Most of the ongoing and daily management of Indian Moneys has been delegated to regional Indigenous Services offices.¹⁰ First Nations can access money they invested in the Fund, following the procedures laid out in Sections 61–64 of the Indian Act. 

Historically, the Department of Indian Affairs, under its many names, has managed the Indian Trust Fund. Through amendments to the Indian Act from 1880–1906, the authority and power of the Governor in Council increased in power to control the Fund.

For example, in 1895, the Department could spend Band money on capital works for First Nations through proceeds from their sold lands. The Indian Act amendment in 1905 raised from 10 to 50 percent the distribution of funds to First Nations from their sold lands as an incentive to surrender them to the Crown. When funds were accepted, agents then forced Bands to use them to supply their own agricultural implements, saving the Department money.

The Trust was not only financing the Department of Indian Affairs — First Nations were also paying for the Crown’s internationally-binding Treaty obligations, including annuities. Annuities are annual cash payouts to treaty signatories.

For example, the funds were used to subsidize First Nations education as early as the mid-1870.¹¹ They were being used to fund medical expenses, to which the Nakota people of Carry the Kettle angrily protested since these were a Treaty 4 obligation.¹² The Trust was also used to pay for schools and teachers’ salaries, which are directly identified as Crown obligations in the numbered Treaties.

Restrictions on Trust money spending also radically violated the promises that ensured the protection of Indigenous livelihood made in the historic or numbered (1–11) Treaties. For example, provisions of the Indian Act controlled First Nations’ abilities to buy items on credit without consent of the Agent with their own funds!¹³

In 1951, the Indian Act was amended, and the Indian Moneys provisions changed in response to the establishment of the Financial Administration Act, moving the Trust money to a general account and switching annuities payments from treaty descendents to status Indians. The move reflected deeper changes between Treaty nations and the state from a nation-to-nation relationship to one of wardship. There were several reasons for this timing, including the messy state of the treaty rolls at the time coupled with the need for a more efficient surveillance bureaucracy.¹⁴

Some of the main beneficiaries of this Trust Fund theft have included: the City of Toronto, Law Society of Upper Canada, Montreal Turnpike Trust, Desjardins Canal, York Roads, Grand River Navigation Company, Grand River Bridge, and the Consolidated Municipal Loan Fund for Upper Canada, a fund that allowed municipalities raise money for roads, bridges, railways, bridges, and other improvements.

A more thorough examination of individual Band accounts would be the only way to uncover the possible loss of funds — some of which was no doubt lost to sticky fingers in the Department.

Numerous audits and evaluations over the years have shown significant issues with the Indian Trust. For example, a leaked internal Department of Indian Affairs report in 1982 revealed that the Department broke provisions in two federal acts in the way it manages Indian trust accounts.¹⁵

In 2009, the Samson First Nation and the Ermineskin First Nation sued Canada for the loss of millions of potential income due to the Crown’s abysmal investment of their moneys in Trust. The Treaty 6 Bands alleged that Ottawa was using the Indian trust account as a low-cost source of loans. Half the Trust was their money at that point and if managed by a private sector administrator, they would have banked in interest.¹⁶ The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled, however, that Canada is not liable when it fails to make money on First Nation deposits through investment and, in fact, that the Indian Act makes this kind of investment illegal.