THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.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 morning, everyone.
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. 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 all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on 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 am — from Treaty 6 Territory, and I am deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will remind my honourable colleagues that at our first public hearing on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, 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. It is my honour and privilege to chair this important meeting today.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory, starting on my left.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki Territory.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Welcome. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Barren Lands First Nation in Treaty 10, Manitoba.
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory and homeland of the Métis.
Senator McPhedran: Good morning, good to see you again. Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba.
Senator Sorensen: Senator Karen Sorensen from Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 Territory.
Senator Coyle: Senator Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia, representing senator Gwen Boniface. I’m from Mi’kma’ki.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Chair, if I can just announce that Senator Coyle just reminded me I’m substituting for Judy White.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for your introductions. Today, we will continue our study on Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a band list maintained in Indigenous Services Canada.
I welcome our panellists today.
I would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses today: from Femmes Autochtones du Québec, Marjolaine Étienne; from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Madeleine Redfern, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Head Office; and via videoconference, please welcome, from the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association, Dawn McDonald, Executive Director.
There you are. Thank you all for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
We will go through all three and then we will have a Q and A session. I now invite Ms. Étienne to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Marjolaine Étienne, President, Quebec Native Women: Kwe. Good morning, everyone. My name is Marjolaine Étienne and I represent Quebec Native Women, an organization founded in 1974 representing the First Nations of Quebec, on or off reserve. Quebec Native Women has over 50 years’ experience of fighting discrimination in the Indian Act.
Over the decades, our organization has been an active participant in major reforms to this act, through Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2010 and Bill S-3 in 2017. Our interventions have been heard in Parliament, in national coalitions, and even internationally — including the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
Today, we are here to say that we support the advances proposed in Bill S-2. However, we also need to state clearly and firmly that this progress remains incomplete. Sex-based discrimination in the transmission of status persists. It must be corrected now and not deferred to a future reform. Despite the efforts of Bill S-2, Indigenous women and their descendants still do not benefit from substantive equality under the Indian Act. Each partial reform creates new waves of exclusions, legal challenges and family trauma.
The Senate has the opportunity to definitively end this cycle. We therefore propose the following priority amendments.
Repeal the second-generation cut-off rule: That rule — inherited from Bill C-31, the First Nations Legal Program — disproportionately impacts maternal lineages and creates flagrant inequality. Even Canadian citizenship has fewer criteria than Indigenous status for transmission to a person’s descendants. In Quebec, the projected figures are as follows: in about 40 years, 60% of registered persons will fall under the subsection 6(2) category. That spells disaster for communities that are seeing their populations decline, along with their legitimate sovereignty, cultures and traditions. This new form of political assimilation is totally unacceptable.
Transfer membership authority to nations: Before 1985, a woman lost her membership upon marriage. Even when this right was restored, many women were never able to return to their communities, whether due to separation, death, or other personal reasons, especially if the woman’s community of birth adopted a membership code. The right of return must be explicit and unconditional and should no longer be the responsibility of the federal government, but of Indigenous nations, which should engage with the women concerned in a dialogue that is sovereign and respectful of their culture and traditions.
Remove the requirement to name the father: This requirement constitutes gender-based discrimination. Fathers are never required to identify the mother for their child to obtain status. For women who are victims of violence in particular, this requirement may constitute a violation of their right to security and dignity, protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They may not know or name the father for all sorts of human reasons. The obligation to comply with this requirement can be a source of real trauma and injustice.
Officially recognize and repair the harm caused by the Indian Act.
Before concluding, it is essential to acknowledge a truth that is too often ignored. The Indian Act has caused profound and lasting harm. Since 1985, Bills C-31, C-3, and S-3 have introduced provisions that exclude any possibility of compensation for victims of discrimination. Bill S-2 proposes to add a new one. This would prolong an injustice that has already been tolerated for too long. Indigenous women and their descendants have suffered loss of status, exclusion from their communities, deprivation of social and cultural rights, and intergenerational trauma. They have never received reparations. The lack of compensation prevents true reconciliation. It perpetuates a sense of injustice and contradicts Canada’s human rights commitments.
Under international law, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, victims of discrimination are entitled to effective reparations. Those disclaimers also violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality and protection against discrimination.
We therefore recommend that Parliament remove all disclaimers from Bill S-2, repeal similar clauses in previous bills and engage in a genuine consultation process with women and their communities to create a fair, accessible reparation mechanism that is adapted to Indigenous realities.
Finally, I would like to add a few points regarding an effective implementation of Bill S-2. Cuts to funds that were supposed to support consultations with Indigenous individuals are contrary to robust and effective implementation. Previous reforms have failed due to delays, refusals and administrative obstacles. Under this new legislation, it seems necessary to agree on a clear, appropriate and adequately funded plan, as well as an independent monitoring mechanism. In addition, the government must provide sufficient resources to facilitate the integration of new registrants into communities. Without this, the reform risks creating tensions between new registrants and already recognized members.
Honourable senators, Bill S-2 is a step forward, but remains insufficient. The Senate now has the responsibility and historic opportunity to adopt amendments that will finally guarantee substantive equality for Indigenous women and their descendants and a genuine renunciation of assimilationist policies that have persisted far too long. Without these changes and without the necessary resources, discrimination will continue and the reconciliation we all desire will remain incomplete. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Étienne.
[English]
I now invite Ms. Redfern to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Madeleine Redfern, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, Native Women’s Association of Canada: [Indigenous language spoken.]
Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair and Senate committee members, distinguished witnesses and guests. I’m from Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Since 1974, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, has been the only national Indigenous women’s organization in Canada that defends the rights of, delivers programs to and amplifies the perspectives of Indigenous women in all their diversities across Canada. The Native Women’s Association of Canada is inclusive of First Nations, on- and off‑reserve; status; non-status; and disenfranchised); as well as Inuit and Métis. Our network of Indigenous women spans urban, rural, and on-reserve and off-reserve communities across Canada. In this way, NWAC’s crucial gender-specific perspectives must be included in all discussions pertaining to Indigenous women.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada recognizes the importance of proposed amendments to the Indian Act that seek to address offensive language, deregistration and entitlement to status for individuals affected by coerced enfranchisement and their descendants. However, Bill S-2 does not go far enough in addressing the ongoing registration issues under the Indian Act, such as the second-generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off. These are long-standing issues that underscore the complex layers and multiple forms of sex-based discrimination that continue to be perpetuated by the Indian Act.
Under the last Parliament, NWAC hosted a series of engagement sessions on Bill S-2’s predecessor, Bill C-38, which identified several recommendations that still hold true today. For example, in addressing offensive language in the legislation, we outlined measures to replace the term “Indian” with “First Nations Persons” when referring to a person and “First Nations” when referring to all other “Indian” nouns. We also recommended renaming the Indian Act to the First Nations Act. The use of the term “Indian” to refer to First Nations people is offensive, and despite the legal significance of this term in legislative history and the Constitution, the continued use of this term by Parliament is neither respectful nor necessary.
As previously mentioned, our recommendations include calls to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule by removing subsection 6(2) and amending paragraph 6(1)(f) to recognize entitlement to register where “either or both” parents are entitled to be registered. The current framework results in treatment based upon status. More importantly, with the increasing number of families with one status and one non-status parent, the second‑generation cut-off will become increasingly common, creating harmful and far-reaching consequences by limiting future generations of Indigenous peoples from accessing status. With status comes rights.
We know sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act continues to have an impact on First Nations women and their descendants. The loss of status for women has led to the loss of culture, the right to inherit and own property on reserve, increased poverty due to disconnection from community supports and resources tied to status and the exclusion of their descendants from the same.
What continues to be left out of legislation is the right of First Nations to determine who they are and who belongs to their respective communities. The continued intervention of the Government of Canada in deciding who has status infringes upon the rights of Indigenous Peoples to determine membership, a right clearly affirmed in Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, which the federal government has affirmed in Canadian law and committed to implementing.
Once again, we return to the fundamental truth that the Indian Act is incompatible with the rights outlined in UNDRIP. Its continued existence perpetuates violations of equality rights, undermines freedom from discrimination and impedes self‑determination. Therefore, NWAC calls for a clear, time‑bound federal plan to fully phase out the Indian Act in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and to uphold our treaty and inherent human rights, including those protected under the Constitution.
NWAC will continue advocating on behalf of indigenous women and their families, working with all levels of governments in Canada to end the inequities and discrimination that have been embedded in the Indian Act since 1876.
As an Inuk woman, it’s interesting to note that my land claim agreement gives my Nation, my people, the right to determine our identities through our own enrollment program — so it is possible in this country. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Redfern.
I will now invite Ms. McDonald to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Dawn McDonald, Executive Director, Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association: This is going to sound almost repetitive to the two we’ve already heard.
The Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association, or NSNWA, is grateful for the opportunity to provide input to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples regarding Bill S-2, which proposes amendments to the Indian Act relating to registration and entitlement to registration.
The NSNWA represents the voices of Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit, and gender-diverse people across Mi’kma’ki. Our organization works to advance equality, justice, and cultural resurgence, grounded in the experiences and priorities of our communities.
We acknowledge that Bill S-2 attempts to address long-standing harms resulting from past discriminatory policies, including the impacts of involuntary enfranchisement and exclusion from registration. While these proposed changes are welcome, we remain concerned that the legislation does not go far enough in addressing the full scope of sex-based and systemic discrimination embedded within the Indian Act.
Ongoing harm from discriminatory registration provisions: The Indian Act’s current registration regime continues to disproportionately impact First Nations women and their descendants. In particular, the second-generation cut-off rule — along with the restrictions stemming from the 1985 amendments — continues to exclude many individuals from registration based on the status of only one parent. As the number of families with one parent who holds status and one who does not continue to grow, more children and grandchildren will be unjustly denied access to registration and the rights tied to it.
This creates a cycle of exclusion that affects not only legal status, but also connection to culture, access to programs and services, and a sense of belonging within communities.
In our region, we have witnessed first-hand the lasting impact of status loss on women and families; the separation from home communities; the inability to inherit the property on reserve; and the disconnection from language and culture.
We therefore recommend that subsection 6(2) be repealed and that paragraph 6(1)(f) be amended to allow registration where either parent is entitled to be registered. These changes would represent a meaningful step toward ending generational discrimination.
The need for respectful and culturally appropriate language: We also wish to raise concern with the continued use of the term “Indian” in federal legislation. While we recognize its legal history, the term is widely recognized as offensive and outdated. We support the shift toward more respectful language, such as “First Nations Person” or “First Nations,” in describing Indigenous Peoples. This linguistic shift is important not only for reconciliation, but also for ensuring that federal legislation reflects current standards of dignity and respect.
Affirming Indigenous jurisdiction over membership: Fundamentally, we believe that the right to determine membership must rest with First Nations themselves, not with federal law. While registration under the Indian Act is distinct from community membership, it still shapes who is entitled to access certain rights and services. This federal authority over identity undermines the inherent and treaty rights of First Nations to determine who belongs within our Nations.
I’m repeating this as well. Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, affirms the right of Indigenous Peoples to determine their own identity and membership.
Canada’s passage of UNDRIP legislation commits all levels of government to uphold these rights. Yet without meaningful changes to the Indian Act’s registration framework, this right continues to be constrained in practice.
In conclusion, with recommendations, we urge the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples to consider the following: One, repeal subsection 6(2) and amend 6(1)(f) to ensure entitlement to registration where either parent is registered or entitled to be; two, replace outdated and offensive terminology in the Indian Act with culturally appropriate and respectful language; and three, support and affirm First Nations jurisdiction over citizenship and membership decisions, in line with UNDRIP and the principles of self-determination.
While Bill S-2 makes some needed corrections, we encourage the Senate to view this as only one part of a broader process. Real change requires not only fixing past harms but also respecting the rights of First Nations to define and govern their own communities.
The NSNWA will continue advocating for the rights of Indigenous women, families and future generations in Nova Scotia, and we look forward to ongoing dialogue and partnership in this work.
Wela’lin. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McDonald. We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a four-minute intervention, including question and answer, with a 30-second heads up to ensure everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for coming today and sharing your very important testimony.
I have two questions, one for Ms. Étienne and Ms. McDonald and another for Ms. Redfern. I’ll start with Ms. Redfern.
You mentioned — which I found quite interesting — as part of your treaty agreement up north with the Inuit that there is a rather unique circumstance in terms of how members within your Nations have been defined. Can you just further elaborate on what that process is?
Ms. Redfern: Wonderful. So under Article 35 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, similar to some of the other Inuit treaties as well, it recognizes Inuit are best able to define who is Inuk, for the purposes of the agreement. It guarantees that Inuit will be recognized according to our own understanding of ourselves, and that Inuit shall determine who is Inuk for the purposes of the agreement and, therefore, enrolled in the agreement.
Also, through the land claim, it establishes a process. We have community enrollment committees made up of our community members. There is an application process, usually done by the parents, or themselves if you’re older, and you provide information about who your parents are, your other relatives, and there’s also a cultural and a verification process now becoming part of it because of the issue of “pretendians.” Then you are enrolled in the committee.
You get put on to a list held by and responsible for management under a designated Inuit organization. Those designated Inuit organizations are, effectively, entities under our Nunavut Land Claim Agreement.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. And just to further extend upon that, there has been discussion here, and previously in this committee, about the one-parent rule. Is it possible, through those membership criteria that you just mentioned, that accounts for one parent, regardless of whom they partner with to have children, to be recognized within your Nation?
Ms. Redfern: Absolutely. So there are quite a number of people, for different reasons, that enroll their children, more often than not the mother, and do not necessarily need to disclose who the father is. They generally will disclose their other own blood relatives on the maternal side, but it could equally happen on the paternal side.
Senator Prosper: Ms. Étienne and Ms. McDonald, thank you for your testimony. What I gather is Bill S-2, although well intentioned in terms of addressing certain aspects of discrimination within the Indian Act, is by far not complete, and you call upon government to correct these further deficiencies, areas of discrimination that exist within the Indian Act under this existing process — this bill here.
Ms. Étienne and Ms. McDonald, you spoke about getting rid of the second-generation cut-off rule. Could you just further elaborate, what, in essence, that means to communities and why it is so important to deal with that particular rule within the Indian Act? Ms. Étienne, we’ll start with you.
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: Thank you for the question. To begin with, in response to this very important question, when the Indian Act was first introduced, it already discriminated against Indigenous women. Many years passed. In 1985, women who were fighting to regain their status won their case.
I won’t hide the fact that at that time, I was living in my community. It was an atmosphere that I would describe as extremely difficult, with a lack of understanding of how and why Indigenous women wished to regain their status. They were right, of course. They were experiencing inequality compared to men who married non-Indigenous women. It was a tense atmosphere. There were rifts between brothers and sisters, within families, and within the community.
Between 1985 and today, for nearly 40 years, discrimination against Indigenous women has persisted in the Indian Act. In that sense, I believe it is of the utmost importance to repeal it. If that doesn’t happen, there is a risk that, years from now — perhaps even 40 years from now — we will still be calling for an amendment to repeal the act, just as we are today. We must put an end to this discrimination against women, children and grandchildren today.
I have had the opportunity to meet some Indigenous women in my province of residence, Quebec. I can tell you that these women are tired, exhausted, with no place to express themselves, to voice and assert their concerns, to make their cause heard and be listened to. It’s one thing to be listened to today. At its general meeting last October, Native Women of Quebec stated that it would be there for them and would advance their cause so that this injustice could be righted. Together with you, we have a duty and an opportunity to do so.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the issue of funding remains unresolved. It is important for Indigenous women to obtain reparations. It is important to restore the balance that existed before the Indian Act, when the relationship between Indigenous men and women was in equilibrium. The arrival of the Indian Act, along with colonization and the residential school system, completely undermined their role and the transmission of cultural knowledge, including our mother tongues.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
My grandchildren were refused status — by my second daughter; my first daughter is a 6(1).
I don’t think there are any questions I can ask to further this conversation. It causes me a lot of stress. The lateral violence against First Nations women is ongoing. It’s lateral violence, and it has to stop. So we need our people to engage more with society, and we can’t because of Bill C-92 and what’s happening here. We’re so busy fighting the legacy of scientific racism that I understand why people are tired.
On September 24, Minister Gull-Masty emphasized the need to act quickly on Bill S-2, noting that the second-generation cut‑off is a complex issue. It is, but that shouldn’t prevent us from making the amendment. I do support that amendment. Also, it comes from the Manitoba chiefs.
That second-generation cut-off requires a stand-alone engagement process. When they’re looking at that, they’re looking at 2026-27. What are your thoughts on that? Should we leave it and just quickly pass Bill S-2 as it is, noting that 6,000 would get their status, leaving 225,000 to 300,000 people stranded? What would be your answer to not amending the bill?
That’s for all of you.
Ms. Redfern: The Native Women’s Association of Canada recognizes the need to act. Also, we don’t want to delay the approval of these amendments, because, as you just noted, senator, they would address the enfranchisement of status and return. However, we do acknowledge exactly what you said: It’s not the full, corrective requirement. That’s why we advocate that this be an ongoing process with more engagements and more research. Clearly, we’ve done quite a lot, as have other organizations, regarding bringing this legislation into compliance with UNDRIP.
That’s why we support it to be approved, but it’s not the end. Discrimination continues to remain, and those discriminations against those affected individuals must be addressed, and there must be a plan to deal with that sooner rather than later. We can’t wait another 40 years.
Ms. McDonald: I need to agree with Ms. Redfern that there is a need. One thing we’re not picking up here is that, under that second-generation rule, some of those who are registered under that may not have the other parent listed. That might be due to trauma, unforeseen circumstances, not wanting that parent listed or due to other circumstances.
By holding off, we’re putting them aside again. I can see the need to really push the changes to this, but I hate to take a whole group and put them on the back burner again. Then they’re having that feeling — and a majority of them, for one reason or another — their children and grandchildren are put in that situation, depending on where parts of that second-generation rule fall.
You’re retraumatizing some of those women who may have had children due to trauma. They’re still there. They’re still part of that, and many of those children live in community and take part in ceremony and the traditional things that are happening.
It’s not only those who are off reserve but also those in community, but when they’re in community, again, that causes that extra discrimination. Although they are status and doing everything within their communities and their tribal ceremonies, they don’t hold status, so when it comes to services and treaty rights, they are then put aside again. Because one or both parents live in community, the children are there, but when they grow up, or as they grow up, they start to get denied services. The parents have to pay that extra in order for them to take part in things, and we have a high rate of poverty and low income, so a lot of times they can’t pay that extra for those children, so they’re suffering on top of that, too. I think it all should be pushed together to be fair and not have somebody put on the back burner again or retraumatized in knowing that they have to wait.
On the other hand, those who are missing out, they need to have that, so without the second generation rule, you have that 6(1)(f), that needs to happen. I’m kind of on the fence. I really want to see it all happen at once. I don’t want to see people who’ve already gone through trauma retraumatized. I’m not saying all of them did, but a majority of them. You’re going to have a smaller group, let’s say, that did for one reason or another.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Did you want to respond to that, Ms. Étienne?
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: In fact, if the initial intention is to move forward with repealing the second-generation rule, there is an important factor to consider: providing financial support to those who are ineligible for second-generation status — leaders and local authorities within our communities. I believe there are currently new registrants. Funding is not keeping pace. This is an important legal issue. I believe that the rights to education and health care are important for every individual, and we must ensure that people have access to these services.
Bill S-2, which refers to the second generation, is an important element. As I said earlier, I believe that an implementation plan that is clear and robust and includes appropriate support and funding would be something to consider carefully to ensure its implementation.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much to each of our knowledgeable and helpful witnesses today, and apologies for putting you through this again and again. I feel like this is an old conversation we’re having. However, as we sit here as senators, I think it’s so important to honour our former colleague who sat at this table, former Senator Lovelace Nicholas, so that we all work as hard as we can, with your help, to finish the job that was started so long ago, as you mentioned, Ms. Étienne.
Thank you for bringing us back to where we’ve come from. This has been a long road, and I can understand the impatience because there’s been so much damage that’s continued. Even though Senator Lovelace Nicholas and others got this started a long time ago, look at all that time when we could have righted the wrongs, and we didn’t.
I can feel the tension even in this conversation today about whether we just do another little increment here, which is very important to real people waiting for this when there are the other issues that are incomplete, like the second-generation cut-off and what not. I understand from, I believe, Ms. Redfern from NWAC’s point of view, the idea is to get Bill S-2 done, and then work in an urgent manner to finish the rest of the job.
I hear from Ms. McDonald that she’s torn. I think we’re all feeling torn here about what the right thing is to do.
I wanted to clarify with Ms. Étienne because I’m not quite sure I got it right and I want to understand it. Our other two witnesses said that Bill S-2 didn’t go far enough, and you said it’s incomplete. That’s a little different. At least, I take it a little differently, and maybe I shouldn’t, in the translation in English.
You spoke about the need for efficient implementation of the rest of what needs to be done, as well as implementation of the provisions in Bill S-2. What I want to understand from you, because we’re told that the government is working hard in a consultation process right now, particularly on this second‑generation cut-off issue, to get that consultation done by the end of this year. Therefore, that’s coming soon. What I want to know from your background, Ms. Étienne, are you saying — and I think you are, because I heard your amendments — “Let’s get these amendments in now and it’s not that we want to hold up Bill S-2; we want to improve Bill S-2 and improve Bill S-2 now in an efficient way, and let’s not wait for this consultation?”
We’ve had consultation after consultation after consultation, even though, as my colleague Senator McCallum said, we know that there are some different opinions on how things are to be implemented. I’d like to hear more, particularly from you, Ms. Étienne, on the amendments that you mentioned. Is your recommendation for us to dig deep now into these amendments — and I think other people are backing this as well — and pass Bill S-2, but pass Bill S-2 as amended in these ways?
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: I apologize if I missed a clarification.
Of course, I agree with what Minister Gull-Masty said in her speech. It is truly important to pass Bill S-2. However, when I speak of recommendations, I am referring to repealing the second-generation cut-off rule. This is important because we’re talking about women who’ve been subjected to violence for many years. However, I am willing to say that we need to move forward.
To be clear, my message is that we must no longer wait for minor advances — the more we move forward with various bills, the more steps we create. If we do not proceed quickly with the adoption of this bill, we risk finding ourselves back here in 20 or 40 years, still talking about the inequalities affecting Indigenous women. That is the point I wanted to make.
Yes, violence remains present. Yes, the Indian Act leads to discrimination, inequities and injustices against Indigenous women, and the shadow of all this is a form of violence against Indigenous women and girls.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Étienne.
Senator Sorensen: I’ll start with Ms. McDonald, but if at all possible, I’m hoping to hear from the other two as well just because the answer may vary, and this is a question really out of my own ignorance, so hopefully you can help me understand.
Families who lost status through enfranchisement obviously lost access to various government benefits, but Ms. McDonald made a comment — and that’s sort of the question I wanted to ask — about the impacts on community participation.
When families lost status, my question reads, would they be shut out of cultural activities and rites of passage? I’m hearing from Ms. McDonald not necessarily, but then I heard a reference to a cost. Can all of you — and I’ll start with Ms. McDonald — elaborate a little bit on those people, children — people who don’t have status but are still engaged in community? Do they participate in community?
Ms. McDonald: Yes, they are still community members. I am speaking from here in Nova Scotia, and we work with the communities across Nova Scotia here, both on and off. So participation, being accepted, that is there.
On another level, sometimes, yes, you do get that discrimination as well. It does happen, with some members that are not considered full status or that may be living on reserve, with parents that are considered half or whatever.
What I’m talking about is the expense. If you start to look at going into university, or within education, some of the education departments will cover school supplies and will cover an incentive for staying in school for recruitment and retention, lunch programs, those kinds of things that each community is given additional funds for, whether it’s under health, education or any of those services that are given to status members — some of those are not being given to those who do not hold a status number because within education, they may not be put on the nominal roll. So you don’t get the money for them, type of deal.
Senator Sorensen: That makes sense now. I appreciate that.
But then on the general question, maybe Ms. Redfern.
Ms. Redfern: I want to state that the issue of not having status is also facilitated or permitted — the issue of “pretendians.” So if we actually confer the ability of status to legitimate Indigenous women and their children who have been denied that status, then it also actually prevents the problem of non-Indigenous people pretending that they’re Indigenous because they don’t have status.
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: I would like to share a first-hand account I heard from an 11 or 12-year-old girl — a non-status youth living in a community steeped in her culture and traditions. She is in contact with her grandmother, her kukum, her mother and her peers. This young girl experiences discrimination every day. The suffering that can inflict on children is unimaginable. To hear a child who wants to reconnect with her culture and traditions, who is keen to rediscover her roots in the community, but who unfortunately is non-status…. Sometimes, as my colleagues and I have said, there is discrimination. Young people experience it too. They are denied access to recreational and educational services. Children have the right to live. They have rights. I believe we have a duty to ensure that these children regain their rights and that they, like other young people, are able to live in a fulfilling environment within their own communities.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your response.
Senator Pate: Thank you again to the witnesses. I’m going to start, Ms. Redfern, asking you a question, but I’d like to hear from the other folks as well.
As you know, in the final report that Native Women’s Association of Canada did in 2022 regarding Indigenous gender‑based analysis of Bill S-3 and the one that was amended previously eight years ago, you seem to indicate that you believe a 6(2) second-generation cut-off could be dealt with immediately without further consultation, and, in fact, that’s one of the recommendations. That was eight years ago. There’s now not quite another generation impacted, and a number of us — I’ll speak for myself — I’m very struck by the fact that we have the first Indigenous minister being asked to do this. It reminds me very much of a scene we’ve seen before, where the first minister with a disability was asked to encourage us not to amend a bill, and then a deficient bill was introduced. We also had that on Bill S-3. There is a huge pressure, particularly coming from the minister, who we hope would still be there to deliver on a promise to see through the end of this discrimination.
If you were in our seats, would you be amending this bill, or would you be proceeding to pass it?
Ms. Redfern: It’s a really good question, and I would say, if I was in your shoes, I would probably engage my staff and ourselves to look at the pros and cons of the two options, recognizing that some of your ability is to recommend rather than necessarily ensure that it will get passed. That’s what I would do is the pros and cons analysis and then decide how to proceed.
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: To answer your question — which I find quite interesting — we could talk about consultation at great length. One thing is clear: I firmly believe that I would support the minister in her consultation process as an organization, that of Quebec Native Women. Over the past few years, we at Quebec Native Women have had the opportunity to consult with women we know, whose stories, issues and concerns around second‑generation and exclusion we know.
However, we don’t know other women across Quebec. Given the little funding we receive, my capacity is limited. I am not in a position to conduct a broader consultation to meet with First Nations women across Quebec and learn more about their concerns, opinions, suggestions and ultimately, their decisions. It is important to be able to consult. However, what we really need for real consultation is financial support that is adapted to current realities. That would allow us to explore further afield from home, and perhaps further still. Women deserve to be heard and to express themselves. Currently, however, as president, I do not feel that I have consulted all First Nations women across Quebec. There is still a need for consultation. I would say that what I am doing at the moment is not consultation, but dialogue. In my opinion, a definition of consultation is also required.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you both for being here. As Ms. Redfern noted, you know your communities the best. So here is my question: Picking up on Senator Pate’s point about the first Indigenous woman being the minister, the minister was here before us and said that the consultations that were ongoing needed to be completed and she would then undertake to take action for the next round of amendments.
We know the way politics often works, we know that there is no guarantee that she will be the minister when these consultations are completed. So here is the question: The consultations are completed and there is no clear recommendation. What happens? What is your advice, knowing your communities as you do?
Ms. Redfern: Well, I think that I would strongly suggest that, first of all, any legislation is supposed to be in compliance with the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Government of Canada is committed to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I don’t think it’s that hard. It shouldn’t be that difficult.
[Translation]
Ms. Étienne: I believe that if we want to conduct real consultation, the office for exclusion and second generation reform must have adequate resources to support us, and the funding will follow. On the other hand, I believe that if consultation is to happen, it will be to support the minister and organizations representing Indigenous women. We are familiar with our communities and the existence of women, but the fact remains that this is something that should be taken into account in the consultation and not only in the context of the dialogue in which we are currently engaged.
[English]
Ms. McDonald: Yes, I agree with that. One of the things we really push here in Nova Scotia is that first voice, so if something doesn’t happen I really think that those people directly affected need to have an audience. They need to have their voices heard. It’s one thing to have an organization or community leadership speaking in regard to their members and the people they work with, but it’s a whole different story sometimes when you hear first-hand how people are being affected. So if it doesn’t happen, I think an audience with some of those people that are deeply affected by some of these rules could go a long way.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators. Our time for the panel is complete. But I understand that Senator McCallum has had another question. If you can ask it quickly, I would invite the witnesses to respond to that question in writing and submit that to the clerk. Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: People are saying pass Bill S-2 quickly. We don’t want to hold up Bill S-2. We will not hold it up. We won’t. It is a pre-study. It still has to go to the House of Commons. It angers me when people talk like that. There is nothing to prevent us from amending it. We should not be focused on costs — that’s not ours.
So when we look at the complex issue that this has become, would you agree that this complex issue has to do with what will happen in community with an amendment on the second generation cut-off that it shouldn’t be about consulting anymore, that we should look at what is going to happen when the bill passes with amendments?
The Deputy Chair: Honourable colleague, the time for the panel is complete. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make any other submissions beyond Senator McCallum’s question to you, please submit them by email to the clerk.
We now welcome our second panel. We have two panellists, both of whom are attending via video conference. Our first panellist is Pamela Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University. Welcome Ms. Palmater. Our second witness is Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee and Co-Founder, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. Thank you both for joining us.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Ms. Palmater to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Pamela Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, as an individual: [Indigenous language spoken.]
Hello. I’m from Eel River Bar First Nation, part of the larger Mi’kmaq nation. Wela’lioq for inviting me to appear.
In terms of my background, I’ve been a lawyer for 26 years, focusing on constitutional law, human rights and Indigenous law. I was at Justice Canada for 10 years working on INAC files, so I have some background on this.
In terms of what I’m going to say today, I am in support of Bill S-2 with amendments. Anyone who is voluntarily or involuntarily enfranchised should, of course, be entitled to registration; there is no doubt about that — I think we all agree — but their descendants should not be subjected to the same current discriminatory provisions that we are that give them half status or no status.
The other thing is that First Nations women should have an absolute right of return to their natal band, whether their band is a section 10 band or a section 11 band, because the discrimination that occurred happened before 1985, before there was even a section 10.
Third, Canada cannot wait any longer. It must make an amendment to eliminate the second-generation cut-off in this bill. It simply cannot enact yet another bill — this will be the fourth one — with these incrementally tiny steps while having an iron grip on the legislative extinction in disappearing Indian formula. Of course, it must remove the bar to compensation, because you can’t have it both ways: You can’t say, “You will have delayed equality but you can’t sue us for all the equality you didn’t have.” That’s unjust enrichment in the law.
I do want to thank the committee, because it was this very committee’s work that stood behind all of the First Nations women and our allies, and supported us for an amendment on Bill S-3, the Descheneaux amendments, and stood strong. This committee said, “No, the Constitution is the law that applies, as is the Charter. We cannot delay ending the historic discrimination. We just can’t do it.” You stood strong on that. That’s the only reason my kids got to be registered and are now members of my community.
So you have the power and the opportunity here to ensure that my grandkids get in so that they are a part of my community.
We also know from the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls that this sex discrimination in the Indian Act, and these ongoing sex- and race-based discriminatory provisions, are the root causes of violence against women and that we are the lowest priority; Canada continues to tell us wait and wait. The waiting is done. Canada is trying to deflect the issue by saying, “Oh, we’ll pass Bill S-2 and we’ll have consultations.” But as you know, Canada can’t consult on whether to respect the rule of law now — the Charter and the Constitution. It certainly wasn’t talking about consultation when Bill C-5 was passed.
So the choice here not either-or. Yes, make an amendment and end the second-generation cut-off once and for all. Also, consult with First Nations and First Nations women’s groups on funding, housing, supports and all of those other internal financial authorities, because we have consulted already. Canada did a report in 1985, 1996, 2011, 2017, 2019 and this Senate did in 2022. Those are no less than five reports of nationwide consultations that said that the biggest concern that First Nations and First Nations women have are the second-generation cut‑offs.
We have been down this consultation road. We just need to fix it once and for all.
We can do both. Nothing about making this amendment prevents the Nicholas litigants from getting registered. You can do both at the same time. We would never suggest that they not be registered. We also know from the Descheneaux case that court extensions are possible if Canada is already on the path to ensuring they get registered. Remember: The Supreme Court of Canada has already said that there is no such thing as incremental equality. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already said you cannot use consultations as a weapon to delay a remedy, and that’s exactly what is happening here.
There are a lot of other clarifications that I could provide.
We also know that nothing about this is going to hurt the Nicholas claimants. We also know that millions of people are not going to be added, although I know that’s a fear. We have the actual numbers from ISC, it’s going to be around 300,000 over 40 years. That’s fewer than 7,500 people a year, divided by 630 First Nations. So there is no “onslaught,” “overwhelm” or floodgates being opened.
Therefore, I respectfully ask that you end the sex discrimination cut-off in this bill. This is the time to do it. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Palmater.
Ms. Day, please, you have the floor.
Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee and Co-Founder, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action: Thank you for the invitation to speak to you this morning.
I am joining you from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Peoples. I have had the honour and privilege of working for many years with the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group to realize the rights of First Nations women.
I have three points.
First, this committee is crucially important to First Nations women and to the realization of their rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Because of your courageous and thoughtful intervention at the time of Bill S-3 in 2016, about 88,000 women and their descendants, previously denied, now enjoy justice, status, political voice and belonging.
With the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment to Bill S-3, this committee eliminated the sex discrimination that was in place from 1869 to 1985. Now, the working group is asking you to take the steps necessary to implement your powerful report Make It Stop! and to eliminate the post-1985 sex discrimination and the legal extinction plan. That means no 6(2), no half status, no second generation cut-off. That is what this committee recommended in 2022: that the Government remove section 6(2) immediately and work on a transition plan.
I am here this morning, senators, because I believe in equality and in the rights of First Nations Peoples. I believe in my responsibility, yours and Canada’s to end discrimination and uphold rights now.
Second, regarding forced assimilation, I want to put the request to end the second generation cut-off in the broader context of Canada’s ongoing, slow-moving genocide, as identified by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Sex discrimination in the Indian Act has been a central element of Canada’s colonial genocidal practices that seek to eliminate “Indians.” Since contact, settler governments in Canada have used many different strategies to control and erase First Nations Peoples in order to acquire their lands and resources. What is too often overlooked is the devastating role that sex discrimination in the Indian Act has played in diminishing the numbers and strength of First Nations communities through denying First Nations women and their descendants Indian status, forcing them into the non-Indigenous population and reducing the pool of “Indians” to whom Canada owes a fiduciary duty. This hurts women, their descendants and their nations.
At this moment, it is important to understand the continuing sex discrimination and the second generation cut-off as both equality violations and violations of the right not to be forcibly assimilated.
My third point concerns international human rights law. We have talked about the Charter, but there are layers of applicable human rights law here, including the treaty law that Canada is a signatory to and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.
My time is short. Let me condense this way: Virtually every treaty body that has reviewed Canada’s compliance with its international human rights obligations since 1981 has urged Canada to end Indian Act sex discrimination fully and immediately. The most recent recommendation was issued by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in October 2024, and I urge senators to put Bill S-2 and the committee’s recommendation side by side. The committee tells us what the treaty requires Canada to do now. It is a lot more than what is in Bill S-2.
Also the United Nations has ruled on three petitions challenging Indian Act sex discrimination: Lovelace in 1981, McIvor in 2019 and Matson in 2022. In these cases, Canada was found to be in violation of the right to equality and the right to culture. Canada has still not fully implemented the remedy in McIvor, and it has given the back of its hand to the Matson decision.
Two international inquiries by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have found that the harms done to women by Indian Act sex discrimination are root causes of the catastrophic violence experienced by First Nations women and girls. The National Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found the same and called on Canada to eliminate sex discrimination from the Indian Act and comply with international human rights law. There is no domestic or international law which permits ongoing gender and race discrimination against First Nations women and their descendants.
And then there is UNDRIP. Article 8 of UNDRIP says that Indigenous Peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture or any form of forced population transfer that violates any of their rights. They also have the right to reparations for forced assimilation and its effects. In addition, Indigenous Peoples have the right to belong to their communities and nations without discrimination based on sex. The second generation cut-off violates Article 8 of UNDRIP, as well as Article 9, the right to belong, and Article 44, women’s right to equality.
First Nations women and their descendants have accomplished a lot since 1971, correcting sex discrimination and reversing forced assimilation with the help of the courts, the United Nations and this committee. With Bill C-31, we got back 130,000, with Bill C-3 38,000 and with Bill S-3, 88,000. That’s a total of 257,000 women and their descendants restored to their rightful place in 54 years. But 54 years is long enough. We are at a crucial point. It is time to end sex discrimination and stop forced assimilation.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Day.
We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have four minutes for your interventions, including the question and its answer with a 30‑second heads up.
Senator McPhedran: A huge thank you to both Professor Palmater and Ms. Day. We have seen this movie before. We shared with the minister that, indeed, this has a whole sense of déjà vu for many of us.
In thanking you for your decades of work on this, as well as your colleagues like Sharon McIvor, let me say I really do see you as the experts, and I think this opinion is shared by many on this committee.
We thought we had it in Bill S-3. Is there now wording that you have reached the conclusion is the perfect wording to finally fix this mess?
Ms. Palmater: Is that for me or Ms. Day?
Senator McPhedran: Both.
Ms. Palmater: As soon as we heard about Bill S-2, we started working on draft legislative amendments to address the second‑generation cut-off, get rid of this bar to compensation for native women and things like that, so we do have some draft wording. We have been working on it. We can share that with a larger committee, but yes, we already have it. I believe it’s already gone through the legal people that look at that from the Senate. So yes, it’s good and it’s ready to go, and this amendment would pass the Charter test far more than Bill S-2 would for sure.
Senator McPhedran: Ms. Day, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Day: I don’t have anything to add.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to both of our witnesses for sharing your knowledge and advocacy of, as mentioned earlier, many decades. I want to recognize you for that.
We heard testimony earlier at this committee from Minister Gull-Masty speaking about their intentions on how they seek to address the second-generation cut-off.
Professor Palmater, you mentioned that there has already been extensive consultation, and the minister has indicated a process of further consulting. I’m curious with yourself and Ms. Day, can you comment in terms of if there has been enough consultation? Professor Palmater, you do mention that there could be a way to undertake consultations while still dealing with second‑generation cut-off, as I understand you mentioning. So I’m hoping both of you can comment on the subject of the consultations that already have been undertaken as it relates to second-generation cut-off. Thank you.
Ms. Palmater: Thank you, and thank you for undertaking this study.
In terms of consultations, there are some things that the federal government can’t consult on — whether or not to discriminate on the basis of race or sex, whether or not to maintain a legislative extinction formula and contribute to an act of genocide. So you can’t.
What you can consult on, however, is how do you support First Nations, how do you support the people who are newly registered, how do you ensure there’s enough housing and infrastructure.
We know from all of the past amendments that fears around this big flood of hundreds of thousands of people all of a sudden moving on-reserve, that simply didn’t manifest. We know that from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
We don’t have to worry. It’s more about the federal government figuring out how to support First Nations and the newly entitled in that regard. It’s not an either-or. Get rid of second gen, continue on with the consultations on how to do all of the support mechanisms.
The other thing I’ll say is that the first round of nationwide consultations on this issue was in the 1980s. That first report, the Aboriginal commission, came out in 1990, and it said that by far the biggest concern was second generation, and the core recommendation was to repeal it.
There was a report done in 1996, and it said the same thing. The exploratory process after Bill C-3 that was done in 2011, nationwide consultations because we were concerned then they weren’t addressing it. By far, remove all sex discrimination and the second-generation cut-off. Special minister’s report — they actually had a special ministerial representative, Claudette Dumont-Smith. Nationwide consultations. I was a part of many of these things. By far, they noted the biggest concern was the second-generation cut-off and the refusal to provide money or compensation. And, of course, the collaborative process, in 2017. Oh, my goodness. We keep doing the same thing again, which is why I’m very concerned that it’s being weaponized to delay justice, and why? Why would that happen? Is it because they just don’t like us? No. Canada’s Indian policy has always been to get rid of the Indian problem, because what is that? That’s treaties that they’re still bound by, there are financial obligations and the fact that we stand in the way in terms of reserves and reserve lands.
I think all of this culminates in the Senate committee report that you did, Make It Stop!, and you said the exact same thing. I don’t know how many times we have to say the same thing and for them to just comply with their own Constitution, Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, international laws. And, remember, Canada passed Bill C-15. It agreed to make sure that all of its laws were compliant with the rights that were in United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, at a minimum. If nothing else, that alone mandates that Canada cannot knowingly pass legislation that violates all of it — constitutional rights, Charter rights, Indigenous rights, international rights.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. Ms. Day?
Ms. Day: Senator Prosper, we’ve heard this before, with all due respect to Minister Gull-Masty, whom we’re delighted to see in her position. Her speech to you and to us, it was the same one that we’ve heard many times before — “Just do this little piece, and then we’ll fix the bigger problem.” And we can’t wait any longer.
The second-generation cut-off is, as I’ve already said to you, a violation of equality rights, a violation of the right not to be forcibly assimilated. It’s having devastating effects now — now — on younger people. Not only do we worry about the diminishing of the numbers of nations as time passes, but right now it’s having a very harsh effect on young people. We’ve got generations in front of us that we need to care for them now. We can’t say, “Wait longer.”
I think the committee got it right in 2022. It said, “Get rid of 6(2) now and have a transition plan,” and that’s exactly what we’re saying to you. You can do it now.
I would say another thing. This will help the Nicholas plaintiffs. We very much support them, but we know that they’re going to be faced by the second-generation cut-off too unless we get rid of it. So everybody is in the same boat about that. We can do it all at once.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the panellists. You are incredible, strong women, and it’s good to see you, Ms. Palmater. Long time.
I wanted to go to the non-liability clauses and that they were — that June 2022 report recommended the federal government to introduce legislation to repeal non-liability clauses, as you said.
In your view, should the Government of Canada consider providing compensation or other forms of reparations to those impacted by discriminatory registration provisions without the need for litigation? In your view, what should reparations look like? When we look at the numbers that are waiting and people that don’t have the ability to live near reserves or — and start to understand what kinship is, that they’ve waited so long — those are going to be my grandchildren one day, waiting. But I do take them back to the reserve. We need to look at what they have done without.
So what would reparations look like for the ones that have been waiting and the ones that would come if the second-generation cut-off is — if we don’t make that amendment?
It’s for both of you.
Ms. Palmater: Thank you for the question, and it is so nice to see you. I need to get to Manitoba. That’s just a reminder that I need to get to Manitoba.
Here is the thing that is so frustrating — you can probably tell when I’m speaking — that time and time again, Native women and our kids are the lowest priority for anything in this country. I mean, we’ve had a national inquiry. No one even talks about it. No one talks about the 231 recommendations, this ongoing crisis.
When it comes to compensation, here you have — in this country, Canadians can get a Charter remedy for breaches of the Charter. You know, it can change laws. You can have financial compensation. There are a bunch of different things that can happen.
But here we have, only for First Nation women and our descendants — and every time there’s an amended piece of legislation to end discrimination, sex and race-based — “Oh, yeah, but you can’t sue us for all the past times that we discriminated.” So they keep insulating themselves over and over and over again, and if you look at the compensation system across the country, whether it’s First Nation kids in care, whether it’s First Nations water, whether it’s Indian residential schools, day schools, Indian hospitals, forced sterilizations have class actions — there is no end to compensation settlements in this country, but we specifically are singled out and targeted.
This act purports to prevent us from even sitting down and having that conversation on compensation. It’s an absolute bar to compensation. So, yes, we deserve it. We know international human rights say that we are entitled to reparations. Now it’s law. UNDRIP says we are entitled to reparations. What does that look like?
Yes, sometimes it’s financial. There are a lot of lost educational opportunities, for example, health benefits, things that we’ve had to do to scrape by, many of us, disproportionately single mothers. But there are also things like housing on reserve. Yes, we also have to remember that there’s a crisis on reserve. There are massive housing lists, there’s not enough land. Canada is not doing enough to add lands to reserves, so it needs to do that at the community level.
But what about all of the single and First Nation moms out there in urban areas, or remote areas that aren’t on the reserve or not in the same province? We need housing specifically for women and kids, we need education supports, we need child and family service supports so that we can go and get an education or work, because we all know that education is the number 1 indicator of women being empowered to be able to escape violence. Having housing means we don’t have to be stuck in situations of domestic violence.
There are a whole bunch of things, including access to culture and language. We have the Indigenous Languages Act, where is all the money? Where are all the Indigenous languages support and immersion programs?
We need to do that. It’s about welcoming our people back home, not just, okay, you’re registered, bye, we’re done. Sorry we discriminated, we’re walking away from this. No, Canada needs to sit down with us, just like it’s done with every other group that it has wronged, in my opinion.
Ms. Day: I’ll add just a very few words to that. First of all, I think the bars to compensation are a blatant insult. It’s very hard to just contemplate how over and over again, as Ms. Palmater has said, in every piece of legislation, there’s a bar to compensation, including in Bill S-2.
The other thing I would like to say is the invitation seems to be, so sue us. Go to court. Try to knock down the bars to compensation and see how you do. And in the time of reconciliation, if it means anything, I do not understand how Canada can be forcing women, who have spent 54 years already fighting this discrimination, to be sending them back to court as though that is some answer to the situation that they’re in.
Again I say, I think this committee got it right in 2022. Get rid of 6(2), get rid of second generation and have a transition plan. And part of that transition plan should be this: Think about the compensation, what is the right way to do it and how can it be done? Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much to our witnesses. Welcome back. This is such an important matter. And as you’ve both emphasized, there’s a big advantage that this bill is actually starting here in the Senate and there’s an opportunity to get it right, right now, before we send it to the other place. So I really appreciate all of your advice and encouragement, and reminders of the work that this committee has done in the past. And what you are recommending, in fact, reinforces what has come before. So thank you for that.
My question is — and I know Senator McPhedran asked about wording for an amendment that you have both been a party to, and you will send that to us. What I’m curious about is, is there one amendment that will encompass all the changes, or are we looking at more than one amendment? And I know, number 1, the second generation, we have to fix that once and for all as part of this, including what’s already in this bill, which you’re not wanting to hold up. In fact, you’re saying this will help us advance that.
What else beyond the second generation rule, if anything, would be that one amendment, or other amendments? Just wondering if there’s anything else.
Ms. Palmater: Go ahead, Ms. Day.
Ms. Day: I think, as we can envision it right now, Senator Coyle, there’s one amendment that can get rid of the second‑generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off; there would be a separate amendment to deal with bars to compensation; and then there’s some fiddling with language to deal with the question about section 10 bands and women being returned.
So, in essence, I think there are probably three amendments that we’re talking about, one to existing language, the bar to compensation is probably a separate one, and then the amendment on second-generation cut-off and 1985 cut-off is, again, an amendment to language that is already being engaged by Bill S-2.
The Deputy Chair: Professor Palmater, did you want to add anything?
Ms. Palmater: As you know with any amendment, any time that we have to amend something you’re just adjusting language a little bit. We don’t have 20 things outside of all of these things. We are staying well within the scope of the bill in terms of what the bill says, that is new entitlements to Indian registration and issues related to membership. So we’re well in the scope, it’s just amending some of the language and ensuring that — the big one is really the removal of the bar and the second generation, whatever wording needs to happen around all of that, but it’s not outside the scope. We know we have to stay inside within what it is you’re looking at.
Senator Klyne: I have some questions for both the witnesses. On September 24, 2025, Minister Gull-Masty emphasized the need to act quickly on Bill S-2, noting that the second-generation cut-off is a complex issue that would require a stand-alone engagement process to address.
As I understand it, and certainly listening to your remarks, there’s no room or time to delay addressing the second‑generation cut-off effect on First Nations. So just to be clear on what is at stake here, if there’s foot dragging and going through another dragged-out process, what is at stake in terms of the cons of that? And, on the other side, if it’s accelerated and we get on with the elimination of the second-generation cut-off sooner than later, what are the up sides of doing that?
Ms. Palmater: So it’s all pros. First of all, you know we’re dealing with a court-imposed deadline for the Nicholas litigants, and we support that. We had the same court imposed deadline in the Descheneaux case, but as long as you can show any court you’re moving along, so you make this amendment to Bill S-2, but Bill S-2 continues to move along. They have their mandate and go through the amendments. So if you know you’re going to be a month later, or two months later, you can go back to the court in good faith and say, we’re just about there. We just need to work on the authorities, but the amendment itself doesn’t need to drag. The amendment itself can be added.
That doesn’t impact the Nicholas litigants. And I also would caution against anyone worrying that if an amendment is added the feds are all of a sudden going to say, oh, well, if you do an amendment then nobody gets registration, Nicholas litigants, no one is going to get it. You know that’s not going to happen. You know that this is a court-imposed deadline. You know they have to have Indian registration. So no matter what we do with the bill they’re still going to get registered, and we 100% support that. Nothing is going to impact that for them.
It’s “what about us?” We would have a situation where who knows what is going to happen. Look at what is happening in the world. You can’t look at ministers who appear on behalf of ISC or CIRNAC as the person that is sitting there. Try to imagine the worst person in the world — the grinch, say — and them telling you the same thing. We’ve heard it from the ministerial position over and over again. Sharon McIvor reminded us the other day that she’s heard this from 18 ministers of Indian Affairs, in succession, one after another.
You cannot ask anyone to delay Charter and constitutional rights, and defend this system. You can’t say, “Well, we have a consultative process,” because they’re already planting the seeds of, “Well, people have different ideas, and we night not get 100% agreement.” No one will have 100% agreement on anything. However, from all of the nationwide consultations over the last 40 years, a majority of us have all agreed that the second-generation cut-off needs to go.
So I don’t know if they’re just looking for a different answer, but they have the answer. We’ve done the consultations. They have spent millions on it, in fact. We don’t need to do it again. Also, we can do it at the same time as addressing the Nicholas litigants, and they will enter into an Indian Act that won’t cut off their kids.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both witnesses for your ongoing work, not just in this area but in many of them.
We’ve heard from First Nations about the right to be self‑governing and the potential that this could interfere with that. I’d like you to talk about that. We also know the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly articulated that there’s no such thing as incremental equality. The government has a responsibility there. We’ve also heard repeatedly from various folks about the importance of addressing rights now — not delaying but actually building up the responsibility and the liability of Canada by continuing to allow discrimination.
In your opinion, what message would it send to Indigenous women in this country if, after the report Make It Stop! in 2022, this committee did not fix Bill S-2?
Ms. Day: Okay, just let me answer that, Senator Pate.
I’m afraid that it would send the message that these things are said but they can always be delayed. As Ms. Pam Palmater has said, women are always the last to be considered.
I remember Senator Lovelace, when she was on this committee, saying to the Senate, I believe, that women are somehow always at the bottom of the totem pole; I believe those were her words. I don’t think this Senate committee wants to send that message. That is not the message they have sent; this committee has been stellar in supporting First Nations women. It’s made a huge difference. We want to keep that. We believe in this committee and what it can do. It’s an extraordinarily important voice inside the Canadian Parliament to bring attention and understanding to these issues.
You’re playing a huge role in what we all want to believe is reconciliation by doing that.
Ms. Palmater: If I have time, can I respond to the self‑government question very quickly?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, very quickly.
Ms. Palmater: There’s a fundamental difference between the self-government — or self-determination or right to determine your own citizenship and membership under section 10 — and the separate issue of Indian status. That is the direct relationship between Indians under subsection 91(24) and the federal government. Those are treaty rights, Indian reserves, Indian bands and “Indians.” That’s a relationship that is totally separate that Canada is 100% in control of. It cannot unilaterally cut off whom it has a relationship with. The Treaties are the heirs and heirs of our heirs forever.
The other side self-determination, which I 100% support, is under band membership and self-government is under self‑government citizenship. They’re two separate issues; sometimes they get conflated as one, but they’re separate. It’s similar with residency bylaws regarding people who want to kick out drug dealers and things like that. Those are bylaws under the Indian Act, and they don’t relate to status or membership.
Senator Clement: Hello to both of you, and thank you for your testimony.
Thank you both for saying that women who live in intersectionality are the lowest priority — or no priority — and are vulnerable to violence. You both said it, and it’s clear that’s what it is.
I want to come back to what you were saying to Senators Pate and Klyne about doing things at the same time. When I speak to the people in Akwesasne — I’m in Cornwall, and I live on traditional Mohawk Territory — they’re watching this committee and Bill S-2. They want things to move, and they want it amended. However, they’re also saying to the Canadian government, “Get out of the way. We want to determine our own identity. We manage and know our community. We know who is who here. Get out of the way.”
So how do we do all of those things? How do we move Bill S-2 forward? How do we amend it? How do we also get out of the business of deciding who is Indigenous and who is not? What does that look like doing all of those things at the same time?
Ms. Palmater: Similar to how I responded to Senator Pate, it’s about distinguishing what we’re looking at. We know the Indian Act is going to be around for quite some time, because it’s a whole separate process whether there’s an Indian Act and whether it gets amended. There are Treaties that were set up under the Indian Act and so forth. So long as we have the Indian Act, it’s the federal government that decides who is an “Indian” and that relationship under subsection 91(24). It’s the First Nations that have the option to make up their own membership codes and decide who is a member of their community, if they so choose, under section 10. Some bands have done that and some haven’t.
That’s where the self-government comes in and that’s where what matters to our First Nations — culture, tradition, connection and all of those things. Those things can happen at the exact same time, and they’re not in conflict with one another.
Canada might lead you to believe they’re in conflict with one another and conflate getting out of the business of this, but we’re saying that First Nations have the option to decide who is a member. Canada is the one that has this legal relationship to Indians. It cannot unilaterally have a formula that ends that relationship, because it’s very much tied to Treaties and Treaty nations, whether it’s pre-Confederation or the numbered Treaties. We’re talking about “Indians,” “Indians” under Treaties, and the heirs and our heirs forever. It’s very important for them not to conflate it.
Here is the other thing: If Canada or anyone suggests that there might be a midpoint and “why don’t we say we’re going to leave second-generation cut-off in there but allow bands to just opt in and BCR people in who might be cut off,” that would be the worst thing that could happen. Here is why: It allows Canada to say, “Well, we gave them the option. We’re not the ones enforcing second-generation cut-off; those are the bands.”
Imagine 1.5 million people now looking at their bands and suing their bands, saying, “Now you’re the one that’s enforcing second-generation cut-off.” Canada does not have the legal right to transfer its legal or financial liability to First Nations — absolutely not — when they can fix their mess now and help support bands on the membership side. Those are two separate things.
Senator Clement: Got it. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: We’re drawing near the end of our time, but we do have a question remaining. I’m going to invite you to ask your question. Witnesses, please respond in writing to the clerk.
Senator Prosper: My question gets back to the minister who is here before us, talking about the rationale for consultation, where she’s saying these issues are complex.
I’m quite curious about the link between complexity and extermination or forced assimilation, but let’s face it, we’re in a time of austerity, there are some people that would say we can’t have more status Indians, because it’s going to cost Canadians more.
I’m curious what you would say in response to that. I’m sorry that we don’t have enough time for your verbal response, but if you could provide something in writing, we’d appreciate it. Wela’lin, thanks.
Ms. Palmater: I would be happy to.
The Deputy Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Hiy hiy. If you wish to make any other subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk. We would be greatly appreciative. This brings us to the end of our meeting today, honourable colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)