First Nations leaders in B.C. criticize Manitoba premier's call to scrap Indian Act
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
During a meeting of Indigenous leaders, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew urged the abolition of the Indian Act, prompting strong opposition from several British Columbia First Nations chiefs who warned the legislation still provides essential protections.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew used a break in a gathering of First Nations, federal, provincial and territorial leaders to hold up his Indigenous status card and declare that it is "time to abolish the Indian Act." He told the assembled chiefs that a relationship with Indigenous peoples that reflects contemporary Canadian values is "long overdue." Prime Minister Mark Carney later said he shared the premier’s view.
The remarks surprised many British Columbia leaders. Hereditary chief Huy’wu’qw Laxele’wuts’aat Shana Thomas of the Leey'qsun (Lyackson) First Nation said Kinew raised the issue without prior consultation, adding that "you can’t just remove the Indian Act" because it underpins land management, reserve status and funding arrangements. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, called the premier’s move "highly inappropriate and completely disrespectful" to the chiefs present. B.C. Assembly of First Nations regional chief Terry Teegee described the comments as "cavalier" and noted that, despite its racist history, the Act still offers some protection for treaty rights and title.
Not all voices were uniformly opposed. Cheryl Casimer of the ʔaq̓am First Nation said she agreed that no First Nation wants to be governed by a federal piece of legislation that dictates identity and activity, but emphasized that any decision to abolish the Act must arise from a collective discussion involving all 600-plus First Nations across Canada.
Legal expert Chris Roine said abolition would only be viable if replaced by a substantive framework supported by First Nations, pointing to existing mechanisms such as modern treaties, self-government agreements and land codes. He urged Ottawa not to get ahead of Indigenous communities in reform proposals and highlighted British Columbia’s treaty process as a model for moving beyond the Act.
University of British Columbia law professor Scott Franks warned that scrapping the legislation could jeopardize existing reserve-land rights, arguing that First Nations should set the pace and scope of any change. Thomas labeled attempts to make the "colonial legislation" more palatable a "fool’s errand," while also noting specific issues such as the second-generation status cutoff, which Senate amendments to Bill S-2 aim to eliminate.
Overall, the discussion underscored deep divisions over how to modernize or replace the Indian Act, with leaders calling for nation-to-nation dialogue rather than unilateral political statements.