THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine 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: 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 the microphone at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I begin now 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’m from Treaty 6 territory in what is now known as central Alberta and I am deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, or APPA.
I will remind my honourable colleagues that at our first hearing on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, recused herself as role of 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 to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Aki Nation.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, P.E.I.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Senator Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken] Michèle Audette, Quebec.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba, Treaty 1, homeland of the Métis nation.
The Deputy Chair: Today we will continue our study of 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 the Department of Indigenous Services.
I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses today. Please welcome at the table from the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group, Sharon McIvor; from the Anishinabek Nation, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Citizenship Commissioner; and as an individual, Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Director, First Peoples House of Learning, Trent University. Welcome to all of you, and thank you for joining us this morning.
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. McIvor to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Sharon McIvor, Member, Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group: Thank you for inviting me.
I am a lawyer, educator and a member of the Lower Nicola Band in Merritt, B.C. I was born and live on the land where I belong.
I am Nlaka’pamux, and my family has lived on the land we belong to for time out of memory. We have all been born — me, my mom and dad, my mom’s family as far back as we know, my children, the bulk of my grandchildren, and three out of four of my great-grandchildren — on the land where we belong. My three great-grandchildren were born within a kilometre and a half of where I was born. So our roots are long and deep in the land where we belong.
I am also the plaintiff in McIvor v. Canada, a constitutional challenge to sex discrimination in the Indian Act, and subsequently a United Nations petition. My legal challenges have resulted, so far, in about 125,000 women and their descendants gaining Indian status denied to them because of sex discrimination.
I just want to make something clear, senators. I know that there has been some discussion about who are the rights holders. I understand that some believe that the chiefs are the rights holders. I’m very clear: I am a rights holder. I was born with those rights and over the years have fought hard to have them recognized. The other thing is that I meet people because of the work I’ve done in the court case that I was successful with. I meet people who recognize me at airports or a conference and they ask, “Are you Sharon McIvor?” When I say, “yes,” they say, “I am one of yours. I got my status because of you. Thank you for fighting for my rights.” Then I say, “You were born with those rights. They have always been yours. We just had to get them recognized.”
In my lifetime, the rights that I was born with have been recognized in Canadian law and in United Nations and Inter-American Treaties. My descendants and I have the right not to be discriminated against because of my Indigeneity or sex. I have the right to have and transmit Indian status without discrimination because those are the rights that belong to me. I have the right not to be forcibly assimilated by any means, including through legislated sex discrimination. I have the right to belong to an Indigenous nation that also has the right not to be forcibly assimilated through devices like the second-generation cut-off. All these rights are now recognized in law.
When we are dealing with the second-generation cut-off, there are two sets of rights holders: individual First Nations women and men, and First Nations. Both have the right not to be forcibly assimilated. These are not competing rights; they are rights that are mutually supportive.
However, over the years the government has pitted individual rights holders and communities against each other. They have treated women and their descendants who were reinstated in 1985 and subsequently, as though they were a threat to the cultural integrity and financial sustainability of nations.
I have met with some bureaucrats over the years many times. I was once specifically told by a member of the Department of Justice that it was their job — the government’s job — to protect my community from me. I’m not sure why they didn’t think I was Indian enough or whatever, but he told me that.
It’s simply a mistake to view equality rights of First Nations women and the right to self-determination of First Nations as a competition.
Instead, the reality is that since 1867, successive governments have used sex discrimination to diminish the strength of our Nations. Then, shamefully, when we have asserted our right to be free from sex discrimination, the colonizing government claims that we are a threat to First Nations’ right to self-determination. The fact is that the Indian Act sex discrimination has harmed women and Nations, and continues to do so.
The government’s description of the cut-off obscures the fact that it is, by definition, an extinction plan. The obvious threat to the collective rights of First Nations is not individual First Nations women and men who wish to have status and belong to their Nations, but it is the Government of Canada, who wishes, by law, to reduce the number of First Nations people who are legally recognized until the Nations are extinct. Please, do not mistake whose interest is served by keeping the second-generation cut-off.
Canada also denies the fact that we are still dealing with sex discrimination in the Indian Act. The government does not acknowledge that the second-generation cut-off affects women and their descendants differently and more harshly than men and their descendants. The government says the cut-off is gender-neutral. It is not.
The claim that it is gender-neutral is not just astonishing, it is profoundly embarrassing to anyone familiar with Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination, or with CEDAW’s ruling in Matson, or CEDAW’s recent recommendations. I am sorry to say, Senators, that sex discrimination is alive and well in the Indian Act. It is our responsibility to end that.
One more point about sex discrimination. The bars to compensation that appear in all the amendments to the Indian Act are an insult to First Nations women, and entirely unjust. We have not been able to identify any other Canadian law that includes a bar to compensation for discrimination. The bars violate the Charter, and international treaties Canada has ratified. After everything else, First Nations women should not have to litigate in order to eliminate this bar.
I was actually really insulted when they gave compensation to the Inuit for their dogs and yet they have a bar to us getting compensation. It’s only Indigenous women and their descendants who are affected by this. So our lives are not worth it. But the dogs were really important to them. I’m not saying that the dogs weren’t important, but I’m saying that they have prioritized dogs over us as Indigenous women.
It violates the Charter, international treaties and we should not have to litigate to get rid of the bar.
Finally, why do it now? You’ve heard the testimony of Mélanie Savard and Zoë Craig-Sparrow. This is not a theoretical game. The lives of young First Nations women and men are being twisted and damaged by the second-generation cut-off right now. They are being governed by an unjust, sexist and racist law, and by a government that says they can wait. The government is using up their lifetime.
It’s not a theoretical game for the Nations. You can see that their extinction is planned, inevitable.
“Wait” is not a moral word in this situation. “Wait” is not just. Please stand up for our rights. We have — all of us have, but you in particular — a fiduciary duty to make sure that the discrimination is not in the Indian Act. I know with Bill S-3, the senator stood up and said, “No, we’re going to do what’s right, not what we’re told to do.” Some of you are still here and I’m trusting that you will help us again.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McIvor.
I will now invite Ms. Corbiere Lavell to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Citizenship Commissioner, Anishinabek Nation: Meegwetch [speaking Indigenous language]
Thank you, senators, for inviting me to appear.
My name is Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. I am the Citizenship Commissioner for the Anishinabek Nation. The Anishinabek Nation represents 39 First Nations across Ontario and we have a combined population of 70,000 members citizens, one third of all of Ontario’s First Nation population.
As commissioner for the Anishinabek Nation, I advocate for E’Dbendaagzijig, which means “Those who belong.” We adopted our E’Dbendaagzijig Naaknigewin, our E’Dbendaagzijig Law, based on the one-parent rule. I am mandated to assist our First Nations in the exercise of their inherent right to self-determination. In February 2025, we adopted the Anishinabek Nation Declaration on E’Dbendaagzijig, which is the foundation of our jurisdiction and First Nations citizenship laws.
In no uncertain terms, the declaration on E’Dbendaagzijig states that only we have the right to decide who belongs to our communities and that the Government of Canada has an obligation to recognize and support our inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights by recognizing our First Nation rights. This will require land and financial resources to support bringing our people home. We must not lose more of our people.
We call for an end to sex and race discrimination, the second-generation cut-off, the removal of bars to compensation for discrimination under the Indian Act and to bring our people back to where they belong.
I was born and live on the Wiikwemkoong Reserve on Manitoulin Island. Two weeks after I was married to a non‑Indigenous man, I received a letter from Indian Affairs stating: “Jeannette Corbiere, you are no longer a member of the Wiikwemkoong unceded reserve. Find enclosed a cheque for $35.” That was it, $35. That was how much I was entitled to for losing my rights.
I am the plaintiff in the 1973 case, Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, which challenged Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. In this case, I argued that the provision violated the equality clause of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights by discriminating on the basis of sex. The judge suggested that I should be happy that a white man married me because we all know what it is like on the Reserve, and that I was better off. That was in court.
I am still here fighting because the young people now are facing the same stripping of their rights that I did. Mélanie Savard and Zoë Craig-Sparrow remind me of what I faced in 1971. Senators, why, after 54 years, are we still introducing these piecemeal amendments instead of dealing with the core issue and eliminating the second-generation cut-off?
In my Nation, we follow a one-parent rule. We know who our people are. E’Dbendaagzijig, “Those who belong.” Recognizing First Nations inherent jurisdiction to decide who belongs, eliminating the second-generation cut-off, and following a one‑parent rule is the way for the Government of Canada to right its wrongs. This is the only way to stop the forced assimilation that I faced when I married and that these young people are facing today when they have to decide whom to marry and with whom to parent.
It is sad for me to say that this forced assimilation is really going strong, unfortunately. Under Canada’s watch, in some of the 39 different First Nations that I represent, they are at 50% of 6(2) status Indians. I know what that means for individuals, and I know what this means for our collective nations. This means the Government of Canada is still legally extinguishing our people.
Now we have this collaborative process, and we say, “Eliminate the second-generation cut-off. You don’t need to wait for those consultations to make it right.” We were never asked, “Do you want us to eliminate the second-generation cut-off now or should we keep consulting?”
That’s what is suggested when the government tells you that they are consulting with 90 groups in this process. We can be a part of this process and we can tell the government about E’Dbendaagzijig, but the government must end the second-generation cut-off now while there is this opportunity, before we lose more of our people, our citizens.
Just last week I heard that there was a motion to have yet another study on this subject in the House of Commons. Senators, I’m here to tell you that another study is just another colonial delay tactic to forestall justice for our young First Nations people. Another study will tell you what you heard before in your report, Make it Stop! End the second-generation cut-off. Return our women, children and grandchildren to their rightful place. Any more delay means continued sex discrimination and continued forced assimilation. Don’t let another study distract you from the opportunity you have before you now to do the right thing.
Finally, senators, eliminating sex and race discrimination has been my life’s work. It is shocking, after all I’ve been through, that my sisters and I are still barred from compensation for the discrimination we have faced. I raise my voice for all those who cannot. How can we let these bars to compensation stand? These must be immediately repealed.
I have been fighting discrimination for 54 years now. Before I join my ancestors, I think I should have equal Indian status with Indian men. My descendants should as well. I stand for justice for First Nations women and their descendants now. Senators, I urge you, end the second-generation cut-off now. We know we always have to fight for the recognition of who we are and for our right to decide who our people are. Join me in this fight senators, stand with me and say, “No more.”
Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Corbiere Lavell. Thank you, hiy hiy.
I will now invite Ms. Lavell-Harvard to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Director, First Peoples House of Learning, Trent University, as an individual: [Anishinaabemowin spoken]
Thank you, senators, for inviting me here. My name is Dawn Lavell-Harvard. I am the director of the First Peoples House of Learning at Trent University and former president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. As director, I am responsible for fostering the academic success, health and well-being for hundreds of First Nations youth across our Peterborough and Durham GTA campuses.
I am here to tell you what I have learned after spending countless nights in the emergency psychiatric unit with yet another youth who has tried to end their life after spending days meetings begging for funds from donors to run cultural programs for our students. This is because in the mental health crisis we are currently facing we know that culture saves lives, having a strong identify and a strong sense of community saves lives, and knowing who you are and where you belong saves lives. Knowing where you belong gives our young people the courage and strength to keep on living when things become unbearable.
I know we care about the lives of First Nations youth and I truly believe that everyone here in this room cares about our youth, and I am here to tell you that, with respect to Indian status, Canada must end the sex discrimination now and eliminate the second-generation cut-off. That’s because in 1985, when the 6(2) category was created, the government created a legal situation that is causing irreparable harm to our young people. We know that having a sense of belonging is vital for mental health. Yet, every day we see First Nations youth who are in crisis, who feel like they don’t belong in their First Nation, that they don’t have a right to be there, that they are not real Indians, that they are lesser than other community members because they have 6(2) status.
It’s even worse for the children of someone with 6(2) status — those children that become non-status, and therefore under the laws of Canada they don’t legally belong, because back in 1985 Canada passed legislation to ensure that they don’t have a right to belong. Youth who are being told to their face that because they are 6(2) they don’t belong in our First Nations, they don’t belong in our First Peoples House, at our ceremonies or at our fires, youths who are being attacked on social media are being told they shouldn’t be in our hallways because they are taking up resources that should be for real Indians.
We wonder why we have a mental health crisis. Suicide rates among First Nations youth are five to six times higher than non‑Indigenous youth, and that’s according to the Government of Canada’s own studies and statistics. Suicide and self-inflicted injuries are the leading cause of death for First Nation youth and adults up to 44 years old.
Canada must make things right, correct what was made wrong back in 1985 before another life is lost. Canada needs to make this right so we can tell all our children and grandchildren that they belong, that they have a right to belong. Our teachings tell us that every life is precious. Even one life lost to suicide is one too many. I am still here fighting because our youth deserve better.
We ask this: Why after 54 years are we still introducing piecemeal amendments instead of dealing with the core issue and eliminating the second-generation cut-off? We have an opportunity to do the right thing, and ignoring that opportunity means we are accepting the harm that we know is being caused. If we are not acting to stop the harm we are, in fact, complicit. I strongly believe that everyone in this room cares about the lives of our youth.
At our university we have a mandatory Indigenous course requirement to ensure that every student who graduates has at least a basic understanding of the real history of Canada. This is part of our commitment to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action. We are doing our part as educators, and now every student must take at least one Indigenous studies course to ensure that we are doing our part in truth telling, that we tell the true story of colonization, forced assimilation, residential schools and day schools, forced enfranchisement and the stripping our ancestral rights from our mothers and grandmothers and the denial of those rights to our children and grandchildren.
One classroom at time, one workshop at a time, we have shared with tens of thousands of people the fact that under existing Canadian legislation the effort to eradicate our First Nations is still going strong.
In some of our First Nations up to 50% of the status Indians have 6(2) status. We know what that means for individual rights holders like my children and my nieces and nephews and so many of my students who are working so hard to achieve their dreams and yet knowing they’re likely to be the end of their line.
We know what this means for our collective nations. This means the Government of Canada is still legally extinguishing our people. We have been part of this collaborative process; we have heard from our Elders council and our youth councils, and we say, eliminate the second-generation cut-off before we lose any more. We don’t have time for more studies, more delays. We cannot delay justice for young First Nations people. Another study will only tell you what you have already heard — that we must end the second-generation cut-off.
Like Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, my mother, I have been fighting sex and race discrimination for 52 years now. I too think I should have equal Indian status with Indian men. My descendants should as well. I stand for justice for all our children.
Senators, I urge you to end the second-generation cut-off. Join with me, stand and say that we care about all our children, because all lives matter and every life is precious. Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lavell-Harvard. Hiy hiy.
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 that everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question. I will begin with Senator Francis.
Senator Francis: We know that removing the non-liability clause is key to providing long-overdue compensation and other reparations due to sex-based discrimination. Ms. McIvor, your comments about animals being prioritized over First Nations women were really poignant. Could you provide our committee with some real-life examples of why this change is needed? What are the lifelong costs that individuals and families have had to endure due to the denial of rights? How does it impact the physical, social and emotional development of a person? It is important that our colleagues here and the public understand what the generational costs are. Would anyone like to respond?
Ms. McIvor: Well, we don’t have enough time for me to tell you the damage that is caused by all of the things that we talked about — colonization, residential school, the idea that some of us are not equal to other Indians. I lived my life without recognition for a long time, and it meant schooling, medical, all of that — I didn’t have that. My children didn’t have that. My partner and I ended up adopting my two youngest daughters because my oldest daughter was diagnosed with leukemia and we couldn’t pay the $1,500-a-shot treatment. We removed them from the case and adopted them so that my daughter could get good treatment, and she did go into remission and she’s still in remission.
But all sorts of things — no dental, no medical, all of that. My siblings didn’t live long because they didn’t have the medical care that they needed. My mom lost three children as a result of not being able to give them good medical care and all of that. There are all sorts of other things. It is a combination.
We do believe that we should be compensated because of the law that discriminated against us and put us into positions of poverty. We still have a lot of children who are, as Ms. Lavell‑Harvard talks about, getting caught in the middle of all of this, and they are not doing well. They are not living. There are a lot of overdoses. In B.C., we’re running at about 145 to 160 overdose deaths every month, and a huge number of them are Indigenous children.
There’s a lot of poverty. A lot of lives that are not — they’re not thriving.
In addition to all of that, the backlash that we got from members of our band and community who did have status and we didn’t. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, and the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights said that the root cause of the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada is the discrimination in the Indian Act. It is way bigger than a few women getting disenfranchised and having to make it on their own. We have many women that I have spoken to over the years, especially after we had some success with the McIvor case and the work that the Senate did for us on Bill S-3.
I’m doing fine without compensation, but there are a lot of people who are not eating well, they are living on the streets and all of that, and it is a result of all of this discrimination. The ongoing discrimination — we were looking for something that was equivalent to having the bar to compensation. We were looking legislatively to see if they have ever done that before, and we didn’t do a really comprehensive study, but we couldn’t find any that they’d — it is ironic that it is Indigenous women who are not able to — they are legislatively barred from compensation.
Here we are in 2025, and it is out-and-out discrimination against Indigenous women. Everybody sits around and says, “Oh, well.” And they keep putting it in every amendment to the Indian Act that they are forced to make because of court decisions. They just keep putting it in. It is not like an old thing, like 40 years ago. It is today, and it is what you are looking at.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McIvor.
Senator McPhedran: I can’t adequately put into words the esteem with which I hold each of you and the gratitude for incredible courage, incredible vision and a brilliance that is noted in many parts of the world. We are very honoured to have you here this morning. Thank you for coming in person.
Sharon McIvor, I am captured by what you nailed on the question of rights holders, and I wonder if any of you have had a chance to have a similar conversation with Minister Alty? For example, has a request been made to meet with the minister and have this conversation face to face?
Ms. McIvor: We do a lot of talking, lobbying, begging. I know, over the years, I have kind of lost track of the number of Ministers of Indian Affairs that I have interacted with. I think it’s probably 18, but I’m not sure. As I’ve said before, there was only one minister that I really liked because he was honest with us. As part of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, we used to meet with this particular minister about twice a month, and we would go have tea and have a chat. He would greet us, and say, “I’m going to be honest with you. I know about the matrimonial property on-reserve issue, and I know this issue and I know this issue. I’m not touching the Indian Act with a 10-foot pole,” is what he told me. So we would have tea and have a chat, but he was honest.
Many other ministers have told me, “Let’s wait and I promise you that I will fix this.” As you can see, the promises were never fulfilled because here we are, talking about it again.
I wanted to add another thing about them saying, “Okay, we will do another study, and we will consult.” In my case, I appealed the decision not to add my children and then, subsequently, my grandchildren, in July of 1989. The Department of Justice delayed getting to court until October of 2006. Over that time, they would say, “Well, we consulted on Bill C-31. We’ve got 20,000 documents that we have to review before we can address this issue.”
I was always adamant that you cannot consult with anyone who can give you the right to continue to deny my right to equality. There is nowhere that you are allowed to do that because those are my rights, my rights to equality, my rights to my nation. You can’t consult with somebody else to ask if it’s okay. But I’m still saying this because this is what’s happening now. I know the minister said that we have to do some waiting before we can address it, but that’s what we heard in 1989 because we couldn’t get into court.
Senator Boniface: Thank you all for being here. I will begin with comments to Ms. Lavell-Harvard. Thank you for the work you do with youth. It’s so important given the mental health crisis we face in this country, particularly with Indigenous youth, so thank you.
To follow on, on Ms. McIvor’s comments, but anyone who wishes may respond, I have a question around consultation. You know the minister was here. The minister asked the committee to basically deal with this bill in its current form and then allow consultations to take place and then to come up with a broader strategy, which I assume would be another bill.
It raises the question for me, given your comments — and I’m interested from the Anishinabek Nation as well — with whom are they consulting? Who within the community? I know it’s a delicate question, but who is the focus of their consultation if not the people directly affected by it?
Ms. McIvor: Well, in my experience, I know that they fund groups to do studies for them, to meet with people and talk to them. But very few of the studies or the consultations that they have been involved with or paid for, have any comprehensive recommendation.
Right now, they are consulting to get strategies on how to fix the problem. We can tell them how to fix the problem. We’ve been telling them how to fix the problem — for how long?
Senator Boniface: Maybe I can ask or narrow it down for Ms. Corbiere Lavell. You are the Citizenship Commissioner. It is very nice to see a woman in that role. Would you not be the person with whom the consultation would take place since you are the one who decides citizenship within your own nation?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: Exactly. I was just waiting to share with you what we are doing in the Anishnawbek Nation and to share with all of you that we have been talking to our people. This started in 2009, just looking at what was happening to women and our children, such as myself, who have lost their rights. We went out into the communities. This is even prior to the current consultation.
It came back really strong that the Indian Act was really causing harm to our families, to our communities, because it was dividing our people. Some people were recognized under the Indian Act, and others were not. That is so divisive, and it wasn’t our doing.
Our people told us we have to look at our families, look back at whom our ancestors are. We have records. We have the sources within our communities. Our Elders are there. We have many ways of finding out our direct ancestors. The overall advice given to us by the men and women at the community level was, if you can trace your ancestry to one parent who was part of that community, then you are part of that community. You are recognized. That’s our culture. That’s our way that our ancestors have always dealt with it.
Now we are looking at being a strong nation. We have the land. We have people. Our people may be divided, but we want to be inclusive and look at our teachings and culture where women have equality. One is not above or below the other. We also have responsibilities within our clans. Certain clans have the responsibility to bring in food. Others have responsibilities for medicines. Others are the teachers, which we happen to be under the Bird Clan, which is the teaching clan.
It is all there. We are taking a strong look at that, and it is so important that we share this within our communities and that others recognize it. If others recognize it, then they wouldn’t be imposing these sections within this legislation that still governs us on a daily basis. If we were recognized as having those inherent rights to decide who our people are and who will be our people, we will have strong nations again. Our young people will not have to undergo all the trauma, conflict and bars to their own economic well-being. It will help them. It will solidify their identities. That is starting to happen within the Anishnawbek Nation.
We are sharing with everyone, and that’s my role as the E’Dbendaagzijig Commissioner on Citizenship, to tell anyone out there who is wanting to hear it that we have a one-parent rule, and we will be in charge of that, and we can do it. Our people will be able to put up our strong community laws. It will happen. It is starting to happen right now.
While I’m talking about all this, I just want to say this. Ms. McIvor was talking about the effects of losing our rights. For 15 years, I didn’t have my rights, even though I was living on the reserve; I was teaching on the reserve. But it makes a big difference. Now that has been changed, and it is so much better in that the outside legislating bodies now will not question this because we have that opportunity to be part of our community.
Ms. McIvor: That’s something that has come up — having the right to make the decision about who is in your community. Every band across the country has the right to do that because, in 1995, they split membership and status. We’re only talking about status here because our communities depend on the responsibility of the federal government to fund them, and they only fund those who have status.
The idea that somehow I need to have the right to make a decision about who is in my community, who can be a member. They can do. Actually, in 1985 they were given two years to get their membership codes in place. They said that your code must include the woman who married out; you don’t have to include the children. Many of the larger bands that were wealthier — and there are not a lot of them that have membership codes — excluded the children. They excluded the second-generation children because they didn’t want to share their wealth.
But it is there. We can’t use it as an excuse. I want to make sure that our members have the right to decide who our members are. They have that right, and they’ve had that right since 1985. So it is another way of making the bands scared because they are going to have to spend more on more people. They muddy the water all the time there, saying — okay, in my case, the McIvor case, they said over a million people could possibly be affected. I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head, because I just glanced at them, but it was nowhere near that.
It is all part and parcel of not making a change. Again, I have to say that the lawmakers have a fiduciary duty to stop the discrimination. Put us back in the places where we belong.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McIvor.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of the witnesses. I just want to recognize your strength, your vision, your perseverance. I know it has been quite a while for all of you. Thank you for your strength.
I have a question for Ms. Corbiere Lavell. Congratulations on being citizenship commissioner. You talk about E’Dbendaagzijig, “Those who belong,” and the adoption of the one-parent rule. However, I take it that your position is to end the second-generation cut-off rule now. You talk about emotion in the other place, yet another study which is another delay tactic.
My question relates to this collaborative process. We listened to the minister undertaking this collaborative process, and he mentioned consulting with 90 groups to find a solution. In your opinion, is there a way to participate within this process, yet put something definitive within this bill — I would say in the form of an amendment — that will end the second-generation cut-off, thus affording an opportunity for the government to have a transition plan but still get rid of the second-generation cut-off today? I am curious if you have comments about that.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: Well, we have been working with the government on this collaborative process and we are talking to our communities. Our communities, the individual reserves, are also working on that, either on the second-generation cut-off or the voting aspect of it. Collectively, we are coming together.
What we have seen is that we want to be able to decide ourselves, at the community level, who our people are. We know that. We want to ensure that that message is heard by the government. Why spend all this money? Because we’re already telling them that each community that we’ve talked to — and it is ongoing and we have we’ve already done a report stating that to the government — but it is still ongoing.
What more can we say, other than government’s going to do this? We’re saying, let’s just take those moneys and put it into our communities. Let’s make our communities stronger in working toward our own governance, and we are doing that and looking at citizenship codes, election codes, bringing back our language, our culture. And then the whole administrative aspect of it. So that is happening.
It’s difficult to try to get resources to continue that, to spread it out further within our nation. Ninety groups are right across Canada that the Government of Canada is doing this collaborative process with. We have already done our report, and I don’t imagine it will change in the next six months once they’ve gone right across Canada. The message is coming out lout and clear: We want to be able to decide. We know who our people are and we can do it. It’s there. We know who our people are. We don’t need someone from the outside telling us.
Senator Sorensen: Again, my thanks to all of you for being here. We have seen so many impressive witnesses on this topic, and you are certainly among them. A common refrain from many witnesses is what we are hearing here today about the frustration that Bill S-2 is yet just another piecemeal solution that doesn’t go far enough.
My question is simple but it might not be a simple answer and I am conscious of time. I will start with Ms. McIvor but welcome responses from any of you. Why do you think the government has been reticent about addressing the entirety of the problem? Over all these years, what do you think the thinking is? What is the fear?
Ms. McIvor: You know, all the Indian reserves belong to the Crown; and if you have no Indians, well, the land reverts to the Crown. I think that’s the big picture.
Senator Sorensen: That’s your response for that.
Ms. McIvor: Yes.
Senator Sorensen: I was very intrigued by the bands not looking at the grandchildren. That’s the first time I have heard that. We will need that. Thank you for that succinct answer.
Does anyone have a different answer in terms of the motivation of the government for so many years not to just get this done?
Ms. Lavell-Harvard: Not a different one, because I have seen driving through Alderville First Nation where there is a house and there is this sign on the door with this big red maple leaf and I was intrigued and I had to walk up and see what that was all about. Like, I had never seen one of those before. And it said, for this property, see the Government of Canada. I asked and it was because the couple who had owned that home that had been in their family for generations, that they had no more status descendants to pass it on to, so it goes back to the Government of Canada. That is going to happen more and more and more. That’s what this is all about. This is about our homes. This is about our land and the resources under those lands.
When we think about the fact that our reserves are only 0.2% of our original lands — not even half a percent — 0.2%. They can’t leave us that little bit? That’s what this is about. It is about preserving that last little 0.2% of Canada that we have a claim to now. We should start talking about additions to reserves and that’s a whole different meeting. Right now we are at 0.2% and piece by piece, farm by farm, that will be whittled away until it is zero.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I appreciate your candour.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I would like to add a little bit to that.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, please.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: And to point out that if you have a community and you don’t have any more status people living there, those people are not recognized by the Government of Canada and they can come in and forcibly move them off because they are not recognized.
The other thing is land right now, especially in the North, there are groups wanting to move in. They are self-identifying as being Indigenous, and the government is recognizing them. They are saying they are Métis, even though historically there has been no evidence.
Our people have lived there for thousands of years, and yet this is a tactic that is taking place, where we get others to okay giving away this land because it’s known that they’ve already agreed to sign those lands away. But they’re not the original rights holders or communities. It’s their hunting territory and they’ve been there all these years and want to continue. It’s who they are. That’s where they belong and that’s why it’s so important. It’s crucial.
Ms. McIvor: The other thing is it’s not happening far away in the future, as you heard in the testimony of Ms. Zoë Craig-Sparrow. Stewart Clatworthy, who is a demographer, did a study for the federal government, and he identified a band in Manitoba that will have its last status Indian born in 2030, which is less than five years from now. There will be nobody there to hold the land once those people die.
Senator Pate: I’ve had the privilege and the responsibility of knowing and working with three of you for 30 to 40 years, mostly in and around the mass incarceration of Indigenous women in prisons and your various roles. I’m struck by the injustice — I was going to say irony but it’s the injustice — that the only other time I’ve seen a clause like the one you described of not being able to sue was 12 to 15 years ago when the government tried to introduce it for prisoners to not be able to sue the government after the Charter had been breached in their cases. It was refused in that context. It seems horrific that we’re actually considering it in this context now.
I just want to thank you for all the work you are doing. If you want to elaborate, any one of you, on the fiduciary obligation we have as senators in this respect, I’d be very interested in that. I know you all have opinions on this.
Ms. McIvor: It’s pretty straightforward. We all have things that we need to do or we should do, morally and legally, and we have to do it. I don’t know how you can completely ignore and not do anything about the discrimination. It’s there and everybody agrees it’s there. They just say, “Okay, let’s leave this to another minister; the next minister coming along can deal with it. Let’s leave it to the next group of senators who will deal with it.” I like Ron Irwin’s response, “I won’t touch the Indian Act with a 10-foot pole,” and that’s what you guys have been doing all along. Both houses have been doing it. They just minimally touch it and then talk a lot about how somebody else can take care of it later.
Ms. Lavell-Harvard: When we talk about the fiduciary responsibility that senators have for all Canadians to protect their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and everybody’s well-being, we can amend this bill and eliminate the second-generation cut-off right now. We can spend time consulting on how to support those families coming back, but we have to amend. We can amend and we have to amend right now.
I’ll give you an example. Every time I go home, there is a grandmother in my community who says she can’t understand how Jeannette’s grandchildren have status and can go to the health centre or to have their teeth cleaned, have status and have the rights to be in our community and her grandchildren cannot. They are of the same generation.
My children have status and she’s struggling because her daughter is out of the picture and she is raising those grandbabies, trying to get them diapers and into daycare and trying to get them into school, struggling on her own as a single grandmother to raise these children and not having any of the supports that she should have because her daughter was born after 1985, unlike me. I was born before 1985. The exact same situation. They should have the same rights, and those babies she’s struggling to diaper don’t have the rights to access any of the supports in our community. She is struggling, and it’s incomprehensible to her, which is why every time I go home she brings it up again. “Tell me again how your children have rights and my grandchildren don’t.” I explain and she comes back again because it is incomprehensible.
It doesn’t make sense. They’re the same and all our children deserve supports. Those kids could be accessing support under Jordan’s Principle. They could have family supports. They could be accessing daycare and the ability to learn their language and be in our communities, and right now they can’t. Right now she’s got nothing to support her to take care of those babies.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for all the work you’ve done and making it so much easier for us to do the work we need to do because you’ve fought the battle.
I wanted to go back to a comment made by one of the MPs, and I’m looking at what I think is the main argument that they’re using — my grandchildren too have been denied status — and that is that the Senate has gone way beyond the scope of Bill S-2. When I look at the court decision, the court found that part of section 6 of the Indian Act denies registration and treats descendants as less Indian and denied their children under section 6. It doesn’t say anything about the second-generation cut-off. Yes, there are reasons why, but those who will be getting back their status will end up with second-generation cut-off as well. The ones that are under Bill S-2 right now, when they get their status their children will be second generation.
The court didn’t limit 6(2) and said they’re not going to deal with this right now because the Senate legislation will remedy the situation.
If we don’t amend the second-generation cut-off, we, as legislators, are knowingly allowing discrimination to continue. I’m asking for help to make the argument that we are not going beyond the scope of this bill.
The other part that plays into this is section 10 of the Indian Act, the double majority rule. I don’t know why they made it that way when we work by consensus, and as the years go by, everything will get more and more complex. Do you understand what I’m trying to say? It’s very tiring and I really don’t know why we would not amend. I just want people to know why it is within the scope.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I think we have to look at the basis of the Indian Act to really get an answer for you, and the basis of the Indian Act from 1867 was to confine the original people of this land who have been here for thousands of years — and we’re finding evidence of that more and more — and to contain them. It had to do with resources, water rights, forests and minerals, et cetera. If we are contained and the fewer Indians there are, the better, in terms of getting them off the land and assimilating them. That has been ongoing up until we as a people who are affected by this are challenging that.
So we are making small headways into making things a little bit better for us, but we’re still facing barriers, blocks. It doesn’t have to be. What other piece of legislation continues to have discrimination in it and continues to make barriers? That’s the Indian Act right now. If we could be recognized as having that responsibility, that right, we are sovereign nations. We signed those treaties as such. The imperial government in England signed those treaties with us as nations, one nation to another.
Our people recognized and respected those rights, and yet it’s never been followed. Our people had that integrity. They were hoping that it would be a mutual agreement, but that hasn’t been the case. Our people were starving. All the resources were taken away. We have come to find out now that some of those resources are being returned to our communities through those treaties. The Robinson-Huron Treaty and the Robinson-Superior Treaty are being looked at now and all those other ones that were signed earlier.
But it’s only now that we’re beginning to see some integrity, some respect for those legal documents that were signed. That’s part of what you are talking about. It just continues. We talked about Stewart Clatworthy’s research. In our community in the Anishinabek Nation, people came from one particular reserve and said, we have to do something. The estimate then was that in 2013 they were going to have their last status Indian. However, because of a few changes in the Indian Act, they’re still there and they still have some status people, but this current Indian Act is going to make it more difficult, and we’ll have more reserves that have fewer and fewer people just because we’re going. Meegwetch.
Ms. McIvor: Could I just add that this particular bill is taking discrimination out of the Indian Act — a piece of it — and it’s right on point. We’re asking for it to take all of it out and not just the little piece. So the scope of this bill is right on point with what we’re doing: We are asking you to broaden the scope of eliminating the discrimination from the Indian Act. I don’t think legislatively they’ve narrowed it to a point where we can’t do these amendments.
Ms. Lavell-Harvard: I want to confirm what Ms. McIvor is saying. When we’re talking about the scope, this is within the scope of the legislation. Amendments can amend any portion of a statute or related statutes. So there is no legal impediment to making the necessary amendments here. The Senate is supposed to be that sober second thought on all of this legislation. So we can always do better, and there is no impediment here. There is just so much on the line that it needs to be done now.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much.
Honourable colleagues, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Hiy hiy to all of you. If you wish to make any further submissions or comments, please submit them by email to the clerk. If you have more that you would like to submit, please, I encourage you to do so.
Honourable colleagues, I would now like to introduce our second panel of two witnesses today. From the Dene Nation, National Chief, George Mackenzie, welcome, and Leanne Goose, Director of Communications and Engagement, Data Governance, welcome to the Senate. Thank you to both 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 National Chief Mackenzie to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.
George Mackenzie, National Chief, Dene Nation: [Indigenous language spoken].
Thank you. Good morning, you wise people.
Honourable senators, my name is George Mackenzie, Dene National Chief and Regional Chief for Northwest Territories. I sit before you today to express my strong support for Bill S-2, an Act to amend the Indian Act, regarding the new registration process. This bill is a significant step toward fixing historical injustices faced by Indigenous Peoples in Canada, particularly those highlighted in the case of Nicholas v. Canada, which challenged certain parts of the Indian Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The changes proposed in this bill are not only administrative changes, they represent strong recognition of the rights of Indigenous individuals. For instance, the introduction of new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register is an important addition. It allows individuals who have been impacted to have their names entered in the band list maintained by the Indigenous Services Canada. This is a key step to ensure that all Indigenous People have access to their rights and entitlements.
The bill repeals the outdated definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” and replaces it with the term “dependent person.” This change reflects a modern understanding of mental health capacity, recognizing that individuals may require support without being labelled as incompetent. This shift in language is not just symbolic; it means a bigger commitment to dignity and respect for all individuals within our communities.
The provisions for the management of estates for independent people are also important. The minister is granted the authority to appoint individuals to manage the estates of those who are unable to do so themselves. This ensures that their needs are met and that their rights are protected, which is essential for the well-being of our community members.
The process for individuals who wish to have their names removed from the Indian Register is now clearly defined. This allows for a formal application process, ensuring that individuals have agency over their registration status. It is important that we empower our people to make decisions about their identities.
The bill also clarifies that a person’s entitlement to register continues even if their name or that of their ancestors have been removed from Indian Register under specific circumstances. This provision is important for restoring the rights of those who have been unjustly affected by past policies.
Additionally, the liability provisions included in this bill protect individuals and bodies for claims for compensation related to actions taken in good faith under the act. This legal clarity is essential for those administering the act and ensures they could do so without fear of retribution.
In conclusion, Bill S-2 is a necessary and timely amendment to the Indian Act that addresses longstanding issues of registration and entitlements for Indigenous Peoples. It is a step toward reconciliation and justice, and I urge all senators to support this bill. By doing so, we affirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of Indian People across Canada.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your support for this important legislation. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, National Chief. We will now proceed with questions from the senators.
Honourable colleagues, you each have a three-minute intervention including question and answer, and I will try to give a 30-second heads-up.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Chief Mackenzie and Ms. Goose, for being with us. I noticed that you came into the room when the previous witnesses were speaking to us. I’m picking up on a statement that you made about how this bill will have a positive impact for Indigenous People across Canada.
My question is, how do you respond to the information that was shared with us about the discrimination on the basis of sex, which is actually not being addressed in this bill, in Bill S-2? In fact, there are many Indigenous women and their descendants who will not benefit from Bill S-2 as we see it now. What are your thoughts on that?
Chief Mackenzie: That’s the question related to sex or gender, right? We know that, today and into the future, more intermarriage will happen. When it comes to females, they lose their status more than males. That’s what we heard. I think that’s what you are referring to. If you are a descendant of an Aboriginal tribe, it doesn’t matter what sex or gender you are; you should have equal treatment. That’s the way it should be.
Senator McPhedran: That goes to my question of the fact that Bill S-2 does not cure the discrimination on the basis of sex. You have also just identified that. What do you think of that? What do you think of the bill being this size when the problem is this size?
Chief Mackenzie: We fully support Aboriginal ladies, women, who have lost their status. That should never have happened. They are just as equal as the males. They should be no different.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, National Chief, for being here, and Ms. Goose as well. I want to add a question along the lines of what Senator McPhedran asked and what we’ve been hearing. You were quite focused on your comments and your support for this particular bill and what it does. The bulk of the witnesses whom we’ve heard — or at least a very large number; maybe not the majority — have been talking about what this bill doesn’t have in it. That is the removal of the second-generation cut-off.
National Chief, you are an administrator. You’ve had to figure out ways to provide for your community. Do you have any opinions on the second-generation cut-off and how it would affect your community? How does it affect your community now? Do you have a lot of section 6(2) status people whose children will no longer be status and therefore the funding becomes an issue in schools and so on? Is this something that is present or that you see in the near future as an issue for your communities?
Chief Mackenzie: I am glad you asked that question. It is an issue today in our communities and regions where there is intermarriage. Individuals are told, “You’re not the status of our band.” Then other bands say the same thing, so they are caught in between. But if you are a descendant of a status person that you have from the past, the parents, the grandparents, that has to be honoured. Who is to say that you are no longer an Indian? You are born an Indian; you will die as an Indian. It’s important that all this is understood.
I want to share a little story that’s related to that.
The Tlicho people were settling a land claim, and we had to choose between a comprehensive claim or what they called a status Indian, Indian Act way. An Elder said, “We can’t put our relatives on an island and say, ‘You don’t belong to us.’ You are a descendant of a status Indian whether you are Métis or not. You will be one of us through the land claim.” That’s very powerful. That’s how it is, and that’s the way it should be.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation, and welcome.
I wanted to go to the issue of people who have status but not band membership. There are a lot of people who are now in that category, and they do have an absolute right to return to their natal band. I know sometimes that it has been so many years, they are not accepted by people. I have seen it happen in my community.
What may be done to support those with status who are seeking but unable to obtain band membership? Just because this bill says that you have a right to return to your natal band, it’s not a solution. It is pretending that they are fixing something, but not all the people will be accepted by their bands. Part of it is that double majority rule that was imposed on section 10 by Indigenous Services Canada, when we are used to do things by consensus. So they have put that double majority rule, and now it’s getting more complex.
Chief Mackenzie: We have to understand the possibility that’s going to be in the future. Not too long ago, we were — we didn’t move around as much as we do today because of education or occupation. Our young people are all over the world now. We can say that. If that’s the case today, it will not stop. So when that happens, those young people, into the future, have to be looked after. They will be a status Indian, like I said, until they die. Nobody should tell them that they are not status Indians for generations to come. If it’s proven that you have status and registered through your grandparent or parent, that should be honoured.
Senator McCallum: One of the arguments that I have heard is that now, suddenly, imagine that your band would get 800 people wanting to have membership. Where would that leave you? What would you do with that?
Chief Mackenzie: Say it again, please.
Senator McCallum: One of the reasons or excuses presented to me was that some 800 or 1,000 people could come to you and say, “I want status in your band.” How would you handle that? Do you have the resources? What would you do? What would need to be taken into consideration?
Chief Mackenzie: Well, every time we need an answer, we go to our Elders, and they really give us a good answer about the family tree. But we as an Indigenous organization need to do more for ourselves. We need to formalize a better family tree. There is so much confusion in ways because of residential schools. Names were given to us by the missionaries, and it confuses. Even families of brothers and sisters have different names. For all those reasons, I think, through oral structure, research on family tree for generations to come. We here in the Northwest Territories, our family trees go into the mountains, into the Yukon, those kinds of things. I think we research to understand for our generations. Maybe I am related to you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses. I have a question for you, National Chief. I believe it was in response to a question from Senator Tannas that you made comment with respect to the land claim agreement that your nation is a part of. Am I correct — in terms of individuals who are entitled to benefit under that land claim agreement — that it was the Elders and communities who decided to not just go along status lines and that there was another opportunity for the community to develop citizenship codes to determine who the citizens were within their respective nation? Can you tell me a bit about why your nation took that direction?
Chief Mackenzie: Thank you. During the Tlicho land claim process, there was disagreement about whether we should get comprehensive or treaty entitlement. If we go treaty entitlement, only treaty status would be the beneficiaries, but if we go the other way, non-treaty descendants of Tlicho, our tribe, would be beneficiaries on the land claim. That’s a big difference. So the Elders have discussed this, and the bottom line is that we can’t put our relatives on an island and they are not part — they are part of us. So our land claim is written there. I was the grand chief twice, so I know some — I didn’t put the claim together, but I studied quite a bit.
Senator Prosper: I want to follow up on that. Thank you for providing that answer, National Chief. Am I correct in presuming, when you mention that, the Elders know who the descendants are, the families within your communities? Is it fair to say that further to that point of them not wanting to put people on an island, to allow their recognition to be more inclusive — am I correct in thinking that the citizenship under the route that was taken for the land claim is wider or includes more individuals than just status individuals?
Chief Mackenzie: Well, the way the Elders put it in the land claim, “One people, one land.” So if you are a beneficiary of a land claim, you are included. You are not excluded. For our land claim, nobody is to own the land. We collectively own the land. We are beneficiaries, and we are collectively a part of everything. Nobody is excluded in that way, and that’s the way the Elders wanted it to be in the future that is coming. We know that mixed marriages will be happening more and more than today. It is happening. We have such families living here in Brantford, Ontario. It is going to happen more. We can’t stop it.
The Deputy Chair: I see no further questions from any of the senators, so this panel is complete.
I wish to thank you, National Chief Mackenzie and Ms. Goose, for being here and for sharing your wisdom with us. If you want to make further submissions — any other things that you would like us to bear in mind — please submit them by email to the clerk, who will make sure that we receive them. That brings us to the end of our meeting today.
(The committee adjourned.)