indians had withdrawn from
the political landscape. It is expected that attempts at Non-Status political organizing
and representation occurred,4 but we know little about the historical timelines and allied
groups, even though the emergence of contemporary political organizations (e.g., Kawartha
Nishnawbe First Nation, Qalikpu Mi’kmag First Nation Band) provides us with a sense of
their political goals and the roles they anticipate playing in Non-Status Indians’ lives.

Based on this brief overview, the rules regarding eligibility for legal Indian status as
defined through the Indian Act are the primary source of these tensions, and as James Scott
(1998) would suggest, they were intentionally implemented to create legible populations
if Canada was to govern more effectively. Over time, through state policy and with state
assistance, Indians as a legal category of person were expected to disappear. Indians,
however, did not disappear, and the legislation and jurisprudence that effectively split a
state-constructed rights-bearing community (Status Indians) from that of a non-rights-
bearing community (Non-Status Indians) continues to restrict Non-Status Indian access
to funding set aside for Status Indians. The federal policies and their application, which
continue to privilege Status Indians, amplify tensions concerning fairness of interpretation,
inclusion, access to services, and identities, both cultural and legal. As such, the Aboriginal
political and social landscape, instead of becoming more legible and comprehensible, has
become more internally complex and nuanced, particularly after Non-Status Indians started
to organize to advance their interests and secure access to government resources to meet
their needs. This issue is timely, considering the Non-Status Indian community’s growth.

3 In recent years, Non-Status Indians have benefitted from general spending intended to help urban
Aboriginal peoples.

4 Non-Status Indians were not entirely abandoned by the federal government, as it created the Federal
Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians in 1985. The mandate of this federal cabinet portfolio was to
liaise with Non-Status Indian representative organizations.

aboriginal policy studies8

In 2006, the Non-Status Indian population was 133,155, representing approximately 11
percent of the total Aboriginal population, and is expected to increase 77 percent by the
year 2026. The Non-Status Indian population is predominately urban, with about 75 percent
living in urban areas. By comparison, the status Indian population of the same period was
673,780, with approximately 52 percent living in urban areas (Canada 2009).

This article attempts to enhance our understanding of why Non-Status Indians organize,
the mandates of their organizations, and where they perceive themselves within the larger
Aboriginal policy environment. Are these organizations representatives of what might be
described as a new political assembly of Aboriginal peoples? What are the political goals of
these groups? How do they see themselves in relation to other Aboriginal groups? And who
are the members of these new groups? The first section of the article establishes the history
leading to the creation of the Non-Status Indian category and the evolution of Aboriginal
political organizations in Canada, with an emphasis on Non-Status organizing. The second
section offers our interpretation of the empirical data collected during fieldwork that
consisted of interviews with Non-Status organization representatives, and those who have
worked in this field. It concludes with a discussion of the key trends identified.

Part I: Policy and Literature Overview

Status/Non-Status Foundations

In King George III’s Royal Proclamation of 1763, Indians in British North America
were granted protected status, an inferior legal standing one held until attaining colonial
citizenship. Appropriately, losing one’s status as an Indian was considered an honour in the
eyes of the Crown. Indian as a legal category of person in Canada dates to the introduction
of An Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of Indians in Lower Canada
and An Act for the Protection of Indians in Upper Canada from imposition, the property
occupied or enjoyed by them from trespass and injury, both of which the Province of Canada
adopted in 1850 (Leslie and Maguire 1978). The category was sustained in 1857’s An Act
to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes in this Province, and to Amend the
Laws Relating to Indians, which introduced the concept of “enfranchisement” (the right to
vote), and the means by which one could voluntarily give up one’s legal status as Indian
and become a full British subject. To become civilized in the eyes of the law, Indians had
to formally renounce their heritage, as the two categories—Indian and civilized—were
mutually exclusive. From this point on, analogous legislation came to be acknowledged as
laws of civilization, from which two categories of Indians were established: Status Indians,
who would be legally recognized as Indians and as such still in need of funded programs to
aid in their transition to civilization; and Non-Status Indians, formerly legal Indians who
had attained a suitable level of civilization and no longer required analogous funding.

In 1860, authority for Indians and Indian lands was formally transferred to the
Canadian colonial legislature, which embraced a policy of civilization that would continue
until Indigenous peoples formally accepted European/colonial norms. Following Canadian

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 9

Confederation in 1867, the pith and substance of the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act was
formally codified in the General Enfranchisement Act of 1869 and then the Indian Act of
1876. Each act sequentially reaffirmed the idea of inferior protected Indian status, and the
need for Indians to be lifted out this condition to full British citizenship:

Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be
kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. … [T]he
true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require that every effort should
be made to aid the Red man in lifting himself out of his condition of tutelage and
dependence, and that is clearly our wisdom and our duty, through education and
every other means, to prepare him for a higher civilization by encouraging him to
assume the privileges and responsibilities of full citizenship (Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples [RCAP] 1996, Vol. 1, Chapter 9).
The Indian Act remains a comprehensive and adaptable piece of legislation that has been

utilized to regulate literally every aspect of Aboriginal life.5 For example, Indian Act provisions
enabled Indian agents to pressure community leaders to replace traditional governing
practices such as hereditary leadership selection methods with European, municipal-style
elected councils. An enfranchisement process was deployed to assist qualified individuals
to acquire full citizenship after relinquishing their ties to their community. The Indian Act
was, ironically, considered a temporary, stop-gap measure that would outlive its usefulness
following Indians’ absorption into Canadian society (Dockstator 2001). Since Indians did
not disappear and few took advantage of the enfranchisement provisions, the Indian Act
remains at the foundation of federal Indian policy, which has proven to be difficult to
both repeal and modify, for its effects are interpolated into most aspects of contemporary
Aboriginal society.

From an operational perspective, Indians who were registered with the federal
government as Indians—i.e., Status Indians, according to the terms of the Indian Act—
were eligible to access federal government services until they attained civilization. Non-
Status Indians were not registered (for a discussion of the reasons, see Lawrence 2004)
and therefore not eligible for comparable federal programs. Clearly, eliminating status,
and thus the government’s ongoing responsibility for “Indians, and lands reserved for the
Indians,” was a fundamental policy goal (RCAP 1996). Indians, however, saw some benefit
to remaining status, as it enabled them to move ahead with claims to federal resources and
policy attention. In choosing to restrict its policy focus, the federal government provided
Indian status with a set of characteristics that made it a desirable category for those who
were marginalized as a consequence of the same laws.

Non-Status Organizing

Starting in 1870 and continuing into the twentieth century, Aboriginal leaders formed
political organizations on the belief that such organizations could assist their nations with
reasserting their desire to participate as partners in Canada’s evolution (Belanger 2006).

5 Strictly speaking, the Indian Act applied only to those considered Indians. However its application also
affected those who we would now consider part of the category “Aboriginal.”

aboriginal policy studies10

The most famous pre-1960 examples include the General Indian Council in 1870 (Shields
2001), the Indian Rights Association in 1909 (Galois 1992), the League of Indian Nations in
1919 (Titley 1983; Kulchyski 1988), and the North American Indian Brotherhood in 1944
(Patterson 1962; 1978). During this nine-decade, post-1870 period, dozens of organizations
emerged and none distinguished between Status and Non-Status until The National Indian
Council (NIC) in 1961. Funded by federal largesse and guided predominantly by prairie
Aboriginal leaders, the NIC represented three of Canada’s four major Aboriginal groups:
Treaty and Status Indians, Non-Status Indians, and the Métis (the Inuit were not involved).
No extensive work has been conducted to date exploring the NIC’s operations, but its
original mandate was to advance “unity among all Indian people,” which suggests that
the aforesaid legal divisions were relevant community concerns. The NIC acknowledged
the variety of regional advocacy groups and larger Indian political organizations, and
advocated for both Métis and Non-Status Indians. Unfortunately, the NIC was unable to
generate significant political standing with reserve and rural Aboriginal communities, and
the grassroots viewed its top-down leadership model with suspicion. The NIC’s leaders
revealed the complexity in reconciling the interests of all of the various Aboriginal groups
nationally, in particular the evident “tensions between treaty Indians, principally from
the prairie provinces, and Métis and Non-Status Indians over the strategy to be followed.”
Specifically, “Indians with treaties preferred to pursue claims on the basis of treaty promises,
but those without treaties (both Indians and Métis) found it more attractive to argue from a
basis of Aboriginal rights” (Miller 1991, 337).

Similar pressures led the three national Aboriginal groups working under the NIC
banner consensually to split in 1968, with the Status and Treaty groups forming the National
Indian Brotherhood (NIB). The Non-Status Indians and the Métis remained united and
went on to form the Native Council of Canada (NCC) (McFarlane 1993). Whereas the
NIB claimed to represent Indians (on-reserve), the NCC was composed of provincial and
territorial organizations that were typically called Native councils or Métis and Non-Status
Indian associations, which addressed their lack of recognition as Aboriginal peoples while
challenging their constituency’s exclusion from federal responsibility. An Ottawa–NIB
relationship soon flourished that privileged Status Indians (Ponting and Gibbons 1980).
Non-Status Indians weren’t ignored per se, but as putative assimilated individuals they
no longer needed or depended upon government funding—at least from a government
perspective. On the ground, political relationships were much more complex, as evidenced
by the political union between Métis and Non-Status Indians in the 1960s and 1970s
(Sawchuck 2008).

In 1977, for instance, the Métis Association of Alberta’s constitution allowed for both
Métis and Non-Status Indian members, a political alliance that lasted until the Canadian
Constitutional talks of the late 1970s and early 1980s (Sawchuck 1995). Similarly, the
Ontario Métis and Non-Status Indian Association, established in 1971, represented both
Métis and Non-Status Indians. In 1975 the Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians
of Saskatchewan was formed, whereas to the east, the Manitoba Métis Federation to some

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 11

extent represented these multiple interests, even if no specific organization emerged to
represent Non-Status Indian interests (Sawchuck 1995). As Bill Wilson (1985) highlighted,
the emergence of the British Columbia Association of Non-Status Indians in 1969, and the
subsequent creation of the British Columbia Association of Indian Chiefs, was symbolic of
the nascent Status–Non-Status organizational divide. The constitutional dialogue of the late
1970s and early 1980s exacerbated this division after Métis sought and obtained recognition
as an Aboriginal people. Several Non-Status Indian political organizations surfaced during
this politically fractious period, when groups such as the Ontario Métis and Non-Status
Association cleaved into individual associations (Sawchuck 2003). Others, such as the
Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan, dissolved and Saskatchewan
Métis came to be represented by the Métis Society of Saskatchewan. It became common for
Non-Status Indians seeking representation to gravitate toward becoming members of the
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), although this was not the norm: for instance, no
provincial organization emerged in Manitoba to represent Non-Status interests.

The federal government provided financial resources and assistance where possible
to aid with these organizations’ operations. The most noteworthy was the Aboriginal
Representative Organizational Program (AROP, est. 1971), which provided core funding in
support of Aboriginal political organizations’ operations, thus ensuring the “development
of stable and effective organizational structures capable of interacting with all levels of
government and society, and to participate in and effect positive changes to their political,
social, cultural, educational and economic lives” (Belanger, Fitzmaurice, and Newhouse
2008, 38). This central mandate was expansive in scope when compared to the NIC’s one-
dimensional political approach to representation, and included programming for Aboriginal
women, urban Aboriginal populations through friendship centres, communications, and
social and cultural development. This mandate was expanded to include constitutional
reform and northern broadcasting, to help improve socio-economic and socio-political
conditions of Aboriginal people by providing them with a representative political voice
in Canadian policy-making fora, establishing programs promoting Aboriginal culture,
connecting communities across the country, and creating and/or enhancing existing
community services in urban and rural communities. By the end of the 1970s, AROP
programming was well-established, and funded a foundational infrastructure of Aboriginal
advocacy and service organizations (Newhouse 2003). With social issues such as training,
unemployment, housing, and community services being addressed, albeit not durably,
federal and Aboriginal focus shifted to the greater challenges of Aboriginal rights and
governance. Once again, Non-Status Indians found their interests ignored in Ottawa.

AROP did, however, inadvertently set into motion the development of Non-Status
Indian political organizations. Specifically, as Status Indian organizations were established
and subtly integrated into the federal Indian policy regime, Non-Status Indians lacking
representation rallied and lobbied Ottawa for appropriate policy changes to offset the
aforesaid privileging effect. In other words, Non-Status Indians began to identify their
own policy concerns and lobby Ottawa for appropriate programming based on political

aboriginal policy studies12

recognition of Non-Status Indians as a category of evolving, rather than disappearing,
Indians. Presaging the current political landscape in 1983, the NCC agreed to split formally
into the Métis National Council (MNC), representing Métis, and the Congress of Aboriginal
Peoples (CAP), representing Non-Status and urban Aboriginal peoples. By the early 1990s,
roughly four thousand Aboriginal organizations were operational, a number that included
Aboriginal Women’s organizations, Aboriginal political organizations, and Friendship
Centres (Chapman, Newhouse, and McCaskill 1991). Joe Sawchuck (2003) has written that
the developing Aboriginal political landscape prized differentiation over political unity. As
an example, during this time, Métis people sought and obtained constitutional recognition
as Aboriginal peoples, while the federal government maintained its fixed approach by
narrowly to defining its responsibilities for Indians, who in this instance were on-reserve
Status Indians. This reinforced the federal conviction that they were Canada’s authentic,
legitimate Indian community under the Indian Act, and thus solely entitled to federal
programming dollars (e.g., Belanger 2013).

In this milieu the slow, albeit consistently evaporating, standing of Non-Status issues
from the mandate of most of the national Indian organizations should come as no surprise
in what was becoming a financially and politically tenuous environment. Status Indian and
Métis political organizations remained politically separated in pursuit of their concerns,
whereas Non-Status Indian organizations in various cities nationally adopted similar
approaches to promote their own principles and agendas dedicated to advancing their
distinctive concerns. Consequently, the Aboriginal population is, according to our reading
of Scott’s (1998) theoretical framework, legible and, theoretically, more manageable. Status
Indian communities remain dependent on federal funding and vulnerable to bureaucratic
whims, while Non-Status Indians are compelled to battle federal officials for legal
recognition, hoping to secure the attendant funding arrangement. It should be noted that
federal officials tend to view Aboriginal organizations as little more than an assortment of
special interest groups lacking political teeth.

This simplified overview of the Status–Non-Status divide continues to inform federal and
provincial program delivery, although few academics have explored the complex character
of Non-Status Indian organization development and their political end games. Non-Status
Indians are creating new and distinct political organizations with exclusive agendas directed
at securing their legal recognition as Indians, improving federal/provincial funding for
community development, and preserving their identities as Indians. The Congress of
Aboriginal Peoples currently dominates the Non-Status political landscape, while claiming
to represent all off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. As an example, CAP’s Ontario affiliate (the
Ontario Coalition of Aboriginal People) presents itself as “a Political voice of Métis, Status
Métis, Non-Status Indians and Status Indians living off First Nation territories in Ontario”
(OCAP 2008). A new political entity, the Non-Status First Nation, has emerged to advocate
for Non-Status Indians: the Qualipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band, for example, formed in
Newfoundland in 2008 as a result of an agreement between the Government of Canada and
the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create a landless Mi’kmaq Indian Act band; and

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 13

the Non-Status Indian Saskatchewan River First Nation Band incorporated in 1998.6 The
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation describes itself as a “confederation of Algonquin families
who have lived in the Ottawa River watershed since time immemorial … and who wish
maintain an enduring sense of Algonquin community.”7

Notably, Sawchuk (1995) describes what has become the norm: the various local,
provincial, and federal forces that are at play in this fluid and ever-changing environment
have led Non-Status Indians to forge new political relationships in pursuit of their socio-
political desires. We describe this process as demonstrating an un-willingness to remain
abandoned. The remainder of this article presents the perspectives of Non-Status Indian
political leaders as they negotiate this complex political environment.

Part II—Non-Status Indian Organizing: A View from the Field

Historically, Métis and Non-Status Indians had no representative national
organizational body that could help address the injustices brought upon them by the
Crown through successive acts of discriminatory legislation. Throughout history, Métis
and Non-Status Indians had their identities as peoples changed, redefined and then
changed again, all at the whim of Parliament in order to reduce, and/or eventually rid
itself of the “Indian Problem.” The issue of identity is extremely important to everyone,
particularly Aboriginal Peoples, as it defines who you are as an individual and a
human being.

Research participant July 2, 2013
In an attempt to better understand the evolution of Non-Status political organizations,

telephone interviews were conducted from July to November 2012 with nine Non-Status
Aboriginal individuals either working with seven Non-Status organizations or who
have pursued the study of Canadian policy and its impacts on Non-Status Indians. Our
purpose was to obtain an on-the-ground overview of their experiences regarding Canadian
policy’s impacts on their lives and what is driving their political responses, and to further
our understanding of the role policy and Canadian hegemony continue to play in the
Status/Non-Status dialogue. The key questions posed to these organizational leaders/
administrators are as follows:

a. What challenges confront Non-Status Indians?

b. What is the purpose/goal of your organization?

c. Describe your political alliances (what groups do you work with) in pursuit of
your goals?

d. What is the role of government in addressing Non-Status issues?

6 The Saskatchewan River First Nation describes itself as the only Non-Status Indian Band in Canada. See
https://sites.google.com/site/saskatchewanriverfirstnation.

7 For a more in-depth discussion, see http://www.aafna.ca/mission.html.

aboriginal policy studies14

Methodology

A distinctive feature of this study is the inclusion and views of Non-Status Aboriginal
peoples. Doing so allows us to obtain an on-the-ground overview of these experiences
regarding Canadian policy’s impacts on their lives and what is driving their political
responses; to locate their experiences within and responses to social dynamics influencing
what it means to be a Non-Status Aboriginal person; and to further our understanding
of the roles policy and Canadian hegemony continue to play in the Status/Non-Status
dialogue. The research’s exploratory nature, combined with the fact that we anticipate
additional related community-based research, has led us to conclude that one interview
with representatives from seven Non-Status political organizational was sufficient for the
present study. Two additional interviewees have pursued the study of Canadian policy and
its impacts on Non-Status Indians. Following University of Lethbridge ethics approval
to conduct research with human subjects, an invitation to participants was personally
delivered by telephone, after which a follow-up email was sent and nine individuals were
selected for interviews. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, demographic
data collected is not used, ensuring project participants’ anonymity—something that was
promised all participants.

For this pilot project, the data collection instrument was the person-centred interview,
an exploratory, discussion-based method designed to “clarify the relations of individuality,
both as output and input, to its sociocultural context” while eliciting behaviours and
attitudes that suggest “hidden or latent dimensions of the organization of persons and of the
sociocultural matrix and their interactions” (Levy and Hollan 1998, 334). The participant
voices are needed to “tell the story” of Non-Status issues and concerns. Each interview
lasted roughly forty to sixty minutes, and the participants’ answers (i.e., to questions posed
during the interview) were noted “in the moment” (pen and paper and/or typed into a
word file). The interviews followed a general format whereby the researcher engaged each
participant in a discussion while posing, in no precise order, a number of pre-determined
questions designed to keep the interviewer attuned to the key themes being investigated
while eliciting the participants’ stories that, in this instance, provide insight into personal
decision-making (Cortazzi 2001). As Ferrier has argued, “knowledge is constructed by
people and groups of people; reality is multiperspectival; truth is grounded in everyday life
and social relations; life is a text but thinking is an interpretative act; facts and values are
inseparable; and science and all other human activities are value laden” (in Mitchell and
Egudo 2003, 1).

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The research team then reviewed
and finalized the coding process using NVivo10 software, which was followed by the
production of a thematic analysis central to the characteristics and meaning of Non-
Status Indian organizing. The coding process identified important comments or interview
moments prior to proceeding with data interpretation (Boyatzis 1998). Encoding enabled
the organization and categorization of data from which central themes were identified and
developed (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). Data collection and analysis proceeded

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 15

simultaneously, and transcripts were read and re-read to ensure accuracy and thematic
applicability to the original data. One limitation of this approach is that it is mainly based
on personal perceptions, which makes triangulating the perception of success, versus the
actual issues associated with growing a Non-Status, representative political organization,
difficult without observing directly or evaluating Aboriginal political growth vis-à-vis
institutional networks. Additional issues—such as how social, religious, and cultural
backgrounds influence perceptions about political saliency and progress, which necessarily
introduces bias in perceptions and attitudes; and how the First Nations nationalist and
sovereignty discourses that situate Non-Status political organizations as at once part of,
and yet in competition, with Status Indian organizations and, as such, competing for a
restricted funding pool—are not dealt with in this article, due to the scope and nature of
these discussions. Each demands a separate treatment, and reflects courses of study the
authors suggest demand greater academic attention.

Key Challenges Confronting Non-Status Indians

Each participant identified the legal/policy segregation that distinguishes Status Indians
from Non-Status Indians as a key issue, which is most evident in the federal government’s
funding formulas that privilege Status Indian organizations. The respondents noted that
Canada has imposed and given meaning to the term “Non-Status” through mechanisms
such as the Indian Act, and that these categories did not exist prior to the imposition of
colonial legislation. For instance, whereas the legal term is agreed upon by some (e.g., a
Non-Status Indian is the child or grandchild of a Status Indian who is Indian by birth,
but not recognized by the federal government as being entitled to federal registration),
others consider it problematic and flawed, due to an insistence upon defining someone
as an individual who is lacking “something.” This reflects Peters’ (1996) concern with the
popular tendency to categorize Aboriginal urbanization as a social problem, and resonates
with what Newhouse and Fitzmaurice (2012, xvi) describe as the “study of lack” when
interpreting urban Aboriginal disparity. Consequently, we are left to try and understand
urban Aboriginal and, central to this study, Non-Status Indian issues according what
Ponting and Voyageur (2001, 75) define as the deficit paradigm. This situation dates to
early Canadian beliefs in the perceived incommensurability of First Nations individuals
and the off-reserve environment (Belanger 2013). The respondents suggested, however,
that the situation is less historical but, rather, more attributable to Canada’s ongoing
attempts at conquering and dividing the nation’s First Peoples. One respondent articulated
the primary issues expressed by all participants: “What the Indian Act did was they severed
that relationship and tied identity to blood and blood to benefit. As soon as they did that
people don’t think about their connections and relationships to everything that makes
them Indigenous, they think about what they can get.”

This legal/policy isolation has led to deep rifts developing between community
members who may fall on either side of the Status–Non-Status divide. “People are told
there is no money there for you,” who then ask “where do we fit, we are in limbo, [as] we

aboriginal policy studies16

don’t belong anywhere.” Several examples offered indicated that this is more than a general
community issue, and often penetrates immediate family concerns. For example, in several
instances, two or three family members were identified as receiving program benefits to
the exclusion of several other family members (this occurs both on- and off-reserve). As
a respondent concluded, “The biggest hurdle to get over is inclusion and identity because
we know who we are, but government(s) are not recognizing us as such and if they are
they are not including us in the process that other aboriginal peoples are included.” One
organizational leader suggested that the Status–Non-Status issue is a minor concern and
that the individual disconnection from community and cultures is attributable to policy-
induced historical trauma, which Maria Brave Heart (2003) defined as the “cumulative
and collective psychological and emotional injury sustained over a lifetime and across
generations resulting from massive group trauma experiences” (also 1995, 1998, 1999,
2000).

Historical trauma theory, as defined by Brave Heart, suggests that deliberately inflicted
trauma continues to impact a community’s political, social, and economic core. The slow
infiltration of foreign ideologies, both compelled and voluntary, led to a process evident in
how subsequent generations refused to adhere to what colonial (and later, state) officials
identified as contaminated traditions. This process of internalization over time emerged as
a normative order, resulting in old ways being shunned in lieu of adopting foreign ways of
acting and thinking. In a perverse twist, over time community members often adopted the
once despised colonial critiques that centered out savage practice for alteration as legitimate
appraisals of how to right community-based cultural wrongs. In this case, the issue remains
one of policy/legal separation, albeit framed more circumspectly than the participants. As
one respondent stated,

I continue to see and hear issues about [how] Non-Status people, especially urban
Non-Status peoples, have all of these issues that Status wouldn’t have, and I haven’t
seen it. I have seen it politicized by Aboriginal people and by government, I have
seen it become an issue because people want funding and a political base, but when
it comes down to human and needs and services and culture and identity and the
issues that are directly related to their historic trauma and their choices of health
and wellness I don’t see any difference.
Either way, the effects are tangible. The cultural teachings and languages that individuals

are disconnected from put them at a cultural disadvantage due to state-based identity
markers. Access to traditional teachings and language was identified as an absolute priority,
thus enabling individuals to restore old, or develop new, identities.

Interestingly, having and retaining Status is considered an important identity marker
for some, and many of the participants acknowledged that this legal/policy separation has
shaped countless identity (and other) issues for Non-Status individuals. A general trend
has unfolded whereby Non-Status Indians are legally and socially excluded from First
Nations communities. At the same time, they do not fit well within non-Aboriginal society.
Exacerbating this separation are conventional provincial programs accessible to Non-Status
Indians that frequently lack cultural relevance.

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 17

Most respondents also identified the federal government’s failure to formally recognize
Non-Status Indians in terms of policy or as central constitutional players as a key concern.
One respondent concluded, “The matter of getting the recognition and recognition comes
with the benefits of being treated equitably and equally as Aboriginal peoples. We want to
be recognized as people with constitutional rights as being the first peoples of this land.”
Many First Nations nationally equate band membership with Indian status, and a majority
of Non-Status peoples are not band members. As such, they often do not have a right to
live in their community (e.g., occupy a house, use band resources), are restricted from
participating in the political process, and have no participatory rights (e.g., treaty or land
claim negotiations). The absent right to live within a Status Indian community also tends
to hinder access to Elders and language speakers from one’s community. One respondent
contends that this ruptures operational clan systems, thus detaching individuals from their
teachings vis-à-vis the imposition of a foreign political system.

Outside of First Nations communities, Non-Status Indians exist as individuals and
Canadian citizens with participatory rights to vote in federal, provincial, and municipal
elections, while simultaneously lacking the legal recognition as Indians, an inability to
claim specific Aboriginal rights, or to make an argument for a distinct culture and identity.
Non-Status communities have difficulty obtaining standing within the Aboriginal political
landscape. Only recently have they been formally recognized by the federal government,
albeit somewhat reluctantly. Personal identity, shaped by a century-long struggle with the
state and the Indian Act, as well as internal ideas about culture and community membership
and a sense of belonging and purpose has become complex (Palmater 2011). For those living
away from or outside the established and recognized political communities, such as Indian
reserves, the need to secure political recognition is paramount from programmatic and
political perspectives. Political recognition can, potentially, bring resources, and is therefore
fundamentally linked to economics, according to one participant: “Economically, Status
Indians have access to federal programs and services via their registration, in addition to
access to traditional lands and resources either through Aboriginal rights, Treaty rights or
agreements signed by your home community; and specific tax benefits.” The provincial
government, however, has failed to acknowledge Aboriginal ownership of natural resources,
which means, to one participant, that reserve populations receive “most of the funding for
programs and services, so we are forced to access mainstream programs and services which
statistically [many] Aboriginal people do not [access] because of racism. They avoid the
process altogether.” It is more than simply being able to live one’s life on reserve, however;
rather, it’s having access to reserve and other traditional lands for the purposes of hunting,
fishing, and participating in other industries. From a programmatic point of view, to
remain Non-Status impacts non-insured health benefits and wellness programs, and access
to education and economic development programs. The distinction between Status and
Non-Status Indians creates inequities in access to state resources—resources that could be
used to improve quality of life.

aboriginal policy studies18

Organizational Goals and Mandates

In each case, the project participants purposely organized to address one or more
of the aforementioned challenges to improve Non-Status political, economic, and social
development. Generally speaking, the leaders of each organization envisioned their
assembly becoming the political voice for regional off-reserve Aboriginal people and
improving their constituents’ quality of life through two primary avenues of advocacy:
improved service delivery; and by convincing federal officials of the need to alter existing
policies to improve access, thereby elevating Non-Status Indians to a policy level analogous
that of Status Indians and facilitating improved political and economic participation in local
and regional life. For instance, one organizational representative replied that they operated
“basically to try and better Non-Status [Indians] and try and bring recognition to the Non-
Status,” whereas another offered a much more comprehensive take on their organization’s
purpose: “To ensure that we provide an organization for off-reserve Aboriginal Peoples in
[their region] for the purpose of advancing their culture, tradition, economic and living
conditions, we advocate for implementation of our treaty and Aboriginal rights, our land
claims in the province, we work with all levels of government and industry to improve
social, education, employment opportunities for Aboriginal peoples in the province.” They
added that the eventual goal “is to foster and strengthen cultural identity and pride in the
Aboriginal population in the province, to inform the general public of our Aboriginal and
treaty rights and in order to achieve full participation social, economic and political life
of the province and we also work with all other Aboriginal organizations who aims and
objectives are similar to ours.”

Improving service delivery for populations lacking formal political representation that
are apprehensive in engaging the mainstream system was each organization’s foundational
principle. In sum, each sought to establish equality and equity of Aboriginal programs,
services, and other entitlements. This in turn led some organizations to establish broad
mandates. For example, one group is working toward the betterment of urban Aboriginal
people through the creation of programs and services that are self-determined by Aboriginal
people, run by Aboriginal people, and exclusively for Aboriginal people. Other mandates
encourage working “to support Aboriginal community organizations who offer programs
and services in health, employment, recreation, mental health, language, and community
events.” All project participants indicated that their organizations are “colour blind,” and
that membership is not exclusive to Non-Status Indians. Other organizations were more
political in nature, and were presented as a “political voice for the off-reserve Aboriginal
people that reside in the province regardless of status or residency,” while ensuring “that
section 35 rights holders’ rights are protected and make sure we have appropriate programs
and services for those people we represent.” Similarly, another organization advocates “on
behalf of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples, Status or Non Status, Métis, and Inuit.” Notably,
most organizational representatives highlighted the Status–Non-Status divide as the basis
of kinship and community-based social fractures, while also curiously indicating that
it minimally influences their operations. One organization says that it seeks to acquire

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 19

“Aboriginal treaty rights and human rights for off reserve Aboriginal peoples. Just because
we are not on reserve or Non-Status does not mean that we are not beneficiaries to our
treaties.”

It is clear that the list of goals driving each organization’s operations is significant and
includes improving programming, funding for identity programs, ensuring Canada honours
its fiduciary obligation to Non-Status Indians, securing Aboriginal rights, strengthening
culture and treaty connections, improving economic development opportunities, pursuing
healing and reconciliation with federal officials, pursuing self-government and augmented
powers of self-determination, securing a land base, and seeking funding for language
programs, just to name a few. Accordingly, each organization responds to how the federal
government frames its role in relation to Non-Status Indians and to the availability of
provincial resources and political dynamics of their immediate host community (i.e., reserve,
municipality, province, territory). Funding affects political efficacy: some organizations
have core funding and the organizational capacity needed to seek alternative funding
arrangements; however, most do not. The majority receive minimal operational funds
from federal (e.g., AANDC, Health Canada) and provincial agencies (e.g., provincial and
territorial governments, municipal councils). They supplement these budgets by procuring
service-delivery contracts through fund raising. But limited funding opportunities means
many organizations must work with (or guide their members to) mainstream programs
and service providers; or, that their organizations are overlooked for funding because as a
Non-Status organizations they are “an after-thought to the process.”

Political Alliances

Due to the media’s focus on AFN activities, to name one influential group, the Canadian
public has been preconditioned to believe that Aboriginal peoples interact almost exclusively
with federal government officials and, to a much lesser extent, provincial officials. Further
to this, there is a belief that historic political animosities between peoples and their political
organizations result in limited interface and ineffective partnerships. Finally, colonialism
has been presented as ubiquitous and ongoing (i.e., post-colonialism, systemic racism),
which is an impenetrable barrier to fruitful Aboriginal–non-Aboriginal partnerships. The
project participants were quick to dispel these beliefs and demonstrated a wide diversity
of political and economic relationships with a broad array of players. Some groups have
been operational longer and, as a result, have developed and fostered extended networks
in relation to some of the younger organizations, which admittedly have limited political
reach.

Federal funding, or more accurately the lack thereof, also has an impact on the nature
and extent of extra-organizational relationships with the public and private sector, and
consequently demands administrative creativity to ensure ongoing operations. One
organization involved in this study works with the private sector (i.e., oil companies,
municipal business leaders), both the federal and provincial governments, First Nations,
Aboriginal, and non-Aboriginal non-profit organizations, cultural groups such as the

aboriginal policy studies20

Muslim Association and the African Council, tourism officials, educators, and academics—
in sum, anyone interested in improving their understanding of Aboriginal peoples and how
to provide improved services. Another organization has forged close relationships with
the RCMP, the Salvation Army, social services, education, hospitals, and shelters, the goal
being to facilitate positive local outcomes while conducting referrals and engaging in case
management with other organizations. Some organizations insist on working with what
they describe as other Status/colour-blind groups, whereas others tend to work solely with
high-profile organizations.

Federal Government in Addressing Non-Status Issues

All respondents called for Aboriginal peoples to ignore the Status Indian legal category,
particularly as it relates to accessing federal funding for service delivery. One respondent
put it this way:

I think both levels, all levels of government play a significant role in addressing
those needs. I think the jurisdictional debate that generally occurs regarding Status
or Non-Status people is a debate that loses, that distracts people from addressing
the real needs of people on the ground. So I think that the federal government has
a significant role to play in this by how it constructs its programs and services and
interacts because we have to realize that First Nations people who live on reserves,
or Métis who live on settlements or land claim areas, the great majority of those
people don’t live there, they actually live and participate in the urban economic life
of cities and we understand this because the statistics tell us and this has been going
on for decades. This is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.
But it provides you with challenges for services and for the federal government,
if you have First Nations peoples who are the jurisdictional responsibility of the
federal government, on reserve primarily living off-reserve then I think there needs
to be a harmonization between the provinces and the federal government to address
those needs. It’s in all of our interests to do that.
Some recognized that First Nations have roles to play in fixing the Non-Status/Status

issue. One respondent related to how band membership codes can be developed in ways
that can exclude Non-Status Indians: “The challenges that I see for Non-Status Indians as I
see them will be whether or not their home communities or nations are going to deal with
Non-Status Indians,” whether “they [are] going to amend their membership codes to deal
with Non-Status Indians or are they going to leave Indian status provisions to deal with
the issue.” Another noted, “[t]his is a key issue, and many First Nations are beginning to
recognize this as their children and grandchildren may not be entitled to registration and
as a result may not be entitled to live on reserve. But even more serious, this issue is about
the future of First Nations communities because if the numbers of Non-Status Indians
grow there won’t be communities, so it has a very real impact for communities.” The way
forward, then, is to have government recognize Indigenous nations inherent rights to be

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 21

self-determining: “Canada can decide their half of the treaty partner, and we [Indigenous
nations] can decide our half of the treaty partner that is at a very simple go forward level in
the medium and long term.”

Discussion

The interviews reveal a complexity of issues confronting Non-Status Indians and the
real effects of government policy upon their lives, from both historic and contemporary
perspectives. It is clear that Non-Status Indians, as a legal category of Indians, were
pushed aside or abandoned by Status Indian and Métis organizations following the federal
government’s lead in this regard during the last two decades. The 1985 creation of the Federal
Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians was intended to “strengthen relationships
with Métis, Non-Status Indians and urban Aboriginal people to raise awareness of their
needs, improve access to federal services … .” It is perplexing that none of the respondents
mentioned this office during their interviews, despite almost two decades of existence. In
response to the abandonment, and perhaps to the failure of the Federal Interlocutor, Non-
Status Indian political organizations were formed to provide their own voice in federal and
provincial politics and to push for policy inclusion.

The organizational leaders we spoke with discussed advocating for corresponding
access to services for all Aboriginal peoples, whereas the urban organizations advocated
for equitable funding for urban programs and services based on demographics (i.e., over
half of the Aboriginal population lives in urban areas; therefore, over half of Aboriginal
funding should be directed accordingly). Many spoke of the importance and need to
heal, restore, and strengthen community members’ Aboriginal identities by returning to
traditional Aboriginal cultures, languages, and traditions. There was also a strong desire
to prevent state definitions of Indian Status from further dividing Aboriginal communities
and watering down political efforts. Yet the very reason for these organizations’ existence is
that Status issues generate the greatest government response. The Indian Act was identified
as the source of community and kinship fractures, and that the Status–Non-Status divide
is a real social concern, but organizations made efforts to ensure that they were minimally
influenced by these forces. Take, for example, the following response:

To my knowledge in our organization there is no difference. There is no policy
distinction for us, there is no program definition around that, anyone who self-
identifies as having Aboriginal or First Nations, they all get the same services, the
same access to services from us and I don’t know that they have different challenges.
I think that the issue gets down to people who are connected to their culture to their
family and their community and a community is defined in so many different ways
so the community factor may be an issue for people if they look at a land base as
the only thing they call community. For me the issue around connection to their
cultural roots and their families becomes the bigger issue and the bigger challenge
for government and for everyone and that is for any person of Aboriginal decent
who is disconnected because of the historic trauma that has occurred as a result of

aboriginal policy studies22

government policy and Aboriginal people are disenfranchised and disadvantaged
because they have been disconnected with the teachings that would make them
healthy and whole.
This study has demonstrated that Non-Status Indians are beginning to emerge from

the political periphery by creating new political organizations to respond to their own
distinct needs. In as much as this work has improved our understanding of this nascent
phenomenon, it also raises a series of important questions: Are these organizations
representatives of what might be described as a new political assembly of Aboriginal
people? What are the political goals of these groups? How do they see themselves in relation
to other Aboriginal groups? Who are the members of these new groups? One issue that
surfaced in this research that demands additional attention is the emergence of the Non-
Status First Nation Band, a new and controversial entity that seeks to bridge the old and the
new while ensuring continuity of identity and access to government programs and funding.
It particularly fosters the creation of a positive, self-generated Aboriginal identity out of
what was a previously marginalized group, and has been effective in securing recognition
and acknowledgement from federal and provincial governments, albeit not from existing
First Nations organizations. All told, these new entities create a sense of inclusion and
community necessary for identity development and maintenance by providing individuals
with a mechanism for establishing Aboriginal identity: a group that one can become a part
of that reciprocates by stating that you belong to them.

Fixing the problems that have arisen from the imposition of Indian Status upon the
Aboriginal population is not easy. The creation of Status may have been a means of creating
a legible landscape by setting out the rules for determining who is and not an Indian for
public policy purposes, but these rules were destined for decommission once Indians
vanished (or the rules were created to disband Indian communities, thereby resulting in
their disuse). No thought was given to a future where Status and Non-Status Indians would
potentially be competing for access to resources. Or how communities would operate
according to rules that created insiders and outsiders. Or, perhaps most importantly, how
a group of people separated from kinship networks by extra-community legislation was
expected to respond to being abandoned by Status Indian and Métis organizations, and the
federal government.

Organizations such as CAP and Non-Status First Nations highlight the Non-Status
desire for inclusion and political recognition. The landscape, while still legible, has become
more complex and difficult to navigate. It is hard to ignore 133,000 Non-Status Indians,
either as individuals or as a series of political communities. In one case, a project participant
indicated that fixing the problem is not that difficult considering that “when you have
nice definitions and packages” defining “who receives services” it simplifies the process
of creating an inclusive model. The desire for legibility however has created the current
complex identity and policy situation.

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 23

Conclusion

The re-emergence of Non-Status Indians into the Aboriginal political landscape
through a new set of organizations creates a policy dilemma around recognition and rights.
The questions posed by Forte (2013) in Who is an Indian? linger, despite a century and half
of state attempts to “disappear” Indians. Scott (1998) contends that political states attempt
to create legible populations in order to more easily administer populations. This is readily
evident in Canada as it relates to Indians. Specifically, the legal categories of Status and Non-
Status Indian were created to manage those Indians in need of civilization (Status Indians)
by developing appropriate programs. Those who had assimilated into Canadian society lost
their status as Indians and as such no longer required programs. What Canadian officials
did not count on was the resilience of Aboriginal people in general, or that Non-Status
Indians in various regions nationally would create political organizations to advocate on
behalf of their unique needs. This article has scratched the surface by highlighting that
Non-Status Indians are unwilling to carry on accepting their status as abandoned, and are
engaging in the creation of new political communities to advance their interests. We would
contend that Canada’s attempt to create a landscape of legible populations has backfired.
Three key themes emerged from the participant dialogues: (1) the legal/policy segregation
of Non-Status Indians from other Aboriginal peoples; (2) the lack of political recognition of
Non-Status Indians; and (3) the lack of access to social and economic resources. The three
key themes embrace a wealth of concerns that demand further unpacking to truly uncover
the nature of the issues affecting Non-Status Indians in Canada. They do, however, provide
us with a baseline of issues from which to evaluate the reasons related to each organization’s
emergence that allows us to speak more concretely as to whether or not we are currently
witnessing the evolution of a new national political community.8 In our minds, it is clear
that a new political community of Non-Status Indians with distinct goals and objectives
and institutions is starting to emerge in several places across the country, and is asking that
Canada address its needs as part of a post-colonial public policy agenda.

8 Amplifying the resolve to prevent disappearance is a January 2013 Federal Court of Canada decision that
challenged Canada’s policy orientation. It found that Métis peoples and Non-Status Aboriginal peoples are
to be considered Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Justice Michael Phelan noted
that Non-Status Indians are considered to be constitutionally considered “Indians,” and that the Non-Status
category was “effectively created by the federal government in the first place, as a result of years of legislation
that sought to define who was considered an ‘Indian’” (Daniels v. Canada 2013). While it is too early to
speculate on what the practical effect of this decision will be, it signalled the court’s unwillingness to allow
the government to continually ignore Non-Status Indians. On 6 February 2013, the Government of Canada
appealed the ruling. There has yet to be a ruling on the appeal.

aboriginal policy studies24

Bibliography

Alfred, T. 2009. Peace Power and Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. 2nd ed. Don
Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Belanger, Y. D. 2013. “Breaching Reserve Boundaries: Canada v. Misquadis and the
Legal Evolution of the Urban Aboriginal Community.” In Indigenous in the City:
Contemporary Identities and Cultural Innovation, eds. E. Peters and C. Andersen,
69–87. Vancouver: UBC Press.

———. 2006. “Seeking a Seat at the Table: A Brief History of Indian Political Organizing in
Canada, 1870-1951.” Ph.D. diss., Peterborough, ON: Trent University.

Belanger, Y. D., K. Fitzmaurice, and D. R. Newhouse. 2008. “Creating a Seat at the Table: A
Retrospective Study of Aboriginal Programming at Canadian Heritage.” Canadian
Journal of Native Studies 28 (1): 33-70.

Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Thematic Analysis: Coding as a Process of Transforming Qualitative
Information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brave Heart, M. 2003. “The Historical Trauma Response Among Natives and its Relationship
with Substance Abuse: A Lakota illustration.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 35:
7–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2003.10399988.

–———. 2000. “Wakiksuyapi: Carrying the Historical Trauma of the Lakota.” Tulane
Studies in Social Welfare 21–22: 245–66.

———. 1999. “Oyate Ptayela: Rebuilding the Lakota Nation Through Addressing
Historical Trauma among Lakota Parents.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment 2 (1–2): 109–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j137v02n01_08.

———. 1998. “The Return to the Sacred Path: Healing the Historical Trauma Response
among the Lakota.” Smith College Studies in Social Work 68 (3): 287–305. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377319809517532.

———. 1995. “The Return to the Sacred Path: Healing from Historical Trauma and
Historical Unresolved Grief Among the Lakota.” Ph.D. diss., Smith College.

Canada. 2009. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census.
Statistics Canada. Ottawa.

———. 1996. For Seven Generations: An Information Legacy of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples [CD-ROM]. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group.

Chapman, I., D. Newhouse, and D. McCaskill. 1991. “Management in Contemporary
Aboriginal Organizations.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 11 (2): 333–49.
Cortazzi, M. 2001. “Narrative Analysis in Ethnography.” In Handbook of Ethnography, ed.

Paul Atkinson, 384–94. London: Sage.
Daniels v. Canada [2013] F.C.R. 6.
Dockstator, M. 2001. Toward an Understanding of the Crown’s Views on Justice at the Time

of Entering Into Treaty with the First Nations of Canada. Saskatoon: Office of the
Treaty Commissioner.

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. 2006. “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A
Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.”
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1): 1-11.

The Abandoned Ones, issue 3.3 25

Forte, M. (Ed). 2013. Who Is an Indian? Race, Place and the Politics of Indigeneity in the
Americas. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Galois, R.M. 1992. “The Indian Rights Association, Native Protest Activity and the “Land
Question” in British Columbia, 1903-1916.” Native Studies Review 8 (2): 1–34.

Ignatieff, M. 2000. The Rights Revolution. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
Kulchyski, P. 1988. “‘A Considerable Unrest’: F.O. Loft and the League of Indians.” Native

Studies Review 4 (1–2): 95–117.
———. 1993. “Anthropology in the Service of the State: Diamond Jenness and Canadian

Indian Policy.” Journal of Canadian Studies 28 (2): 21–50.
Ladner, K. L. 2003. “Rethinking the Past, Present and Future of Aboriginal Governance.”

In Reinventing Canada, ed. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble, 43–60. Toronto:
Canadian Scholars Press.

Lawrence, B. 2004. “Real” Indians and Others: Mixed-Blood Urban Native Peoples and
Indigenous Nationhood. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Leslie, J. 1999. “Assimilation, Integration, or Termination? The Development of Canadian
Indian Policy, 1943-1963.” Ph.D. diss., Carleton University.

Leslie, J. and R. Maguire. 1978. The Historical Development of the Indian Act, 2nd ed.
Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Levy, R., and D. Hollan. 1998. “Person-Centered Interviewing and Observation.” In
Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, ed. H. Russell Bernard, 333–64.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Manuel, G. and M. Posluns. 1974. The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. Toronto: CoIlier
Macmillan Canada Ltd.

McFarlane, P. 1993. Brotherhood to Nationhood: George Manuel and the Making of the
Modern Indian Movement. Toronto: Between The Lines.

Miller, J.R. 1991. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in
Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Newhouse, D. 2003. “The Invisible Infrastructure: Urban Aboriginal Institutions and
Organizations.” In Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples, ed. D.
Newhouse and E. Peters, 243–53. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative.

Newhouse, D. and Y. Belanger. 2010. “‘Beyond the “Indian Problem’: Aboriginal Peoples
and the Transformation of Canada.” In The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics,
ed. J. C. Courtney and D. E. Smith, 339–61. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newhouse, D. and K. FitzMaurice. 2012. “Introduction.” In Well-being in the Urban
Aboriginal Community: Fostering Biimaadiziwin, a National Research Conference
on Urban Aboriginal Peoples, ed. D. Newhouse, K. FitzMaurice, T. McGuire-Adams,
and D. Jetté, ix-xxi. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Ontario Coalition of Aboriginal People, By-Laws, 25 October 2008.
Palmater, P. 2011. Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity.  Saskatoon: Purich

Publishing Ltd.
———. 2013. Indigenous Nationhood (blog). http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca.
Patterson, E. P. 1962. “Andrew Paull and the Canadian Indian Resurgence.” Ph. D. diss.,

Seattle: University of Washington.

aboriginal policy studies26

———. 1978. “Andrew Paull and the Early History of British Columbia Indian Organizations.”
In “One Century Later”: Western Canadian Reserve Indians Since Treaty 7, ed. I. A.L.
Getty and D. B. Smith, 43–54. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Peters, E. 1996. “Urban” and “Aboriginal”: An Impossible Contradiction?” In City Lives and
City Forms: Critical Research and Canadian Urbanism, ed. J. Caulfield and L. Peake,
47–62. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-
3638.30.6.652.

Peters, E. and V. Robillard. 2009. “‘Everything you want is there’: The Place of the Reserve
In First Nations’ Homeless Mobility.” Urban Geography 30 (6): 652–80.

Ponting, J. R., and R. Gibbons. 1980. Out of Irrelevance: A Socio-political Introduction to
Indian Affairs in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.

Ponting, R. J. and C. Voyageur. 2001. “Challenging the Deficit Paradigm: Grounds of
Optimism Among First Nations in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 21
(2): 275–307.

Sawchuk, J. 1995. “Fragmentation and Realignment: The Continuing Cycle of Métis and
Non-Status Indian Political Organizations in Canada.” Native Studies Review 10 (2):
77–95.

———. 1998. The Dynamics of Native Politics: The Alberta Métis Experience. Saskatoon:
Purich Publishing.

———. 2003. “The ‘Metis Indians’ of Ontario.” Eelectica, August. http://www.ecclectica.ca/
issues/2003/2/sawchuk.asp.

———. 2008. “Indians in Contemporary Society.” In Handbook of North American Indians,
vol. 2: Indians in Contemporary Society, eds. Bailey, Garrick A. and W. Sturtevant,
294–301. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution.

Scott, J. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Conditions
Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shewell, H. 2004. “Enough to Keep Them Alive”: Indian Welfare in Canada, 1873-1965.
Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Shields, N. D. 2001. “Anishinabek Political Alliance in the Post-Confederation Period.”
M.A. thesis. Kingston, ON: Queen’s University.

Taylor, C. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics
of Recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann, 25–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Titley, E. B. 1986. A Narrow Vision: Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian
Affairs in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

———. 1983. “W.M. Graham: Indian Agent Extraordinaire.” Prairie Forum 8 (1): 25–41.
Tully, J. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J. 2000. “Cultural Identity and Civic Responsibility.” In Citizenship in Diverse

Societies, ed. Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, 155–74. Don Mills: Oxford
University Press, 2000.

Wilson, B. 1985. “Aboriginal Rights: A Non-Status Indian View.” In The Quest For Justice:
Aboriginal People and Aboriginal Rights, ed. M. Boldt and J. A. Long, 62–68. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.