2. Women's Perspectives - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure ...

highlights the irony of the official justification that these measures were necessary to
protect Indian lands and social structures:
The Indian Act's tracing of Indian descent and identity through the father was the
unthinking application of European patrilineal assumptions by a patriarchal society; but it
accorded ill with those Indian societies, such as the Iroquoian, in which identity and
authority flowed through the female side of the family. All these attempts at cultural
remodelling also illustrate how the first step on the path of protection seemed always to
lead to the depths of coercion. 26
As we will see, a large share of the effects of this coercion was borne by Indian women.
The Indian Act went through a number of changes as amendments were introduced and
adopted over the years, usually in response to unanticipated administrative problems or to
strengthen the assimilative thrust of federal Indian policy. Although most of the
provisions that discriminated against women were simply carried forward from earlier
legislation, additional measures of the same nature were also adopted. Thus, in 1884, an
amendment permitted the wife of an Indian man who held reserve land by location ticket
to receive one-third of her husband's estate, if he died without a will. But the amendment
stated that the widow might receive it only if she were living with him at the time of
death and was "of good moral character" as determined by federal authorities. 27 This
amendment applied standards to women that were not applied to men, standards that
were, moreover, ambiguous and that could be interpreted arbitrarily by officials outside
Indian communities.
Amendments in 1920 increased the power of the superintendent general at the expense of
the band council. Until this time, councils had the authority to decide whether an Indian
woman who married out would continue to receive treaty annuity payments and band
money distributions, or whether she would get a lump sum settlement. Many bands
allowed these women to continue receiving payments and distributions so they could
retain some link to the home community. The 1920 amendments removed this power
from the band and lodged it in the hands of the superintendent general of Indian affairs. 28
The official rationale for this provision was set out in a letter from Deputy Superintendent
General Duncan Campbell Scott:
When an Indian woman marries outside the band, whether a non-treaty Indian or a white
man, it is in the interest of the Department, and in her interest as well, to sever her
connection wholly with the reserve and the Indian mode of life, and the purpose of this
section was to enable us to commute her financial interests. The words "with the consent
of the band" have in many cases been effectual in preventing this severance….The
amendment makes in the same direction as the proposed Enfranchisement Clauses, that is
it takes away the power from unprogressive bands of preventing their members from
advancing to full citizenship. 29
Importantly, in that same set of amendments were new enfranchisement provisions that
allowed the governor in council, on the recommendation of the superintendent general,
27