Tuesday, November 25, 2025

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 25, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 4, page 2:

(a) Add the following after line 28:

“(1.1) Paragraph 6(1)(a.3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a.3) that person is a direct descendant of a person who is, was or would have been entitled to be registered under paragraph (a), (a.1) or (a.2);”;

(b) add the following after line 31:

“(2.1) Paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(f) at least one parent of that person is entitled to be registered under this section or, if the parent is no longer living, was or would have been so entitled at the time of their death.

(2.2) Subsections 6(2) and (2.1) of the Act are repealed.

(2.3) The portion of subsection 6(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(a.3) and (f),”; and

(c) add the following after line 37:

“(4) Paragraph 6(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) a person who is described in paragraph (1)(a.1) or (f) and who was no longer living on April 17, 1985, is deemed to be entitled to be registered under that paragraph; and”.

2.Clause 5, page 2: Replace line 38 with the following:

“5 (1) Paragraph 11(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) and at least one parent of that person is entitled to have their name entered in the Band List or, if the parent is no longer living, was or would have been so entitled at the time of death.

(1.1) Paragraph 11(2)(a) of the Act is repealed.

(1.2) Paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) and a parent referred to in that provision is entitled to have their name entered in the Band List or, if no longer living, was or would have been, at the time of their death, entitled to have their name entered in the Band List.”.

3.New clauses 9.1 and 9.2, page 4: Add the following after line 23:

“9.1 For greater certainty, subject to any deletions made by the Registrar under subsection 5(3) of the Indian Act, any person who was, immediately before the day on which subsection 4(2.2) of this Act comes into force, registered and entitled to be registered under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act is deemed registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act.

9.2 For greater certainty, for the purpose of paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act, the Registrar must recognize any entitlements to be registered that existed under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act immediately before the day on which subsection 4(2.2) of this Act comes into force.”.

4.Delete clause 10, page 4.

5.Delete clause 11, pages 4 and 5.

6.New clause 12, page 5: Add the following after line 19:

“Coming into Force

12 Subsections 4(1.1), (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (4) and 5(1) and (1.2) come into force 12 months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.

7.Make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill.

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

................Page Break................

Observations to the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples (Bill S-2)

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), was introduced in the Senate of Canada by the Government Representative on 26 May 2025. Part of Bill S-2 responds to a constitutional challenge brought forward in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) (Nicholas). The amendments proposed under Bill S-2 relate to enfranchisement, or the loss or termination of status under the Indian Act. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that paragraphs 6(1)(a.1) and 6(1)(d) of the Indian Act violated the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 (the Charter). The Government of Canada, in its submissions in Nicholas, acknowledged that part of the registration provisions of the Indian Act under section 6 creates a distinction based on race or ethnic origin, denies registration benefit in a way that reinforces disadvantage and is thus discriminatory. Further, the Government of Canada acknowledged that section 6 of the Indian Act infringes upon section 15 Charter equality rights and the ability of the descendants of enfranchisees to pass to their children the entitlement to register for status.

Throughout its study of Bill S-2, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples (the committee) heard many instances of first-hand experience with lingering discrimination in the Indian Act, whether race-based, sex-based or based on marital status. The committee recognizes the Government of Canada’s duty to consult with First Nations on how to remedy systemic discrimination under the Indian Act, not whether to remedy it at all. Your committee observes the Government of Canada needs to go further to end all discrimination under the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

Many witnesses and briefs raised the importance of fully implementing the recommendations contained in the committee’s 2022 report related to the implementation of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), entitledMake it Stop! Ending remaining discrimination in the Indian Act.

In June 2025, Bill S-2 was referred to the committee. Your committee welcomes the provisions of Bill S-2 that correct the historic injustice of enfranchisement, and which restores entitlement to individuals and their descendants who lost it — often involuntarily — resulting in suffering and hardship. Importantly, under Bill S-2, descendants of the former Michel Band #472 will finally, after 40 years of struggle and perseverance, have status restored.

Your committee recognizes that the ultimate goal, as described by witnesses through their testimony and briefs, is self-determination. Moving away from status and membership altogether and toward citizenship would be in line with Articles 6 and 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Until such time as the Indian Act can be fully repealed, it is critical that the Government of Canada abide by its commitment in 2021 with the passage of the UNDRIP Act and take all necessary measures to ensure that the Indian Act is in line with UNDRIP. This committee recognizes and affirms that First Nations people best know who belongs and that the ultimate authority to decide who is a citizen of their nation rests with the nation itself.

No Canadian law should include a bar to compensation for discrimination. The committee heard from witnesses who contend that the bars to compensation in the Indian Act violate the Charter and international treaties Canada has ratified. This committee agrees with witnesses that First Nations women should not have to resort to litigation in order to eliminate this bar. Your committee believes that a clear, statutory commitment is required that provides adequate, sustainable and predictable funding to First Nations to administer new regulations regarding status and membership. Currently, First Nations are already chronically underfunded, and many are unable to support current membership levels. Without investments, First Nations will continue to bear the administrative and financial burdens of current and increased membership levels.

Terminology

Your committee observes that there is confusion regarding the meaning of the terms “Indian status,” “band membership” and “citizenship” as, at times, the terms were conflated during the committee’s study of Bill S-2. The committee wishes to clarify that these are three distinct terms. Status is granted to an individual who is registered under the Indian Act by the Government of Canada, through the Office of the Indian Registrar. Status confers certain rights or benefits.

In contrast, band membership is determined by each First Nation. The Government of Canada is responsible for adding and removing individuals from the membership lists of those First Nations that have their membership lists maintained by the Indian Registrar under section 11 of the Indian Act. Under section 11, if an individual is registered with status, they automatically become band members of their First Nation. In contrast, other First Nations have assumed control over their membership codes under section 10 of the Indian Act. These First Nations can define and maintain their own membership lists based on their own criteria and values, which may differ from status. As a result, some individuals, who are members of their nations, can have status but not have band membership and vice versa. Lastly, First Nations with a modern treaty or self-government agreement establish their own criteria for citizenship.

Rights Holders

Your committee observes that there is a lack of clarity over who “rights holders” are, which is of particular importance for the purposes of federal consultation related to ongoing sex and race-based discrimination under the Indian Act. This term broadly describes First Nations whose inherent, collective rights are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, for example, the Anishinabek Nation, Dene Nation and Mi’kmaq Nation. Your committee observes that rights holders are not limited to First Nations governments created through the Indian Act such as bands governed through a Chief and Council and their members.

Over 150 years of systemic discrimination has resulted in many individuals and families being disconnected from their natal bands. The committee heard that the federal consultations that began over forty years ago may have excluded many rights holders — including those negatively impacted by the second-generation cut-off and other longstanding inequities. While Bill S-2 provides the ability for those who regain their status, or those who were automatically transferred to their husband’s band, to return to their natal band, it does so only for those First Nations who have their band membership lists managed by the Government of Canada under section 11 of the Indian Act. It should not be optional for a First Nation that manages its membership list under section 10 to potentially deny membership to newly entitled individuals under Bill S-2. This committee believes that denying First Nations women and their descendants the right to register themselves onto Indian Act membership lists is a violation of the Charter.

The loss of status and connection to community have also cut people off from their inherent Treaty relationship with Canada. As we heard from Chiefs Bear, Littlechild and Whitford, it is imperative that any restoration of status also carry the recognition of Treaty entitlements. This committee calls on the Government of Canada to fully restore Treaty entitlements and benefits to those who regain their status.

The individuals who have borne the brunt of historic and ongoing discrimination — women, their children and their grandchildren — must be able to enjoy all of their constitutionally- protected rights and be included in any federal consultation, engagement and collaborative process that may impact their rights. These people cannot be marginalized because of colonial rules imposed by Canada.