THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 1, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
Senator Margo Greenwood (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening, everyone. Tansi. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. In front of you there are some guidelines. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I begin this evening by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I’m Nêhiyaw from Treaty 6 territory and what is now known as central Alberta. I am the Deputy Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I remind my honourable colleagues that at our first public meeting last week, Senator Michèle Audette, the elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, has recused herself from her role as chair for the duration of this study in order to preserve its neutrality. Senator Prosper then graciously chaired the meeting last week. Thank you, Senator Prosper, for that.
It’s my honour and my privilege to chair this very important meeting today.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province/territory.
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: I’m happy to be here and see all of you, and I want to hear your names, but it is our custom that we ask for prayers. We have our councillor here who is our pastor back home. Even though he’s a leader in his community, he is also one of our spiritual guides, and I’d like him to open this with a prayer, chair, if I could ask that in a good way. His name is Councillor Darrell Shorting.
The Deputy Chair: The short answer is yes. I would invite him to speak into the microphone at the table so that all may hear.
Darrell Shorting, Councillor, Assembly of First Nations: Good evening. If we could all rise.
Lord, Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus, we come to you this evening. Lord God, we just ask you, Lord Jesus, to bless this table here where we’re meeting today. Lord God, we just ask you right now for guidance.
Lord God, we ask you, Lord Jesus, to cover all the agreements and the issues we’re meeting about here tonight, that we resolve the issues. Lord God, you put us here on this earth to work in harmony, to work together as a people, Lord Jesus.
We ask you for guidance at this table. Lord God, we open the ears and also the eyes and everything that you’ve created on this earth. Lord God, we just ask you, Lord, that you continue to bless our country of Canada and our people, Lord God. Lord God, we ask you for guidance and answers at this table tonight and that you open the hearts. We ask for answers and that today, Lord God, we will get answers for what we’re asking for.
Lord God, as we give you back this meeting in Jesus’ name, Lord, we pray to you tonight in Jesus’ name. Amen.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for opening this session in a good way.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and provinces/territories.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell — from Arviat, Nunavut.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Cornwall, Ontario, traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. It’s great to see you. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome. Wonderful to see you. Thank you for coming. Independent Senator Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba, Treaty 1 and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.
Senator McCallum: Welcome. Mary Jane McCallum from Barren Lands First Nation, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island. I live about 30 minutes from Shannin Metatawabin.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta. I live in Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Boniface: I’m Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator White: Judy White, Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good evening [Innu-aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Now I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. Please welcome at the table, from the Assembly of First Nations, National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who is accompanied by Julie McGregor, Acting Chief of Staff. From the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, we welcome Shannin Metatawabin, Chief Executive Officer. And from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, via video conference, please also welcome Chief Marilyn Slett, Secretary-Treasurer and Elected Chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. From the Law Office of Mary Eberts, also via video conference, please welcome Mary Eberts, a lawyer.
Thank you all for joining us here today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
I will now invite National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak to give her opening remarks.
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak: Meegwetch.
[Indigenous language spoken]
It’s so beautiful to see each and every one of you. I want to thank the Senate and the House for making sure that September 30 was recognized as a statutory holiday. I’m also thankful for the provinces and territories that recognized September 30 and lifted up our people and our history in this country in a good way. I know we’re just starting the road to reconciliation. We’ve only just begun. I call upon the other provinces — I believe there are four — that didn’t shut down for September 30. I call upon Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan to do the same and to honour our people and honour the true history of this country.
I just want to say good evening to each and every one of you. I do like to acknowledge that we are here on the territory of the Algonquin Nation. In addition to my opening remarks, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, will be submitting a technical brief on issues concerning and respecting Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act. We will be submitting that this evening.
The Assembly of First Nations, of course, supports addressing the discrimination that Bill S-2 is intended to remedy. However, I note that this bill is another exercise and an example in tinkering with a centuries-old legislation that is undoubtedly racist and intended to exert absolute control over the lives of First Nations people yet again by foremost determining who we are. This is yet another piecemeal approach to ending discrimination that has not worked and will not work to bring justice and lasting solutions.
Canada has not lived up to its obligations to respect the fundamental rights affirmed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under section 35 of the Constitution, nor those affirmed under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is also not respecting the treaty right of my people.
Unfortunately, while substantive equality standards came into Canadian constitutional law with the enactment of the Charter, Canada’s regressive approach to discrimination issues that remained in the Indian status entitlement provisions expressed itself in new ways. Since 1985, every few years, there’s more litigation and then another bill to amend the registration provisions of the Indian Act, often with little direct consultation with rights holders, who bear the brunt of the consequences with no additional resources or land to accommodate new registrants.
The reason, regardless of which party is in power at the time, is that the same narrow approach is adopted time and time again. We’ve got a couple of things to talk on that, but first, the Crown only takes legislative action when forced by successful litigation brought by First Nation plaintiffs who spend years in litigation.
Second, the government selects the most minimal, restrictive legislative steps possible and no more to address the human rights violations being raised. It simply waits for the next piece of successful litigation respecting the discrimination that the Crown knows it has not reached. This is what happened in 1985, and this is the repeated pattern of litigation and piecemeal amendments from 1985 to today. Our people are entitled to determine who they are and to have their entitlement to rights determined through our own laws and our own policies. They are also entitled to clean drinking water, to infrastructure, education, health services, child well-being and Jordan’s Principle without discrimination based on Indian status entitlement.
So we say accept it and stop trying to achieve effective budget cuts by cutting our people and trampling our rights to self‑determination. As we argue in our technical brief, the first logical step to transitioning away from this situation is to align Indian status with band membership as determined by First Nations and move away from categories 6(1) and 6(2). I’m here today to emphasize that this is the most central recommendation in our brief.
Bill S-2 does not address residual, complex and current instances of injustice that continue to plague the Indian Act status registration system. Specifically, Bill S-2 fails to address the following critical areas:
First, Bill S-2 must be revised to recognize the need for an opt-in framework that will enable First Nations to exclusively implement their own citizenship systems to replace the Indian status regime that has diminished and eroded First Nations’ customs of belonging and kinship since the inception of the Indian Act and its predecessor legislation.
Second, the Assembly of First Nations endorses legislative amendments to the Indian Act that repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and introduce a system whereby an individual who is a direct descendant of a status Indian or an individual entitled to be registered as a status Indian or would be eligible to obtain status.
Third, Bill S-2 should also include a clear statutory commitment to providing adequate, sustainable and predictable funding to First Nations for the administration of new regulations. Without investments, First Nations will bear insurmountable and indefinite administrative and financial burdens that flow directly from the amendments introduced under Bill S-2.
I just want to remind each of you and the Senate as I close off that First Nations people are the only people around the entire world who are legislated in this way and told who our members are or are not. The Métis, for instance, and other groups in this country, like Asians, Europeans or anybody else who came to this place to live with us in Canada, are not subject to this. There’s the Indian Act. You never hear of an “Asian Act,” a “Black Act” or a “European Act,” yet First Nations people are subjected to this time and time again under the Indian Act. We are told who we are, who our children are and who our grandchildren are. There’s something wrong with that. It’s the year 2025, and we are still having these same discussions. We need to work together to end the discrimination in the Indian Act.
I do want to thank the Senate for this presentation, but I really strongly remind all of us that there’s only one segment of the population in Canada who are told who we are as a people. That has to stop. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, for your presentation.
I will now invite Mr. Metatawabin to give his opening remarks.
Shannin Metatawabin, Chief Executive Officer, National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association: [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Shannin Metatawabin. I’m from Fort Albany, Ontario, and the Mushkegowuk community in northern Ontario raised me. Thank you to the Kitigan Zibi for allowing us to have this meeting on their lands.
I’m the CEO of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, or NACCA. It is wonderful to see many of you again and speak in favour of Bill S-2 with the amendments that the National Chief just spoke of.
Our future generations are top of mind when we look at this legislation. Indigenous youth must have safe spaces to live, rights must be passed down to them, and barriers to successful businesses must be removed. To do this, we must remove barriers to citizenship, especially those rooted in gender discrimination. Citizenship is central to identity and governance, as well as self-determination. Here, First Nations must lead.
We call on the government to set clear timelines for the Indian Act reform that affirms First Nations’ right to determine their citizens. This would restore Indigenous control over the systems that shape the lives of our children and our grandchildren.
NACCA is proudly Indigenous-led and proof of the prosperity that occurs when federal government programs are devolved to Indigenous organizations. NACCA administers the Aboriginal Entrepreneurship Program, among others, through a network of 50 plus Indigenous financial institutions. The network has turned a government program with 85% losses to one that now has a 95% repayment rate. For every $1 lent, $3.60 is generated in GDP, and $1.26 is returned to the treasury in cost savings. In 2023 alone, the network lent $166 million, supporting 8,368 full‑time jobs, generating over $604 million in GDP.
This isn’t just about dollars. Every investment creates a ripple effect throughout the community, including improved family well-being and reduced unemployment, resulting in strengthened communities. Mental health indicators improved by 52%, and health indicators improved by 20%.
For far too long, First Nations citizens were prevented from participating in the economy. Indigenous leaders fought hard to remove barriers, and today there is a growing challenge in the prevalence of Indigenous identity fraud.
The First Nations Procurement Authority, FNPA, was created by NACCA and four other national Indigenous organizations to improve Indigenous participation in procurement. Sponsored by the Assembly of First Nations, FNPA will offer centralized certification for First Nations businesses through an Indigenous-led process modelled after Australia’s successful Supply Nation. FNPA will ensure Indigenous control over business data and direct contracts to verified Indigenous-owned businesses. It will also provide tools, like a national directory and training programs, to help overcome systemic barriers and boost Indigenous economies.
When jurisdiction over citizenship is devolved to First Nations, and Indigenous organizations are accountable to Indigenous rights holders, it becomes much harder for Indigenous identity fraud to occur. For over 40 years, the NACCA network has been deeply rooted in the community and regularly assesses Indigeneity and delivers business loans to over 56,000 Indigenous clients. We know our community. We know which organizations are acting in good faith and which ones are not.
We are a matriarchal community. Mothers need to be empowered. It’s within this context of trust and community leadership that I want to take a moment to recognize the remarkable success of the Indigenous Women’s Entrepreneurship Program. With $27 million, the IWE Program delivered 600 micro-loans and hosted 402 workshops for nearly 5,000 participants.
Dawn Rossignol from Regina, Saskatchewan, provided a tangible example of the success of the IWE Program. Her company, ReThink BioClean, is 100% Indigenous-owned and specializes in zero-waste janitorial supply refilling for commercial and hospitality clients. Dawn’s company keeps 2,000 pounds of plastic out of landfills monthly and is on track to reach $2.4 million in sales. Dawn’s commitment to sustainability and innovation has made her a leader in environmental entrepreneurship and a model for scalable, impactful Indigenous ventures in Canada.
The IWE paves the way for our future generations, and the FNPA would pave the way for business leaders like Dawn to expand their businesses with federal contracts.
I would like to ask for you continued advocacy to set clear steps to amend the Indian Act and return control to First Nations through properly funded Indigenous organizations, like the FNPA. This work will support Indigenous economies that are rooted in self-determination and lead to a more prosperous future.
Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Metatawabin.
I will now turn to the screen and invite Chief Slett to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Marilyn Slett, Elected Chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs: [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Marilyn Slett, and I’m the elected Chief Councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. I’m calling in right now from Bella Bella, British Columbia. I’m also the Secretary‑Treasurer for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, or UBCIC, which represents more than 130 First Nations in B.C.
I’m here today to support Bill S-2 and request essential amendments to remove sex- and race-based discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. UBCIC is part of a collaborative process and has been consulted over decades about this. In 2016, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of UBCIC, stated:
. . . there is no impediment to Canada eliminating the sex discrimination in the status provisions immediately . . . . The time for talk and consultation . . . is long past. Further consultation on this issue is neither necessary nor appropriate.
While Canada defers dealing with these issues, our children and grandchildren face devastating impacts. We continue to lose entitled members, jeopardizing our nations, cultures, resources and land.
With respect to the second-generation cut-off, our position has been unwavering: The second-generation cut-off must be removed from the Indian Act, and we must return to the pre-1985 one-parent rule. It must be applied equally to men and women to prevent legislated extinction. Elimination of the second-generation cut-off is supported by advocates, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, and is explicitly called for by First Nations via resolutions.
This very committee recommended that Canada repeal all discriminatory provisions, including section 6(2), in the 2022 report Make It Stop: Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration. We request that the Senate’s consistent support remain the same to remove all of the discriminatory provisions from the act.
We also wanted to talk about the harms of the second-generation cut-off. We are being subjected to mathematical genocide, and we are projected to be legally extinct in a matter of three to four generations. Our women and children, who continue to be barred from seeking compensation, endure irreparable harm as a result of sex- and race-based discrimination, including forcible disconnection from the land, their families, communities, cultures, languages, roles in governance and identities — harms that require proactive redress and repair.
The second-generation cut-off puts tremendous strain on nations to support our children who are not entitled to access the same level of care as registered members, including housing, education and health services. Canada cannot offload its fiduciary responsibility onto First Nations.
We wanted to speak briefly about First Nations’ authority of self-determination over citizenship law. First Nations across the country are clear that we hold the ultimate authority on deciding who our citizens are. However, so long as Canada is determining Indian registration, it has an obligation to fix the mess it made. Canada must reverse forced assimilation and ensure registration, reparation and reconnection.
It is crucial that band membership be not conflated with Indian registration status, which defines the Crown’s legal fiduciary obligations and our rights and entitlements as First Nations.
First Nations are under-resourced and disincentivized from supporting new members, which can result in continued discrimination against women returning to their bands. Canada must ensure that First Nations are not forced to apply fiscally driven government definitions of who qualifies to be a member. We call on the Crown to restore First Nations women and their descendants to their nations, to respect First Nations’ citizenship laws and to provide resourcing for land bases to support First Nations with increased members and to address underlying scarcity.
Our survival depends on our ability to welcome and support our citizens. I want to use my own nation as an example. We passed our Heiltsuk Constitution in February 2025, and, right now, we’re developing our core laws, and one of them is our citizenship law. It is also going to be accompanied by a policy that supports members, citizens who are returning to the community, and it helps to provide that reconnection to our nation. We also have a custom adoption practice here in our community, within our nation. Heiltsuk has the right and responsibility to love and care for Heiltsuk children, as we have done since time immemorial. Heiltsuk children have the right to be raised within their culture, language, traditions and territories, grounded in the feelings of happiness and belonging within our community and our way of life. Heiltsuk has a custom for adoption pursuant to our Indigenous laws.
In closing, I am really stressing the urgency on the timeline and the opportunity to finally address and eliminate the remaining sex- and race-based discrimination, and I reiterate that further delay is causing harm, taking us further from reconciliation and bringing us one step closer to the extinguishment of our people.
I have a video that I wanted to share with the committee, and I’m hoping to be able to send that as part of our brief to you. We will work on that as we move forward, and I want to thank the Senate and my colleagues who are here today speaking on the issue. Ǧiáxsix̌a
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Slett. We look forward to those materials. I will now invite Ms. Eberts to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Mary Eberts, lawyer, Law Office of Mary Eberts: Thank you very much for allowing me to come and share my views with you on this important issue. I identify as a settler, and I have had the honour and the privilege, for the last 30 years, to work with Indigenous women, trying to reverse the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, so today, in addition to supporting what is in Bill S-2, I wish to address you on a topic of enormous importance in the continuing fight against sex discrimination.
The two-parent rule and the second-generation cut-off aim to treat status men and women in the same way. Each must parent with another status Indian to give a child full status. Failure to parent with another status Indian means the child will have a lesser form of status, status for themselves but without the ability to pass it on unless they parent with another status Indian. The two-parent rule and the second-generation cut-off are contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be justified under section 1.
In order to comply with the equality guarantee in section 15, a law can only treat people the same way if they are similarly situated, that is, only if one of them does not have an advantage over the other. Under the two-parent rule, men have an advantage over women in two ways when it comes to identifying the other parent and conferring full status.
It is relatively easy to tell who the mother is. She has been pregnant for nine months, she has delivered and she may be nursing. It is not easy to tell who the father is. Impregnation takes one act, and it can be done anonymously, so it is easier for a man to comply with the rule that one parent must identify and name the other than it is for the woman.
There is a further problem. Research has shown that 30% of children with unstated paternity are born to mothers under 20 years of age and that reasons of safety may account for their not naming the father. They were raped or gang-raped, there was incest or the father refuses to be named. This is a very troubling finding, given that high rates of violence are experienced by Indigenous women, which even the Department of Justice of Canada admits. By contrast, violence does not keep men from naming the mother of their children.
The other advantage men have over women in meeting the two-parent rule does not have anything to do with physical differences or a different vulnerability to violence. It arises because Canada continued into Bill C-31 many of the advantages men had under the old legislation, including the ability to give status to a non-status woman upon marriage. Therefore, the couple headed by a status male was able to comply with the two‑parent rule as soon as it was enacted, whereas those descended through the maternal line could not and, in some cases, still can’t.
Litigation has not even considered yet the inequality arising from the physical differences between men and women and their different vulnerability to violence. We have had litigation now for over 30 years, and it has been focused entirely on trying to rid the act of the pre-existing advantage of men. The McIvor case, the Descheneaux case, the Matson case, Bill C-3, Bill S-3 and the CEDAW ruling have not yet fully corrected the problem. More litigation is inevitable to deal with the overt sex discrimination in the act.
It is time to stop fiddling with piecemeal legislative change. Even if Canada is successful in removing all the pre-existing privilege, there still remains the basic inequality caused by physical differences and different vulnerability to violence. And that inequality, as Chief Slett has said, is leading inexorably to extinction. For some First Nations, it will be sooner rather than later.
Claudette Dumont-Smith has observed after her consultations that some First Nations will be affected within one generation by the reduction in status members caused by the second-generation cut-off, and many others will be affected by at least the fourth generation. We have also learned that between 27% and 29% of First Nations now have status under section 6(2), which means that they must parent with another First Nations person with status in order to confer status. The record has shown that it is very difficult for women to produce that certificate that shows that a man, a father, is a status Indian.
The time has come to repeal the two-parent rule, the second‑generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off and replace them with a one-parent rule, which gives either the mother or the father the right and ability to confer status on the child.
I have provided to the committee three written pieces, and one of them is a general paper called “Sex Discrimination in the Indian Act: Enacting It, Removing It and Making Repairs to Achieve Equality,” which contains some discussion of the second-generation cut-off as well as the 1985 cut-off. I have also provided another paper which I wrote specifically dealing with the second-generation cut-off, which I subtitle “Canada’s Legal Extinction Plan”. I recommend both of those to you as sources of specific information on the second-generation cut-off at this time. I have also provided to you a chapter in a book which I have written with Shelagh Day and Sharon McIvor. It’s called “Settler Colonialism in Canada.” I just want to mention a couple of things from that paper before I close.
The “Settler Colonialism in Canada” paper at page —
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me. Here is my least enviable part of my job.
Ms. Eberts: I will just give you the page references then. Page 91 and page 89 and following in the “Settler Colonialism in Canada” paper. And there, I am finished.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much.
We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a three-minute intervention, including your question and your answer, with a 30-second heads-up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
I will also remind the witnesses to submit your briefs in writing to the clerk, and your answers as well. If you don’t get to answer all of the questions this evening, please submit them in writing to the clerk so that we have that for the record.
Senator Audette: Mary Eberts, thank you very much, and also for the panel here in this room. Mary Eberts, can you tell me by answering “yes” or “no” if when a Canadian woman is giving birth, does she have to tell the name of the father? Yes or no? And is the child automatically a Canadian or Québécois? Can you tell me that?
Ms. Eberts: The answer is yes. A Canadian woman giving birth can confer Canadian status by herself, no need for a second parent.
Senator Audette: And this is not the case for us as First Nations women registered under the Indian Act.
Ms. Eberts: That’s right.
Senator Audette: So, when I looked at the history of the court cases that deal with sex-based discrimination under the Indian Act, the Government of Canada’s admission of discrimination — you mentioned a few cases — I found with Bill C-3, the McIvor case, it was narrower when they had the opportunity to change; then, it was broader when the Descheneaux case was presented to us. And now it seems, again, in the admission, it is narrower with Nicholas. Do you think we are — how do we say it in English — moving backwards compared to the admission under Descheneaux?
Ms. Eberts: The judge in Descheneaux, Madam Justice Masse, was highly critical of Canada for refusing to make any changes to the Indian Act unless it had been forced to do so by litigation, and then it would only make the exact change required by the litigation. Quite apart from that, in another case, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that people who are discriminated against should not have to wait for a slow, incremental change to legislation. Canada should just get rid of it all, all at once, and that is in the Vriend case. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend said that.
Senator Audette: As an Innu woman senator, I don’t have the same rights as my fellow Canadian women senators. Thank you very much.
Senator McCallum: When you look at the membership, in 1850, the 1850 act had a broad definition of who was an Indian that was applied:
. . . for the purpose of determining any right of property, possession or occupation in or to any lands belonging or appropriated to any Tribe or Body of Indians in Lower Canada . . . .
That definition was as follows:
First.—All persons of Indian blood, reputed to belong to the particular body or tribe of Indians interested in such lands, and their descendants.
Secondly.—All persons intermarried with any such Indians and residing amongst them, and the descendants of all such persons.
Thirdly.—All persons residing among such Indians, whose parents on either side were or are Indians of such Body or Tribe, or entitled to be considered as such: And
Fourthly.—All persons adopted in infancy by any such Indians, and residing in the Village or upon the lands of such Tribe or Body of Indians, and their descendants.
First Nations defined who was a member of their society, and they exercised that power of definition in a highly inclusive manner.
When you look at repealing section 6(1)(f) and section 6(2), my question to you is, why do we not just repeal section 6 of the Indian Act? Because this broad and basic definition I just spoke about more closely aligns with First Nations customary laws and protocols for relating and belonging.
The Deputy Chair: Did you have someone you wanted to direct that to?
Senator McCallum: I just wanted to see what people thought about the repeal, and that was also given by the B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and MKO.
Ms. Eberts: I would just like to say this about your observation, and that is that until 1869, that definition, that kind of definition that you read out, was the law of Canada. After Confederation in 1869, the Indian Act was changed so that only fathers could give status and only men could give status to someone who married them. And there is a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that the jurisdiction given to Canada under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 enabled them to embark upon a program of assimilation. And I would hate to think that our country was established on the basis that the government was allowed to assimilate Indian people. That has to be wrong. It can’t be right.
Julie McGregor, Acting Chief of Staff, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you for the question, Senator McCallum.
Of course, from the AFN’s perspective, we have many years of chiefs bringing forward resolutions arguing for jurisdiction over citizenship. We should absolutely be determining who we are. I think that’s what the intent is in the passage you read out — that we, as self-determining First Nations people, who practised this right before contact, before Canada was Canada, absolutely have the right to determine who we are.
What we are doing in this circumstance is we’re chipping away at the Indian Act. If you think of the Indian Act registration provisions as an onion, we have litigation that comes forward. All the witnesses have said this. We peel back a layer of the Indian Act registration provisions, hoping there won’t be discrimination underneath, but then we find a new layer of discrimination, and we peel that again. It has been since 1985 that we’ve been trying to bring the Indian Act into place with the Charter. Forty years of chipping away at the Indian Act, and we’re still talking about it.
Even if Bill S-2 is passed and we manage to fix this portion of it, there will still be discrimination left afterwards. The real solution is within our people. We find our solutions within our people. That’s what we have to go back to. We know who we are, and often our voices are ignored in this process. As many other witnesses have said, it’s piecemeal. We need to think bigger.
We’re sitting here and, as the AFN, and we look at this legislation brought through the Senate. We’re only supposed to be suggesting amendments to Bill S-2, but we’re talking about amending the Indian Act to bring it into line with the Charter. We need to be looking beyond the Indian Act. I think that’s what you were alluding to, Senator McCallum. Thank you very much. Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McGregor.
Senator Prosper: Thank you so much to all the witnesses before us. I really appreciate listening in on the testimony.
I have a question for Chief Slett and also Ms. Eberts and the National Chief. We had Minister Gull-Masty here provide testimony to our committee, talking about the approach taken to the second-generation cut-off rule when, subject to questions within the chamber, she indicated that consultations are ongoing as we speak, that the issue is complex and that it requires time.
Chief Slett, I note that you mentioned that you support Bill S-2 with essential amendments, but you also mentioned that the consultation within the UBCIC, comprising over 100 First Nations, took place over decades. You quoted Chief Phillip in that regard. You said that the time for consultation is over.
Ms. Eberts, thank you for your advocacy of over 30 years. Again, my question to you is this: Do you think we have enough consultation to date with respect to removing the second‑generation cut-off rule? I certainly have the benefit from Ms. McGregor — your comments about the approach of First Nations with respect to citizenship, which has been long‑standing.
National Chief, do you think we need more time for consultation, or do you think that we have enough as it is right now with respect to First Nations’ positions? I’ll leave that with you. Maybe the National Chief, Chief Slett and then Ms. Eberts. Thank you.
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak: I think First Nations have been waiting a long time. Every single day we have another child that’s born unregistered. Somebody asked me today how many generations. What are you going to tell me, my ancestors from a thousand years ago that I’m not First Nation? A thousand years later, this is who I am, and my great-, great-, great-, great-grandchildren will still come from me, just like you and your ancestors, your lineage.
Do we need more time? Time is ticking. Every single day we have another child and another mother who, one way or another, like the lawyer has just said, sometimes for one reason or another, the father is not listed. I don’t know any other group of people — if you’re an Italian woman or a Black woman and say, “This is who my child is,” why can’t First Nations women be able to do that, to say, “My child is First Nations, and this is who we are”? It’s up to my community to claim me and tell me that I’m from my community, as they’ve done since time immemorial. I think it’s time we give that back to First Nations as we work towards reconciliation, making Canada a more whole and just place.
That also means taking your hands off of our babies and allowing First Nations people to determine for themselves who their community members are. Canada has not done a good job since they started this 100 plus years ago trying to track who we are. We were fine since the creation of the world, since the creation of time. We’ve been fine doing it on our own and knowing who we are. I think we have to get back to that and give that back to First Nations. Time is ticking. Let’s do this well, once and for all.
Ms. Slett: Thank you for that question. We’re not opposed to consultation on how to eliminate discrimination and support First Nations through the next steps, but Canada cannot consult on whether to stop discriminating. Further delays and further harm will certainly be implied, and legal extinction. Delaying is a tactic, and it prevents Canada from fulfilling its legal and fiduciary obligations.
Lastly, First Nations have been clear about ending sex discrimination. This has been supported with ample research and recommendations and, of course, the legal implications that have been talked about earlier today.
Ms. Eberts: I think now that if there were an amendment removing the second-generation cut-off and the two-parent rule, there would still be a vast amount to consult about. I would particularly emphasize the need that Claudette Dumont-Smith identified — she had heard it from everywhere. All the First Nations that she consulted with were telling her that there needed to be more financial investment by Canada in this return of equality. More additions to reserves, bigger reserves, more resources for people.
Let’s have some consultations by Canada about what people need and what Canada should be providing in order to support the end of legislated disappearance.
The other question I have about this is this: Did we have any consultation before Canada imposed the second-generation cut‑off? I would say no. Now, for Canada to hide behind consultation is really something. I’d like to read one judgment for you, just a bit of it. This is from the Supreme Court:
. . . groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.
The Deputy Chair: I’m looking at my list, and I’m looking at how much time I’ve got, and I’m not doing a good job of managing here. I would ask that senators keep your questions really brief. Also, we will have about two minutes per person to try to get through all of us, and we might not get there, so I ask you for that.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all of the witnesses who are here with us this evening.
I have a general question, but I’m going to start with Mary Eberts. I just want to recognize — actually, I think it’s more than 30 years; I’m pretty darn sure it’s more than 30 years, Mary — that you are one of our pre-eminent constitutional experts in this country. Thank you for the incredible amount of work that you’ve done in so many ways.
My question is based on the fact that we thought we fixed this with Bill S-3 — and that was working closely with Senator Sinclair, Senator Dyck, Senator Pate, many of us in this room today, Senator Tannas — and somehow it failed. I want to ask everybody, starting with Mary, can we not fix that now with Bill S-2? What do we need to do to change Bill S-2 to truly fix it?
Ms. Eberts: I’ll try to be brief. A good start is to repeal the two-parent rule; repeal section 6(2), the second-generation cut‑off; and repeal the 1985 cut-off that was inserted by Bill S-3. That was the only bad thing that Bill S-3 did. Other than that, it was clear sailing. Now, you can finish by returning to the one‑parent rule, with men and women equal.
Senator White: Thank you so much for the presentations here. It’s great to see so many colleagues and friends.
I have a question that I would like to direct to Chief Slett. I was very interested in the work that you’re doing, particularly around citizenship and membership. The experiences that I am aware of as they relate to the citizenship, membership and registration are that unless you’re a custom code band, you can decide who your citizens are, but you’re still not going to get them registered under the Indian Act; thus, depending on your funding agreement, you won’t get funding for them. Is that something you’re encountering? Can you explain that and help me out here on what you’re doing?
Ms. Slett: Yes. Certainly, the entitlements that come along with being a status member — we have many members who aren’t entitled to them due to the rules as they are now. We went through some of those barriers that we would like to see removed and rectified.
The work that we’re doing here in my nation, the Heiltsuk Nation, we’re developing our own constitution and core laws. One of those first core laws is citizenship. We have that right as a self-determining First Nation to identify who our members are. We know who they are. Many of them are living in our communities right now. My grandchildren are some of those members, my colleagues are. I have people phoning me from urban areas who don’t live here asking why their children or grandchildren aren’t entitled. They don’t know until they’re trying to apply for status for their children.
The work that we’re doing here — we know who our people are; we know who our Heiltsuk citizens are — is we’re developing policy to accompany our core laws around how to reconnect them to our community, connect them to family and do all of that work.
Senator White: Thank you. For clarity, though, they’re still not recognized under the Indian Act, even though you have your own membership code, right?
Ms. Slett: That’s right. That’s why we’re here today. Canada needs to fix that. They created that mess, and they need to remove those barriers and fix that mess that we’ve been talking about here today.
Senator Francis: Thank you. This question is for the National Chief and Chief Slett.
This committee has previously recommended that the federal government repeal the non-liability clause in the 1985, 2010 and 2017 amendments to the Indian Act. Unfortunately, the government ignored this recommendation, and Bill S-2 includes similar parts in clauses 10 and 11 to prevent individuals from seeking compensation for those impacted by the discriminatory provisions related to status.
In your perspective, should the Government of Canada offer compensation or other reparations to victims of sex-based discrimination without the need for litigation?
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak: Yes, absolutely. There have been so many different stories and scenarios that I could tell you regarding what people have gone through. People are still fighting to this day to be recognized as First Nations people. It’s also creating all these people who don’t know they are, so then they go and claim that they are Métis, but they’re not; they’re non-status First Nations people. Canada is creating that. It’s creating a whole bunch of confused people who should belong to bands across this country, but they’re not, because of that.
So, absolutely, we do need to look at compensation for these people who have been disenfranchised for far too long. It’s hurtful and detrimental to First Nations people. Like I said, First Nations know who we are. We know who our families are, and we know who our communities are. We need to get back to the basics. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of the witnesses. Since this bill has been introduced, I’ve had so many calls from so many people about the real concern that their entire nation is going to be extinguished. You’ve repeated it.
My question is not simple, but in the interests of time, I’m going to ask it in a way that I hope you can answer with a “yes” or “no.” You’ve all made it clear that Bill S-2 needs to be amended to remove the current discriminatory provisions. Do any of you support the bill proceeding as it is?
Ms. McGregor: From our perspective at the AFN, the way Bill S-2 is crafted, it does go after the most non-controversial parts of the bill, things that should have been amended a long time ago in terms of definitions. It would address the enfranchisement issue.
At its heart, I don’t think it’s an issue if it did go ahead as it is, but, again, we’re looking at it in a vacuum and not looking at all the bigger issues that the National Chief spoke to and the fact that it won’t completely eliminate discrimination from the Indian Act and even the Indian Act registration provisions. It certainly doesn’t address the long-term issues that Chief Slett raised. We need to be having a bigger conversation about jurisdiction and our rights over citizenship.
Ms. Eberts: If I may add something, I think that if Bill S-2 passes the way it is now, there will be litigation within six weeks to two months about challenging section 6(2) and the ban on recovery of damages. That’s a prediction that is almost a promise, but it’s not; it’s just a prediction.
Ms. Slett: Further delays just equal further harms. If we have an opportunity to do this now, then let’s do this now.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: What a wonderful panel we have here. I want to thank you all for participating.
As Senator McPhedran said, I was here when there was a bill that was put before us that said, arrogantly, that it was a bill to extinguish all inequities in the Indian Act. I remember jokingly saying that we should change the title to be “Someday, maybe we will have a bill that will do that.”
The point is that we’re here again with something we were told wasn’t a problem before but now is and needs to be fixed. I really enjoy the second-generation cut-off discussion because, number one, I have three grandchildren that are third generation. But also, it gets your head swimming with, what does this mean? It means essentially overnight we’ll have 2 million status people. Because everybody who identifies as Indigenous will have somewhere in history — and Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, you mentioned a thousand years — all the Métis, everybody who has some Indigenous roots, will have had that single parent at some point in the last thousand years. At a minimum, we’ll have 2 million.
Then you start thinking about how the communities are going to accept those people. What if they don’t? Is there a court? How do they deal with all of that? Who’s funding it all? How is this all going to work? What about economic reconciliation and communities that are building economies that now have to take somebody that a thousand years ago — all of those things.
I think about what I heard the first Indigenous minister say, Minister Gull-Masty: “Please pass this bill. Fix this for the 6,200 people who exist today who need justice.” We had a discussion, and she promised that she would come back with a solution, or she would come back and say there is no solution — be brave enough to do that.
What is your response to her request and what I’ve just said? Should we not stay focused on the bill that we’ve been presented and take the minister, the first Indigenous minister in history, at her word and at her request?
I’d like to know from the National Chief first and then anybody else the chair will allow in the time we have left.
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak: Thank you. At the Assembly of First Nations, we don’t want to deny 6,200 people their right to be part of our bands; you’re right. But I think as First Nations we need to look at ourselves. We know ourselves. We know our history. We even know who belonged to what family branch somewhere, whoever they are. Whichever Canadian you are, if you belong to a band somewhere, they’ll know who your ancestors are, and your ancestors will know you.
When we look ahead in this country, do we really want to fix this and fix it once and for all? I look to all of you. I will be back, of course. As with the first First Nations woman minister, I do want to believe her, but I feel for her as well because she’s up against a big House. We’ll always help her to try her best to do her role in a good way, as we’ve always tried to do, especially with this. We’ve been trying to fix it since 1985 — and 1871, my treaty, yes.
There are all these other hypothetical situations, but the problem is First Nations, since the creation of the Indian Act, have never been able to determine this for themselves. It’s time that Canada gives us that opportunity, really gives us that opportunity. It’s 2025, and it’s time to get moving on that together.
As for the minister, yes, I do want to believe her fully. She’s a very capable, strong woman. If she could write that right now, she would. She’d get it down in an hour; that’s how smart and capable she is. But the problem is sometimes the House and the Senate shift back and forth, and it could be tough for her. I do ask you all that when she does bring a fixed bill forward, you all support her in that and lift her up because she has lived it. Thank you so very much.
Senator Clement: Thank you all for being here and for providing your testimony.
Mr. Metatawabin, thank you for saying that your organization gives out loans. You manage that and you understand who your people are. You don’t struggle with understanding who your people are.
My question is in reaction to the National Chief’s comments and Chief Slett’s comments that the Crown doesn’t do things unless they’re taken to court to do it. So, if Bill S-2 goes forward unamended, what does that do to the trust between Indigenous communities and the government? Can you comment on that?
My second question is about funding. Chief Slett talked about how you’ll lose members, you’ll gain members, but you’ll be disincentivized because you don’t have the money to provide the resources. If you could comment a bit further on that? Thank you.
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak: Thank you. That’s a good question.
Mr. Metatawabin: Thank you for the question. I think everything is about land. This termination policy — that’s what I’ll call it because in three generations we’re going to lose our status. My wife gained status in Bill C-31. My daughter gained status in 2010 with Bill C-3, but it was not always easy. The non-Indigenous band that was the father retained the right to decide if she had status, which is another problem.
This tinkering with our citizenship needs to stop. Every incremental step provides some status to a certain group of people, but it’s not going to solve everything. As you say, there are going to be challenges. The best thing that the government could do is take this to the table with First Nations because ultimately we need to determine our own citizens. Interpretations vary, but we lost 95% of our population to disease, to genocide and to policy.
You saw my dad here last year. He attended a residential school and he presented to you on that. He was put in an electric chair. It was served to try to exterminate our kids, and they were successful with a lot of them. We had a special day to recognize and remember them the other day.
This is another policy. This is an extermination policy. We need to end this now and solve this problem once and for all. The Canadian government exports $300 billion a year in critical minerals. All we’re asking for is a share of our own land. Three hundred plus court cases affirm our rights and title.
Bill C-5 is asking for our participation, but the tools that are there to ensure we are also prosperous are still not there. You’re asking about resources to ensure we can choose our own citizens and cover them; right now it’s not there. We need to solve this. The answer is in our land and access to our lands. We need to solve all these questions, and then we’ll be able to sort our future. Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues and distinguished guests, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us. Thank you very much for your valuable words.
I would encourage you if you want to make any other submissions, please do so. Please send those to the clerk. Anything that you think might be helpful to us, we would deeply appreciate that.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Please welcome at the table, from Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., Grand Chief Garrison Settee; from Power Law, we have online Ryan Beaton, who is a lawyer; and, finally, please welcome Kathryn Fournier. Thank you, witnesses, for joining us this evening.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Grand Chief Settee to give his opening remarks. Grand Chief, the floor is yours.
Garrison Settee, Grand Chief, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.: Tansi, boozhoo, edlane’te, mahsi’cho.
It is my honour to be here this evening, and we are here to address the Senate on matters that pertain to our First Nations in northern Manitoba, and these issues are very critical in shaping the future for our First Nations. I’m very honoured to be a part of these discussions, and I am hoping that we are able to forge a path forward in a way that will benefit our First Nations in northern Manitoba. I’m very glad that I’m able to be here, and I know that the people I represent wanted us to be here to make sure that we articulate and communicate to the best of our ability what is of utmost concern to them. I’m very happy to be here, and I look forward to this discussion this evening.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief. I will now invite Mr. Beaton to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Ryan Beaton, Lawyer, Power Law: Good evening. I thank the committee for this opportunity to share my perspective and answer senators’ questions on Bill S-2.
[English]
I am the legal counsel for the plaintiffs in Nicholas v. Canada. That is a case filed in June 2021 challenging registration provisions of the Indian Act. The plaintiffs in the case are children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of individuals who applied for so-called voluntary enfranchisement under earlier versions of the Indian Act. Kathryn Fournier, who is a witness on the panel as well, is one of the plaintiffs in that case.
The plaintiffs, like thousands of others across the country, are denied registration or given a restricted registration category based on this family history of enfranchisement. This was a process through which individuals classified as “Indian” could renounce that status in order to gain privileges and rights that other Canadians enjoyed. Many of those who enfranchised wanted to keep their children out of residential schools. Others wanted the right to vote, or they were told that they needed to renounce their Indian status in order to join the military.
Enfranchisement existed in Canadian law in some form or another from pre-Confederation. In 1857, the Gradual Civilization Act was adopted in Canada, followed by various iterations of the Indian Act until 1985. In other words, while it reaches far back into the past, it is also part of recent history, and, indeed, given ongoing denials under the Indian Act, it is part of present reality.
By way of illustration, one of the Nicholas plaintiffs, Joan Ward, was 4 years old when her father, Wilfred Laurier Bennett, applied for enfranchisement in 1944 to keep his children from having to attend a residential school, as he did. His enfranchisement automatically entailed the enfranchisement of his wife and children as well. Joan regained her status following the amendments in 1985, but today, her grandchildren continue to be denied registration because of family history of enfranchisement. That has now been impacted by a court decision of August 19, 2025.
Canada has recognized that enfranchisement was a racist and oppressive policy. It should never have been imposed on First Nations individuals and families. Yet, as I say, Canadian law continues to impose consequences and the legacy of enfranchisement today.
In the Nicholas litigation, an abeyance agreement was reached in early 2022, so we paused the litigation to allow the chance for a legislative solution. Bill C-38 was introduced in Parliament in December 2022. It made very little progress. Even though all parties in Parliament spoke in favour of it moving forward, it never made it out of second reading and to committee.
When it became clear that progress would not be made on Bill C-38 before the last federal election, the plaintiffs reactivated their litigation. In January of this year, to its credit, Canada conceded the Charter violation, so we avoided a full trial on the issue. The plaintiffs then applied for summary judgment. That was heard in June in the British Columbia Supreme Court, and on August 19, the court issued its ruling, declaring that part of section 6(1)(a.1) and all of section 6(1)(d) in the registration provisions are of no force or effect because they violate the Charter. The court gave Parliament until April 30 to make the legislative change. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Beaton. I will now invite Ms. Fournier to give her opening remarks.
Kathryn Fournier, as an individual: What I would like to do is share my family history with you.
My father is francophone; my mother is Cree and Ojibway. My maternal grandparents, her parents, spent many years in a residential school in Manitoba. They married after leaving that school. They lived mostly in what you would call “Indian country” but moved to Kenora just before my mother was born, and my grandfather enfranchised so that he could vote.
The family was automatically enfranchised at that time because my grandmother, who was a status Indian in her own right, lost her natal band membership and became part of my grandfather’s band number. My mother received her status in 1985, but it was a very limited status due to the enfranchisement.
Growing up, we could never imagine challenging the Indian Act, and enfranchisement, while known by my family, was never talked about, and I didn’t know any other families with that history. I heard about a case in Quebec several years ago based on enfranchisement that was won by the plaintiff, and that led me, over the next months, to Ryan Beaton and then to our court challenge.
[Translation]
One of the things I would mention is that the English version of the Indian Act uses the word “enfranchisement,” which is translated into French as “émancipation.” I refuse to call it that. In French, I will always use the word “enfranchisement,” because the word “émancipation” has connotations of slavery, which is even worse.
[English]
I have been astounded over the last several years by how many people have contacted me as they heard about our court case to tell their similar stories of enfranchisement, and all of a sudden, so many people were telling a story that in so many ways mirrored ours. It proved even more clearly to me that the goal of enfranchisement was not just to “reward” Indians of good behaviour by letting them become citizens of Canada, but also to remove once and for all status Indians from the calculus of this country, genocidal in its scope. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fournier. I will now go back to Grand Chief Settee for his opening remarks.
Mr. Settee: Once again, thank you to all of you. It’s an honour to be sitting here with the Senate this evening. I bring greetings from the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, territory.
I thought it would be pertinent to this discussion if I took the liberty of sharing with you my experience and my history. My grandfather was a World War I veteran. He went to defend our country, sacrificed his time to serve this country, and he came back without a reserve to go home to. All his life, he lived off-reserve. He died before the passing of Bill C-31.
My mother married my dad, who is non-status. She had to give up her status to become the wife of my father. I myself obtained status in 1986. Imagine the culture shock. I’m being facetious here. I have never felt other than who I am as an Indigenous man, ever. I have not been defined as a status person for most of my life, but that has never, ever dissuaded me from knowing who I am. Now I am here as the Grand Chief of 63,000 people in northern Manitoba, and I proudly represent them to the best of my ability.
I am here on behalf of the 63,000 First Nations people in our territory. Twenty-six First Nations are affiliated with MKO, and we are here to share our views on Bill S-2, an Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
In general, MKO is supportive of legislative measures that strengthen the principles of non-discrimination and self‑governance, particularly those that are co-developed with First Nations. That’s important. MKO has direct experience in the co‑development of legislation, including two private members’ bills now at second reading before honourable senators: Bill S-271, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; and Bill S-272, An Act to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. These are the things we have been involved in because we felt it was imperative that we be part of these conversations.
As to Bill S-2, the distinction and interplay between who can be registered, who holds Indian status and who holds band membership is important to understand and keep in mind. Canada controls registration and who can hold Indian status. This will not be changed by Bill S-2. Bill S-2 would change which persons can no longer be denied registration and Indian status by Canada. Canada will still automatically enroll any person who is registered and granted Indian status by Canada in their affiliated section 11 First Nation. This will also not be changed by Bill S-2.
As this committee has discussed, about 271 of the 600 plus First Nations in Canada control and have established rules for whether a person who has already been registered and granted Indian status by Canada may be granted membership in a First Nation. In 1987 and 1988, eight MKO First Nations enacted membership codes under section 10 in response to the passage of Bill C-31 in 1985. These codes have not been updated or amended since that time.
There was discussion during the Senate Indigenous Peoples Committee session regarding the double-majority voting threshold set out in the Indian Act for a First Nation to take control of band membership under section 10. The Indian Act currently requires that a majority of all electors of the band must vote and that a majority of the votes cast must be in favour of the membership code.
MKO recommends that Bill S-2 be amended to facilitate section 10 control of membership by a First Nation. This amendment would establish a potential two-vote ratification process similar to the ratification standard under Article 19 of Schedule “H” of the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement, or TLE, Framework Agreement. Canada signed the TLE Framework Agreement on May 29, 1997. As in the Indian Act, the first vote under the TLE Framework Agreement requires a double majority in order for a TLE First Nation to ratify a band-specific Treaty Entitlement Agreement. However, if a majority of the electors of the band do not cast a vote in the first vote, then the second vote must be held within 60 days and can pass with a majority of those actually casting votes in favour.
Some of the membership codes enacted by the MKO First Nations in 1987 and 1988 provide that a membership code can be amended, first, by a double-majority vote in favour or, in a second vote, by two thirds of those actually voting casting a vote in favour.
During the Indigenous Peoples Committee meeting of September 24, 2025, representatives of Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, spoke of the “benefits” of registration and Indian status. No mention was made that a registered person who holds Indian status will exercise a constitutionally recognized and protected right of top priority to hunt, fish, trap and gather plants for medicines, support and subsistence as well as for social and ceremonial purposes. This right of top priority may be exercised whether or not a person is a member of a First Nation.
The treaty promise assures much more than the right to harvest, hunt, fish and trap. The treaty promise protects and maintains the close connection to the lands and waters of all generations of treaty First Nations, and so it is integral to the identity and continuity of treaty First Nations.
Bill S-2 would restore the right to meaningfully exercise the acknowledged right of top priority and a close connection to ancestral lands and waters for those persons who are enfranchised or who have otherwise lost or have been denied registration and Indian status by Canada.
MKO First Nations are increasingly linking section 10 control of band membership to the enactment of First Nations bylaws and laws that create enforceable tools to treat drug dealers and bootleggers with zero tolerance. At the same time, we are working to establish access to in-community wellness and healing opportunities for members with substance abuse issues that they are encountering.
The MKO By-Law Pilot Project is working with First Nations to enact new enforceable housing bylaws and community protection bylaws that will empower First Nations to evict drug dealers, bootleggers and violent persons from band-owned housing. I want to elaborate on this. This was a problem we faced during COVID, where we were trying to enforce bylaws to protect our people, and the RCMP would not enforce them. In 25 years, not one single bylaw was enforced by the RCMP, so we came up with a process to amend legislation to ensure that our communities and our leaders had the support of the RCMP. So this is something that we have done during very troubling times.
Many MKO First Nations intend to enact companion membership codes. First Nations intend to potentially revoke the band membership of a drug dealer, bootlegger or a violent and dangerous person whose behaviours place the safety and security of the whole community at risk. That is empowering our First Nations and empowering our people. In this way, a drug dealer, bootlegger or violent person will no longer be a member of a First Nation. As a non-member, the person will forfeit access to community resources, services, housing and a share of any settlement. These persons will, therefore, be on the reserve for a prohibited purpose and will be deemed to be trespassing and subject to enforceable removal.
Such persons who are removed from a band list as a consequence of such harmful and dangerous behaviours will continue to be registered by Canada and hold Indian status.
Bill S-2 strengthens the principle of non-discrimination, and the amendment to Bill S-2 and the Indian Act recommended by MKO will strengthen self-governance, empowering our people.
This evening, Mr. Manoakeesick and I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Ekosani, meegwetch, mahsi’cho.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief. We will now proceed to the questions from the senators. I ask that senators do a three-minute intervention, including the question and the answer.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken]. Thank you very much. Ms. Fournier and Mr. Beaton, thank you for standing up and challenging a system that is flawed, discriminatory and racist. You are doing this for our children.
[English]
It is always an honour be in the same room. Thank you so much. I will do my best in English.
I strongly believe that nations, the Innu Nation or a First Nation, have the right to self-government; we do. I believe in that. But we are stuck with the Indian Act that is trying to erase us. So it is good for me to hear that. It is like a race — I will try to say this in a minute and a half — it is like a horse race; the women are way behind the line, and many people are starting here. If we don’t correct or stop the discrimination — but also correct and bring back our grandmothers, mothers and the children that came — I feel in your message that you are bringing us up to the same line; am I right? So if we dream of self-government, we’re part of that dream.
Mr. Settee: Thank you for that comment. One hundred and fifty years of our experience with the state has brought much irreparable harm to our people and assaults on our languages and our culture, but our identity — knowing who we are — is why we are here, where we have been compartmentalized, labelled and defined by other people. We have been named by other people many different names that are not ours.
But that has never diminished who we are as the original peoples of this land, and the discrimination that we have faced from enfranchisement and through the loss of status because one married a non-Indigenous person has been to the detriment of many of our people.
Now we’re here to right wrongs. We’re here to correct a lot of the harm that has been done. This is 150 years later. A long time has passed, but I think it’s time we forge a path forward that will include all our people, our women, our young women. Right or wrong, this shouldn’t have happened in the first place. That’s why we’re here.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the presenters for all the work that you have been doing for such a long time.
I’m going to ask the same question, and this actually came from your office. In 1850, in the Act for the better protection of the lands and property of the Indians in Lower Canada, there was a broad definition of who was an Indian that was applied:
. . . for the purpose of determining any right of property, possession or occupation in or to any lands belonging or appropriated to any Tribe or Body of Indians in Lower Canada . . . .
That definition was as follows:
First.—All persons of Indian blood, reputed to belong to the particular body or tribe of Indians interested in such lands, and their descendants.
Secondly.—All persons intermarried with any such Indians and residing amongst them, and the descendants of all such persons.
Thirdly.—All persons residing among such Indians, whose parents on either side were or are Indians of such Body or Tribe, or entitled to be considered as such: And
Fourthly.—All persons adopted in infancy by any such Indians, and residing in the Village or upon the lands of such Tribe or Body of Indians, and their descendants.
First Nations defined who was a member of their society, and they exercised that power of definition in a highly inclusive manner. It is suggested that this broad and basic definition more closely aligns with the First Nations’ customary laws and protocols for relating and belonging.
When we look at section 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act, do you think that all of section 6 should be repealed and that First Nations, through their customary law, should decide who is a member?
Mr. Settee: I represent an organization that has had many Grand Chiefs advocating and fighting for the identity and also the discrimination of our people. Our resolutions at our assemblies unequivocally stated that MKO recommends that Bill S-2 be amended to provide for the repeal of section 6(2), the second-generation cut-off. It’s something that is most detrimental to the generations that are yet unborn.
If we perpetuate this system, we are not going to have any status people left in 50 years. This is dangerous for our people. That’s why MKO has stated very clearly and loudly that it must be repealed. Do you want to add to that?
Brennan Manoakeesick, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Brennan Manoakeesick. I am the Director of Intergovernmental Relations with Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak.
To elaborate further on Grand Chief Settee’s response, we have been entertaining the concept of 6(1) and 6(2). Now, our Chiefs have been deliberating for 20 years about their support for the repeal of section 6(2). However, in terms of our understanding and looking at the 1850 definition of Indian status under the Indian Act, it did align with what we’ve been hearing from our communities, from our First Nations, from our Elders. We work very closely with our peoples. Just to give a bit of context, we have an Elders advisory committee working with us on traditional medicines, on harvesting needs, also on Indian residential schools. When they deliberate about these questions that we bring forward to them, oftentimes they talk about the stories of grandparents — grandmothers especially — and the love they have for their children and grandchildren. And the limitations placed by sections 6(1) and 6(2), by consequence, forbid the transfer of citizenship to future generations.
The course correction we would see is actually reverting back to an older definition included in the Indian Act in 1850. I think what we could see this as is an opportunity, as Minister Gull‑Masty identified in her comments. By coming up with a new remedy, I think it’s important right now that First Nations, in league with Canada and ISC, develop these concepts and come up with an idea that is acceptable to First Nations.
Looking at the earlier definition is a step in that direction, but I think given the opportunities to codify, co-develop or co-create, these new definitions would give us that opportunity to do so.
Ms. Fournier: I think the only thing I would add is certainly support for what my colleagues have said here and to try to dissect the provisions of the Indian Act, particularly as they relate to women, because, as I said, my grandmother was a status Indian in her own right, but she lost her natal band membership when she married. That was the rule of the Indian Act. When her husband enfranchised — in fact, he enfranchised in 1922, and I’m not sure whether women had the vote in Canada in 1922. Being enfranchised might not have been all that much help to her then, but it certainly gave, then, to my mother a much more limited kind of status than she would have had if her mother had married a non-status man in the first place.
That just gives an idea of the complications around the more recent definitions in the Indian Act of what constitutes a status Indian. I can only say that the number of people who found me through the publicity of our court challenge, finding my name on Facebook, for example, and talking to me about enfranchisement and how it affected their families and what it meant to them and what the original court challenge and then the bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, the changes that would mean for them — it was profoundly moving to, for the first time in my life, hear so many other families who had the same story to tell. If we’re looking for ways of how that can be improved, perhaps going back to a broader understanding of what constitutes an Indigenous person may, in fact, be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Beaton: I would echo the comments of Senator Audette that as this work of moving towards fuller self-determination of First Nations and control over their membership is ongoing, there is this group of families and individuals who have been, in a sense, excluded from the process, been denied registration or removed from membership of their First Nations. There also has to be a way to include them in that process, which is part of what Bill S-2 does.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for coming before us and sharing your testimony, your stories, which are certainly very helpful. I have a question for Ms. Fournier and Mr. Beaton.
First, I want to recognize your courage. I can only imagine the journey you have undertaken. The particulars with respect to the case — I can only imagine when you’re in litigation, certainly there’s a cost factor involved there, time and then arguments and then, hopefully, agreements. It seemed that an agreement was reached whereby Canada conceded that there was a violation of the Charter in this regard. It seems to be part of a larger narrative of constant Charter violations, tinkering with certain provisions within the Indian Act.
I’m wondering, from your perspective, Ms. Fournier and Mr. Beaton, with Bill S-2, are we there yet? Do you see other potential provisions within the Indian Act that certainly could be further challenged through Charter scrutiny through section 15? If so, what would that possibly entail? Thank you.
Ms. Fournier: Thank you very much. I’ll let Mr. Beaton speak as the expert in terms of some of the technical parts of that question, but I think the short answer is yes. My mother gained status for the first time because by the time she was born, my grandparents had enfranchised. She gained status in 1985, and that was a complicated process for her to go through.
When we found out that the status she obtained was a very limited status that she could pass only to her children, we then began to learn about sections 6(1) and 6(2) and the second‑generation cut-off and all those things. But it was made clear that the reason was enfranchisement. If it had been “marrying out,” as people used to say, her actual status might have been different.
I’m not able to respond as to why the reason you don’t have status would affect the kind of status that you get. Mr. Beaton can speak more broadly to some of those issues. I can tell you that when I heard about the other two families that Mr. Beaton was working with, and he agreed to work with our family as well, to bring this forward, as I say, the notion that you could take to Canada and say, “We think something in the Indian Act is wrong” — we’re just three little families. We’re not politicians or public figures, but somewhere inside we all knew that this was wrong, and with the great vision and leadership of Mr. Beaton, we were able to try to address that.
My mother, who passed away several years ago, was one of the plaintiffs. She was very supportive of this. She was in her late eighties and early nineties by the time the case got organized enough that we were plaintiffs. She was proud to be a plaintiff. I’m probably as proud of that, and that’s as meaningful to me as just about anything else. She didn’t see the outcome of the work that we’ve done. She would be astounded to think that her daughter is sitting here speaking to a committee of the Senate of Canada.
Somehow, just knowing that there was a way that we could possibly begin to right a wrong that began in 1922, over 100 years ago, when my grandfather enfranchised, that is what I think is meaningful. I’m sure Mr. Beaton has some of the more technical answers that you might be looking for.
The Deputy Chair: Before you respond, Mr. Beaton, colleagues, I have a question for you. Our witnesses have graciously agreed to stay until nine o’clock. I have three of you who have questions yet for our witnesses. I’m asking you if you would be agreeable to stay an extra 15 minutes. Our translators have agreed as well. Thank you very much. We’ve got 15 minutes, three senators and you, Mr. Beaton. Please go ahead.
Mr. Beaton: I’ll try to be brief. To answer your question, if Bill S-2 were adopted in its current form, there would still be situations that I think are ripe for a Charter challenge.
To take one example, if you had a man with Indian status partnered with a woman who did not have status, and they had a child born before April 17, 1985, the child would today have 6(1) status, and a child born after that date would have 6(2) status. Now it is the same, so a mirror image, for a woman with Indian status. In any case, if the parents were not married before April 17, 1985, the children born before that date have 6(1) status. The children born after have 6(2) status. If the parents were married before that date, all the children have 6(1).
Looking at that situation, it is ripe for a challenge based on marital status. You are discriminating against the family where the parents were not married by reducing the category of the children born after 1985. That’s not currently addressed in Bill S-2.
The only thing I would say as counsel for the plaintiffs is, of course, it would be ideal to fix everything that could be identified in this bill. For the situation of the plaintiffs, we do have a court-ordered deadline. The plaintiffs would certainly not oppose addressing other issues in the bill, but there is a deadline by which the remedy needs to be in place for the plaintiffs themselves.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: I want to just pick up on the point that Mr. Beaton said about the deadline. Those of us who have been involved in this for a number of years know that on a number of occasions, courts have extended the deadline, and that might be a scenario in this case. Hence my question: If that were possible — it’s hypothetical — would you like to see this mess entirely cleaned up by amending Bill S-2?
Mr. Settee: I would say an unequivocal “yes” because I think that a lot of the things that have been legislated have been discriminatory. We cannot perpetuate a system that continues to discriminate against a people and also based on their gender. It’s something that should have never happened. We’ve evolved, I think, and I think we have changed. Our attitudes are a little bit different than they were in those times. Hopefully, we can forge a better path for not only gender diversity but also all of those things that pertain to First Nations people from different walks of life and different perspectives that should be accommodated. It’s about equality.
Ms. Fournier: I’d maybe let Mr. Beaton speak to, again, some of the logistical pieces of this as well.
Mr. Beaton: One difference I would note, in the Descheneaux case, for example, there were a couple of extensions to Canada. The court in Descheneaux declared the provisions under section 6 of the Indian Act broadly of no force or effect and suspended that. The court made the point that if that order went into effect without legislation in place, everyone would be denied the benefit of those registration provisions. People who were simply trying to register would not be able to because those provisions would not be in effect.
Here, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that there are very specific words to be struck from 6(1)(a.1) and the provision 6(1)(d). What we told the court is if that order went into effect, it would not harm anyone’s ability to register. It would not take benefits away from anyone. It would simply correct the wrong as applied to the plaintiffs.
If Canada were to ask for an extension, the plaintiffs would oppose it on the ground that allowing the order to go into effect does not cause any prejudice to anyone else. It simply gives those in the situation of the plaintiffs the benefit of their Charter rights. You can’t forget; you’re facing a situation where people have ongoing violations of their Charter rights, so an extension is not a harmless tool in this context.
While we’re not opposed to broadening the scope of Bill S-2 to address situations that remain problematic or discriminatory, we also stress the importance of meeting the court‑ordered deadline.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of the witnesses. Thank you for bringing the challenges that you have. Thank you for articulating this.
I’ve been struck by the number of people in our circles, colleagues — as you’ve heard from colleagues — who have been impacted.
Ms. Fournier, I’m curious about the steps that you and your family have had to take. In fact, it would be helpful to talk about the types of steps you had to take to get to court to get this resolved. How long has this struggle been going on? You spoke to it a bit, talking about your late mother, and thank you for that.
I have no doubt about the minister’s commitment when she says she’s committed. Many of us have seen, too often, how ministers may be moved out of those portfolios before they have the opportunity to fulfill what they honestly and authentically committed to.
I think we are all concerned that the inadequate terms that will uphold your rights may still leave yet more people behind. What would you say to the folks who are still waiting? What would you suggest if you were in our chairs? I don’t mean to unnecessarily burden you more than you already have been, but it strikes me we have an opportunity now to actually go much further and to fix this. It seems irresponsible on our part to not try to do that and to leave it to the minister to fix it later.
Ms. Fournier: You get a sense of some things when the Indian Act is all around you for all of your life. As I say, my mother didn’t get her status until 1985, but we certainly knew of the Indian Act and how much it enveloped people’s lives in all sorts of ways that most of us could not imagine — I certainly couldn’t imagine — could be challenged or changed in any way. Certainly, back in those days, there was no talk of dismantling the Indian Act.
Shortly before COVID started — because things got delayed a bit because of it — I heard on my newsfeed about a case in Quebec. They were talking about enfranchisement. I thought here’s another family, another person, with this story in their lives. They went to court in Quebec and won. By contacting those people, I met Ryan Beaton, who was then preparing the information that he would need to create a Charter challenge.
I talked with my family, my siblings, my parents and my children. We said, “Do we dare to do this? Is it something that could ever occur in this lifetime?” But with Ryan’s great leadership and his great understanding of the legal and technical issues, and after hearing the stories of the other two families, it became probably one of the biggest accomplishments of my life. And I’ve done all sorts of things, including work at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada for 20 years. That’s maybe not an accomplishment; it’s more of a feat.
When we heard what the other families were committed to and then, in speaking to my mother, who herself was so committed, we began to imagine that this one small thing could perhaps be addressed. We got on “The National” a couple of times with our challenge, and then people got a hold of us, and things got bigger. Then the bill in the House of Commons and the bill in the Senate addressed issues that were not part of our original plan.
I would never, myself, think it’s a bad idea to change as much as possibly can be changed, but I understand the complex interplay between trying to do everything at once versus trying of hack away the little pieces. I’m not the expert to say which one of those might be more realistic or better.
When the bill went into second reading in the House of Commons, I was in the visitor’s gallery; that was in 2022. I was struck by the fact that 100 years earlier, my grandfather had made this very difficult choice. He was proud of who he was, as was my grandmother. That was 100 years ago, and it may take more time yet. I’m not sure I have a more complete answer than that, but perhaps Grand Chief Settee or Ryan would have one.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much for that.
Senator Clement, you may ask your question. You have about three minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Thank you for your courage, Ms. Fournier.
[English]
Thank you for talking about the difference between enfranchisement and emancipation. As a Black Canadian, that really strikes me. Language matters, so I appreciate that.
I have questions to Grand Chief Settee and to Mr. Beaton.
Mr. Beaton, you talked about the Nicholas case and some concessions given by the federal government. Do you take that as a signal that the Canadian government will now behave better around litigation or treat that more fairly going forward?
To Chief Settee, you gave testimony about how powerfully connected you are to identity, regardless of what the legislation is saying. Some people don’t have that experience and feel profoundly disconnected. Can you speak about the impact of that and how important that connection is?
Mr. Beaton: I think it’s positive. We were four years from filing. There was a lot of work before Canada made the concession, but I don’t want to downplay that. It saved a trial. It avoided further difficulties. I will simply say it’s positive, and it’s recognized. I hope it is a sign that other cases like this would be dealt with in a less adversarial process.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Mr. Settee: Volumes have been written about the Indian Act and the impact that it has had on First Nations people since its inception. Any time there’s an amendment to the Indian Act, it causes a lot of discussion and debate. Ultimately, it is so important that we, as Indigenous Peoples, are treaty signatories. That conversation of treaty rights is very important. The Indian Act has really impeded the progress of treaty implementation for many years. We’re moving and trying to change and make things a little more acceptable by First Nations. Ultimately, our messaging has been to do away with the Indian Act. We’re not there yet, but that would ultimately change a lot of things in our lives.
I’m going to quote this, and this will be the last thing I say. In our assembly, we were charged to develop a framework on First Nations citizenship that would respect our treaty and inherent rights for our current and future generations and that would remove continuing gender discrimination in Bill C-31.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for those words.
The time for this panel is complete. Thank you again to our witnesses for joining us today. Hiy hiy. If you wish to make any other statements or submissions, please submit them to the clerk. We would be happy to receive more information.
(The committee adjourned.)