THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 24, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: [Innu-Aimun spoken] Thank you for allowing me to walk on your territory every day until 2046.
I said in Innu-Aimun that I was honoured to welcome a sister and great leader, Minister Gull-Masty. Thank you to the Anishinaabe people for welcoming us every day to their great, unceded territory steeped in history, and thank you for welcoming us again today.
Before we begin our study, we must always think about how to proceed properly. As you may know, I am very fond of beads — if you didn’t know, I’m telling you now. For me, beading is also about people. There are little beads behind me that make sure we are interpreted and understood whether we’re speaking French or English. On those little cards next to you are best practice procedures that tell you where to place your earpiece and remind you not to tap or move the microphone. A gentle reminder that we don’t give often enough: People switch the microphones on and off. This isn’t in my notes, but interpreters only have one mouth, so if we all start speaking at once, we risk missing something important. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Allow me to introduce myself: Michèle Audette, senator for [Innu-Aimun spoken] in Quebec, grandmother, full-time kukum and proud senator. I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Hi, everyone. My name is Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki traditional territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario, more specifically from Cornwall, on Mohawk traditional territory.
[English]
Senator Pate: Welcome. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Good evening. [Indigenous language spoken] Nancy Karetak-Lindell, senator for Nunavut.
Senator McPhedran: I’m Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Treaty 10 territory in northern Manitoba. Welcome.
[Translation]
Jean-Charles Lebeau, Legal Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, CIRNA/ISC Legal Services: I am Jean-Charles LeBeau, Department of Justice.
[English]
Stuart Hooft, Director, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Stuart Hooft, Director of Registration Reform, Indigenous Services Canada.
Gina Wilson, Deputy Minister, Indigenous Services Canada: Gina Wilson [Indigenous language spoken] Kitigan Zibi [Indigenous language spoken] Indigenous Services Canada.
Hon. Mandy Gull-Masty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services: [Cree spoken] Mandy Gull-Masty [Cree spoken]. Minister Mandy Gull-Masty in Cree.
Catherine Lappe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening. My name is Catherine Lappe, and I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister for Services to Individuals at Indigenous Services Canada. Thank you.
Lori Doran, Director General, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Hi, everyone, Lori Doran. I’m the Director General responsible for Individual Affairs at Indigenous Services Canada.
Senator Tannas: I’m Scott Tannas, senator from Alberta.
Senator Boniface: I’m Gwen Boniface, senator for Ontario.
Senator Francis: [Mi’kmaq spoken] Brian Francis, senator for Prince Edward Island.
Senator White: Kwe. Judy White, senator from Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, senator from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we begin our study of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). Since I sponsored this bill, I would now like to inform you that I am recusing myself as chair for all committee meetings that deal with this bill. In doing so, I wish to honour the neutrality of a Senate committee chair.
The steering committee agreed to divide the work between us — like Canada geese do. Senator Greenwood, deputy chair of the committee, has graciously agreed to chair meetings dealing with Bill S-2. In her absence, Senator Prosper has graciously agreed to preside over today’s meeting.
I therefore call upon Senator Prosper to take the chair. Thank you.
Senator Paul (PJ) Prosper (Acting Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette. It is an honour and privilege to chair this very important meeting today. It’s great to see so many people around the table. Thank you all for joining us today.
The minister will be invited to provide opening remarks of approximately 10 minutes, which will be followed by a question‑and-answer session with senators. We will suspend briefly around 7:45 p.m. to allow the minister to leave the room. Officials at the table will be invited to remain at the table for the remainder of the meeting in order to answer additional questions from senators.
I will now invite Minister Gull-Masty to give her opening remarks.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. Good evening, everyone. It’s nice to be here again. I was here in my former role, I think at that time congratulating our chair for his new appointment into his position as a senator, which seems so long ago but wasn’t really that long ago.
Waachiyeh, kwe kwe, tansi, hello.
[Translation]
Honourable Senators, I’d like to begin by extending my gratitude for your ongoing commitment to advancing reconciliation and for inviting me to speak to you about this important bill.
I’d also like to thank Senator Audette for the role she has played and continues to play in sponsoring Bill S-2. She has worked on something very important — Bill S-2, that is — and has helped to move it forward.
[English]
It is really an honour to be before you this evening and to speak to you on the importance of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). This is a vital step toward addressing those inequities that remain in the Indian Act.
This bill proposes four critical reforms: restoring entitlement to individuals and their descendants who lost it through enfranchisement, often involuntarily; giving First Nations individuals the power to remove themselves from the Indian Register and to reclaim control over their identity; it also seeks to eliminate outdated and offensive, deplorable language from the act about dependent persons, language that really reflects a colonial attitude; it also seeks to make it easier for people, especially for women, to join the First Nation band of their birth.
[Translation]
As many of you know, Bill S-2 was introduced as a long‑overdue response to the systemic discrimination against First Nations peoples embedded in the Indian Act — discrimination that has disproportionately harmed First Nations, especially women and their descendants.
[English]
The Indian Act of 1876 is really a relic of our colonial history and an attempt to fully assimilate First Nations Peoples. While some changes have been made to the Indian Act through the years, there still remains vast inequities in the act that must be addressed quickly.
The act promised those that renounced their identity would get full Canadian citizenship in return, along with the ability to own land and to vote in elections, rights they didn’t have as First Nations People on reserve. The act called this process “enfranchisement,” as if doing so would be a privilege or a process for them if they chose to seek to adopt it.
[Translation]
Some First Nations parents did so only to prevent their children from being taken away to residential schools. That will undoubtedly haunt the minds of many people this week, as we approach National Day of Truth and Reconciliation.
The reality is there wasn’t much of a choice at all — especially if it was between turning your back on your culture, your heritage, your language, or even having your children torn away from you to attend those institutions. For others, becoming enfranchised was a decision imposed on them from the government of the day. For instance, becoming a doctor or a lawyer and practising an important or prestigious profession used to mean automatic loss of entitlement. For them and their future generations.
[English]
For women, the injustice was even more severe. Until 1985, their identity and rights were tethered to the men in their lives: their fathers and their husbands. If the men lost their entitlement — for whatever reason — so, too, did they. If a woman married outside her nation, she was forced to leave her community and to join his.
My own personal story of 1985 is reflected in my testimony today, where my mother, for a period of time, also lost status. We see that if women married a non-entitled man, she lost her entitlement. I can attest personally to what that meant for my late mother. She also lost access to her community, her voice and her rights. This affected all of the children that she had and their grandchildren to follow. These consequences were quite profound.
Loss of entitlement meant losing access to federal programs and services and even the right to vote in their own nations’ elections.
Let us be clear: The Indian Act was a tool for the wholesale erasure of languages, cultures and beliefs. It has robbed First Nations Peoples of their identity and unfortunately continues to do so today. I ask that we move forward to ensure that we address this.
Bill S-2 is the next step in the process of really trying to right those wrongs. It would restore entitlement, access and rights to approximately 3,500 individuals. For them, this bill represents so much — a restoration of dignity, identity and belonging.
More broadly, this bill would help to mend fractured family lineages and ensure that future generations can fully reclaim their places in communities and ensure that they know, understand and can be proud of their identities. Should Bill S-2 receive Royal Assent, approximately 6,200 individuals over the age of 13 would be eligible for registration. But, for many, the wait has already been too long. That is why it is imperative that we act now to deliver a clear, straightforward solution so that those who remain can have their statuses remedied by this bill. This can also show that they can have access to their status without further delay and to ensure that another generation is not left behind.
[Translation]
The bill would also recognize that First Nations identity is deeply personal. Some individuals may wish to remove themselves from the Indian Register — perhaps to join another Indigenous government, assert their autonomy, or simply to not be on another government list.
[English]
Bill S-2 would also do something very important. It would remove dehumanizing terms like “mentally incompetent Indians,” language that has no place in modern laws and reflects a colonial mindset that treated Indigenous Peoples as incapable of having autonomy, as being subject to paternalistic control and denied the basic rights of full citizenship.
[Translation]
Importantly, Bill S-2 upholds binding court rulings that have made clear the urgent need to eliminate these inequities, while also aligning with Senate committee recommendations, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, affirming the right of First Nations peoples to define themselves and their communities.
Already, more than 1,700 individuals have applied and are waiting for the legislation to pass. That is more than half of the population expected to benefit from the passing of the Bill — a clear indication of its importance and impact.
[English]
Senators, as you can see, this legislation is urgent for two reasons: For individuals who will have their rights restored as First Nations people, this is something they have been waiting for, for years. It’s also reflecting that the government has recently been given a court deadline to change the law by April 30, 2026. We have an opportunity to quickly deliver that solution, and we must work together to act on it.
We only have 10 months to meet the court’s deadline and for Bill S-2 to receive Royal Assent. If we do not meet this timeline, there is a risk that there could be two different implementations of the Indian Act. In B.C., it would be as if Bill S-2 has passed and in the rest of the country, it would be as if Bill S-2 had not been passed.
Senators, I truly implore you to act quickly on this legislation so we can meet the deadline and restore status to thousands of individuals who were impacted by this unconstitutional law.
I’d also like to clearly acknowledge that this bill does not address all the remaining inequities in the Indian Act, and we know that we have more work to do.
[Translation]
The second-generation cut-off rule continues to erode entitlement over generations. Under the rule, if an entitled person marries someone who is not entitled, their children hold entitlement but their children — the second generation — don’t.
And section 10 of the act makes it difficult for First Nations to reclaim control over their membership lists due to high voting thresholds that continue to become more out of reach.
We are listening. We are working with First Nations to address these issues in tandem, which is why we launched a co‑developed consultation process in November 2023. This process is focused on addressing the remaining 17 inequities in the Indian Act that this government has committed to address, including the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds.
[English]
Through this process, we want to ensure that we are proposing a solution to the remaining inequities and ensure that we have the consensus of First Nations rights holders and that we avoid unintended consequences that could further entrench new barriers or exclusions and even replicate the very kinds of discrimination we’re working to eliminate. The goal must be to move forward in a way that strengthens fairness and restores rights rather than opening the door to future harms.
[Translation]
We want to move quickly to address them, ensuring this work is done in partnership with First Nations.
[English]
I am committed to finding proper solutions for First Nations, but it must be done in collaboration to address the second‑generation cut-off and the section 10 voting thresholds. In the coming months, we will conclude the collaborative process that we have started, and we will ensure that we move forward in an informed way on the path to address what legislative reform needs to be in addressing those remaining inequities.
Honourable senators, in closing, Bill S-2 is another important step in a long-needed change to the Indian Act. It is a meaningful step. It’s a step toward restoring rights, and it’s a step toward respecting personal choice. It’s a step toward correcting historic wrongs, and it is a reminder that we all share the responsibility to ensure that these changes are implemented with integrity and that the injustices of the past are never repeated.
I look forward to answering your questions. Meegwetch.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Minister Gull-Masty.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators.
Honourable colleagues, you will each have a three-minute intervention. That includes the question and answer, with a 30‑second heads-up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask a question of the minister.
I now invite the sponsor of the bill, Senator Audette.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: You are most kind, but it is important that I give the floor to my colleagues. You heard my position in my opening speech. I would prefer to give my time to the other senators.
[English]
The Acting Chair: We’ll go next to steering committee member. Senator McCallum.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your remarks. This bill also directly impacts me. My grandchildren have been refused status. If I go over the three minutes, I will request the response in writing, okay?
In the background and context provided by Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, it states that in Bill C-31, as passed in 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated, and individuals directly impacted by enfranchisement had their entitlement to registration restored. Yet the second generation was not addressed. This cut-off remains a violent form of enfranchisement and has been a long-standing concern raised by First Nations. It is actually a form of genocide.
In the key elements of the bill provided by ISC, it states that the amendment on enfranchisement would allow individuals with family histories of enfranchisement to transmit entitlement to their descendants to the same extent as individuals without family histories. It states that the issue of primary concern from First Nations is the second-generation cut-off, but no amendment was made in this bill.
Why did the bill not address the second-generation cut-off and the transmission of entitlement? I know people are saying, “We’re consulting.” But they have been consulting for a very long time. It is probably about 20 years — more than that. That can be used. I would like to know why it was not addressed in this bill.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question.
When I was first reflecting on the approach of this bill, I felt that the people who were directly touched by enfranchisement — the 3,500 and potentially up to 6,200 — their cases were very clear-cut: With the passing of Bill S-2, they would immediately have remediation. Second-generation cut-off is so much more complex. There are so many different variations. There are so many different solutions required.
I am in the same boat. I have seen the reality of what Bill S-2 could do. I am also in the boat of second-generation cut-off, wondering if my nieces and nephews will be able to have that access.
What is really important to me is the 300,000 people who could potentially be touched by Bill S-2, by second-generation solutions, have the proper solution. For me, as a new minister, I wanted to put that confidence into the communities that need to determine what that future looks like for them in identifying their members and also in receiving their members.
This case of second-generation cut-off is so complex. I wanted to ensure that it is a stand-alone process, that it can address those things in a timely manner.
These consultations have been under way for a long time. I am more than willing to come back when they are concluded at the end of the year, early into the new year, and come and speak to what I think would be a pathway forward. I think we have to do that critical work.
Senator Francis: Welcome, minister. I was born under the Indian Act as well, so we both know where we are coming from on this one when it comes to the 6(2) cut-off. It has to be dealt with.
I’m concerned about the demographic impact of the second‑generation cut-off after reading the data sheets released by Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC. I will give you an example: In Prince Edward Island, we have a population of about 1,500 Mi’kmaq people, and 40% — around 600 — are registered under 6(2). That means that nearly half of our population will not be able to transmit status to their future descendants. That includes my granddaughters, too. That means no access to rights, benefits and services. If the second-generation cut-off is not addressed in a matter of decades, First Nations in Prince Edward Island will be practically eradicated. It is really serious.
Minister, how can the Government of Canada justify maintaining non-liability clauses to shield itself from accountability despite repeated calls from domestic and international bodies, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and our committee, to provide financial redress for the profound and lasting harms caused by the discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act to multiple generations?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question.
It is hard for me as an Indigenous person to also say that we live in a country where we are the only group of people who have their identity legislated. That is hard for me to say. I’m proud to be able to say that I am in a position to address that for up to 6,200 people with this Bill S-2 process. I want to remediate that as quickly as possible for this group.
I also know that the second-generation cut-off created so many instances for discrimination. I could speak to the children in my own community who were discriminated against by not being allowed to participate in certain activities because of this law. But I also know that there is a complexity in finding the solution. I want to be sure that I am bringing forward the best solution for everybody. There are so many different scenarios to address what that is going to look like; I think is going to be the challenge that we — this government, in this time — can address.
I am here to extend my commitment to this committee that I want to find that solution, that proper solution so we do not inflame, increase or introduce new forms of discrimination because of second-generation cut-off.
For liabilities, it is a larger discussion. It does require reflection. I’m willing to participate in that process as well. But I really want to speak to the importance and the critical nature of Bill S-2 and hope that we can address that as part of the work we do here.
Senator Francis: I want to go on record as saying that I support Bill S-2. I wish it went further.
Senator White: Minister, thank you for being here. It is an honour to have you with us and an honour to have an Indigenous woman fill in this role.
I’m very supportive of this piece of legislation. My question goes to implementation of the bill. I come at it from the Newfoundland perspective in the sense that we have Qalipu First Nation, who have a number of members who are registered that, from a community perspective, are not entitled to registration. The concern on the ground is that they are erasing us by replacing us because there are paper Indians.
My question is: How can we ensure the implementation of this bill so that the right persons are eligible for deregistration, reregistration and band transfer? I guess my question is about how we can safeguard the implementation, so we do not have another situation like the Qalipu.
Ms. Gull-Masty: I think for Bill S-2 it is looking at the historical process of people on record who have lost the ability to access status. It takes a lot of work to not only identify those people, to prepare them and give them the recognition. But there is also work to be done at the community level. Communities have to identify how they are going to receive these members.
In some cases I am sure there are instances where these members are being recognized. They live in community. There are some who are likely outside of community. What does that mean for them at the local government level and how they will respond to this new responsibility that they have?
I met this summer with many communities who asked that very same question. In fact, I met with one Chief who told me about the onboarding of his 700 new members and how much pressure it was putting on him. We have to do that engagement. The implementation — it is for community to do the work. I hope with Bill S-2 it gives us the — having a response allows for us to support the community and identify quickly what they want to do to answer your very question.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome. It is wonderful to welcome a new minister and to welcome some whom we know well from past interactions.
My question is about what is not in the bill. It connects back to 2019 and Bill S-3. There are a number of us around this table who lived through that process. We were told unequivocally at the time that it fixed everything, that all of the sex-based discrimination was taken care of. And here we are.
Here is my question: What is the timeline expected for dealing with second-generation cut-off and 1985 cut-off through the consultation process? Because with all due respect, we’ve seen this movie before.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. For me, the information that I have been briefed on by my department is that the second‑generation cut-off right now is presently engaging 90 First Nations representative organizations across the country who will help work with us in identifying those second‑generation cut-off solutions. I am targeting to ensure that this process is completed by the end of the year, December 2025.
I am also going to reference the plethora of consultation that had previously been conducted. I am looking forward to coming to this committee in the new year to be able to present what I think would be not only the portrait of what community is identifying in the new context of what we didn’t see in the last version of this movie, but also the introduction of processes for new identification methodologies. What does that mean?
It is important that, even though this is something that has been undertaken before, we also respond to the reality of the situation on what it means to be Indigenous in Canada at this moment.
Senator McPhedran: My second question: Why has the Government of Canada included bars to compensation for discrimination caused by the act in 1985, in 2010 and the 2017 amendments?
Ms. Gull-Masty: A bit out of my history of knowledge. I will ask my deputy to assist me on that.
Ms. Wilson: I need to understand what you mean by “bars” as well? That’s a legal term?
Senator McPhedran: Well, for compensation, limiting the capacity to seek compensation for the discrimination experience.
Ms. Wilson: I do not believe that there is anything that prevents a future negotiated settlement if there are harms that are experienced by individuals.
Senator McPhedran: In the Act.
Ms. Wilson: Yes. And this goes back to the no liability clause where previous legislation did have the no liability clause. Essentially that serves to protect First Nations and Canada from liabilities, but, as I said, the clause should not prevent a future negotiated settlement if, in fact, there are harms experienced by individuals as a result of this.
Senator McPhedran: To clarify, you would anticipate that would be a request for compensation under the Act? Or there’s some other process?
Ms. Wilson: It would probably be outside of the Act.
Senator Pate: Welcome to the witnesses. And congratulations, Minister, on your portfolio.
Like Senator McPhedran, I was here for Bill S-3. The commitment was clearly made that it may not happen in that Act but it would certainly happen soon.
Canada has made a commitment to the United Nations under the CEDAW Convention that all discrimination will end by 2026.
You’ve indicated that the consultations will be ongoing. Departmental officials, in June, indicated that consultations would be continuing, at least into the Fall.
Many First Nations organizations, First Nations People, have been raising extreme concerns about the fact that these incremental steps require folks to keep going back to court. People who don’t have a lot of resources. Communities, families who do not have a lot of resources, who are then expected to keep fighting this fight and get these very small, sometimes incremental steps.
It’s very clear that the Charter requires this equality, that it is not a case of whether but how that discrimination will be removed.
Would you be open to amendments that would allow this legislation to actually do what the government has committed to do?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Just to clarify the question, specifically in relation to the second generation?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Ms. Gull-Masty: To be honest, I would love to say that I am open to it. In reality, I do think it is my duty, as a minister, to protect what this could offer to those 6,200 people who are waiting, that would have a straightforward and direct immediate response to reinstatement.
But I am more than willing to share that I am fully committed to working on second-generation cut-off. It is such an important part of this discussion. I feel that to protect the integrity of the people who would be addressed in Bill S-2 I have to push that forward; to be cognizant that I also have a deadline appointed by the court; to not make these people wait longer than the ten years they already have waited; and to come in the new year to show what I believe, with the unique lens of being an Indigenous Person, what second generation looks like for Indigenous People being harmed by second-generation cut-off.
Senator Pate: I have no doubt about your sincerity. The challenge is we have been waiting now, and the commitment has been made for more than ten years. The requirement that this move forward will require another court case as well as another ruling by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW ruling. It strikes me that it would be far more beneficial to the government to decide this now rather than to keep fighting court cases and having to pay compensation.
Ms. Gull-Masty: I strongly believe that the people who have put forward a court case to have an answer on what Bill S-2 can offer them is the space that I have to respond to as Minister. It is my hope that the engagement and the discussions that I’ve had, and the relationships that I have with First Nations Communities across Canada will really want to engage and work with me.
I’m trying to bring forward a narrative that we do not have to find solutions for First Nations People in the courts. We can have trust in them, work with them and be guided by them in bringing forward solutions that respond directly to the reality of living in a First Nations community, and what that means for you when you’re a status holder.
Senator Tannas: Minister, thank you. I have been listening closely to what you’ve said. Second-generation cut-off here is a preoccupation of a lot of people. I have three grandchildren who fall into the third generation with no benefits, so for me it is a matter of personal interest as well.
I have also been on the committee long enough to have heard that there is not unanimous support for expanding the second‑generation cut-off, that there is, as you say, complications that make it difficult.
I have heard what you’ve said, that you want to come with some potential solutions. That’s great. I would say that you’re not the first person who has said that to us. You come from a different perspective and I respect that.
Would you consider it equally important that if your government can’t find their way to it that you’ll say so, instead of what we’ve heard, it’s coming, it’s coming, oh, yes, it’s coming? Because after a while, people who are hoping need to get on with their lives. And that could be the most powerful thing you do, sadly do. But would you commit that if you can’t see the pathway within the term of this government that you will say so when you come before us again?
Ms. Gull-Masty: In all of my engagements with First Nations communities, I have taken the personal approach that you have to be honest about what you can do and what you can’t do as a minister.
We have our own timeline in this government. It is every part of my integral being to ensure that I am able to push second generation forward as a stand-alone solution, a very complex one, yes. I can address that. But if I can’t that I will be very honest and forthright about it.
I truly believe, and have faith in the First Nations communities that I have worked with in this role, and previously in my other roles, and I am a part of, that they know what they want to do. And if they can have trust and confidence in me as a minister to be able to offer them this solution, I hope that the Senate can offer me that as well.
Senator Tannas: You mentioned obliquely about technology and identity. It’s a question that I’d love to hear more on, blood quantum, all of those kinds of questions, the technology. And the fact that as we go along we have always heard about record keeping that displaces people. Do you see that kind of technology as a fail-safe or an alternate way in which somebody could present themselves as deserving and needing of recognition?
Ms. Gull-Masty: I will say that a blood quantum calculation of what your percentage of identity is does not align with what my Elders have taught me. Community and where your family is, what your knowledge and connection is to your territory, your ancestors, your language, and your culture are complexities. It is a multi-faceted approach.
It would be very colonial of me to say that there is only one solution. We have over 50 Nations in this country. Every one of them has their own unique identity, culture, language, process, methodology of how they keep community and welcome people. We really have to trust that.
We have to change our reflection and give that trust to community for them to identify who are their members and who are not their members.
Senator Tannas: What would be the technology that you’re talking about then?
Ms. Gull-Masty: For me technology relates to communities being able to have the capacity to do that, and it relates to communities being able to communicate how they want to engage that. It’s open. It’s not only one form.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Ms. Gull-Masty: You’re welcome.
Senator Martin: Hello, Minister. I’m the critic of this bill. I’m no longer a member of this committee but happy to be back at this table to hear from you.
I’m aware of the Auditor General’s Report from last June that reported more than 80% of applications for registered status processed by Indigenous Services Canada took longer than its six-month service standard and that there are currently nearly 12,000 applications backlogged.
In anticipation of the passage of this bill and the 6,200 individuals who will become part of this process, I don’t know what plans you have made or are making and what concerns you have about this backlog.
The Auditor General found that ISC’s average decision time for registration applications was nearly 16 months, over double the benchmark. These are very concerning facts. I wanted to know what’s in the works in terms of getting ready for potential or eventual adoption of this bill.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. I appreciate the question. It was a moment in which I received the Auditor General’s Report. She did ask me those very same questions.
My questions to the Auditor General were, how does the report reflect the reality of the snapshot that you took? We have to remember that there was a period of time in that report when it was the COVID-19 pandemic; people were not leaving their homes, they were not in offices or processing papers. To further ensure that it was very challenging for people during the COVID pandemic, people at the provincial level were not providing documentation or were not in office for a long period of time.
When you apply for your status card or apply to be registered, you are required to provide provincial documents like birth certificates, et cetera. If there’s somebody not in the office processing those applications, then the person has to wait. They come to ISC. Unfortunately, yes, I had to take responsibility for addressing why the timeline was longer than usual, but I did feel the report omitted that reflection in the analysis. That was my question to the Auditor General. I was appreciative that she did respond that, “No, we did not take it into consideration.”
I do know that the service standard is six months. For me, as an Indigenous person, I think that is very long. That’s why I have challenged my deputy and team to ensure that moving forward we do a one-window approach, that we do an analysis on how we can implement measures that are timely. It is my ultimate dream and goal to ensure that you can get your status card as quick as you can get your passport. There’s no reason why those measures shouldn’t be in place. Let’s see how we do at the end of my term to ensure that we respond to that.
Senator Martin: I’ve been dealing with IRCC as well and student visas and permits, sometimes they can take much longer. I hope the government is looking at these delays across the board.
Obviously, you are aware of this. In that same report, there was another concern regarding the decision makers and the lack of documented certification or training at the time of the decision.
In terms of personnel and the qualifications to do the proper assessment of applications, do you have any concerns about that, or has this also been addressed?
Ms. Gull-Masty: I’ll ask my deputy to assist me as this is part of her plan, to respond.
Ms. Wilson: Thank you. Actually, the service standard that we’ve been promoting is six months to two years, so even longer than the six months because there’s consistent back and forth of missing documentation that goes on. Sometimes people don’t respond to requests and so on. We probably want to look at that timeline, that service standard. That’s one thing.
There were definitely a number of measures taken, including updating training, certification for registration officers, improvements in quality assurance, transitioning from paper‑based to digital, reducing errors and improving services to First Nations people.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Please keep questions and answers brief.
Senator Boniface: Welcome, minister. We welcome you into your post. It’s wonderful to see you there.
I am supportive of Bill S-2. I understand your arguments in terms of proceeding with those confined within Bill S-2 and after. I think what I’m hearing you say is that if you’re able to get Bill S-2 through, that process will be completed and you’ll look for pathways for the rest.
My question really is: What is your ministry’s capacity to be able to do all those things at the same time, particularly in light of cuts that are coming across the government?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. I do want to assure the Senate that as part of the budget process, comprehensive review, we are looking for those efficiencies and how we can deliver a better service.
I really wanted to protect the integrity of how we deliver that service, making sure that we’re able to respond to those high‑capacity communities who have access to digital, but also responding to those communities that are remote, isolated, that are still communicating with us by fax lines or even by telephone.
In terms of capacity of what we’re doing, I have asked my deputy to really ensure that this Bill S-2 process, we are already beginning the internal work of addressing how we would put those people through the system as quickly as possible, if she wishes to address that as part of supporting the statement I’ve made, but also looking at the complexities of what second‑generation cut-off would be and starting to work on a strategy now in a pre-emptive approach to ensuring that we are not further bogging down the registration process.
Sometimes preparedness and planning can go a long way. This is the lens that I bring to my role as a minister, and I think it is one that we’ll be able to respond to the long process of what it means to get registered. It is a service standard of six months to a year. I am very adamant that we need to improve on that because I do think that this is room where we can really challenge ourselves to do better in a timely way.
Ms. Wilson: There are already a number of Bill S-2 applications in our system right now. That’s actually part of our backlog. I believe it’s 1800 that we have ready for processing. We didn’t want to deny those and turn those back, so we kept them in our backlog, actually, because as soon as the legislation passes, we can put them right through.
The Acting Chair: We’re running tight.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I’m going to go through the list here. Senator Moreau will be next, followed by Senator Clement. I would like to try to get a question in there and close with the sponsor.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Minister, I don’t have any questions. I want to thank you for being here. Like you, I am new to my role as the government’s representative in the Senate, and I have just wrapped up a tour of the senators’ groups. They told me how much they would like to see ministers get involved in the work of the Senate and help enrich it.
Minister, I want to congratulate you on the clarity and candour of your remarks, as well as your commitment to finding solutions to extremely complex issues. It is very rare in political life for a minister to be able to link their personal experience to the difficulties and injustices that the legislation they are introducing seeks to correct.
I would like to congratulate you on that. I believe that this situation further reinforces the sincerity of your remarks, which I thank you for sharing with the senators.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. I apologize, my French is a little slow after 5 p.m., but I want to reiterate that it is very important to understand that yes, I am a new minister in this portfolio, but I am the only minister who was born into a life impacted by this department, as a former Grand Chief and also as a client of Indigenous Services Canada. I am the only minister who has an intimate and expert understanding of this department, because I am its first Indigenous minister.
Senator Moreau: Congratulations, Minister.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you, Madam Minister, first of all, for running for office. I think that is a big deal, and in this day and age, it’s really helpful.
I also want to personally acknowledge that you’re not only working as a minister, but you’re pouring your own lived experience into testimony on the record. I appreciated the comment from Senator Moreau.
The question I have is about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and where this bill fits in with that. Are we getting closer to that, because that bill clearly states that the government should not have any business determining a person’s identity. How far away are we from getting to that point, do you think?
Ms. Gull-Masty: That’s probably the toughest question I’ve had all day, because I don’t think that there is an end date that you can identify in achieving what UNDRIP truly sets out to be, especially with identity. What we see, in theory, and then what we see in the reality of application is really the learning space where we understand what we haven’t done in the process.
I’m saying that because I always think that we’re trying to respond to the reality of what identity means in this moment, and what identity is going to mean in the future could be very different.
I look at UNDRIP as a living document. I look at UNDRIP as having the capacity to respond to all challenges that we face in where it was when it was started by members of my own nation, who helped support and push UNDRIP forward in the United Nations, as well as where we are at now and, hopefully, where we’re going to be as a country in the future in the decades to come.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Just a quick question from myself, and then we will go to the sponsor. Just a curious question in response to the second-generation cut-off. You indicated that you’re in the process of negotiations — I believe the 91st nations/organizations.
What’s your position on moving forward? What is the threshold? Are you looking for 100% consensus or two thirds? What is that point where you think a certain position is sufficient to move forward on second-generation cut-off? Thank you.
Ms. Gull-Masty: For the communities themselves? We’re in consultations with 90 groups right now. This department has a wealth of knowledge on what has been done historically.
I come from a place and a nation where we always open the door to what the solution could be, and we don’t close it on what it’s meant to be. There’s always a component of building and allowing for people to come on board and to participate when they’re in a space to be ready. I’m the minister that has the unique opportunity to help communities decide what they want to do, when they want to do it, help them prepare and get into a space to ensure that they are able to do what it is they seek to do, but also do it in a way that is reflecting the reality of who they are in a very intimate way. I think that’s really, really important. There’s no consensus on what the percentage should be for a target.
Like I said, there are over 50 nations in this country. We cannot try to find a one-size-fits-all approach to what second‑generation cut-off looks like. We really have to be open to unique solutions for those communities that are small with 300 members and to those communities that have multiple communities and have over 30,000 members.
We really have to take the time to ensure we’re reflecting that. That’s why I don’t believe that there is a percentage to attain or there’s no two thirds on finding the right solution. We have to be open enough to create solutions but also have a solution that leaves the door open to potential future solutions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
I’ll now go to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Audette.
Senator Audette: Thank you. You’re doing a great job.
[Translation]
[Innu-Aimun spoken] That comment was mainly addressed to your colleagues, Minister. We made history this evening. With a Cree woman, a steering committee made up of First Nations, and surrounded by Canadian allies, we’re making history.
However, we will hear some difficult stories from young girls or parents who lost their status or have not regained it due to the situation with subsection 6(2) and the draconian cuts.
I invite your colleagues to find out tomorrow about the parallel process that is under way. When we don’t know, we create a scenario; when we know what’s going on, we can understand. Do we accept it? Perhaps not, but we can understand that something is happening. That is valuable. I invite you and your department to communicate that something is happening.
I know that bills really deal with very specific issues, but we also need to think quickly about the effects this has had on daily life for 40 years, since Bill C-31 and even before, the effects it has had and the suffering it has caused. I am convinced that over the course of this exercise, there will be important measures aimed at supporting this healing.
Thank you very much.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you, minister, for sharing your experience and your perspective on certainly such a complex and pressing issue for many of our people. Wela’lioq.
Honourable colleagues, please join me in thanking Minister Gull-Masty for her presence this evening.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Acting Chair: If you wish to make subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.
Senators, we will proceed with our round of questions. You will each have a four-minute intervention with a 30-second heads-up.
Senator McCallum: The second-generation cut-off and the lack of transmission of entitlement is now an intergenerational issue. Those two would continue to contribute to the loss of natal band membership. That is being addressed with this bill, but it’s going to add new ones. My kids are there.
How will you deal with that? They’re going to continue to be marginalized from their right to their homeland. We still go back to the reserve; we still do that, but this legislation does do a number on you. Yet the government has allowed the Métis to self-identify and have more rights than those who have been legislated as outsiders. Is that not discrimination?
Why is section 6 not removed in its entirety, and what would be the impact of that removal? As the minister said, we are the only group whose identity has been legislated. No other country does that.
Ms. Wilson: So your question is on section 6, but I think you —
Senator McCallum: You say the natal band membership will be clarified. There are now two sections of natal band membership, right?
Ms. Wilson: Yes. You also referenced the fact that it continues to be discriminatory, and I fully agree that this is the most discriminatory act that I’ve ever known or heard of.
I’m going to ask my colleagues to speak specifically, though, to section 6.
Catherine Lappe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: I’ll start by providing some context.
The intent of the consultative process is really about how we’re going to change it, not whether we’re going to change, the issue of second-generation cut-off. As the minister spoke to, there are two parts of the consultation: The first is to look at options on that, and the second is to look at the voting thresholds for communities that have taken over their membership. There is an ability for communities to take control of the definition of membership — to your point, Senator McCallum — but the challenge has been that there has been a double-majority threshold. So as new members join the communities but may not be near or as attached to the community, it becomes harder and harder to reach that double-majority threshold.
That’s why we wanted to do the two together. As was raised by Senator Prosper and others, it may be hard to get to consensus. One of the options, then, is that if we facilitate more communities being able to take over their membership, it gives them an option or a parallel process that they can choose to go through.
About 270 First Nations, self-governing and Indian Act bands, have taken over membership lists currently, but we’ve seen that it’s really slowed down; there has only been about one in the last few years. So there is a challenge that’s being presented now.
There’s a hope that, by being able to address these two things, there are options. One of the options may be that communities come forward and say they want an alternative, as you are outlining, and that an Indian Act amendment may not be sufficient. We’re certainly open to hearing what communities, individuals and other organizations may want to put forward.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. Deputy minister, you mystified me with your answer about the bars to compensation. If I understood the answer correctly, you were referring to some kind of process that someone could engage in that is not specified in the Indian Act. That was in response to my question about bars in the act to seek compensation for discrimination.
Could you explain more about what it is you have in mind with the answer you gave to my question?
Ms. Wilson: I was probably taking your question and putting it into a context of no liability — and the question from Senator Francis on no liability. If I confused that, I apologize.
I would say, however, that, again, there is no mechanism in this act or in the Indian Act to acquire compensation. By “compensation,” again, in my mind, I’m thinking class action, benefits after — those types of compensation. I just want to clarify if that’s the correct definition that you have for “compensation.”
Senator McPhedran: Yes, and now, if I’m hearing you correctly, I need clarification: Are you saying that process outside the act is, in fact, litigation that has to be initiated by the complainant?
Ms. Wilson: I don’t have an answer to that. I wouldn’t even begin to speculate what options are available or what mechanisms can be available for compensation, as you put it.
I certainly don’t want to go down the road of some kind of litigation or further litigation. There’s been quite a bit of litigation around this.
Senator McPhedran: Absolutely.
Ms. Wilson: So I think the idea, as we look at the solutions coming forward and the papers from the 90 organizations — that would be an excellent paper to tackle. We can ask the question of some of the groups who would be willing to take a look at that.
Senator Francis: Earlier tonight, the minister stated that when it comes to second-generation cut-off, she’s not looking for a static one-size-fits-all solution. Could you share with this committee a summary of the potential solutions that have been raised by First Nations across the country? What would a solution look like that allows for flexibility?
Ms. Wilson: I can ask my colleagues to add in, but one solution that I’ve heard proposed by some groups is some kind of First Nation legislation around membership, citizenship, et cetera. That’s one I’ve heard, but I imagine there are several others. Maybe my colleagues are aware of other potential solutions that have come up.
Lori Doran, Director General, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the question.
We hear a number of potential solutions. One is a one-parent rule, commonly known as “6(1)(a) all the way.” We have also heard that maybe there is some kind of community connection that is required to be established. We have heard about blood quantum. It is used in the United States.
There have been different potential solutions raised in prior conversations on this issue, which is why we need to consult again in depth in order to understand what the preferred approach is and how it can be implemented to avoid unintended consequences going forward by putting in place the wrong solution.
Senator Francis: If there are further solutions that you did not mention tonight, could you put them in writing for us?
Ms. Wilson: We would be glad to.
To pick up on Ms. Doran’s point about unintended consequences, I think that every time we amended the Indian Act over the last number of years, there were consequences we had not foreseen. If we can understand that better this time around, we will aim to do so.
Ms. Lappe: If I may add, there are 90 groups who are going to work on various options, and she would be willing to come back within a few months to provide an overview of what is coming forward through it. The idea behind that would be to look at doing a legal review of what some of those options are, then thinking through how to do a broader engagement.
The 90 groups do not fulfill the whole duty to consult. That is one of the pieces we are sensitive to as well, that we do have a duty to consult broadly on this matter. One of the reasons why we’re trying to take the recommendations of the Minister’s Special Representative, or MSR, on the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and First Nation citizenship, the Collaborative Process and Indigenous Advisory Process, the recommendations they have given us.
Senator Tannas: I have a practical question. If a 6(2) marries a 6(2) and they have kids, their kids are 6(2) also, is that right? Or are they cut off no matter what?
Ms. Wilson: We will go to Mr. Hooft on that. We have been trying to speak about and understand the diagrams.
Stuart Hooft, Director, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: To answer the question, the person would be registered 6(1)(f) if they have two registered parents after 1985.
Senator White: What if it were an adopted child. Would it still only be 6(2)?
Mr. Hooft: We can discuss that further.
Senator Tannas: It seems without saying the words “blood quantum” that 50% is kind of the number, right?
If 50% and 50% marry, their kids are okay. If 50% marries 25%, their kids are not okay, right? That is helpful. Thank you for that.
Regarding the consultations, I have two questions. First, do you have any sense of the 300,000, how many of them actually live in the communities? Or are we at the point now where more than 50% are outside of the communities, in metropolitan areas? Are we adding a big tilt to further membership outside the communities? What does that mean?
Second, the issue is around “What is status?” It provides for benefits, right? We have spoken about the Indian Act being a horrible thing, so why you would want status? You would want status for the benefits, and you want membership for your history. I am trying to understand here.
Do you have any sense if anyone has crunched any numbers on what it looks like? If 300,000 becomes 600,000 in the next generation, which becomes 1.2 million. Whatever it is, is any kind of financial calculations being done in conjunction with this consultation?
Ms. Wilson: First of all, my instincts are telling me that the majority are off reserve. I will turn to my colleagues to see if there is more precise research around that.
I will get to your second question. For myself as a status Indian, the benefits I suppose you would look at are things like tax exemption where they accept a tax exemption card, post‑secondary education, housing on reserve, non-insured health benefits being one that would need to be looked at. Do my colleagues have more precision on some of the research and numbers?
Ms. Doran: A little bit. We have demographic projections for two generations for a potential “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment for the second-generation cut-off, so the 300,000 or a little bit more would, roughly, be over 40 years.
There are about 20,000 who are entitled today should the law change. We have not done the demographic projections beyond that. It is an art and a science in and of itself. Yes, the growth would be incremental over time because the ability to transmit status under that potential solution would continue in perpetuity.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you. My question is for the deputy minister, a proud Algonquin woman whom I have had the privilege of working with. I will come back to Mr. Hooft on a sidebar about this adopted 6(2) issue.
Section 10 under the Indian Act allows communities to take control of their membership. Does Canada have a position when that happens that you — do you override it? I am specifically thinking about if a community does not allow someone in or to transfer membership.
Ms. Wilson: That is a good question and a scenario that plays out quite a bit. For us, we register them onto the Indian Act. We register them. If a section 10 band chooses not to reflect that, then maybe they won’t get a house. Maybe they won’t get access to post-secondary education. They will get access to non-insured health benefits. They will probably be able to have tax exemption with a status card. Do my colleagues have anything more?
Ms. Lappe: I would add that there is an expectation, a requirement, to be compliant with the Canadian Human Rights Act, right? If that is violated, the solution is to go to the courts. That is bulky and onerous, and difficult for individuals to do. That is certainly something that requires some further reflection on as well. We do see complaints from individuals who feel that they have been left off, especially if there are benefits the community has received and so on. It is a piece. We have removed ourselves. We do not know if they changed the rules subsequent to their initial act that they may have brought in place. It is entirely in the hands of the communities.
Senator White: It is so difficult. Because being in community and from community, you want community to be managing their membership. It is difficult. It is not as easy as saying we control our membership; therefore you come in?
Ms. Wilson: I think a lot of First Nation communities thus far have taken steps to do that, limiting your housing unless you have lived there for two years and so on. A lot of that is already in play because of the chronic underfunding on reserve.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Welcome again.
I am curious. I know that you have timelines. I know the Auditor General, and we talked about that with the minister earlier.
I’m curious what the anticipated timeline would be for everyone who is eligible for registration as a result of the 1985, 2010 and 2017 amendments and now Bill S-2. What would you anticipate the timeline would be?
Ms. Wilson: I will ask Ms. Doran to speak to that.
Ms. Doran: To set a context, we still are receiving applications for registration from Bill S-3 going back to 2017 and 2019. We are pretty much on track with what the demographic projections stated at the time. Because it is voluntarily, there is no deadline. It is a little bit difficult to predict.
The general pattern is what we anticipated.
We are registering roughly 40,000 individuals a year currently. Bill S-2, as was mentioned, will have a small relative impact, roughly 3,500 over five years. It is a relatively small number. But should there be a solution to the second-generation cut-off, rates of application will increase. The numbers will depend on the solution.
Stuart, did you want to put a finer point on that?
Mr. Hooft: Based on the best demographic estimates we have at this time, which are prepared by Statistics Canada, we anticipate that the registered population will increase from 1.1 million today to 1.6 million by 2066, which is in roughly two generations, if there are no further changes. That would be approximately 25,000 people registered each year from now until 2066.
Senator Pate: When Bill S-3 was being considered, the government basically said they did not want amendments, but then when the amendments were made, went back and got an extension.
This committee called for an end to this discrimination by 2023, which, of course, we’re well past. Why wouldn’t it be a good idea to amend and force the hand of the government to have to do this, rather than to put, again, the responsibility on the backs of the people most negatively impacted and requiring them to actually bring another court action like they did in 1985 and all of the court cases that have come before.
Ms. Wilson: The question is: Why would it not be a good idea?
Ms. Lappe: A double negative.
Ms. Wilson: Yes. That is what this table is struggling with right now. I think being able to focus clearly on this bill and then turn our minds immediately to the next solution, bill, what have you, would be what we are looking at and being able to demonstrate that we have consulted based on UNDRIP, based on a number of things that we need to carry out the duty to consult. By funding these groups, getting back papers, getting back solutions very quickly, mind you — we are talking about a couple of months, which is pretty quick to consult — but to be able to come back quickly to the committee. Why would it not be a good idea? Because I think we need to hear from those voices.
Senator Pate: You and I have known one another for a long time. I have a lot of respect for you and your expertise. A couple of months, the court could grant that. A permanent solution could be created without putting the burden on the backs of communities.
Ms. Lappe: There are a couple of things. One is, they are already waiting. We were granted until the end of April based on the parliamentary agenda, so it may be challenging to get that extended.
We are trying to be respectful to the process we have undertaken. So far, that has been a collaborative process where there was a lot of caution about not rushing it from Indigenous groups themselves, recognizing the complexity of it and asking that there be the time and space to hear all of the voices on it. We are trying to reflect that, because right now, we are hearing a diversity of potential approaches to things, and needing to put it into this bill would mean narrowing down on one very quickly. It might be a challenge to hear the range of voices and options that communities may want to put forward.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Now that we are talking about section 6(2) and the disconnect experienced by this generation, I have some concerns about your consultation processes. I don’t remember the exact groups, but I know there are groups like the Quebec Indigenous Alliance, which is not a group with rights like my Innu-Aitun Nation, but which is doubtless doing good work. I don’t know how we can consider their proposals on how a nation should honour the culture and right of a person to be Innu, while also having responsibilities. My concern is about the legitimacy of the groups. Can you reassure me?
When we talk about consultation, I heard chiefs say that they were offered $20,000 or $50,000, or they did not have the competition. How can we dream of the best process for categorizing our members, such as those who are away, those who are here, those who are studying and so on? How much money has been allocated for these nations? How likely is it today that an 11-year-old girl will receive a letter from her community saying that her life-size photo is being removed from the museum? She dances at powwows, she goes to school in her community and she lives there, but because she has no status, her image will be removed and she will no longer have the right to dance at powwows.
Where do these people go to defend their rights? How can we protect these young girls’ right to be part of a nation, regardless of their status? What are your thoughts? Where are we taking them, not only today, but in the future? We can’t just tell them to organize. I am very concerned about this. I think it’s important. Communities must be given the tools they need to file complaints and seek redress, and this must be done with kindness.
Ms. Wilson: I will try to answer your first question. I will then turn to my colleagues.
We are very open to receiving ideas and proposals from many nations, not just the 90. We are open to everyone, if there are others, and to individuals as well.
Ms. Lappe: Among the group of 90 who submitted an application, there is great diversity. Yes, there are women’s groups, but there is also the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, First Nations, and other representative groups. That is why it is beneficial to have a sample of interest groups that wish to express themselves and take the time to develop options. If we proceed quickly and eliminate this phase, these groups will feel left out after expressing an interest in finding solutions together.
Ms. Wilson: If you would like the list, I can share it with you.
Senator Audette: I have a list, but how much did these communities or groups receive to carry out this consultation?
Ms. Lappe: It’s a fairly modest amount. We’re paying it out now, partly because we’re trying to move fairly quickly through this process. We know you want us to proceed with a certain degree of efficiency.
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you all for being here and for your work. I have two questions. I will ask them and then get out of the way.
I wish to start by quoting Mary Jane Hannaburg of Kanehsatake, Mohawk Territory. She wrote to this committee, and I wish to ensure that what she said is further on the record.
Her son’s child will have status, but her daughter’s child won’t because her daughter was born in 1989. She says that she has written over and over about this discrimination, and she wants immediate action, of course.
How do you as a government, as a bureaucracy, reassure people who are losing trust and faith? You are coming with good news, but people want more. How do you build that with community yourselves?
The second question is around Indigenous languages. The good-news piece here is that thousands of people will be brought into something, community. They may want and need Indigenous languages, closeness with those languages, which are now needing to be funded. I know that is funded through the Department of Canadian Heritage, but I am wondering about what the funding is for these thousands of people who are going to join and who may want to connect with languages. They need funding. How well are your government departments working together on issues like that?
Ms. Wilson: The person who wrote this to the committee, to you and from your area, that whole sibling issue has to be the most absurd part of what we are doing right now. We certainly can speak to that. I would ask Ms. Lappe or Ms. Doran to speak to that further.
On languages, you raise a good question. You and I have talked about languages, Indigenous languages and the importance of it. I would think that some of the programming that Canadian Heritage does have but also the more accessible tools that are becoming more available, public and accessible to everyone — the apps, language apps and so on — would be a good place to start.
Ms. Doran: I would echo that, yes, it is bizarre. It is an issue we hear about often. It has a real impact on families. We want a solution to restore and address those past harms.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for being here again. My question is a practical one on the issue of Bill S-2 and then the remaining issues that we have been spending a fair bit of time on.
What I am hearing you say is we want to get this one because it is basically a simpler approach. They can be dealt with immediately. The rest is more complex — or that is what I heard from the minister, the rest is more complex. We need to sort those which makes sense to me.
On Bill S-2 and to Senator Pate’s issue of extending the court, going back and asking for an extension on it, have you made a commitment to communities to try to get Bill S-2 through first?
What I am trying to find out is: Is this a community wish that we get Bill S-2 through first and dealt with?
Ms. Wilson: I would say there has been a public and transparent commitment to do Bill S-2 first. That is out there. There was even a statement as recent as today.
Senator Boniface: The question I have is: Is this what communities want? Is that what they are hoping for? It is important that this committee know that.
Ms. Wilson: This was addressed in many of the previous consultations, certainly. Indeed, we did see there was some cohesion around that particular item, just as you say.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I will go back to our previous conversation and ask if I could please have the answer in writing.
We do have, yes, the no liability from 2010, 2017 — I think two amendments — it seems pretty outrageous they exist. I think I have been told there is some other way to bring about requests for compensation around discrimination. That was the first part of my question. If the committee could have that in writing, please.
The second part of my question is: Let’s go on a bit of a time travel trip together. You get to the end of this year, the minister has said to us she plans to wrap this up. What happens if you don’t get clear consensus from the consultations with these 90 groups? Are you running the scenario of what you actually do at that point? If you don’t get consensus, with all due respect, that is not a reason; that is really not a justification for this government not to act.
Ms. Wilson: We would be happy to provide you that in writing in terms of the liability, compensation and other mechanisms. We will follow up with the committee on that.
Consensus — and this was discussed with the minister while she was here — in my view, when I have been involved in a multitude of consultations, you never get consensus, right? There was another question about threshold. That is up to ministers, politicians, parliamentarians to assess as well in terms of the right threshold.
Where Minister Gull-Masty was coming from was saying that some of those solutions come from the nations, and she pointed out 50 nations. She would want to be able to say she has a general majority support from those nations to be able to move forward with something.
Now, that doesn’t mean there is not a solution that can be found that addresses the discrimination. We have not consulted yet. We have not found those ideas and proposals.
The ability to put forward this bill raises the awareness across the country with many people around what second-generation cut-off is. I certainly see a number of groups who are interested in moving down that path, a number of groups who are not interested in moving down that path and many groups who do not know about this issue that we talk about every day.
Being able to bring this to the forefront will help to pull out many of the views from many of the nations.
When you say “First Nation community,” there are a whole number of definitions. When Minister Gull-Masty was speaking, she was speaking about the 15 or so nations, the Haida Nation, the Cree Nation and so on. Then we have 630-some First Nations communities that are also nations.
Senator McPhedran: You are contemplating almost a certainty that you are not going to get any consensus through this consultation process. Therefore, that could be the reason why you would not take any further action which the government — sorry, I mean the government. I have to go back to the questions from Senator Pate, Senator McCallum and myself. How many times do we go around on this scenario before this is actually rectified?
Why wouldn’t we go for a comprehensive solution now?
Ms. Wilson: Why wouldn’t we, again is a double-negative question that is difficult to answer.
Nonetheless, the very short collaborative process that we will have over the next couple of months will provide some perspectives, and it is important to hear those perspectives. The committee may want to hear witnesses and hear some of those perspectives; you likely will. It is important for all of us to understand that there is going to be a multitude. I am not in a position to say whether a government will move forward or not on some of that. I am certainly here to provide information to parliamentarians and ministers on what the options are.
I think I heard a clear commitment from this minister who said she wanted to move forward on it and come forward with something. We have a minister who is willing; a government is something else.
Ms. Lappe: If I may say again the idea of partnering it with section 10 voting threshold changes allows you to have that supporting or complementary piece. In the event communities feel that whatever approach has the largest amount of support doesn’t work for their community specifically because they are small or in an urban centre where suddenly they will be asked to provide services that they can’t or they need a phase-in period, it would make it easier for them to assume their own membership rules because the double-majority threshold makes it so hard now.
So we are trying to allow for those dual tracks because ultimately — to your and others’ points earlier — we want to get out of this business of defining membership and being the registrar and enable that. This becomes allowing more communities to do that in a simpler way, hopefully we’ll encourage more of them to take on their own membership rules.
The Acting Chair: To follow up with a question, specifically to what you just mentioned about the connection between second-generation cut-off and the voting threshold for membership and the link between the two. When you mention voting membership and the threshold for that, how does membership and that voting threshold address more status Indians coming into the community?
Ms. Lappe: Currently, because the population is growing, in many cases communities are having real challenges in getting the double-majority threshold, so it is making it harder for them to assume their own membership. They’re not even wanting to try in some cases because it’s so challenging.
Whether or not they address the second-generation cut-off in the same way or have other approaches, it gives them the flexibility to do it in a way that makes sense for their own communities if they assume their own membership.
In fact, some of what we may want to hear more of is from those who have already assumed their own membership, self‑governing nations and others, in terms of what’s worked, where there have been challenges, how have they had to prepare for it and so on, as well.
The Acting Chair: Further to my question, I’m thinking about membership under the Indian Act as opposed to a modern treaty. When I consider that membership, they can agree on the composition of that membership, but they can’t just unilaterally deem individuals as status members, correct?
Ms. Lappe: No. But they can determine the membership of their community. These individuals could still be registered but not necessarily members of their community.
The Acting Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator White: I want to clarify that point. When you say they could be registered, under the Indian Act or registered in their community?
Ms. Doran: An individual is registered, and if the nation that they are affiliated to is section 11, they are added automatically to that band membership list because the department holds it.
If a person is registered and affiliated to a section 10 band, that individual needs to apply for membership in that band, and it is assessed on their own unique code of membership. They are then —
Senator White: I got it. I am quite familiar with section 10. I misunderstood.
The Acting Chair: I’m concerned when I hear that reducing the second-generation cut-off could result in I think the number was 300,000 more status Indians potentially becoming eligible. Certainly, I don’t oppose more First Nations people getting that. How do you reconcile that with the Prime Minister’s directive to departments to cut budgets by 15% over the next three years? How will you get legislation through for a remedy that will increase costs? We’re talking about one minister up against cabinet here. How do you envision to proceed on — if the climate is to reduce, but we all know that there’s a need for more status Indians and thus more services?
Ms. Wilson: Certainly a question that is probably more in line with asking the government, but as public servants, I can certainly say that we are not aware yet what those expenditure review cuts can and will be in our department. Those decisions have not been made.
I would also say, as deputy minister, I have to reallocate resources or I have to move people to a surge capacity in one area. We had fires all summer. I had to move people there.
When it comes to the Indian Act, this is some of our core business, and we have to oblige by our own legislation, per se. Certainly legal obligations are very much a priority in the department.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator Audette: It’s just a clarification. After 1985, communities were allowed to decide section 11 or section 10, but some communities were so open — like Odanak — to say, “This is how we want to recognize and honour our members,” so they did recognize, but not Ottawa. So they were just members but not status.
It’s very important that we also remember that part. Just a small clarification.
Ms. Wilson: I believe there is a number of communities like this that have accepted people who are non‑status or even non-Indigenous.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. When you’re asking the bands to use section 10, what’s happening is that First Nations would now be the ones that are going to legislate — the government is just passing this problem to First Nations, like Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. We have so many problems with those two bills. And First Nations are now being asked to find solutions, and you’re just heaping more problems on First Nations.
Then you talk about blood work. I’ve never seen anyone do blood work for blood quantum. You don’t do that with the Métis, so I don’t know why that’s even brought up. When we met with one group, they said when they adopt people, they have to live in the community for three years before they’re accepted.
What happens to the land claims with everything on hold? The more members that they have, the more land they’re entitled to, and everyone is claiming this land already. That is discriminatory. There is discrimination through purposeful historical underfunding.
Do you think that First Nations are hesitant because of inadequate resources? If there was a guarantee, “If you do this, we’re giving you this, we’re going to guarantee you the money,” I mean, that is only fair. Those are the ones for now.
To me, this conversation we’re having seems like a recipe for disaster. It’s just one more example that it is a crime against humanity.
Ms. Wilson: Thank you. To your first point about downloading problems into the communities, I certainly hear that all the time. Reflecting that as a view, that’s very alive.
Blood quantum, when somebody raises blood quantum, at the same time they say, “That’s not a good idea.” You hear it often, and then it just gets discarded. I don’t know about new technologies or what have you, but that’s there.
Underfunding, there are cases right now that are litigating around chronic underfunding of a whole number of programs. I put that out for information.
Then just the money, I’m not convinced that it’s just about the money at the local level. I remember as a young woman in my community watching a band meeting, and I swear the issues around identity were so volatile — and people talk about the fights breaking out right in the band meetings. I don’t recall that being about money. I recall that being about identity and who belongs.
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, we’ve reached the end of our panel. I wish to again thank all of you for joining us today. Please, let’s thank everyone for coming.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Acting Chair: If you wish to make subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk. That brings us to the end of our meeting today.
(The committee adjourned.)