THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 8, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:47 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: Welcome, 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 ensure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for that purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I acknowledge 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 nehiyaw and from Treaty 6 territory, and I am the deputy chair of this committee.
I will remind my honourable colleagues that at our first public meeting on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, the elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, 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 very important meeting today.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick, part of the unceded lands of the Mi’kmaq People.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Cornwall, Ontario, traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba, Treaty 1 land and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.
Senator Tannas: Senator Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: Judy White, Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador, the traditional homeland of the Mi’kmaq People.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Today, we will continue our study of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
I would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses: At the table, from the Dionne Schulze law firm, please welcome David Schulze, Partner. Welcome, sir. Via video conference, from the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, please welcome Brandy Callihoo, Director. Welcome. As an individual, also via video conference, please welcome Cheryl Simon, Assistant Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. Welcome, Ms. Simon. Thank you to all of you 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 the senators. I will now invite Mr. Schulze to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.
David Schulze, Partner, Dionne Schulze law firm: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and senators. I will try to meet my five minutes. There is a lot to cover here.
I come to this from a past life of having studied history and now being a lawyer for quite a few years and having been involved not in the case that led to Bill S-2, but rather the Descheneaux case, the Hele case on enfranchisement and the McIvor case in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. If I am covering things you know already, please feel free to interrupt me, but I thought we could step back for a minute and look at the context.
In 1985, section 15 of the Charter comes into effect — that’s why April 17, 1985, is a magic date — and we are moved from essentially a patrilineal system of giving Indian status to something that’s supposed to be gender-neutral.
In the 1951 Indian Act, who is an Indian? A male, the child of a male, the wife of a male, the widow of a male and one exception is the illegitimate child of an Indian woman if you can’t prove the father is not Indian. Otherwise, it is a purely patrilineal system. The year 1985 comes with the Charter, and we have to recognize equality rights. Everything you have been doing in Parliament with Bill C-31, Bill C-3, Bill S-3 and now Bill S-2 is about managing that transition because it didn’t really work. Of course, unfortunately, the government knew it wasn’t going to work.
I always illustrate that with the example of two former leaders in Odanak, the Abenaki community that I worked with for many years. When I started working on these issues, the Chief was the late Gilles O’Bomsawin. One of the councillors was his sister Claire O’Bomsawin, a founder of Quebec Native Women. Each of them married non-Indians in the 1960s. The result for Gilles was his wife became Indian, and under the 1985 amendments, he could transmit status to his great-grandchildren because his sons also married non-Indians.
Claire, on the other hand, lost status, but then got it back in 1985. Her children had status but not her grandchildren and certainly not her great-grandchildren.
What Parliament did in Bill S-3 — to put it very simply, it’s what people called “6(1)(a) all the way” — was to put the line of descent for an Indian man who married a non-Indian woman on an equal footing with an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man. Until those bills came along, you could imagine an uninterrupted line of Indian men who married non-Indians from 1869 to 1985, and their children would all have status, but if his sister married out in 1869, that was it. That was changed. That’s “6(1)(a) all the way.”
I’m saying that because I want you to notice that, essentially, as I understand it — and I’m not the last word on this — Bill S-2 essentially is “6(1)(a) all the way” for people who are enfranchised and their descendants. They end up in the same status categories. I should say quickly that I think that’s a good thing. I have no objection to it.
I have a reservation that I thought I would point out because I don’t know if it has been pointed out to this committee before, but Canada essentially consented to a judgment. They filed a defence that said the Nicholas case was correct. There was discrimination, but they said it was racial and ethnic discrimination. They did not admit there was sex discrimination. I find that very strange, and if I may be so bold, if I were a senator, I would want to know from the Minister of Justice why that was. I will tell you quickly why, to me, this is clear sex discrimination.
From 1876 to 1985, a married Indian man who enfranchised himself ultimately enfranchised his wife and children. There was an exception if they were separated. To me, that was sex discrimination because after Bill C-3, Bill S-3, the Descheneaux case and the McIvor case, the perverse result was for the woman whose husband enfranchised her, then her grandchildren were worse off than if her sister lost status by marrying a non-Indian man. That’s one of the big things that’s being corrected by this bill. Why are we not admitting that’s sex discrimination?
If I could allow myself, as a lawyer, there is a general rule that the government doesn’t admit if legislation is unconstitutional, and that used to really bother me because it meant I had to argue all sorts of things that seemed obvious to me. One of the reasons offered for that is it’s not for a minister of the Crown to go to court and get a different result from what Parliament voted on.
I find it odd here. Are we in a new era where the Attorney General will just admit things are constitutional or unconstitutional? In a lot of ways, it’s a good thing that we have saved a lot of time, but it is an odd thing when the Attorney General is not admitting the obvious.
There are a few other points I want to make. There is an extra provision you may not have talked much about yet: the natal band provision. Pre-1985, if an Indian woman married an Indian man from another band, automatically she went to his band list. It’s very progressive — not progressive, but it’s very positive. This bill will give those women the right to go back to the bands they were born to, but not if they are section 10 bands and not if they’re bands that control their own membership lists — no right.
I want to point out to you that there is a whole population, especially on the Prairies and especially in Alberta, of people who have status and no band because in 1985, we created the right for bands to adopt their own membership codes, which could be more generous or more restrictive than the Indian Act. If they are more restrictive, you have all sorts of people who don’t come onto the list. For a lot of these women, this is an empty right. Their band won’t take them back. I want to really flag that as something important.
Then here’s the other thing: I’m sure I’m running out of time, but at the time of Bill S-3, a few senators like Senator McPhedran, Senator Pate and, I believe, Senator Tannas were there, and there were a lot of scenarios. They said to not do “6(1)(a) all the way” because there will be a million new Indians. So far, there have been 28,000. There are a lot fewer people, as I understand it, affected by this.
I would like to draw your attention to the Auditor General’s report on the Indian Registrar.
I hope it’ll go smoothly for the enfranchisees, but we have seen the figures — and you will hear from Brandy Callihoo about her experience — and there is a backlog of 12,000 cases, and the registrar managed to deal with 37 protests in five years. A protest is when the registrar refuses you and it is, effectively, a reconsideration. You need the protest decision before you can go to court. If the registrar waits five years to rule on your protest, you are waiting five years to even go to court and challenge it.
All I can say is, “What the heck?” How did they end up with a backlog of 12,000 people? How come they can’t turn around protests faster than 37 in five years? That’s the practical reality on the ground from all this.
I see you are being indulgent, so I’ll say one other thing. There are still going to be scenarios, believe it or not, where children of the same parents will have different statuses.
Something I want to flag for you, which I know was mentioned to you on the first night of hearings, is that for an Indian woman who has a child outside of marriage, pre-1985 the child is a section 6(1) Indian. Since it’s all about what your parents are, post-1985 the child is a section 6(2) Indian. We know there are cases like that.
I’m not here to ask you to rule on whether that is Charter compliant, but I think it is hard to take seriously a law that says, “We have a beautiful system for figuring out status, but it could give different results within the same family.”
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schulze.
I will now invite Ms. Callihoo to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Brandy Callihoo, Director, Michel Callihoo Nation Society: Thank you for having me here. It is regrettable that my colleagues from the Michel Callihoo Nation Society were not invited to join as well. We have waited a long time to share our collective stories on how the Indian Act has affected our nation. We also await band recognition as we sit at an exploratory table with the folks in the Alberta region. We have already submitted a section 17 request, as requested by the minister.
Tanisi. My name is Brandy Callihoo. My Indigenous roots are Cree and Iroquois — Mohawk. I was born in 1976 to Jerry and Rose Callihoo. My grandparents on my dad’s side were Sam and Florine of the former Michel Band, located west of St. Albert and Villeneuve, Alberta. My two times great-grandfather was Michel Callihoo, a signatory to Treaty 6. Our nation was enfranchised, but the ancestors suffered every indignity brought about by the Indian Act.
I grew up in Edmonton, as by the time I was born, the government had already illegally enfranchised the Michel Band in 1958 via section 112 of the Indian Act. The government also breached the treaty. Growing up in the city was hard, and it was made harder by the loss of our roots. My father was around 14 years old when the reserve was sold off to the settlers in the area. To say that this had a profound impact on his mental health is putting it lightly. I also recently found out that my father lost a child to the Sixties Scoop. They were actually told that she died at birth, and we found out just recently that was not the case. His only son was also adopted by another man.
My grandmother Florine was a Survivor of the Youville Residential School in St. Albert. I was unaware of this until I was in my thirties and had started working with Survivors in the adjudication process for the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. It’s not something she spoke of, as I am sure it was too painful. My grandfather Sam was a World War II veteran, and he struggled with addictions and mental health issues as well.
I realized later in life the impacts that the school and the forced assimilation process had on my family. Unfortunately, my family was riddled with addictions, and many have passed on before their time. This was due to the intergenerational traumas my family endured. Can you imagine being stripped of everything you have ever known? The loss of family, culture, traditions, language and ceremony was too much for many to bear. Many lost themselves in addictions, or they moved as far away from the old reserve and tried to bury any reminders of who they were.
My story, unfortunately, is not unique coming from Michel. It’s a story I hear often from various family members trying to find their roots. At one point, I was told I did not belong because I didn’t carry a status card, and only those with a status card would be included. I was devastated, to say the least. In fact, I’ve been told my whole life by various people that I didn’t belong and because I didn’t have a status card, I wouldn’t belong. The government misclassified my grandfather as a 6(1)(f), and he should have been a 6(1)(d). I should have had my status since 1985.
Gaining my status is a small part of it, though. I know who I am and where I come from. No plastic card is going to define who I am; however, I am a treaty Indian with rights immemorial. I have finally received my status after 34 years of fighting but not through my father. It was through my protest, which David just spoke about. I was one of the people who protested and actually didn’t get a decision rendered. There was no evidence that my mother was entitled to be registered. Once we asked the Federal Court to order the registrar to make a decision, they suddenly discovered that my mother’s family’s female ancestor had married out, and I was suddenly entitled to be registered under Bill S-3, and I am grateful for that. However, it still doesn’t address the inequities that happened because I am a Michel descendant whose family was enfranchised.
The protest is still going through the courts as we speak, as the notion that the Michel Band was “legally” enfranchised is still enforced and used against us via section 112 of the Indian Act. As David mentioned about the discrimination that the bands use, it is also fair to mention my children are registered to Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta. They are full status 6(1), but they don’t get the entitlements that the other band members get because my husband and I are coded 6(1)(a.1).
Simply putting Band-Aids on the Indian Act is not acceptable. Otherwise, what’s the point of my children having a home band like Saddle Lake? They might as well be on a general list like me and have very little benefit.
As for my mother’s side of the family, they were given scrip and never had any place to go home to either. The Métis Nation of Alberta slammed the door in my face, and I was told, “You’re a Callihoo. You’re treaty; you don’t belong here.”
This very colonial construct left people like me out in the cold for years. I grew up alone; there was nowhere for me to go back to and heal. As a result, I ended up a teenage mother, and life was very difficult. We suffered poverty, addictions and even homelessness at one point. Life was very difficult, and we endured a lot of hardships due to just being Indigenous. Doors were slammed in my face, and I even had to give up my children at one point due to being cut off of social assistance and having nowhere to go. The systemic racism has always been a factor, and I could have very well become a statistic due to the fact that no one cared.
For me, the damage has been done. However, my mission is to ensure that my grandchildren have a place to go home to. That starts with them being able to register for their status under Bill S-2. The passage of Bill S-2 is a start. As of now, there are approximately 1,100 descendants of the Michel Band who are awaiting the passage of this bill so that they will be included, should the minister exercise her discretion and formally recognize us as a band.
I will also be taking part in the second-generation cut-off in the voting thresholds that are current. This is a very small start in the truth and reconciliation that is yet to take place on Turtle Island and for the Michel Band as a whole.
Thank you for your time. Hiy hiy. Nia:wen.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Callihoo.
Ms. Callihoo: You are welcome.
The Deputy Chair: I will now invite Professor Simon to give her opening remarks. You have the floor.
Cheryl Simon, Assistant Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Kwe, niin na teluisi Cheryl Simon aq Kiptu piginnjij. Hello, my name is Cheryl Simon and Little Eagle Feather. I am Mi’kmaw, and I am here today in Dartmouth, which is the name for the “Place of the White Cot.”
I am here today to speak to Bill S-2. I want to be clear that while I am absolutely in support of this bill, I am also very aware that these amendments are addressing 19th century problems and don’t go far enough to address the inequalities set out in the Indian Act that we face today or the articles with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.
Issues regarding outdated language, the patriarchal view of women in relation to their husbands, colonial views on enfranchisement and respect for an individual’s autonomy should and could have been addressed in 1985, 2017 or 2019 when amendments to the Indian Act were previously made.
While I will speak to some specifics with respect to the bill, I also want to be clear because I always take the opportunity to bring up the fact that we need to remove the hugely detrimental second-generation cut-off set out in section 6 of the Indian Act. If this change is not made, more Indigenous People will be cut off from their families and communities, perpetuating the type of colonial harm that this bill is seeking to remedy. And without this issue being addressed, I fully expect more expensive and time-consuming litigation on these issues whereby we will once again find ourselves facing incremental changes that don’t bring about the equality that has long been denied to Indigenous Peoples. If the second-generation cut-off is not removed, a clear timeline should be considered and set out. There is no reason not to do so.
Turning now to Bill S-2, I’m going to raise a couple of issues that have really been prominent with respect to academia. While I am concerned that the amendments may address harm to those enfranchised and the women who were transferred to their husbands’ bands, as well as their descendants, there is nothing to mitigate the harm that may result from them acquiring legal recognition of their status and returning to their communities as a result of the bill. I propose that a preamble to the bill be included in an effort to mitigate harm and to acknowledge historic context and wrongdoings.
The harm that I am speaking about here that should be mitigated is this: For Indigenous People who have not had the ability to grow up in community or amongst their Clans and families but who seemingly suddenly appear or who are now articulating status in a manner that they did not in the past, they may be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunately, there are many instances — and the number is growing — whereby Indigenous People are accused of being fraudulent due to newly recognized Indian status or by moving into or declaring connections with a community where they were not previously known due to legal constraints imposed upon them by the Indian Act.
These issues are serious and have repercussions not only on cultural and psychological well-being but also on things like employability. Many institutions are adopting a vetting process for Indigeneity where status is used without the nuances of the Indian Act being fully addressed. In addition, the very communities that individuals have been legally kept from may be asked to attest to a connection which may have been legally severed. The government created this problem, and the incremental changes to the status have not fully addressed this issue.
The limitations on status should be clearly set out. When you consider the backlog of applications and the new eligibility that will arise from this bill, there will continue to be more people who are rightfully being recognized as Indigenous People, and thus the suspicion and accusations will continue to grow as more people become eligible to obtain status, and this harm needs to be mitigated.
Another issue is that proposing amendments in incremental ways strengthens the conflation of Indian status with Indigeneity by continuing to maintain the status system. While Indian status is not an indication of culture or membership in an Indigenous nation, there is a distinction made by the government between those who have status and those who do not when accessing programs and services targeted toward Indigenous Peoples, when individuals are asserting Aboriginal and treaty rights or when and how they are consulted by the government.
Recognition should be given to the fact that Indigenous Peoples have the fundamental right to determine their own identity and membership in accordance with Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, regardless of the status provisions set out in the Indian Act. After all, the goal, ultimately, is self-determination and recognition of Indigenous identity laws, not equal oppression under the Indian Act.
Another harm that is unfortunately not new is that the increasing number of community members will put a strain on resources that are not sufficient for the existing number of status Indians. People who are seeking to re-establish or strengthen community ties may be viewed as greedy or selfish when they are seeking to fill a cultural void and seek recognition in terms of their identity as opposed to being eligible for programs and services. If people under these circumstances are labelled as greedy or selfish or as causing harm to other community members, it can be an extreme breach of Indigenous values and principles, and the effect should not be underestimated.
Underfunding can be a barrier to Indigenous Peoples being welcomed back to their communities and may result, as was seen with Bill C-31 women, in codification of criteria that restricts band membership in an effort to protect limited resources. An acknowledgement of these harms, in context with respect to how and why these changes are being brought about, would be helpful to help people mitigate the harm and the way that they will be viewed when they acquire their status.
I just want to end with a quick story from a Mi’kmaw Elder in New Brunswick. When I was 21, I was part of a group that was being consulted with respect to proposed changes to the Indian Act, and this Elder was telling us as a group that prior to Bill C-31, women got together because they were asked the question: “What would it take to have equality under the Indian Act?” A long list was drawn up, and only a few components from that list were implemented. Then prior to changes being proposed in 2017, they dusted off that list and brought it back out again, and again only a few things were considered for implementation.
That Elder has since passed, and I worry how many more generations of women and their descendants and vulnerable people within our nations are going to have to dust off that list before the overarching issues are resolved. Wela’lioq.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Professor Simon, for your remarks.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a four-minute intervention, including the question and answer, and I’m going to have to be vigilant about the cut-off with a 30-second heads-up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator Tannas: I have two questions that I would pose and look for comments from Mr. Schulze and Ms. Simon.
First of all, we have heard various assertions that section 6(2), or the second-generation cut-off, wouldn’t stand up in court. My first question is this: Do you believe that’s the case, and if so, why hasn’t anybody taken it to court? Do you have any opinions about that?
Second is this issue of membership versus status and particularly membership to section 10 bands. Regarding the section 10 bands and their membership methodology and so on, are they shielded from litigation? We just heard of instances in Alberta — you mentioned it, Mr. Schulze, and others tangentially — where bands are starting to use the membership in ways of not recognizing people as their own. I am just wondering if they are shielded from litigation. If they are shielded from litigation, then what recourse do these Canadian citizens have for justice? If you can comment on that, Mr. Schulze first and then maybe Ms. Simon.
Mr. Schulze: I was going to let Professor Simon go first, but since you asked me, maybe I will go first.
Would the second-generation cut-off stand up in court? I hesitate to offer a clear opinion, but I would flag that there is a second-generation cut-off for citizenship of a sort. It is what they call the “Lost Canadians” case, and it is where you only get two generations of Canadian citizens not born in Canada. Imagine someone comes here as a child, becomes a Canadian, moves to the U.S. and has a child in the U.S., then that child is a Canadian, but not the third generation. That was judged to be contrary to section 15 of the Charter, and there is a bill before Parliament on that issue. They said it can’t be that mechanical of a test.
Why has no one challenged it? Well, I can just tell you we have kind of had our hands full with the other issues, having done a few of these cases myself.
On section 10 bands, are they shielded from litigation? Legally, no. Practically, there are huge obstacles.
I can tell you that my firm had looked at this, and I encountered a lot of resistance to the idea of even doing this kind of litigation. I had a feeling it was seen as being an attack on self-government.
What recourse do they have? There are some serious questions about those membership codes, but there are hundreds of them. And if you’re going to do it band by band, you’re going to be doing it for a long time, although it occurred to me there are other ways to do it.
Maybe I’ll just flag for you how this happened. This was the big compromise of 1985: You had to take these women back, but you could adopt your own membership codes, and you could start excluding people. There was this weird window created from 1985 to 1987, if a band adopted its own code, they had to take back the women who married out, but not their children. The ability to exclude people has diminished over time, but hundreds of bands jumped through that window from 1985 to 1987.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Simon, I’ll give you a minute.
Ms. Simon: One of the answers lies in the fact that the fight for equal oppression has been going on for 40 years in terms of making sure that people are not cut off from the reserve system and the bands, and that has occupied too much time and effort quite frankly. But now we also see a rise in people saying, “Enough of this system.” We need to implement and have support for Indigenous legal orders where kinship and natural governance systems are what the focus is, because if we continue to wait to rely on a perfect Indian Act that aligns with Indigenous legal orders, I don’t believe that is ever going to happen.
I think that has been a big shift because of the false dichotomy that has been created which pits human rights violations against self-governance issues.
Senator McPhedran: This is a question primarily to Mr. Schulze and Professor Simon. How do we fix this? What’s the amendment or amendments that would truly clean this up?
Mr. Schulze: I’m going to cede the floor to Professor Simon for the simple reason that I just don’t feel, as a non-Indigenous person, that it is for me to go into those bigger questions.
Ms. Simon: Thank you for that.
I think we have to look at this as a process that nations, not bands, are undertaking in terms of reasserting jurisdiction over Indigenous identity. For me, the answer lies in mitigating immediate harm and giving the nations the support that they need to enact their Indigenous laws. That would be “6(1)(a) all the way,” which negates the detrimental impact immediately with the Indian Act. And then reinterpret section 91(24) of the Constitution regarding “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” as a mechanism to support the section 35 self-determination efforts. Allow the nations to work together as a whole within their territory to enact laws that reflect their kinship systems and their governance systems in a contemporary context and then support and validate those laws.
It’s a very simple answer but a huge amount of undertaking and a shift in terms of thinking. I think you need to stop the immediate harm and then move forward with Indigenizing the laws.
Senator McPhedran: Again, to both of you, do you support the bill as it stands? Do we leave it alone — as lawyers?
Mr. Schulze: It’s a good bill for what it does. I would maybe just point out that it’s awfully convenient that Canada got this judgment because it kind of forces your hand, doesn’t it?
Ms. Simon: As I said in my remarks, I absolutely support this bill because I think it does remedy some harms that are long overdue, but I also think we need to look at it in the context of that larger process. What is the next step? What else can we do? How can we push these boundaries with respect to addressing and implementing UNDRIP and Indigenous identity laws?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Callihoo, would you have an opinion on that question?
Ms. Callihoo: Thank you for asking. Like David said, it addresses some of the issues but not all of the issues. And like Professor Simon said, there are just so many that I realize it’s piecemeal, and you’re forced to right now because you have a judgment. If it were me — and I’m just going to be honest — I would burn the Indian Act. I hate the Indian Act; it’s racist and it’s legislation that the Indians never asked for. To get rid of all the discrimination in there is a tough job. That’s my opinion. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you, Madam Chair. I admire your work.
You touched on the matter of Canadians who give birth for two generations outside Canada and hence lose their citizenship. When a woman who chooses Canada and becomes a Canadian citizen gives birth, is she required to name the father for the child to get Canadian citizenship? That’s my first question. It was my understanding last week that that was still the case.
Next, do you agree with me that we want to achieve our aspiration to the right of self-government, but with the brainwashing we’re facing about the categorization of women and children and discrimination against them, the government needs to resolve the discrimination problem, not just hope that the nations will do so? There are communities, as you may know, that continue to discriminate against us. I don’t want to name names, but…. Yes, I want us to get there one day, but for now, our women, our mothers and our children face discrimination. Do you agree with me?
Mr. Schulze: To answer your first question, no, a woman doesn’t have to name the father. I’m not an expert in citizenship law, but as far as I know, it doesn’t affect a child’s citizenship if the mother doesn’t name the father. I could be mistaken, because it’s not my area of expertise. What’s for sure is that there is no requirement to name the father in general.
For your second question, I think the answer is obvious. Let’s not fool ourselves. There are communities that have knowingly excluded…. As I said earlier in response to Senator Tannas, some communities accepted the minimum required. Women lost their status due to marriage, and that didn’t happen to anyone else. By the way, they were not obligated to take back the enfranchised. Some bands even exclude people who were enfranchised, struck off their list and then restored. These people too, not to mention their children, were not able to rejoin their band. They just got their card and appear on the general list.
[English]
Senator Audette: Any comment, Professor Simon?
Ms. Simon: Yes, I think part of the issue is that a lot of discrimination takes place at the band level without the nation having the opportunity to address the issues. I would like to see a tribunal struck where the nation gets to determine whether or not the individual band is acting in accordance with contemporary Indigenous laws, values and principles. And in that way, we are not still reliant upon the colonial system which does not understand our kinship systems and our governance.
I think that we should, as I said, try to grant status as widely as possible, and that includes hundreds of thousands of people.
And we need to start reconciling ourselves with those types of numbers and that type of action to resolve this issue in the most fulsome way, but I don’t like how the human rights violations are pitted against self-governance efforts because, like I said before, I think that’s a false dichotomy.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Simon.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for being here and for providing your testimony on a very important subject.
I just want to start with a comment to Ms. Callihoo to recognize your strength and your perseverance and your pride. It’s an incredible story you shared with us, and it’s something that really contextualizes a lot of this dialogue that we are deliberating on. I just wanted to recognize that.
Mr. Schulze, you answered a question from Senator Tannas with respect to the constitutionality of section 6(2), I believe. You deferred to Ms. Simon.
Good to see you again, Professor Simon.
Ms. Simon: Nice to see you as well.
Senator Prosper: There was mention of “6(1)(a) all the way” as being a potential avenue to allow or maybe to address the second-generation cut-off.
Do you think an approach like that will withstand Charter scrutiny as a potential solution? That’s for Mr. Schulze and Professor Simon.
Second — and I will try to be brief — often the federal government links status to membership, particularly around the subject of voting thresholds, double majorities and sort of implying that you can use membership to address status-related issues. I’m curious about your comments on that linkage between status and membership, if you don’t mind, Mr. Schulze and Professor Simon.
Mr. Schulze: I’ll go very fast. I’m not sure I understand the suggestion about “6(1)(a) all the way” as a solution. It seems to me we have gone about as far with that as we can, but maybe there’s something I’m missing.
On linking status to membership, I want to be really clear on this. I know it was discussed the first night.
First Nations can adopt membership criteria that are more generous than in the Indian Act, but they are only funded for status members.
And, really, why do we have status? Why does the federal government not care that much about Inuit beneficiary wills under the land claims agreement? Because they don’t pay very much. They fund public government in the North because the Inuit are 95% of the population anyway.
The federal government deciding who’s Inuit doesn’t change much about how much they have to pay. Deciding who is an Indian changes a lot about who they pay for on-reserve. That’s a lot of how we got into this.
Ms. Simon: Just to add on that, I think there could be problems with “6(1)(a) all the way” with respect to the distinction, but I think that is linked with the status and membership because every time there are incremental changes to the status, you see membership codes being touted as a tool of self-governance, where I worry that they are nothing more than an off-loading of that discrimination liability to the bands as opposed to the Crown.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses, and a special thank you, Senator Prosper, for thanking Ms. Callihoo.
I can’t even imagine withstanding so much of what you described. Thank you for being here.
If you have been following the testimony, I have asked this of other witnesses: We have heard very strongly about the need for further amendments to this bill in order to get rid of the discrimination that it alleges it will get rid of. I have unending respect for the minister in terms of being the first Indigenous minister tasked with doing this, and I am extremely concerned that it is on her shoulders to get this passed in much the same way as it was on the shoulders of the first disabled minister to get the disability benefit through, with the promise that the next step would be the next phase of equality, and then she was shuffled out of it.
I don’t want to presume that would happen to this minister, but it strikes me that this promise may not be something she can fulfill, regardless of all of her — I trust her intentions.
We have heard strongly that we should be amending this bill to try and address as much as possible the ongoing discrimination, so I would like to hear from each of you what your views are on that, starting with Professor Simon, then Ms. Callihoo and Mr. Schulze.
Ms. Simon: Like I said, I do like the idea of putting a preamble in this bill to enable the context and some of the nuances and the intent of it in order to enable it, perhaps, to pass with some of these issues still outstanding.
However, when it comes down to it, I’ve seen a rise in people losing interest in status. You see a large number of people, especially off-reserve, having no interest in registering their children because when you’re not on-reserve, and you’re not able to access programs and services, what do you actually get other than an erosion or a conflation of your Indigeneity with something that is completely foreign to your system?
Like I said, I think some of the harm that this bill seeks to address is important to fix, but I would like to see some clear language with respect to how it fits in with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and larger self-governance issues.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Callihoo, did you have a comment?
Ms. Callihoo: I do think this bill is very important, especially to my nation, as it stands.
Like I mentioned before, there are approximately 1,100 people who are awaiting the passage of this bill, and should we become a recognized band by the Honourable Minister Gull-Masty’s discretion, it will enable us to be able to include those people who don’t have status. Because the way the policy is sitting right now, it only includes status Indians for band recognition.
It’s very important to us as a nation that this bill gets passed, and I agree with Professor Simon that there’s a lot more to go, but I appreciate being here and being able to speak on this.
Thank you.
Mr. Schulze: I said before that I don’t feel some of these questions are mine to answer, but I guess my question back to you is: Amend it how? What is the proposal?
I don’t mean to be blasé, but it’s easy to criticize, and there is a lot to criticize. But you need to know what it is you are going to propose, and I haven’t heard anything clear yet.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all of you, but I will say [Indigenous language spoken] and nia:wen to Ms. Callihoo for putting in the emotional labour on this legislative process. I will ask my questions and get out of the way.
For Ms. Callihoo, can you speak a bit more about what life would look like for you and your family and your descendants if we got this right?
For Mr. Schulze, I heard you say that this is very much an issue of sex discrimination, but we are not naming it sufficiently, I don’t think. I am wondering how do we do that and where do we do that?
For Professor Simon, you talked about Bill S-2 being part of a process, but we’re dealing with a Crown that only does things when we take the Crown to court. How do you respond to this idea that we have to trust — you have to trust — that this is going to be a process that is going to eventually lead us to not equal oppression but the equal right to self-determination?
Ms. Callihoo: What it would mean to us is a step forward in being able to rebuild our band and gather our nation. I have people all the time who ask the question: “Do you think I qualify?” It’s such a hard question to answer without knowing their full history because people have been spread out all across the country. I know with this particular issue around enfranchisement, it’s one that plagues the majority of us.
It would mean so much because then we would be able to fully gather a lot more of our descendants. There will still be some left out because of the second-generation cut-off stuff and also the scrip. That’s another issue that I haven’t heard come up yet.
It would mean an awful lot to us to get the ball rolling and be able to gather our descendants.
Ms. Simon: When the word “trust” is used, I would reframe it a bit in terms of the following: I don’t think Indigenous nations and the work that we are doing with our students and the communities that we are working with are putting their trust in the government to fix it. I think they are putting their trust in themselves to provide an option that will be needed to be supported, and understanding that shift in roles is really important.
Mr. Schulze: In answer to your question, Senator Clement, where do we name this sex discrimination? I’m not a legislative drafter, but I think you could do it in the preamble.
Regarding your question as to how we trust government, it’s not easy. On the issue of women losing their status through marriage and the effects, that’s been on the table since at least the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, or the Bird commission, in 1970, and maybe now we’re near the end.
It’s difficult for me sometimes to exercise a high level of trust. I want to explain. Brandy Callihoo is my client. We had filed a protest for her, but no decision, nothing. We ended up having to take the registrar to Federal Court for what’s called an order of mandamus. We asked the Federal Court to order the registrar to make a decision so that we could appeal it. But we didn’t end up getting to the hearing because, miraculously, after having said they had no evidence, the registrar realized and said, “Oh, actually, no. You are entitled to be registered through your mother.” They discovered that Brandy’s great-great-grandmother had married out in 1874.
My level of trust is not high, but this is a good minister.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Nia:wen.
Senator Francis: Thank you to our witnesses for being here, and nice to see you, Professor Simon.
This question is for Mr. Schulze. You mentioned earlier that we should be asking the Minister of Justice why this issue was framed as something other than sex-based discrimination. Maybe we need to invite Minister Fraser to come to provide an explanation.
I wanted to ask whether you want to expand on this comment. Since I’m not a lawyer, I want to make sure I understand the practical and legal implications that are in this change of wording.
Mr. Schulze: The practical implications may not be that great right now because you’ve got this bill, and this bill goes further than that judgment, in any case, in some good ways.
The legal implications trouble me a bit because to me, the Minister of Justice looked sex discrimination in the face and said, “I don’t want to call it that, but can we call it racial and ethnic discrimination?” There’s a good argument why you could call it that too, but to me, it is first and foremost sex discrimination.
More honestly, as a citizen, my big concern is where does this end? Are we going to one day have an Attorney General filing a defence in a Charter case to some claim that I would find totally ridiculous but a future Attorney General would say, “Well, just file a defence. It’s their right, and then we’ll get a judgment that says that’s the law”?
I think the courts would hesitate to do that, but it’s always good to realize when you’re wrong. I used to wonder why we were fighting about some of this stuff. Why don’t they just admit it’s wrong? Now I look at this and think that there is something to be said for having the issues hashed out in court. I would have liked to have seen a judgment here saying this was sex discrimination too.
The drawback is this would have gotten to you a lot later. The advantage would have been that we would be calling it what it is.
Senator Francis: Thank you for that.
The Deputy Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, and thank you for your wise words. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses: At the table, from Les enfants d’Aataentsic, please welcome Mélanie Savard, Representative; and from Justice for Girls, please welcome Zoë Craig-Sparrow, Vice-President. Thank you both 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 the senators.
I will now invite Ms. Savard to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Mélanie Savard, Representative, The Children of Aataentsic: [words spoken in an Indigenous language]
With me are a Wendat grandmother and several Wendat children from my community who are currently cut off.
I spent 18 years as the mother of a child of the second-generation cut-off. Half my life and my son’s entire life were spent learning to live in genocide. I was cast aside, humiliated, with no access to resources, in a constant state of fear and anxiety, and with a sense of injustice impossible to quantify.
At 19, when I gave birth to my son, I was also condemned. No legacy of my time on Turtle Island could be passed down to my son, to my flesh and blood. If I die right now, my family heritage cannot be legally handed down to him. That means that in the next few months, I will have to sell our house — our roots and a refuge for us both. I’d rather mourn a material loss than hand down to him a sentence that will certainly haunt him for the rest of his life: the fact that he was not entitled to inherit what his mother had built for him and for us.
I have always raised my son with the Wendat identity. He is Wendat. In any case, I didn’t know how else to raise him. Not for a single day did I go to bed in peace. I live constantly in protection and anticipation mode.
I spent 17 years looking for hope on the internet, looking for newspaper articles, following the news, until one evening in April 2025. While once again hunting for information, my head on my pillow for the night, I learned that there was a national consultation going on about our life: being cut off. I spent the night reading and rereading everything I could absorb. I felt what is called “hope,” a hope so powerful that it was incredibly violent. Why wasn’t I notified on the day the consultation was launched? Why did my band council never share this information with its people?
On March 20, 2025, I created a private Facebook group called The Children of Aataentsic. In our mythology, Aataentsic gave birth to the world we now live in as well as its people. Through word of mouth and a message on my community’s public page, I launched an appeal: If you are parents or grandparents affected by the second-generation cut-off, know that you are not alone. To date, the group includes 153 people, 153 families. I’ve always had trouble contacting other families, since no one knows who is affected. In addition, our children are not registered by our nation. Their names appear nowhere. They do not exist.
How many people are living this reality, incapable of providing for their children and grandchildren? There’s no way of knowing. What we do know is that they don’t exist back home. However, we see them running around the streets laughing. They learn our language and our dances at school. Their little world is built around what we are and the cultural legacy of our elders, our traditions and customs. Their entire life is coloured by what defines us as Wendats, and we still listen to official or symbolic speeches, waiting for that value for our next seven generations.
I sent you a document listing all the actions we have taken since May 2025 in order to assert our right to the dignity of existing, but also showing the sociopolitical context we are trying to navigate back home.
The group was set up based on three objectives. The first is to allow parents, grandparents and children affected by the second-generation cut-off to gather confidentially to ensure their emotional safety and integrity. The second is to allow these families to discuss the realities they face on a daily basis, while educating ourselves about the law and its limitations, but also about the way our governance structure treats its non-status children. The third is giving them a chance to have a voice and get involved in all the actions we take.
Families affected by the cut-off are overall reluctant to speak out about their reality. This is a deep identity wound that leads to immeasurable inequalities. I would go as far as to say that what we and our children are experiencing could potentially lead to suicide.
During a private meeting with our grand chief, along with two grandmothers affected by the cut-off, I asked him if he personally felt that my son was Wendat. He replied in the negative.
Dozens of our families are having to silence their loyalty toward their children and their family to honour their loyalty to their employer. They are not allowed to speak publicly about anything to do with our council’s policies, even though these policies discriminate against their children.
In that regard, we found out that 17 kids were asked to sit in the stands of an arena where their local hockey team had gotten together for the finals, because they did not have a band number written on a piece of paper.
Families who dance in pow-wows were asked for their status card in order to participate, which caused our people generalized anxiety. Since most of these children do not have status now, some of them were not allowed to register for week-long culture camps on our territory. An 11-year-old child received a wonderful letter telling her that her individual portrait would be part of an exhibit in our local museum. After she wrote a piece to a Wendat ancestor describing her sense of belonging and pride in her identity, she received a second letter informing her that since she wasn’t Wendat, she couldn’t take part in the Un portrait de ma nation exhibit.
She is only 11. Families with children over two years old cannot get transport to go to their medical appointments. The stewards of the land have to tell us that our children have no business joining us at our family camps on the territory. They cannot fish, gather, trap or hunt with us at any time. We experience a huge amount of lateral violence.
I think that these examples of what we face every day may give you mixed feelings. Did I really need to give you a list of the physical, psychological, spiritual, identity-based, cultural, cognitive, emotional and legal consequences we experience every day? Isn’t there enough documentation, research and briefs about what women who lost their status through marriage as well as their children have gone through without their status? Are there not enough books quantifying the traumas resulting from all these unimaginable attempts at assimilation and extinction that our people have overcome? The past and the present prove to us, day after day, how resilient we are. Do not let these financial debates delay the amendments that will finally entitle us to let down our guard so we can simply live and have a genuine feeling of being alive.
Honourable senators, we are asking you to please work toward making all this violence end right now.
Honourable senators, I am tired. I’ve spent 18 years fighting in the shadows to honour my family, my friends, those who came before me and those who will come after me. We need to find peace again, but also our pride in our identity, which, day after day, is battered by all this violence, this exclusion, this discrimination and this oppression. All this will stay with us our entire lives, but if we can protect our children’s lives, this battle will have been worth it.
Abolish the second-generation cut-off and enshrine in law that the child of only one Indigenous parent with status will be given status. You have the power to give us our lives back so that we can keep living and finally get rid of the feeling of being condemned.
Senators, out of all our love, we have made you a corn doll in memory of our children, for whom we are summoning our courage, our honour and our voice this evening to tell you a bit about ourselves. [words spoken in an Indigenous language]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Savard.
[English]
I will now invite Ms. Craig-Sparrow to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Zoë Craig-Sparrow, Vice-President, Justice for Girls: ʔəy̓ sweyəl. [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Zoë Craig-Sparrow, and I am from the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓-speaking Musqueam Peoples and was born and raised on Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 2 in what is now known as Vancouver, British Columbia. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Peoples.
I first want to make clear that I am in support of Bill S-2, but there are key amendments that must be made before it is passed. The second-generation cut-off was introduced in 1985 and is a genocidal assimilationist policy that will lead to the legal extinction of First Nations. It must be removed from the Indian Act, and an amendment to Bill S-2 is the best opportunity to make this happen.
You’ve heard a lot about the second-generation cut-off. I am the cut-off.
My mother is full 6(1) status and my father was not status, so I was granted 6(2) status. My father passed away when I was nine, and I grew up on the reserve with my mother, next door to my grandma, aunt and grandpa Ed Sparrow, who raised me fishing on the Fraser River. I now own a home next to my mother’s and plan to raise my children there in our culture, with our language and with our people. I met my now-fiancé on Musqueam. He is not status but also grew up on the reserve, and we plan to have children together soon.
Our children will not have status.
In the eyes of the government, they will not be First Nations. My children will not be able to inherit my home; they will not be able to access government-funded education support or share my government-funded health care. And perhaps, most devastatingly of all, they will not be able to exercise their Aboriginal right to fish, which is a right so important not only to my family as Sparrows — and I’m sure you’ve heard of the Sparrow decision — but also to the Musqueam People as a whole.
In contrast, if my parents were both status Indians, they would. If my fiancé were a status Indian, they would. If I were a man born before 1985, they would.
When we say this will lead to legal extinction in three to four generations, we mean of entire nations and peoples. But this is happening now, with real, tangible implications for people today like me and my family.
I am the first generation in my family — after the intergenerational trauma of residential school — who can raise my children in a home in our community, free from violence and addiction. My mother broke the cycle, and I am the first to start fresh.
My grandpa fought so hard to survive residential school to see his “little family” — as he calls us — succeed, and he is so proud of me.
Isn’t that what reconciliation is? Giving us a chance to rebuild the lives, culture, families and rights that have been stolen from us.
I am the first in my family to go to university, and I am the first in my family whose children will not have status.
If we allow the second-generation cut-off to continue, we are letting the genocidal assimilationist goals of colonization succeed. I implore you, senators, do what you did in Bill S-3 and what you called for in your Make it stop! report, and stand up for what is right.
People’s rights are being violated right now. Every day that passes that we allow extinction documents to be a part of the legal backbone of our country is a day too many. I know that some argue that there are lengthy consultations under way and that we should just keep waiting. But you cannot consult on gender and racial discrimination, and you cannot consult on genocide.
We cannot keep waiting and afford more delays. My children cannot afford more delays. The Government of Canada, however, can certainly afford more delays. In fact, they have a vested economic interest in this delay and are benefiting from unjust enrichment. The government has a fiduciary duty to Indians. Getting rid of us absolves them of this responsibility.
I fundamentally disagree with any suggestion that there is a cohesive position from Indigenous Peoples that it is best to move forward on Bill S-2 as is and address the second-generation cut-off later. You cannot end discrimination incrementally. We cannot ensure equality for a few, and then wait years, if ever, for another bill to pass where piecemeal amendments are made and substantive equality remains a pipe dream, especially not when we have the opportunity here to do both.
I was so grateful to see Senator Greenwood share her concern, especially in light of Bill C-5, that we may have witnessed the high-water mark of reconciliation and that those waters may now be receding.
I sincerely hope that is not true.
As a young Indigenous woman, I ask you, esteemed senators, to push further, as you did in Bill S-3, and vote to approve amendments that will rid the Indian Act of sex and racial discrimination and the legal extinction of our people once and for all. Please do not make me fight my whole life, like Sharon McIvor and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, only to see justice delayed time and time again.
[Indigenous language spoken] Thank you all very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Craig-Sparrow. Thank you both for your remarks.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a four-minute intervention, including the question and answer, with a 30-second heads-up.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you both, Mélanie Savard and Zoë Craig-Sparrow. You have delivered brilliantly with a very strong sense of what it is that you struggle with every single day, and I really want to apologize for us, as parliamentarians and the parliamentarians who came before us, for not figuring this one out. We truly did think that we’d done it with Bill S-3, and for those of us who were part of the Bill S-3 process, to be here tonight is painful. I am sorry that we had to ask you to come back.
My question is about the fact that I think we all share a very great respect for Minister Gull-Masty. We share an appreciation that she is the first Indigenous person to hold this level of responsibility in cabinet. I want to ask you whether you have concerns about the promises — which I think you know were made here when the minister was before us — that she will fix this. It may not be with Bill S-2, but she will fix this. Do you have any thoughts on that promise?
Ms. Craig-Sparrow: Yes. Thank you for that question. It is very important. Even though this minister is an Indigenous woman — which is so wonderful and inspirational to see — she is still a representative of the government and has to act as a minister, not an individual. She is making a promise that we know and she knows she might not be able to keep. Justice Canada advises the minister, and she has to follow their directives.
Even so, in your Make it stop! report and the law, it does not say, “Wait until there is an Indigenous minister.” Even though she says the same thing as all the other ministers before her, they say, “This time, because she’s Indigenous, believe her, and just wait a little longer.” No, it says, “End it now.” The obligation of equality is an obligation of immediacy under international law. We’ve waited long enough.
In the words of Pam Palmater, from whom I know you heard yesterday, a promise of a future process is no promise at all.
The nice words of “Let’s just do this piece first. We’ll do the rest later” from Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, are not only empty and baseless; they are false. We’ve heard the same things time and time again. After Bill C-31, Indigenous women were told, “Just take what you can get now, and we’ll deal with sections 6(1) and 6(2) later.” Later never came. Then with Bill C-3, it was more of the same.
Failing to seize this opportunity to make change will delay justice and equality for entire generations. I am not willing to gamble away the future of my family line on yet another promise of “Just wait. We’ll do more later.” And I really hope you’re not either. They are the reason that we are in this genocidal mess, and they cannot be trusted to get us out. The time for change is now. We know that we can end the second-generation cut-off here, once and for all, not waiting to see if Minister Gull-Masty may be able to do it later. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Savard: How can I ask my son to believe these promises? He is 18 years old. How is it possible to just tell families, parents, grandparents and children that they will be cut off after the second generation? We are tired. This is agony; it’s a genocide. We are going through this because of the Indian Act. At the same time, our daily life in my community is tough going because of the looks we get from our peers and the type of governance. How much time?
As a mother, I don’t want to tell my son that it will take a year, two years, three years, 10 years or 15 years. I still want to protect him. As I said, I spent 17 years looking for just one newspaper article to try to understand, to reassure myself that I can’t be the only Indigenous women in the country in this situation. It’s extremely violent.
The day when something happens…. This can’t take years. It has to happen now. We need to feel we are getting our freedom back and taking pride in our identity as First Nations women, men, children and grandparents.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to both of you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you so much to the witnesses here. I am, at times, reminded of what a privilege it is to be a member of this chamber and to be a senator. The thing that really strikes me is when I hear testimony like this. It is so compelling that you just feel a presence. It goes in many directions: back in time, forward in time. I just want to recognize your leadership in that regard.
We heard numbers about if we deal with the second-generation cut-off, like “Oh my God, things are going to go really badly for the country.” We heard figures like 300,000 up to a projected date, or 750,000, or even 2 million. There is a bit of fear in a time of austerity, and people claim, “Well, the country can’t afford more status Indians.”
First, I look to you, Ms. Craig-Sparrow. What would you say in response to that in terms of those numbers? Ms. Savard, you can add to that as well.
Ms. Craig-Sparrow: Thank you. Concern over the idea that there will be millions of new status Indians who will overwhelm our communities and disrupt them is unfounded. It is alarmist and it is fearmongering. As of a couple of days ago, we have this information from ISC: Immediately, 22,000 new people would be entitled to status because of the removal of the second-generation cut-off. Looking forward, between 2021 and 2066, the high estimate from Statistics Canada is that 320,000 newly entitled individuals will be eligible for status. That is 320,000 over 45 years. That is about 7,000 a year.
I encourage senators to reach out to ISC for this data and to have more conversations, but even those numbers are generous. Every single amendment to date has overestimated the number of those entitled. Even less were actually registered. Spread over all 634 nations, that’s only about 12 new people per year per band. Obviously, that’s not proportionate, given the different sizes of bands. The numbers would vary. But I want to emphasize that this is not some massive influx that will inundate our bands. This will not be 2 million people banging on the door, saying, “Let me in.”
Ending the second-generation cut-off is not about inviting people to go back hundreds or even thousands of years to claim some distant Indian ancestor and claim status. The Indian Act was only enacted 149 years ago. The second-generation cut-off was enacted in 1985. This is about looking forward. We are talking about kids and grandkids of current status Indians and people like me who have connections to our community.
Yes, removing the second-generation cut-off will ensure that we have Indians in perpetuity, but is that not the point? The opposite of perpetuity is an end, and an end of Indians is the goal of genocide.
There are hundreds of thousands of new Canadians every year, costing billions. We welcome that as a good thing, which it is. But we are asking for an amendment that would see 300,000 new Indians over 45 years and an end to our extinction. I don’t understand how that is ever seen as unwelcome or a bad thing. A Canadian can pass on citizenship to their child with no extinction date for Canada, but I, an Indian, cannot pass on my Indian status to my child with an extinction date set for my people.
My children are certainly not the first. ISC also tells us that so far, since 2019, they have denied 14,000 status applications made by the children of section 6(2) Indians who are not currently eligible for status because of the second-generation cut-off.
We have to make these amendments now. That is 14,000 Indigenous children who have grown up without the rights, funding, connections, benefits and community to which they are entitled and which we need to survive and endure this genocide. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Savard: What I have in mind is a debate about the number of immigrants we can afford to welcome to the country. Is immigration good for the country? I am talking about the other nations of the world here on Turtle Island. Indigenous people have been in Quebec for 10,000 years.
My son is not an immigrant.
Yes, there are costs associated with this, but my son’s life cannot be compared in any way to what we would ask or demand in order to exist. After 10,000 years of Indigenous presence, we are still here and still standing. We are resilient. My grandmothers fought, my mother fought, I’ve been fighting for 18 years and, if necessary, I will fight for the rest of my life. However, I will never accept that a country as large as Canada makes me feel like it is welcoming a wave of immigrants. Keep in mind that these are the children of Aataentsic, the children of the territory.
Yes to more First Nations in the country, yes to more First Nations on this territory. We’ll see about the money later. We need to put an end to the wounds that exist right now. We see what happens in other countries in the world where there are other genocides, and we cannot find solutions for what is happening here and now. I have faith in life. I have faith that my ancestors, who are here now, are guiding me in this struggle, as they guided the ones who came before me. I am sure that a large country like Canada can find solutions to repatriate these children in all their dignity and to honour those who came before us and continue to honour our next seven generations.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for those words.
Senator Pate: Unusually, for me, I’m overcome by emotion. I find all of this heartbreaking, where we know of this discrimination that you have described in ways I can’t even imagine, as did Ms. Callihoo in the previous panel.
Your leadership — thank you for your leadership. It is humbling. I don’t know how else to describe it. I can’t imagine what it is like to keep coming back and keep fighting for this for so long. You both have demonstrated — I have known of Ms. Craig-Sparrow’s leadership for far longer than I have known of yours, Ms. Savard, and I am sorry for that.
Thank you both for doing this. Your message is clear. I don’t have a question. We need to act and follow — I wasn’t on the committee during that time — the advice of our own report. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you. I was 28 when I was sitting there.
[English]
I was denouncing the Indian Act. Now I’m 54, sitting here and I’m the sponsor, not a usual sponsor.
[Translation]
Why am I the sponsor for this? To tell the government that we have a chance to be independent senators. Our duty is to listen to you, as I was listened to when I was 28. We have the right and responsibility to improve bills. I ask you to also deliver your message to the other place, where the big decisions are made and the big debates are held. If you had recommendations or amendments to propose, share them in writing. Share them in writing, because there are very open-minded, sensitive people here, and because the other place also listens to us.
[English]
They’re listening. I told the minister and I told the Government Representative’s Office that I can’t say “no” to amendments if they are to improve the legislation. We’ll see tomorrow if I’m still the sponsor.
[Translation]
Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Do we have any other questions?
Senator Tannas: Brian Mulroney once famously said, “I see future senators in this group. I see future leaders.” Thank you very much.
We all take this seriously. We know what the government wants, and we know what they don’t want. In times past, we have found the courage. You help immeasurably with your words — you help us find the courage. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I first want to thank Senator Audette.
[English]
Thank you for being not a usual sponsor. Nia:wen.
I fully feel what Senator Prosper was saying about it being an honour to be here and to share. When you were talking, Ms. Craig-Sparrow, and you said, “I am the cut-off,” like Senator Sorensen, I wanted to clap or put my fist in the air. Thank you for speaking so powerfully.
[Translation]
I have a question for Ms. Savard. You talked about lateral violence, and Professor Simon before you talked about the pain of being rejected and cut off from your community. She said it created a need for treatment. Could you talk a bit more about lateral violence? How did you experience it? How are you still here, so resilient and speaking so eloquently before us?
Ms. Savard: I was six months pregnant and my four aunts were sitting with my grandmother when I came in with my big belly. They said to me, “Mélanie, we’re going to adopt this child.” The message was that I would give birth to the child and they would adopt him.
My position as a 19-year-old mother was “Will I give birth to this child? Will I keep him? I want to keep him. He will be adopted.” That’s when I understood the message from my aunts, who had lost their status through marriage and were trying to protect my child. In terms of lateral violence, people in my community told me, “Mélanie, have children with a First Nations man. You will grow to love him.” I heard judgment from people in the community: “This one’s not real, this one’s real, I don’t know this one, where is he from?”
Today, my thoughts are with all these people, these women, men and children. We talk a lot about women, but the second-generation cut-off affected men just as much as women. What happens to all the people who recovered their status through bills and went back to their community? They recover their status, but they don’t know what it means to be affected by section 6(1) or section 6(2). They know nothing about it, then they find out that their children are cut off after the second generation. Would I be brave enough to join a community, one that would definitely inflict lateral violence on me, to try to get back my cultural heritage, to find peace and healing again, knowing that I couldn’t pass it all on to my children, whether at 30, 40, 50 or 60 years old?
That is also part of the reality of the second-generation cut-off. These women who recovered their status and these children who go back are exposed to this reality without knowing it.
For many people, it takes a lot of courage to try to reconnect with their identity and culture when they are dealing with people who are too well colonized. In our Indigenous communities and systems of governance, people talk about decolonization and reconciliation. I think the places most in need of decolonizing are our own communities.
Lateral violence is a result of colonization. It is so assimilated that my mother, grandmother and aunts, who weren’t Wendat, were disowned by their brothers, who inflicted violence on them. They assimilated that discourse and passed it down to their children, and it’s still being passed down today.
I experience it today with my son. I was born in 1987; my son is 18. I may be a mom with an older child, but what we see in my community are little kids two to 10 years old. I know what awaits these kids when they turn 14 and someone says, “Give me your status card if you want to buy candy,” even if they know the kid and know their parent. I know what awaits these children.
My son once said to me, “Mom, you hunted moose for me. Your skin smells like smoke. You sang to me in Wendat my entire life. I would like to hunt a moose for you.” I feel like my skin has no smell anymore. My son’s message was, “Am I dead or alive?”
In the end, as a mother, it’s also a living death. Lateral violence is experienced daily, in all areas. It’s in our small families, our neighbourhoods, all the way up to our governance structures and in other communities. We fight against lateral violence. Families refuse to speak out because they are afraid, and they’re right to be afraid. This climate has been in place since 1985, from the time women were allowed to return to our communities.
The people back home didn’t want them to come back. A referendum was even held to prevent the husbands and children from coming back. They put in place a membership code, because they really didn’t want them to come back. That’s my legacy as a Wendat woman.
Now I understand what happened 40 years ago. I’m still experiencing it. Lateral violence comes out of all that. It needs to stop. We need to stop feeding all that violence. People back home say, “What you’re going through is the government’s fault. It’s not our fault.”
The federal government doesn’t decide who approves the eligibility criteria to register for a culture camp, or at least I don’t think so. Likewise, the federal government doesn’t approve the eligibility criteria for determining whether a child can play with their local hockey team. They play hockey all year, then at tournament time, they’re told, “Go sit in the stands and watch your friends.” They say it’s the federal government.
What can we as parents do? What can we do as mothers, fathers or grandfathers? Who can we turn to when the only people the government wants to listen to are rights holders? What about the people?
Thank you very much for giving me this space as a mother and a woman so that I can share what families go through back home. I would so love to hear from families in this situation elsewhere in the country, but no one knows how many children are affected because they are not registered.
How many children are affected? No one knows. Tiawenhk.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I want to take the opportunity to thank you both. Thank you for your wise words.
The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank you once again from all of us. Hiy hiy. If you would like to make any other submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.
(The committee adjourned.)