Colonialism 101: How to Destabilize a Nation

By Jake Cardinal

WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAYS?

On June 11, 2025 the Saddle Lake Cree Nation announced their newly elected council for its next 3-year political term. A week later, on June 17, the Nation announced its newly elected chief, Dale E. Steinhauer.

Political turmoil followed.

At a band meeting on July 2, 2025, the following motions were passed by the sitting council: 1) immediately remove Steinhauer as Chief; 2) appoint the 2022-2025 Council to maintain governance; 3) to reinstate all previously dissolved boards (as one of Steinhauer’s first alleged actions as Chief was to remove an unknown amount of board members from an unknown amount of essential-service departments); 4) and to initiate a full review of recent leadership decisions.

Steinhauer then responded with multiple public releases which ultimately resisted the council’s motion. For example, in a post on Facebook, she shared a letter from Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) acknowledging her as chief.

However, ISC spokesperson, Pascal Laplante, stated in an exclusive comment to Alberta Native News, that “the Department has no role in how the community’s leadership is selected, or how governance disputes are resolved.”

“The role of the Department with respect to custom code/selection processes is to record the changes in leadership when notified by a First Nation.”

“Currently, the position is held by Chief Dale Steinhauer.”

Laplante went on to state that ISC would only get involved if a governance dispute threatens the delivery of essential band services, in which case, the ISC would “take the necessary measures to ensure these services continue.”

No further explanation was provided.

While a clear timeline of events was not readily available at the time of writing, as the communications from both parties have been sparse, the situation has faced intense scrutiny online from non-band members, as well as from those registered to the Nation itself.

However, the issues currently facing the governance of Saddle Lake cannot be simply explained through a timeline of recent events – nor can it be explained through local politics, agendas or alleged political in-fighting. Rather, we must delve deeper into the policies and structures which allowed these issues to arise.

THE GRADUAL CIVILIZATION ACT (1857 & 1867)

In 1857, the Canadian Government assented the Gradual Civilization Act, meant to “encourage the progress of civilization among the Indian Tribes.” In other words, it was an assimilation tactic providing the first legal definitions for Native Americans — otherwise known as: “Indians.”

It was also the introduction of enfranchisement. Under this Act, when an Indian was no longer deemed an Indian, they became “enfranchised.” Meaning: if an Indian was male, over 21, fluent in English and/or French, completed their elementary education, and were of good moral character, they would be declared as enfranchised and would have their rights as an Indian forfeited.

This was decided by a “visiting superintendent” or a “missionary to such Tribe,” acting as “Commissioners for examining Indians.” It also allowed Indians who did not meet the above requirements to apply for enfranchisement at their own behest.

Additionally, not only was this act meant to assimilate the Native population, but it was also misogynistic in that Indian women were essentially designated as property. Their rights as Indians — and as women — were decided upon by her husband and family, a key aspect of Western European culture and society at the time.

Ten years later, in 1867, the Gradual Civilization Act was amended to include additional laws. However, it also saw the first iteration of the Chief and Council system. If the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act was meant to assimilate Indians on an ethnic basis, then the 1867 amendments were meant to begin the assimilation of the Indians’ traditional forms of governance.

It is stated that any male tribal member over the age of 21 could be elected by the other male members as “chief” or “second chief” for a tenure of 3 years. However, such officials appointed could be removed by the Superintendent for “dishonesty, intemperance, or immorality.”

Thus, while the Act allowed for the Native American population to govern themselves, the ultimate power of decision rested with the federal government of Canada.

THE INDIAN ACT

In 1876, the Canadian government fully realized their Indian policy with the Indian Act – which remains the foundation for Canada’s relationship to Native Americans and governs their decision processes to this day.

This was also the legislation which saw the beginnings of the modern-day Chief and Council system as we know it today. However, at the time of creation, in a 24-page document with over 100 sections, tribal governance was given but a single paragraph.

While it was slightly more thorough – with much of the Gradual Civilization Act still being used – the Indian Act was primarily in writing a designation of responsibilities for the elected Chief(s), such as the appointment of a “pound-keeper.”

After multiple amendments over the years, the current Indian Act fully annotated is over 1,000 pages and includes over 260 sections. It also states that “the Chief of the band shall be elected by: the majority of the votes of the electors of the band or: a majority of the votes of the elected councillors of the band from among themselves.”

However, before determining how the Indian Act created Saddle Lake’s current political crisis, and how it might be used to solve the situation arising, we must look beyond the apparent goals of Canada’s Indian policy.

THE PARADOX

In a 1995 report by John Giokas, a now retired Canadian lawyer, he stated that the Indian Act is “paradoxical.” He quoted Wayne Daugherty to encapsulate this notion by further stating: “on the one hand, it [the Indian Act] continued the protective or guardianship policy of the colonial period; on the other, it proposed to assimilate the Indian … into mainstream society.”

This is the core concept behind Giokas use of the term “protective assimilation.”

Furthermore, the Indian Act has been described by the Canadian Government itself – Tom Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs, 1990 – as “failing to address the needs, aspirations or capabilities of Indian communities.” However, the term “communities” in this context could potentially be an attempt to normalize the casual disregarding of Native American claims to Nationhood as well.

Therefore, to state outright, the Indian Act is paradoxical because it is the legislation which grants Native Americans their inherent rights in Canada, while also functionally operating as the legislation which continues the country’s eugenic, Victorian-era policies of assimilation and systemic oppression against Native Americans.

In terms of governance, Giokas mentions that the Act faces issues of inconsistency, confusion, gaps, and antiquated legislation, as well as being fundamentally flawed in respects to Native American self-determination.

For example, there is no provision of band “consent to the imposition of the elective system or to reject it afterwards.”

The Indian Act and the amendments that followed, such as the Oliver Act, would further extend colonial authority over internal band affairs. Giokas quotes Ian Johnson when he says, “band councils became mere consultative bodies to decision makers in the Department of Indian Affairs.”

Additionally, Minister of the Interior in 1911, Frank Oilver, is quoted as saying: “For while we believe that the Indian having a certain treaty right is entitled ordinarily to stand upon that right and get the benefit of it, yet we believe that there are certain circumstances and conditions in which the Indian by standing on his treaty rights does himself an ultimate injury, as well as does an injury to the white people, whose interests are brought into immediate conjunction with the interests of the Indians.”

THE OUTCOME

Almost ever since the imposition of the Chief and Council system, there has been mistrust and hostility towards those appointed to the positions.

This is best put by the Stó:lo Tribal Council of British Columbia in their statements to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP), wherein they were quoted as saying: “the system fostered distrust between those who were in the positions of power, and the community at large – in particular between the community and Chiefs.”

“Ever since the Department of Indian Affairs permitted local bands to manage their own budgets, certain Chiefs have been accused of stealing and misappropriating band money. In general, it appears that many Chiefs and Councillors were neither respected nor trusted by substantial segments of their communities.”

They would go on to state that when questioned for their perspective, the chiefs believed the structure of the system itself was at fault (which is where Giokas’ notion of “protective assimilation” comes into play, or the paradoxical nature of Canada’s Indian policy) as the Act made them unable to “include a broader cross-section of the community in council … despite their best efforts” to do so in the positions they held. Thus, while trying to operate in the Nation’s best interest within the Chief and Council structure, the appointed officials were simultaneously labelled as “betrayers of their heritage.”

The result of this system was that “many community [the Stó:lo Nation] members have become disillusioned with band council government and have withdrawn in anger and frustration from the band political process.”

WHOSE NATION IS IT ANYWAYS?

Thus, it appears as though “the system” itself has been intentionally orchestrated to cause political turmoil and distrust within the Native Nations of Canada, and that based upon historical receipts, the issues currently facing the Saddle Lake Cree Nation are part of Canada’s larger plan to assimilate Native Nations into colonial culture and society entirely.

However, in order to absorb a Nation into the colonial state, it would have to be done within the colonial rule of law, which is currently understood to include the right to Indian self-governance. Therefore, an Indian Tribe is allowed to govern themselves and to create their own laws, so long as they do not interfere with those of the Indian Act.

This is how Saddle Lake Cree Nation has maintained their sovereignty throughout Canada’s occupation of North America – by following their own set of customary laws. Despite this resilience however, the Nation is now seemingly destabilizing at the government-level.

Therefore, to end this article, consider a hypothetical: how would a progressively presenting colonial state, such as Canada, assimilate a self-governing, sovereign Native Nation completely through democratic, socially-acceptable, and non-coercive means? Perhaps the occupying colonial state would have to be heralded – or at least justifiably understood – as interfering in the internal affairs of a Nation due to instability and government distrust. For example, the United States’ response to the situation surrounding Alberta’s potential withdrawal from Canada.

This was essentially said as such by ISC spokesperson Laplante, when he stated that the federal government would only get involved in the internal affairs of Saddle Lake if the Chief and Council failed to deliver essential services.

In other words, if the governance of Saddle Lake were destabilized enough, it would warrant a response from the Federal government wherein they would potentially hold ultimate decision-making authority over how the Nation would resolve its issues.

This premeditated orchestration perhaps explains the ISC’s current paradoxical position of overseeing and enforcing the governmental affairs of Saddle Lake Cree Nation, while also not being able and/or unwilling to provide any course of immediate action during such disputes.

At the time of writing, there have been no recent updates from Saddle Lake Cree Nation’s currently recognized Chief and Council.

Jake Cardinal is a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter