Manitoba’s First Nations and the Indian Act

Last Monday in Ottawa, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew called for the Indian Act to be abolished. Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was open to working with First Nations to reform or repeal this law, calling it racist.

The act was created in 1876 and still controls Indian status, reserve lands and band governance. It’s understandable why many people want a better relationship.

But repealing a law and building a new relationship are not the same. What would replace the act’s protections? Who decides? How do governments ensure removing federal authority gives First Nations power while the Crown keeps its promises?

Manitoba has faced these questions before. In 1971, First Nations created a document called “Wahbung: Our Tomorrows” in response to then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s white paper on assimilation. More than 45 years later, elders and knowledge keepers met at Turtle Lodge, north of Winnipeg, to continue the conversation. Manitobans Dave Courchene Sr. and his son, Dave Courchene Jr., are generational links to the broader movement, and their story should be part of this discussion.

The elder Courchene understood the institutions he faced. Born in Sagkeeng in 1926, he attended Fort Alexander residential school until being expelled in Grade 9 for refusing daily confession. He became chief in the mid-1960s and, in 1968 he became the first president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood (MIB).

In a 2013 interview at Turtle Lodge, the younger Courchene recounted what happened on his father’s first day as chief, when he told the local Indian agent he would no longer speak for Sagkeeng — their elected leader would speak for them instead.

As chief, he closed the boarding school and created a single school all children could attend regardless of family religion. Missionaries opposed him in church, but the community voted for the new school.

These were real struggles over who had the right to speak, teach children and lead the community.

Then the white paper was introduced.

In 1969, Trudeau’s government proposed ending the Indian Act through a broader plan: ending separate legal status, transferring responsibilities to provinces and closing Indian Affairs. The policy claimed to create equality but aimed to end the treaties. First Nations strongly rejected it.

The objection was natural. Canada wanted to fix its relationship with First Nations by eliminating the agreements that made them unique. Leaders seeking less federal control faced a future risking their status as treaty partners.

Manitoba’s answer came from its communities. Through meetings, workshops and talks with councils and elders, MIB fieldworkers brought community concerns to leaders. The main instruction was to listen to the people whose future was being discussed.

First Nations women did much of the research and writing. In 1971, Courchene Sr. and Chief Jean Folster of Norway House gave “Wahbung” to then-Indian Affairs minister Jean Chrétien. The document criticized the Indian Act’s paternalism and dehumanizing ideas. Still, its chapter on the Act began with a clear sentence: “The Indian Act must be amended, not abolished.” The authors wanted laws protecting their land, respecting treaties, and helping communities govern themselves. They called for constitutional protection of rights, community control over membership and the right to agree to any changes in law.

They also disagreed with the idea that being part of Canada meant giving up their identity: “We are Indians, and we are also Canadians.” They believed their nationhood and place in Canada could coexist.

The main idea was that any reform should give First Nations more power and ensure the Crown kept its promises.

The legal situation has changed since then. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, passed in 1982, recognizes and protects existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights do not depend on the Indian Act, and getting rid of the act alone would not take them away.

This difference makes a careful transition possible, but constitutional protection alone does not answer every question about the laws, institutions and funding communities need to govern and provide services.

Manitoba’s later experience shows how hard this work can be. In 1994, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Ottawa signed a Framework Agreement Initiative to dismantle Indian Affairs’ structures and restore First Nations governments. A later review found relationships were strained and no clear plan existed.

By 2007, the chiefs decided to stop negotiations until Canada showed it was serious about a new approach. They wanted a new financial relationship and for First Nations to be involved in every step of decision-making.

The lesson is that even when people agree on change, the hardest part is deciding who has authority, how resources are shared, what the obligations are and making sure those promises are kept.

In 2002, Dave Courchene Jr. left his job as a school superintendent to start the Turtle Lodge in Sagkeeng, where he continued the important work started by his father.

In 2018, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Arlen Dumas brought tobacco to elders and knowledge keepers at Turtle Lodge and asked them to create a position document for today. Their work led to “Wahbanung: The Resurgence of a People — Clearing the Path for Our Survival,” released for the 50th anniversary of “Wahbung” in 2021. The title refers to the east, where the sun rises, and going back to the beginning.

The document put languages, ceremonies, laws and caring for the land at the heart of self-determination. The calls to action are practical — support mothers and families; mentor young people; teach languages; build spaces for healing and learning; and restore knowledge keepers’ roles in community life. It encourages communities to find resources for renewal.

Removing federal rule matters, but so do institutions, knowledge and resources that let nations use their own authority.

In 1971, the elder Courchene linked political freedom with renewing language and spirituality. His son and knowledge keepers continued that work. Their message remains clear: governments should keep their promises and strengthen First Nations.

That’s a good place to start for our leadership and for Manitobans who want to understand the Indigenous position.

The next proposal should clearly state how land will be protected, how First Nations’ laws will be recognized, how services will be funded and how affected people will decide if plans suffice.

Manitoba can help make these promises last, but first I encourage interested parties to read “Wahbung.” Then read “Wahbanung.” Before deciding what to take away, we must understand what First Nations have been asking Canada to keep.

» Hersh Seth is a Winnipeg resident and community organizer. This column appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press.