By James Turtle | First Nations Affairs, North of Polite

When Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew called for the abolition of the Indian Act at the October 26 First Nations–First Ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, he put a question back on the national agenda. What would it take for Canada to stop governing so much of First Nations life through a federal law first enacted in 1876? As of November 6, APTN reported that Kinew had offered no further explanation of what he wanted to put in its place. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak disputed the account that chiefs in the room had called for abolition. There was a public call for repeal. There was no agreed plan for what would follow. APTN News · The Canadian Press

That distinction matters to a family waiting for a child’s registration, a band council about to hold an election, or a First Nation negotiating a lease on reserve land. All three have practical questions Ottawa would have to answer before repeal took effect. Parliament can repeal the Act. Replacing the rules people rely on, while transferring power to First Nations, is the harder job.

What stays if the Act goes?

Existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Repealing an ordinary federal statute would leave that constitutional protection in place. Ottawa would also retain its constitutional authority under section 91(24), which covers what the Constitution calls “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.” A Manitoba premier can press Ottawa to act. The decision to repeal the federal statute belongs to Parliament. Constitution Acts

Canada’s Interpretation Act generally protects rights and obligations that have already accrued under a repealed law, subject to what the new legislation says. That matters for existing arrangements. It offers much less of an answer to a parent asking which rules will apply to a child born after repeal, or a council asking who has authority to issue a new permit. Those questions need explicit transition rules. Interpretation Act, section 43

What would First Nations people feel first?

What people rely on today	What a repeal plan would need to settle
Registration and membership	Federal registration, commonly called status, and belonging to a First Nation are distinct. Some First Nations already control their own membership lists. A transition would need to protect existing registrations, deal with pending applications and say who decides future eligibility. It would also need to address federal programs that use registration as a gateway, including coverage for some health benefits.
Reserve land and homes	Reserve land would not automatically become private property. A replacement would need to spell out how reserve lands stay protected, who controls leases and land records, and how existing interests are carried forward. Section 89 generally shields certain property on reserve from seizure by outside creditors. That protection also limits what can be pledged as collateral. Any change would affect both land security and access to financing.
Councils, elections and local laws	First Nations already govern under different arrangements. For communities using the Act’s rules, a transition would need to say who holds office, how the next election works and which bylaws stay in force until the Nation replaces them. First Nations operating under their own arrangements would face different questions.
Taxes, services and funding	Section 87 provides a specific tax exemption for certain property and income situated on a reserve. It does not exempt all income earned by First Nations people. Parliament would need to say how that protection is carried forward or changed. Governments would also need to identify which services depend on the Act, which operate under separate laws or agreements, and who funds and delivers them during the transition.

Indian Act · Auditor General’s report on registration · CRA guidance on section 87

What could take its place?

There’s already a working example of replacing part of the Act. Under the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, participating First Nations can adopt their own land codes and take over decisions that previously required federal administration under the Act. The lands retain their reserve status, and the framework does not give a Nation the power to sell them. A community can gain control over how its land is used while keeping protections on the land itself. First Nations Land Management Resource Centre

Westbank First Nation offers a broader example. Its negotiated self-government agreement sets out areas where Westbank makes its own laws and specifies where federal provisions continue to apply. The land-code route and the Westbank agreement show why one replacement law would be a poor fit for every Nation. Some may want to assume jurisdiction in stages. Others may pursue broader agreements or insist that change proceed through their existing treaty relationship. Ottawa would still have work to do on funding, legal continuity and responsibilities that cross jurisdictions. Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement

Canada has tried to answer this question from Ottawa before. The 1969 White Paper proposed repealing the Act and shifting responsibilities toward the provinces. The Indian Chiefs of Alberta answered with Citizens Plus, defending treaty rights and the federal relationship. Their response still matters because repeal can be used to pursue very different ends. A Nation taking over decisions about its land is a transfer of power. Ottawa shifting a responsibility to a province is a transfer between governments. First Nations have good reason to ask which one is on offer. 1969 White Paper · Citizens Plus

Is Kinew’s call realistic?

Yes, as a First Nations-led transition with different paths for different Nations. Parliament could change the law in stages, preserve existing protections during the handover and recognize First Nations laws and agreements as communities choose their arrangements. Canada’s federal legislation on the UN Declaration commits the government to work in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples to make federal laws consistent with the declaration. The declaration calls for good-faith consultation through Indigenous peoples’ own representative institutions to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

The test for any proposal is what a First Nation can tell its citizens about the morning after repeal. Who decides whether my child can register? Who protects the land my home sits on? Who makes our laws, and who pays for the services our community relies on? The case for repeal gets stronger when First Nations can answer those questions on their own terms and Canada can show how it will honour its obligations through the transition.

© 2026 North of Polite. Original reporting, analysis and commentary. All rights reserved. 🍁