IAA Case to Parliament
After the Hobbema Case victory in 1957, Ruth Gorman remained dedicated to amending the Indian Act, particularly concerning the removal of compulsory enfranchisement. Gorman’s motivation differed slightly from that of the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA): her goal was to secure the vote for Indigenous Peoples as it was her belief that nothing else would meaningfully change without this right, whereas Indigenous members of the IAA were ultimately more concerned with issues of enfranchisement and Treaty Rights, as Treaty Rights were seen as a source of protection. Essentially, enfranchisement meant that if an Indigenous person voted in federal elections they were forcibly enfranchised or made to be “Canadian” and would lose their Treaty Rights, removed from their reserve, and lose their home, land, and family ties. In effect, it would depopulate reserves and force assimilation by decreasing the number of those with officially recognized status.
In 1958-1959, Gorman toured various Alberta reserves and met with Indigenous communities to gather petitions, hear concerns, and build a case. She promoted greater understanding of the issues and what was at stake in the press. In 1960, Gorman and representatives Chief John Samson of Maskwacis (Hobbema) and Gerald Tailfeathers of the Blood Reserve went to Ottawa and presented a 58-page brief on behalf of the IAA to the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs. Although they had several resolutions, the main request was to remove enfranchisement so that the Indigenous population could vote while keeping their Treaty Rights. Although the case was not without ups and downs, they had success and the federal government revised the Indian Act in 1960 to remove Section 112 (compulsory enfranchisement) and allowed Indigenous Peoples to vote while maintaining their Treaty Rights. No longer solely reliant on the Department of Indian Affairs to relay their concerns, the voting ability strengthened Indigenous voices in governmental matters.
