In spite of the powerful provisions of the Indian Act, there have been quite a several attempts to amend it. It appears that the provisions in the Act are rigid to the extent that it is not easy to execute amendments. The main opposition to reform has been emanative ng from the First Nations.
There are diverging views within members of the First Nations. For example, there is a segment that thinks that the Act is both paternalistic and archaic. However, a small section of the First Nations prefers minimal amendments to the Act while others have proposed a complete overhaul of the legislation (Government of Canada, 2014).
Abolishing the Act may not be the best option even if there is a need to safeguard treaties and inherent rights. It can be recalled that the Act was last amended comprehensively in 1951. Since then, quasi-judicial processes and court rulings have necessitated piecemeal amendments.
It is indeed true that the Indian Act has its shortcomings just like any other constitutional document (Government of Canada, 2013). The limitations of the Act should first be identified before any changes can be made. Even the incremental reforms being agitated by the sectoral initiatives should be weighed properly against the initial aims of the Act.
Opponents of the Indian Act argue that it is a very irrelevant piece of legislation since it is outdated and does not reflect the contemporary needs of Indian society in Canada. To some extent, such an assertion may be true bearing in mind that the Act came about as a result of wholesale consolidation of all the Indian laws into a single Act.
The aboriginal people were never consulted for input (Government of Canada, 2013). When the Act was adopted, the aboriginal people had no voting rights. Therefore, it may be possible that several pieces of legislation were compiled against their will.
The Indian Act subjected the aboriginal people to the loss of both national identity and natural resources. Although the Act contains several appealing clauses, it has faced myriads of oppositions and court battles over the years. The Act was probably misdirected even though the intentions were good.
The introductory sections of the Act expound that the legislation is supposed to safeguard the interests of the Indians, including their resources (Government of Canada, 2014). It is evident that the Act was adopted with a positive intention. Also, the application of the Act was keenly monitored by Indian officials. Therefore, the main failure of the Act originated from the Canadian government.
The latter did not assist the aboriginal people to transform and acquire full citizenship status. As a result, the group continued to live under distressful laws of the Crown irrespective of the Act in place.
The belief systems of the aboriginals were highly conservative. Their beliefs and cultures also hindered the successful application of the Indian Act. Consequently, the Crown acted against the expectations of the group. This led to a massive failure of the Indian Act.
The reserve lands were eventually made available for farming and other uses according to the desires of the Crown. It was also easy to take the reserve lands after certain treaty provisions were enacted.
From the above reflection, it can be concluded that the Indian Act was well-intentioned irrespective of the alleged failures. The proactive nature of the Canadian government also caught up with the aboriginals. For instance, the group was not fully aware of the implications of most treaties that they mutually consented with the Crown.