Implementation And Delivery Of The Indian Act (1951)

How did the implementation and delivery of the Indian Act and its subsequent amendments (until 1951) result in the Hawthorne report claim that Indigenous people were ‘citizens minus'.
Until the 16th century, Aboriginal people were the only inhabitants of what is now Canada, hence, they were an independent and self-governing people till the Europeans had the capacity to dominate Canada's original inhabitants and possessors (Elias 1). The European Invasion brought about The 1876 Indian Act, which was developed over time through separate pieces of colonial legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples across Canada such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869; in 1876, these acts were consolidated as the

As Canada's first Prime Minister J. A. MacDonald denoted, it was the nation's duty to "annihilate the tribal system and assimilate the Indian peoples in all respects to the inhabitants of the dominion" (Milloy 3). The Indian Act pertained only to First Nation peoples, not to the Métis or Inuit. The Act’s main aim was assimilating Indians into the general society by encouraging enfranchisement and through it, the Government of Canada endorsed its extensive authority over Aboriginal people and communities. The Indian Act nullified orthodox forms of government and replaced them with an elective system supervised by the Indian agent. Hence, Chiefs and Councillors were to serve at the pleasure of the Crown (Milloy 6). Additionally, the Indian Department was to control the various elements of the reserve land such as resources and finance, and it was granted the authority to institute various systems of development such as "individualized land holding, education and resource and financial management" (Milloy 6). Hence, the act was meant to restrict and control the Indians at the very least and in the end, remake them into new members of the society that were fit to be called

Hawthorn attributed this situation to years of failed government policy, particularly the residential school system, which left students unprepared for participation in the contemporary economy. In content, the report was firmly rooted in a philosophy of enhancing special status or "citizen plus" status for First Nations (Dyck 79). This meant that in addition to the normal rights and duties, Indians had additional rights. The report sought ways to give "practical meaning" to the citizens plus status, at the same time rejecting the notion that special legal status prevented the delivery of provincial services to the Indians. Instead, it proposed increased provincial involvement in Indian affairs and cautioned government against confusing legal equality with socio-economic equality, fearing serious hardship to First Nations if such occurred (79).Central to the report was the position that goals such as integration were not in the domain of the government, and hence such decisions could only be taken by Indians for Indians (79). "Choice" was a key value in forming the report (79).The Indians needed to be allowed to start making decisions about their welfare. It concluded that the policy of enfranchisement is a complete failure and that it has no effect in attracting Indians into Canadian