THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 22, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.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: Honourable senators, good evening to everyone in the room. 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 you keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you, all, for your cooperation.
I begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I am nehiyawak from Treaty 6 territory in what is now known as central Alberta. I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will remind you all that at our first public meeting on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, has recused herself from her role as chair for the duration of this study in order to preserve its neutrality. It is now 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 names and the province or territory from which they come.
Senator McNair: Senator John M. McNair, New Brunswick. Thank you for being here tonight.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Senator Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba, Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.
Senator Coyle: Senator Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator McCallum: Senator Mary Jane McCallum from Treaty 10 in northern Manitoba.
Senator Clement: Senator Bernadette Clement, Cornwall, Ontario, which is traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator Tannas: Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Francis: Senator Brian Francis, Epekwitk, P.E.I.
Senator White: Senator Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador, ancestral homelands of the Mi’kmaw.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken] I am Michèle Audette from Quebec. Hello to the Wendat women and Atikamekw Innu youth who are with us today. Kuei.
[English]
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 Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada and so 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 now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses today. Please welcome via video conference, from St. Mary’s First Nation, Sarah Rose, Director of Operations, Chief and Council. At the table, please welcome, from the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island, Kateri Coade, Executive Director. Accompanying Ms. Coade via video conference is Justin Milne, Legal Counsel. I want to thank all of you for joining us this evening.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
I will now invite Ms. Rose to give her opening comments. You have the floor.
Sarah Rose, Director of Operations, Chief and Council, St. Mary’s First Nation: Thank you. Good evening, everyone. [Indigenous language spoken].
First, I would like to apologize on behalf of Chief Polchies for not being able to be with you. I would also note that we recently had a death here in New Brunswick — a homicide on Monday, of a young woman — so we have a lot going on in the community, but we feel this is very important.
St. Mary’s is the third-largest registered band in New Brunswick. We have some very interesting politics.
I want to say that 46% of our population 60 and below — ages 20 to 60 — are 6(2)s. They cannot pass their status on. Our stats for the 18-and-under 6(2) population is at 69%. Changing the second-generation cut-off is therefore very important to us.
We are centrally located in the city of Fredericton. Our school currently only goes to Grade 6, so our children need to leave the community. They are interacting with non-Indigenous kids, which is great, but, again, when we are dealing with 69% of those under 18 being 6(2)s, this is detrimental to us at this point.
We acknowledge some of the changes that are going on in Bill S-2, particularly the one regarding women who had no choice and had to leave their registration and transfer to their husband’s band. That is something we do. When women reach out to St. Mary’s and ask for the transfer back to St. Mary’s, which is their home community, we are doing that now. We acknowledge it wasn’t their choice are giving them the option to come back. One of the things being addressed in Bill S-2 is something we are currently doing as a community, as a way of bringing these women back and reinstating them in their home community.
Again, I know I have five minutes. I am really sorry. I am all over the place. I would be really open to more questions.
Again, Bill C-31 was huge for the Indigenous women of New Brunswick. We were very instrumental in that, so I can answer more questions when it is my time, but I will stop myself here because I am all over the place. I apologize. Again, we have a lot going on in Sitansisk right now, as I said before. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Rose. There will be time and there will be questions, so you will get to engage in dialogue.
I would now invite Ms. Coade to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Kateri Coade, Executive Director, Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island: Thank you. Senators, I am honoured to be here this evening on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. [Indigenous language spoken]. I am a Mi’kmaw woman from the Abegweit First Nation in Epekwitk, more commonly known as P.E.I.
I appear before you this evening in a few capacities: as a mom of two beautiful Mi’kmaw girls who are currently registered as 6(2) and impacted by the second-generation cut-off; as a former Indian Registry administrator for my band; and as the Executive Director of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI, which is a tribal council to the two First Nations in Epekwitk.
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the important work and positive impact that Bill S-2 will have on First Nations who have been unfairly treated by the Indian Act. However, without amendments, this bill does not go far enough to eliminate discrimination. I will review two issues in my testimony today — the non-liability clauses, which shield Canada with respect to historic wrongdoing, and the need to repeal the second-generation cut-off, which is a form of systemic assimilation.
To begin with the liability clauses set out in sections 10 and 11 of the bill, we must acknowledge that the Indian Act’s sex-based discrimination has harmed First Nations women and their descendants in multiple ways. First, it displaced them from their culture, limited their sense of belonging and harmed the formation of their identity. Beyond the loss of status and the associated rights and benefits, the cumulative trauma from this systemic discrimination is a root cause of economic insecurity, social disenfranchisement, poor health outcomes and many other inequities experienced by individuals who have been excluded from status.
Further, the way in which Canada has implemented previous remedial amendments of the Indian Act has harmed our communities. For example, Canada failed to take the necessary steps to register women and their descendants and to reconnect them with their bands and communities when it passed Bill S-3. Canada also failed to increase the necessary funding to communities to account for the new registrations. Through the Indian Act and chronic underfunding, Canada has fuelled the conditions for lateral violence and exclusion in our communities.
The non-liability clauses completely disregard Canada’s constitutional responsibility to First Nations people. They have a right to reparation for harms caused by the Indian Act, and restricting our rights violates Articles 8, 9, 28 and 44 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIP.
And Canada’s attention shouldn’t be focused on how to avoid compensation. It should be on how to address the ongoing and chronic underfunding of all programs and services provided to First Nations people. Canada must focus on helping us welcome home those who lost status with the corresponding resources to ensure long-term resilience.
I will now speak to the second-generation cut-off and what it means for P.E.I. We are the only peoples in Canada to be legislated in terms of identity and whom we can parent with. The second-generation cut-off provision is nothing short of forced and deliberate systemic assimilation.
In my past role as Indian Registry Administrator, I heard many stories from First Nations women who were concerned about whom they would parent with due to the impacts on identity, belonging and benefits that come with the second-generation cut‑off. I spoke to mothers who, out of desperation and fear of passing a lesser form of citizenship to their children, have contemplated placing their children for adoption with family members registered as 6(1) to prevent them from experiencing discrimination and exclusion from their communities. In no other context are parents put to this stark choice. These choices are not in the best interests of children. Children must grow up secure in their families and their communities. Their parents must never feel the need to choose between their status as parents and their children’s status as First Nations people.
Sadly, this fear is not limited to adults. We have children registered as 6(2) who are concerned about whom they may love and have children with if they want to pass along their status and identity to their own children. My own children ask that question to me all the time, because if the second-generation cut-off is not abolished, it is more than likely that my future grandchildren will not have status. Children shouldn’t be forced to have these concerns and shouldn’t need to have this conversation with their parents. No other children face these anxieties.
It is important to acknowledge that Eastern Canada, as the first region to be colonized, will be among the first regions to suffer irreparable harm if the second-generation cut-off is not repealed. Statistics published by the government reveal that we may be further decimated, if not completely eradicated, within just a few generations if the second-generation cut-off remains.
The situation is particularly dire for Epekwitk. There are approximately 1,500 First Nations in the province, with approximately 40% — around 600 — being registered under 6(2). Half of our population may not be able to transmit status to their future descendants. The Senate can address these long‑standing inequities now.
Children like mine, along with thousands of others registered as 6(2), are counting on the Senate so they can transmit their status to their descendants and will not have to worry about whom they choose to parent with.
I want to reiterate that this bill is an important step in righting some of the wrongs in the Indian Act. But we have seen these incremental steps before and know they always leave people behind. First Nations should not have to wait another 5 to 10 years for another remedy from Canada. We must stop acting in a piecemeal fashion and end the discrimination once and for all.
Wela’lioq, thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hiy hiy, Ms. Coade.
We will now proceed with questions from senators.
Honourable senators, you will each have four minutes for an intervention, which includes the question and answer.
Senator Francis: I want to ask Ms. Coade — who, to be completely transparent, I’m proud to call my daughter — a question: Should this committee choose to amend this bill to compel the federal government to finally address the second-generation cut-off, how do Epekwitk Mi’kmaw envision moving forward on the path to self-determination and transition away from the Indian Act?
Ms. Coade: The Epekwitk Mi’kmaw are focusing on the rebuilding of nationhood. We envision a time when we return to the prosperity we knew before the devastating effects of colonization. We want to return to self-determination, which entails stepping away from the racist Indian Act and concepts of status.
The Mi’kmaw will determine who the Mi’kmaw are and who the citizens and beneficiaries of the Mi’kmaw Nation are, not a bureaucrat in Ottawa. However, realistically, this is years away. The government’s racist and discriminatory practices, which cultivated a culture of dependency for hundreds of years, cannot be undone quickly. Whether we like it or not, identity is connected to status. In the meantime, it is critical we do not lose our identity and culture, which are still associated with status. As indicated, the 6(2) cut-off is effectively a continuation of forced assimilation. Mi’kmaw identity must be preserved as we move towards nationhood. This process can be aided by ensuring that as long as one parent of a child is status, status can be passed on to the child. Nations must also be given the discretion to factor in whom they know to be their community members.
It is also essential that proper funding be provided to correspond to the total membership. Canada cannot act honourably and in good faith and allow greater membership to share smaller and smaller pieces of the same pie.
Ms. Rose: I didn’t think to speak as Kateri did, but I myself am a 6(2). At the age of 10, when Bill C-31 came into effect, I had to talk about exactly what she was speaking to regarding whom I was going to parent with if my children were to have my life, my childhood and the things that I grew up doing. I chose to not follow dreams, fall in love and pursue this fairy tale that is sold to us on TV; I chose to parent with a 6(1)(a). That was the important thing for me. My children are 6(1)(f)s. I don’t know about my grandchildren.
But St. Mary’s, we’re in the same position. We want to talk about nationhood. We want to decide who our members are. We want to define ourselves as a nation. It is kind of hard to do that when you are being told your children and descendants cannot have your life. You cannot go pick medicines, go hunting, go fishing and partake in all the cultural activities that define us and that we fight for, and instead have to stop and get a licence. This is so important to us as a community, as a nation — to design who we are, living within a society that doesn’t really want us to exist.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to our witnesses this evening.
I have a question that I hope we have time to hear from all of the panel on.
Thank you, Ms. Coade, for referencing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the fact that in Canada it is domestic law.
There is always this debate about whether international treaties apply, but in fact that debate is over in Canada.
I wish to bring in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 25 for Indigenous women, as well as 15 and 28 on equality.
My question combines these two aspects of law, plus the findings of the committee on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women that Canada has consistently, over and over again, violated the equality rights of Indigenous women. Again, in Bill S-2, that is clearly continuing to happen.
May I ask whether you think it is now time and now appropriate for senators to address this issue as fully as possible?
Ms. Coade: What I will do is refer to my legal counsel, Justin, to answer some of that. But, yes, I do believe we should be addressing this now. The time is right. We have an opportunity to end discrimination, so yes.
Ms. Rose: This is the right time — 100%. We have been waiting.
Bill C-31 was in 1985. I’m now 50 years old. I am here speaking on behalf of my nieces, nephews and future generations.
This needs to stop at some point. You talk about discrimination against Indigenous women in this country, and we are still the most vulnerable sector of the Canadian population. As I mentioned earlier, there was a homicide in the city of Fredericton, of a young Indigenous woman of the age of 28. She was a 6(2) with four non-status children, who are now going to be relying on a community that is going to come back and say, “You are not eligible for funding.”
Justin Milne, Legal Counsel, Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island: Thank you, senator. I will be brief.
The two witnesses have it exactly right. You have had a number of legal briefs presented to you that indicate that 6(2) in and of itself is discriminatory. I would only add to what the witnesses have so ably said.
Individuals who are being discriminated against should not have to wait to have their rights justified and remedied. They should be able to have their rights vindicated as quickly as possible. You have seen that commentary in some of the briefs before you. We should not be doing this in a piecemeal fashion anymore. We should be doing this comprehensively and ensuring that nobody is further discriminated against. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Ms. Rose, my condolences to you and your community. Words cannot describe the grief and horror that your community must be facing, on top of trying to deal with the fact that this legislation, if amended, could potentially assist the children you talked about. Thank you for raising that. My question is for you and Ms. Coade. Ms. Coade, thank you for raising the legislation you did as well as the non-liability clause. Thank you for the incredible work you have done in Epekwitk around justice issues. The only other time that I have seen this kind of attempt to prevent the government from being held liable was about 12 to 15 years ago, when the government of the day was trying to eliminate the possibility of prisoners being able to sue when their rights had been violated.
So, it’s not lost on me that in a situation in which Indigenous people are overrepresented, that was being applied, and here we have that again. Today would have been the birthday of Jordan River Anderson. My question is this: If we don’t amend this provision, if we don’t repeal it or deal with the second‑generation cut-off, what would that mean for young people who might otherwise benefit from things like Jordan’s Principle?
Ms. Coade: Thank you for your question. If Canada does not repeal the 6(2) cut-off, they’re going to continue to repeat that discrimination — the very discrimination that we have seen our family members, friends and community go through in the past. It means no access to education, housing, tax benefits, treaty annuities. It means being excluded from the community as a whole.
For P.E.I., of course, as I referred to in my notes, it will become non-existent. That’s what it’s going to mean if we don’t repeal the 6(2) cut-off.
It’s also going to force children to go to court and litigate for their rights once again. As you noted, it is the birthday of Jordan River Anderson. Why should our kids have to continually go to court to fight for the rights that they deserve as First Nations children? It will continue the psychological harm and harms to reconciliation. We started down the road to reconciliation. I feel that this would set us back.
In the future, the repair is going to be more and more distant for our First Nations. They’re going to have less trust in Canada. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Ms. Rose?
Ms. Rose: You talk about reconciliation. Something that my Chief says a lot is “reconcili-action.” We have been talking about reconciliation in this country for a very long time. It is piecemeal. We are fighting for treaty rights, hunting rights and all these things. These are great, and they are coming through for us. But guess what? No one is talking about our registration; no one is talking about our numbers. We are fighting for rights that we will not be able to recognize because we will have no status Indians under Canada. We’re not saying that our members are not going to exist or that we will not accept them and acknowledge them; we just won’t be able to exercise our rights.
It’s not fair, it’s unjust, and honestly, we’re tired of fighting. Think about it. If you have had to fight at your age for all of your children and your nieces and nephews, and now you’re talking about your grandchildren and great-grandchildren who cannot be recognized as yours by Canada. It’s great that we open all our meetings and do a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are here among Indigenous Peoples, but are we really, if Canada is saying we no longer exist?
As was said earlier by my friend, we were the first point of contact here on the East Coast. We are feeling it. I’m a former registration clerk. I’m actually an electoral officer. I work with communities that can no longer produce a status Indian. They’re already there. They’re already at that point. They don’t exist.
It has to stop. People need to say, “Allow us to define that.” You want to give us back membership and want a registration, but you’re giving us back a huge mess for us to clean up.
At some point, someone just needs to say, “Enough is enough,” and remove the second-generation cut-off.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all three of our witnesses here today. I’m interested in the perspectives that are being articulated this evening. I hadn’t thought of the fact that on the East Coast, your communities were the first to be colonized. I’m aware of that, but I hadn’t connected it to this particular problem that we’re dealing with.
First of all, Ms. Coade — though I will have question for both of you — you talked about this causing identity loss, loss of belonging and loss of benefits. This is not in the best interest of children, but it’s also not in the best interest of the survival of the nation — that is what I’m hearing from you.
I’m just curious if there have been any studies done about this. If this keeps going the way it is, you said that it could be completely eliminated in a short period. Has anyone done research on that?
Ms. Coade: I believe our people have been consulted many times over the years, even since this was introduced in 1985. In terms of my community specifically, I’m not aware of an actual study being completed within P.E.I. in either community, but I believe the information is out there. We know what we need to do. I would like to point out the excellent road map that the Senate provided in 2022 with Make it stop! You got it right. The recommendations are there. They just need to be followed through on, right from repealing the 6(2) cut-off, looking at the whole system of registry at Indigenous Services Canada, looking at the delays, what is causing that, and then back to the funding to support that.
I will note that when I was doing the registry in my community — and I’m sure my friend from New Brunswick would probably also attest to this — it was very underfunded. We were provided $5,000 for a year to assist with membership in the communities. There is absolutely no monies or capacity to undertake any studies in the communities. We’re in a serious situation here. We’re counting on what has already been said and proven in those reports in the past.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. Could I ask Ms. Rose a slightly different question?
Ms. Rose: I can answer the question about statistics after, but go ahead.
Senator Coyle: Do you want to take that question?
Ms. Rose: I do. In 2017, Claudette Dumont-Smith toured the country and did a study. I don’t know the name of it, but someone in that room could look it up. In 2017, they produced statistics on where we were with our parenting out and our parenting in, as well as the ratio between 6(1) and 6(2). So there was a study, and Claudette Dumont-Smith came to Halifax and met with her. I can tell you that is there.
To speak to what my friend said, we are the third-largest community in New Brunswick. Our population is around 2,200, and we receive $10,000 for assisting with registration. You can ask me your next question.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I’ve probably used my time. That’s very helpful.
Senator White: Thank you to the witnesses. I certainly appreciated your perspectives and your presentations. My daughter’s children are 6(2)s and my son’s children are 6(1)s because of whom they chose to marry, so I can relate to and understand this.
For the benefit of some of my Senate colleagues, the Indian Act was a piece of legislation only ever in Canada. It’s the only piece of legislation in the world that governs citizens from cradle to grave. They determine who an Indian is, and they can actually determine if a will is valid on-reserve.
The purpose of the Indian Act is to destroy the Indians, to get rid of them all. So we’re getting there over time. I just wanted to lay that out for my colleagues. We’ve heard so much testimony here that we have to fix the second generation. We have to cut it off. But we’ve already heard the government come forward with a position saying that this needs to be amended, they are under a court order for this particular enfranchisement position and they can do something else with 6(2) in other pieces of legislation.
What would you say to that position? I’ll start with you, Kateri.
Ms. Coade: I don’t believe that more consultation is needed. We know it’s discrimination. Why are we withholding rights that people deserve and are entitled to when we know that is the problem? It’s just going to create more litigation down the road.
Ms. Rose: It was said earlier that today would have been Jordan River Anderson’s birthday. Look how long it took everyone to decide on what to do in relation to that. We are now at that state with our 6(2) cut-off. How much longer and how many more children need to go unaccounted for and unacknowledged before Canada says that enough is enough? That’s my answer.
Senator Tannas: This has been a great panel so far, and that’s on top of many great panels we have had here. As we sit through this and reflect, in my thirteenth year on the committee, I remember, in the early years, there was a discussion around the second-generation cut-off. However, it seemed to be tangential in the sense that it wasn’t attached to anything that was urgent.
The oldest 6(2) is 40 years old. My son-in-law is 6(2) and 40 years old. The real consequences of the second-generation cut‑off have only really begun to land in the past few years in terms of things like funding. What strikes me in all of this is that there’s going to be exponential growth in this from now on. That’s where we’re at, with the oldest being 40. We now probably have a significant number of non-status children living on-reserve who are not funded for education and health. The community is carrying them, as we just heard from Ms. Rose in talking about the children of the lady who died today.
This is now a crisis, as I understand it, and the whole idea of waiting for some kind of consultation without fixing it permanently or temporarily while this consultation takes place — and until the consultation is done and a solution is arrived at — it occurs to me is urgent.
Can you both talk about or provide in writing — it would be really interesting to know — how many children today are in your schools and in your communities that you are supporting with everybody else’s resources? Similarly, I would ask the same regarding the health segment — although I guess it’s one and the same — but regarding schools, if they were given status, what difference would that make in your education budget?
I want to thank you for coming today and just putting another fine point on this. Do you have any information that’s current that shows where this financial crisis is happening? This wave is cresting, but there is much more to come — much more pain and trouble — and it’s going to come exponentially next year and the year after. So however many years it takes to get the logistics straight on this, it will be too late.
I would say this, also, deputy chair: This would not happen in a small White or otherwise non-Indigenous community. We see small communities across the country struggle to grow. We provide a lot of encouragement to help them grow. This is the inevitable destruction of a small community. In a small community outside of this one, if the law were that, if you stayed there too long, you would have to start paying for your children’s schooling, education and health out of your own pocket, there would be riots. It’s absurd.
The paradigm has shifted, and the urgency is not about justice — although it is also about justice and has been all along. The urgency now is around the survival of communities and the incredible financial unfairness of what’s going on.
Thank you. I’m sorry; there was a question in there somewhere.
The Deputy Chair: We have about a minute and a half. Ms. Coade, would you like to say anything in response to that?
Ms. Coade: Yes, absolutely.
Our funding is deeply impacted by the division of 6(1) and 6(2) and those who do not have status. We have many children in our community. At our tribal council, we offer many front-line services, including child and family services, education, health, justice, employment and so forth. Regarding a lot of the programs and services that we do deliver, we still provide services to those who are not funded, because how could you exclude children? That’s the premise that we practise around. However, it is becoming very limiting, and we’re seeing further cuts, as you noted. It’s becoming very difficult.
Ms. Rose: Regarding our school, we’re one of the fortunate communities with own-source revenue. So we supplement our health and our education. We are acknowledging these children in community. Unfortunately, because of housing, a lot of our members who are non-status are living off-reserve, where we can’t necessarily assist. However, we are for the ones in community. I will get you those numbers.
As I said, I don’t do registration anymore, but within our community school, it was roughly 60 kids who are non-status. If they live in the greater Fredericton area, we allow them to go to our school; we just use the band-member parent’s band number. We’re tracking it.
If they’re out of community, we are limited in terms of what we can do, but we try. I will get you some numbers.
Senator Audette: Thank you, witnesses, and a long-time friend with the Native Women’s Association of Canada. I’m very honoured to hear your voice and to see that you’re still advocating for many of us.
I want to say something before I ask my question. Many of us, as Indigenous People, try hard to enter this Parliament, either in the other chamber as an elected person or appointed as a senator. I think both sides have a role to play and responsibilities, and the role of a senator — the second thought — is very important. So I say thank you to the allies who are not Indigenous but who walk with and for us. We sometimes disagree, but it’s in a good way.
I know I’m out of scope, but we see bills passing by. There is a bill, Bill C-3, that will recognize two generations of people who were born outside of Canada who will have their Canadian citizenship. Of course, I react. As an Innu woman, I am 6(2) — or 6 something; I don’t know — but someone decided for me.
As the First Peoples of this land, how do you feel that we don’t have that possibility, that right or that normal thing to do — she is Mi’kmaw or he is Innu because I am Mi’kmaw or I am Innu?
The other question — many senators mentioned this — regards that there have been so many collaborative processes since the 2000s. Ms. Rose, you mentioned it with Claudette Dumont-Smith; former minister Hajdu started something in 2023 when she launched a collaborative process on the second‑generation cut-off. I found out not long ago, in the other chamber in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, a member of Parliament, also Mi’kmaw, proposed a motion to do a study on this specific issue. I said there are two processes when Bill S-2 could be an opportunity to solve this when Chiefs agree.
I am told we need to consult with the Chief. So far, we have Chiefs who come every time. We have a panel. They say we are ready to work on that second-generation cut-off.
What do we say about that? What do we do?
Ms. Coade: To the first part of your question, in terms of how we feel coming into places like this, it is certainly intimidating.
I hold everyone up to our First Nations, Inuit and Métis who are in positions of power and privilege like yourselves around this table.
I do feel for them and separate the personal from the position. It is understandable. They do have to toe the line with their party. I understand they receive direction from the Crown. You look at it from the perspective of the Crown.
However, as someone who has been classified and dictated to regarding who I am and who I am going to parent with, I don’t have trust in those positions — not the person. I am sure they are really smart people, more than capable. I fully believe they have the best of intentions for our people. However, how can we trust the Crown, which has been telling us for so many years it is going to resolve this problem?
Ms. Rose: So that you know, as women, we are born with our eggs already inside us. From the moment of Creation, we have our eggs. I will go back. I can go back four generations of Indigenous Wolastoqey women born with their eggs. I was inside my mother, grandmother and my great-grandmother. I am Wolastoqey. Your legislation cannot take that from me.
I am a 6(2). Because I chose to parent with an Indigenous man, because I had to, I’m not eligible for that upgrade to be a 6(1) like my brothers, my male cousins. I have been fighting with the department, saying I shouldn’t have to procreate to get a category upgrade. That is not fair to me. Just because my brothers chose to procreate with non-Indigenous women, they are 6(1)s. I am still a 6(2) as an Indigenous woman. That is not fair.
To answer your question, I am Wolastoqey from the moment of the conception of my first ancestors. Your legislation is wonderful, thank you. But we need our allies to acknowledge who we are while they stand on our Indigenous lands.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses.
Nice to see you again, Ms. Coade.
Ms. Rose, thank you for sharing your experience, leadership and advocacy for your people and communities.
To pick up on the previous question from Senator Audette, we heard the minister provide testimony with respect to the substance of Bill S-2.
The dialogue regarded that there are a number of people who are entitled to registration previously enfranchised. It went, “Why deny those individuals? Don’t you know we are having another collaborative, consultative process?” I believe the number was with 90 other groups or First Nations. “We’re working to deal with second-generation cut-off, membership and voting thresholds with respect to membership.” “Complex” is another word that is often used, especially getting into items of citizenship.
I wish to get both of your perspectives on that approach.
This is the substance of previous questions, but do you think we need more consultations on a legislative policy regarding forced assimilation? I am trying to reconcile how you would consult on that. On its face, it does not seem to be very appropriate or legal.
Ms. Coade, you mentioned irreparable harm.
What would you say to us as senators following the advice of the minister to wait for further consultations, let Bill S-2 go through and allow those people to be registered, and then they promise they will get back to you about coming up with a solution for second-generation cut-off?
Ms. Coade, can we start with you, and then hear from you, Ms. Rose? Thank you.
Ms. Coade: To respond to that, we can do both at the same time. We can pass this bill with the required amendments to stop discrimination altogether.
You referenced the original cases — Nicholas, going forward, in one of the earlier testimonies from Ms. Pam Palmater — you can do both, and this will also benefit them, to end the discrimination for that family as well.
Canada routinely insists more consultation is required. There is a divergence of opinions and so forth, but we have heard this time and again. I believe we can get this done.
Ms. Rose: I agree. We can do both. We talk about delaying the process. You have Bill C-31, Bill C-3, Bill S-3 and now Bill S-2. For the things that happened in 2019, they still haven’t implemented that. Regarding that 1951 cut-off, those individuals are still waiting. That is legislation from 2019. Those individuals are still waiting.
I assisted someone. I do registration on the side to help out. I assisted someone from Oromocto First Nation. He was born in the 1960s. His dad was born in 1948. He is still not registered. He is fighting cancer right now. If he were a status Indian, he would have better access to funding for assistance with his cancer treatments.
We could say, “No, let’s wait a little bit longer.” The thing about waiting a little bit longer is that we have people who are sick or dying. We have people who will never be registered. Their descendants can prove their entitlement, but they will never be registered. That is not fair to those individuals.
As I said, we can do both. The consultation can talk more about nationhood and future registration versus this second‑generation cut-off.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the presenters for the work you do and the advocacy. It is good to see the next generation travel the road that our elders have made. It has made your road a bit easier, so I thank everyone for that.
I wish to move to sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Act. We are told a potential solution to that second-generation cut-off may result in an additional 225,000 or more newly entitled individuals. Any legislative amendment would result in an influx of new members, making it likely to be more difficult to gain the consent of the majority of electors as per current because they need that double threshold.
This is an argument people have given us to not make the amendment.
You said you are already addressing part of this and that you have a plan. Do you have a plan on how to deal with that influx so we can do away with that argument? That is what I am trying to get at. How do you deal with that, knowing that when the members come in, this is not just a legal narrative? It is discriminatory, but there are many social implications here, and they are so enmeshed that it is difficult to separate them now. We’re caught in this.
I am trying to make sense of it. I would like direction on how we would argue that it is doable and the communities are perfectly capable of addressing this.
Ms. Coade: Yes, thank you. The communities absolutely are best placed to deal with this. For the most part, regarding your question around whether we have a solution or a plan in place, that would be best answered by First Nations leadership for those communities.
I would like to note, though, that Canada has a fiduciary responsibility and cannot relinquish their responsibility and liability onto the First Nations people. They have to step up to the plate when it comes to funding, and First Nations leadership needs to meet with the Crown and negotiate that. I feel that is separate and apart after ending discrimination.
You also made reference to social implications with an influx; but I truly believe there will be, by far, more social implications if we don’t start helping our people, start bringing them home and offering them supports and services.
This is why, in fact, we have so much violence against women and so many social issues around addictions, mental health and over-representation in the child welfare system. It is because Canada and the Indian Act have displaced our people for far too long. I will end there.
Ms. Rose: I grew up in a different time. I cannot imagine what it is like growing up now, when our children have no identity and are struggling. You talk about their mental health and all the social issues we are dealing with. When a child cannot clearly identify as being Indigenous because the government is saying that they are not, it plays on you.
Yes, we will have an influx. In St. Mary’s, we are a section 11 band, so our band membership and registration are connected. We do not have a custom code. Those thresholds are not something we’re dealing with. But, again, our non-status population is a burden on our community, and we do our best. We really do. We use our own-source revenue. We try to get creative. We do not want to continue the harm of not acknowledging who our members should be, so we are trying that.
Senator McCallum: It’s a critical point that we need to see there is no funding involved with this bill. There cannot be or it will be deemed beyond the scope. You spoke about funding, and we go after the funding after the discrimination has ended. That is important to note.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: I am new to the committee. I am a new senator. However, since we started listening to witnesses for Bill S-2, all we have heard, if I’m not wrong, is that everyone supports Bill S-2 but it needs to do more. No one has any issues with how Bill S-2 is, but they believe that it is not enough.
As I am listening and hearing about 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(2) cut‑off, I do not think we’re talking about humans sometimes when we are doing all these classifications of people.
Yet Canada is known for helping other countries on human rights. We have gone into countries that do ethnic cleansing and tried to fight for human rights in that country, and not just one country but many countries around the world.
Yet we allow these situations to happen, where people’s human rights are disappearing generation after generation. It is kind of like ethnic cleansing with a different name, and it is legislated.
I do not know how we as a country can fight for human rights around the world and let this happen in our backyard. Our opportunity to amend legislation and deal with this to help people in our own country compels us to do so. When you look around, you see a lot of Indigenous people on this committee, which I think creates expectations too.
All the witnesses come before us. They see Indigenous people who are in a position to do something, whereas maybe 50 years ago there weren’t. The members of Parliament and senators were all non-Indigenous very recently. Even now, in the House of Commons, there aren’t that many, but when you look around this committee, there’s quite a few of us here. I think we outnumber non-Indigenous senators.
The expectation from the communities is that we better understand what is at stake here. I think it compels us as senators, Indigenous senators, to argue for change, as we are in a position to do so.
This is not really a question, but I feel that we have an opportunity to make something right. We should look at amendments that everyone is asking for instead of doing another study. I totally understand where you come from, when there are studies upon studies that are collecting dust somewhere on a shelf.
I feel compelled to say we have an opportunity to do something. We should take that opportunity. Every witness is saying so. We are getting the same message.
I do not know how to do amendments, but I am sure there are people who do around here.
I wanted to say my piece because I listen a lot. I don’t say a lot, but I felt compelled to mention what I just did. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator, for that affirmation and the deep respect for the reality and the process that we are in.
Hiy hiy to you.
Senator Klyne: I would like to thank everybody for the warm-up act. Thank you to our witnesses. You have put a lot of heart and soul into this, and we greatly appreciate it.
Ms. Sarah Rose mentioned early on in the game that she is tired of fighting. I am tired seeing communities having to beg and litigate for their inherent treaty rights.
Not too long ago, I was in a roomful of teenagers who were looking at going to high school. I spent decades trying to make sure education became the answer to things. It was moving for me because I hadn’t visited that situation for a long time.
They came to us. Lillian Dyck could not sit in on the committee, so she asked me to substitute and I had the benefit of listening. They all stood up and read their stories about their conviction in wanting to go to high school. They had a number of Chiefs with them. One of the Chiefs was the spokesperson. He stood up after we listened to all of those teenagers, and he said these young people came to them and said they were tired of the gangs, the drugs and the intergenerational violence, and that the only out from their perspective was education, and they wanted their inherent rights to an education. To me, that was self‑determination. These teenagers were going to make it happen.
Earlier on, Ms. Coade, you mentioned that the self-determined cut-off would, for all intents and purposes, respect self‑determination. You mentioned that it is a fundamental right in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You are right. To me, Bill S-2 represents such an opportunity.
We shouldn’t wait that little bit longer. I can tell you that Murray Wilson wouldn’t and neither would Harry Daniels. Do you agree we should be moving on with this as quickly as we can?
Ms. Rose: Yes.
Ms. Coade: Yes, I do agree we should be moving quickly.
Ms. Rose: I think we can move faster.
Like you mentioned, when you talk about the generational traumas, remember, some of these people who suffered residential schools or day schools left the communities. They left to hide their children, to protect their children. Now they are parenting out.
All those other traumas all tie back into this second-generation cut-off as well. Don’t forget that. We really need to correct this wrong. Now would be nice.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Thank you to our guests, our witnesses, for your valuable contributions this evening.
Honourable senators, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank our guests once again for joining us this evening.
If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk. If you think of things you wish to add, that would be great.
I would like to now introduce our second panel of witnesses this evening. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Grand Chief Kyra Wilson.
At the table, please welcome, from the Council of the Wendat Nation, Grand Chief Pierre Picard, accompanied by Simon Picard, Director, direction of legal services; and from the Whitecap Dakota Nation, please welcome Chief Darcy Bear, accompanied by Alyson Bear, General Legal Counsel.
Thank you to all of you for joining us this evening.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Grand Chief Wilson to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Grand Chief Kyra Wilson, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: Good evening. Thank you, honourable senators and other presenters, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I speak as the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We represent 63 First Nations, but I also come here as a mother from Long Plain First Nation and Sandy Bay First Nation.
I am a mother who continues to deal with this very issue of citizenship regarding my own child. My apologies for not being present and in person. We deal with so many issues every day, so I’m having to stay in Treaty 1 territory today, but I do not sit here as a stakeholder. I do stand here before you as a rights holder, carrying the lived impact of a law that decides whether my own child will be counted among my people and my nations.
Currently under the system, under the Indian Act, my daughter is not eligible to register as a status First Nations person. I don’t fully understand or comprehend how that even works. Previously, I was a Chief for my nation, and currently, as a Grand Chief, I am not able to register my daughter as a status First Nations person under the system. So as my own experience suggests, something is very flawed within the system and within the Indian Act.
I’m here to confront the issue that threatens the survival of our nations, Canada’s continued use of section 6(2) of the Indian Act as a policy of legislated genocide.
I know we are here to talk about Bill S-2 and how this seeks to correct some of these injustices and speak to enfranchisement, but it does not address the deeper harm that’s embedded in the law. Right now, what we see is that Canada continues to decide who our people are. To me, that is a problem. I know that many of our First Nations see that as a problem as well.
Section 6(2) of the Indian Act defines entire generations out of existence unless both parents are status. That is something that Canada doesn’t even require of its own citizens. What this shows us is that it creates a forecast of erasure for our people, for our nations, where we are basically mathematically reduced to zero. To me, this is not reconciliation; it is elimination by law.
At the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we have written letters to the Prime Minister and the ministers, warning of this ongoing harm and urging Canada to end the legislative control over our identity as First Nations.
The harm has continued for generations, and it still continues today. We see that Bill S-2 may recognize around 6,000 people, but it doesn’t remove the second-generation cut-off that could recognize over 225,000 people. That’s a big difference in the scale of what we would call legislated extinction.
I think about what the impacts are for our children, and I think about the impact on my own child. She is not currently registered within Long Plain or Sandy Bay. I did try to register her when she was first born, and we were denied based on the very system that Canada created — a system we did not create.
It’s unfortunate, because my daughter doesn’t necessarily feel connected to her nations, and that creates harm within her life as a young person. I’m always having to share with her that this does not mean that you are not First Nations. This does not mean that you are not connected to Long Plain or Sandy Bay. I’m continually having to speak to my child about this.
I know this is not an isolated issue. I know there are many children who deal with that, that sense of belonging. Without status, children are denied treaty rights and inclusion in their respective nations. They are denied housing, health care, even burial in their own communities. Essentially, what we are seeing is that our children are actually being denied belonging. The harm is very real, and it is very deeply rooted in our families currently, as we see.
Right now, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is calling for the following amendments: We are proposing that Bill S-2 is an interim measure towards full recognition of First Nations jurisdiction over citizenship. First Nations need to lead this discussion. As I mentioned before, we have written letters to Canada, to the Prime Minister, to ministers, stating that we need to be part of this process.
The second recommendation would be to have a 12-month co‑development plan to establish a table that is funded, and assisting and creating a strategy and a plan on how Canada is going to recognize our First Nations citizenship laws, treaty-based registries and inter-nation systems and how we are all related. Another would be eliminating the 6(1) and 6(2) distinctions and committing to a one-parent rule, which would be consistent with Canadian citizenship law — so ending that legislated extinction or genocide. Right now, unless you identify both parents as being First Nations or being status, 6(1) and 6(2) children are not given the right to be able to register.
Another recommendation would be the right of re-affiliation, guaranteeing that individuals can return to their nations with the resources for the communities to welcome their citizens home. That would be a big one for many people.
Another would regard service standards and fiscal commitment — just looking at addressing the backlogs that we know exist, the inequities and the chronic underfunding through a lot of these services. Right now, we see over 80% of registration applications exceed the six-month service standard. Right now, we see more than 12,000 files that are backlogged for people who are trying to register.
So we need to address these backlogs and ensure that we are providing more than enough resources to First Nations to support a community-based registration process.
Last but not least, we should affirm that nothing in Bill S-2 limits treaty rights for First Nations over the jurisdiction regarding citizenship.
To conclude, I want to say, honourable senators, thank you very much. I say that Indian status is not citizenship. Canada does not define who we are. We define who we are. True reconciliation requires Canada to step back and make space for our nations to resume our laws of belonging. That is the future our children deserve: that sense of belonging. Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Wilson.
I will now invite Grand Chief Picard to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Grand Chief Pierre Picard, Council of the Wendat Nation: Good evening. [Another language spoken] Pierre Picard [Another language spoken]. First, [Another language spoken] to the Anishinaabe Nation for having us on their territory.
[Another language spoken] to you as well, honourable senators, for giving the Wendat Nation the opportunity to share its views as part of your study on Bill S-2, which amends Indian registration.
We are the only Wendat nation in Canada and the only First Nation with a permanent presence in the greater Quebec City area.
As of September 2025, the Wendat Nation had a population of 5,505 members. Of those, 1,513 lived in Wendake, the community, and 3,992 lived outside the community. A total of 3,166 members of our population are registered under subsection 6(1) of the Indian Act, and 2,277 members are registered under subsection 6(2). This means that nearly half of our population cannot pass on their status unless they marry someone who also has status.
Throughout history, Wendake has been close to the major urban centre of Quebec City, which explains the high rate of marriage outside the community, something that distinguishes the Wendat and speeds up the reduction in the number of Wendat members included in the Indian Register.
On October 8, the committee heard from Mélanie Savard, a Wendat woman who spoke out vehemently against the effects of the Indian Act and the second-generation cut-off rule introduced in 1985, which perpetuates the federal government’s goal of assimilation.
No Canadian has to question whether their children, grandchildren or nieces and nephews will be entitled to their status as a Canadian citizen. More than 1,050 Wendat members wonder whether they will be able to pass on their status to members of their family. They recently filed a petition with our council regarding the second-generation cut-off. It is important to understand that this situation has intergenerational consequences within a family, not to mention the wedge it can drive between members of our community.
The rules governing the transmission of status divide First Nations into categories that are both discriminating and discriminatory. The transmission of status rules in the Indian Act restrict the ability of Indigenous peoples to define their identity themselves and puts the burden of dealing with the everyday consequences on band councils.
With its delay in amending the legislative framework, the federal government is jeopardizing social peace in the nation and, in some cases, encouraging lateral violence. The government must face up to its responsibilities and do what is necessary to end the discrimination. The government must adopt a remedy that fully addresses the issue and ensures First Nations’ survival, while in no way abandoning its fiduciary responsibilities towards them.
This is about more than a solution to address the second‑generation cut-off rule; it is about ensuring that the Wendat, and the Wendat alone, have the ability to decide their future. These decisions cannot be made if we, as a council and elected representatives, cannot provide the necessary guidance and support. That is why the nation would eventually like to make an independent national consultation circle available to Wendat members, in order to gather data, views, suggestions and concerns before providing the council with recommendations on Wendat identity.
The federal government’s current definition of consultation does not meet our needs and imposes impossible time limits, which are inconsistent with the level of diligence such an exercise demands.
In addition, entrusting a committee of legal experts with the responsibility of quickly coming up with possible legal solutions unfortunately reflects the government’s ongoing colonialist and paternalistic attitude towards us. The people who have been harmed by this act and the discrimination it has inflicted on them should not have to turn to the courts yet again to force Parliament to recognize their fundamental rights.
That is what First Nations women in common-law relationships prior to 1985 have had to do. With me today are Martine Sioui and Julie Gros-Louis, two Wendat women personally affected by this discrimination. They are plaintiffs in the case Sioui versus Canada, a case endorsed and fully supported by the Council of the Wendat Nation.
Prior to 1985, many Wendat and other First Nations women had to make an extremely difficult choice: not marry their spouse to avoid losing their status, thus running the risk of being kicked out of their community.
Still today, these women, their children and their grandchildren suffer discrimination because of that choice. The Indian Act recognizes the registration entitlement of an individual whose grandmother married a non-status man before April 17, 1985, regardless of the other parent’s status. However, the same act denies that right to an individual whose grandmother was in a common-law relationship with a non-status man at that same time if the other parent was not entitled to be included in the register.
The Council of the Wendat Nation is therefore of the view that Bill S-2 provides a real opportunity and the ideal legislative vehicle to remedy the clear discrimination that persists in the Indian Act. By making a few minor additions to Bill S-2, which we’ve laid out in our brief, Parliament now has the opportunity and duty to correct this injustice.
Let us be clear: The time for half-measures and baby steps is over. It is time for a comprehensive, ambitious and sustainable vision embodied in actions that truly ensure the survival of Indigenous peoples, in all their diversity and, above all, dignity.
If nothing changes, our projections show that the population of the Wendat Nation will have shrunk by half by 2050. We are a living example of the continuing eradication of “Indians.” While the process may not be as brutal as it once was, it continues in a slow, insidious, pervasive and pernicious way, and leads to the same result, unfortunately.
[Another language spoken] Good evening. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Picard.
I will now invite Chief Bear to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Chief Darcy Bear, Whitecap Dakota Nation: [Indigenous language spoken].
First, I want to say good evening, shake your hands with a good heart and recognize the lands we’re on are of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation. We’re honoured to be here to present on behalf of our Whitecap Dakota Nation. We’re located outside of Saskatoon.
This has been a long-standing issue, as far as section 6(2) goes. My own opinion is that we should get rid of section 6(2) altogether. I know, in meeting with ministers, that it is more complex with that.
Looking to the United States and the way they do it there, they let each tribe in the United States define who their membership is, and then they’re recognized by that state, but they make that definition via blood quantum. Some of them go as far as one sixty-fourth, maybe one thirty-second, but it’s up to each nation to decide that. That’s what they do in the United States.
I’m not knocking anyone here. I think it’s important to know and remember that.
I was looking, for example, at the Métis. As it says here under the 2023 Métis Self-government Agreement, Métis Nations define citizenship indefinitely, allowing rights to pass generation after generation without restriction. In stark contrast, First Nations remain bound by the Indian Act’s cut-off, ensuring gradual population decline.
So there is no Métis act that says you have to have a certain blood quantum. If a Métis was originally made from a First Nation and a non-First Nation procreating, there is nothing that says you have to maintain that blood quantum of 50-50. Nothing says that. But with our people, after two generations, you’re no longer Dakota, no longer Anishinaabe, no longer Mohawk and so on. That is not fair.
French Canadians as well are protected under the Charter. Section 23 ensures French minority official language communities can transmit rights intergenerationally. Only one parent needs to be a rights holder for their child to be entitled to public minority-language education. And that just passes on, generation after generation.
Yet we, as the First Peoples of this land, of Turtle Island, have legislation that dictates who our members are. After two generations, you’re no longer Dakota. How can that be?
I have an example regarding one of my members, who has now passed on, sadly. He brought a lot of guidance to our council, the late Senator Melvin Littlecrow, and he was a 6(1). His wife is an Anishinaabe from Ontario. She’s a 6(1). They have children together, and all their children are 6(1). But one of the daughters marries a Métis person and their child becomes a 6(2). Then that child has a relationship with a non-First Nation person, and all of a sudden, boom, his great-granddaughter is no longer Dakota. How can that be?
How can the government decide who a member of our nation is? That is not fair to our people. There is a great injustice and a lot of discrimination.
I don’t know if they’re applying the Charter to Bill S-2, but it doesn’t go far enough.
I know Minister Gull-Masty is talking about bringing forward another bill that is going to further remedy section 6, but we’ve talked about interim measures. I’ll have to read this, as far as what we’re proposing. We do support Minister Gull-Masty going forward to actually either get rid of section 2 altogether or however it works. However, we need an interim fix.
We want to look at some stand-alone legislation, of course, the future for the second-generation cut-off, but as the minister stated before the Senate on September 24, 2025, prior reforms through Bill C-31, Bill S-3 and now Bill S-2 have not gone far enough to limit systemic discrimination. Senator Mary Jane McCallum described this ongoing injustice as a form of genocide because it legislates the gradual extinction of First Nations identity over time.
Our nation agrees that the stand-alone legislation is the only permanent and just solution. However, immediate protection it still required. Until stand-alone legislation is introduced, passed, and in force, an interim amendment to Bill S-2 is urgently needed to ensure that children with one 6(2) parent with a connection to the community can be recognized and transmit their rights.
What we are proposing is the First Nations receive, by amendment to section 6(2), statutory authority to confer irrevocable 6(2) status on an individual, provided that individual has a parent with a 6(2) status and a connection to the community. This amendment would respect self-determination, a fundamental right in UNDRIP. Under Bill C-15, adopted in 2021, the government has an obligation to implement the declaration of federal laws of Canada. Bill S-2 represents such an opportunity.
And it’s the Senate’s duty to uphold and protect minority rights and, including in this case, their just transfer.
Conferring 6(2) status through one 6(2) parent with a community connection is not a permanent fix. However, it is a necessary interim safeguard that prevents additional generations from being erased while Parliament develops a long-term reform. This proposal, therefore, complements the minister’s legislative vision.
What we’re proposing to the Senate is that we support stand‑alone legislation to fully repeal the second-generation cut‑off, and given the urgency, we also need an interim fix in Bill S-2 so families are not erased while stand-alone legislation is being developed. So while the minister is talking about stand‑alone legislation, what we’re proposing is that if a person is a 6(2), their status can be passed on in the interim while they’re developing stand-alone legislation. In the meantime, there must be an interim measure. Whitecap proposes that children of one 6(2) parent with connection to the community must be eligible for registration and transmission of status while legislation is being developed. Each nation must be empowered to irrevocably confer 6(2) status on children where at least one parent is recognized as 6(2) and has connection to the community.
Without such changes, Canada will continue to legislate the erosion of First Nations identity in violation of the Charter, UNDRIP and the TRC Calls to Action.
I heard the previous speakers talk about the impact to the nations. You look at the benefits that Canada has from natural resources annually, billions of dollars. They talked about treaties, about the depth of a plow, and there are the benefits. So, regarding recognizing everyone, I don’t know why we’re talking about what it will cost. This is a right. Why are they saying that after two generations, you’re no longer Dakota, you’re no longer Mohawk, you’re no longer Anishinaabe? That’s totally wrong.
It’s all about money, it seems. I know there has been talk about what that amount is going to be. I heard the numbers $225,000 and $255,000, but is that what it’s all about — the money? Is that why there is stalling around this?
They’re not saying this to any other ethnic group in the country — that after two generations, you’re longer Ukrainian or you’re no longer Irish. They are not saying that. But because we have benefits tied to us as First Nations, everyone is looking at it from the dollar perspective.
It’s not about the dollar perspective. Our people, even the late Senator Littlecrow’s granddaughter Ophelia, have a right to be Dakota. She lives in our nation. She dances powwow. She’s just a little girl. Taking that away and saying, “You’re no longer First Nation because the government said so,” well, how can the government do that? What authority do they have?
Why do we have to keep bringing this Indian Act to the table? They did not create a treaty implementation act. Our Chief Whitecap was present at both Treaty 4 and Treaty 6 signings, and they viewed him as an American Indian. Too bad Senator Arnot is not around the table. He knows this history.
If you look at our history, the Dakota and even the Mohawks and Anishinaabe all fought together collectively in the War of 1812. But it was a time in our history when you had Napoleon waging a war against the British overseas, and the British had a lot of their resources, both military and financial, tied up in that war. You had the United States sending supplies to Napoleon. The British intercepted those supply ships through impressment, impacting the economy of the United States.
And the president of the day — looking at sheer numbers, 7 million versus 350,000 in British North America — he said it was the opportune time for the biggest land grab in North American history. It was a matter of marching. He said the war would last two weeks. Well, it was a time in our history when the British, French and First Nations allies had to collectively come together and fight against a common foe. They didn’t win the war. It didn’t last two weeks. It lasted over two years. If they had won the war, we would be that fifty-first state. You would have Donald Trump walking down here right now. You don’t.
And in 2012, former prime minister Stephen Harper actually recognized 34 First Nations that had ancestors who fought in the War of 1812, and 8 of them were Dakota. They’re recognized for that. But after the War of 1812, they go to Belgium overseas to sign the Treaty of Ghent and make peace for themselves, between the United States and the British. And all the promises made to all our First Nations that fought in that War of 1812, in black and white, to protect our lands and everything else, were no longer on the table.
Many of the British officers wrote, “We made promises to them to fight with us and against the common foe, and yet we broke all those promises.”
And so that’s the other issue that we have here today — for the Dakota anyway — and I’m sure Grand Chief Kyra would know that because she has Dakota Nation in her nation and in Manitoba. If a First Nations woman from a numbered treaty marries into the Dakota Nation, we’re not treaty, because the government viewed us as American Indians.
They finally came out to my nation last year and apologized to the Dakota for this historical wrong, to correct it. They apologized, and they actually acknowledged the fact that our ancestors helped found and make this beautiful, multicultural nation called Canada. Yet we were left out of the numbered treaties, even though Chief Whitecap was present at Treaty 4 and Treaty 6 talks.
Today, many of our numbered-treaty women have married into our Dakota Nations, but they have also lost their treaty benefits because they married into our status nations. We have status, but we do not have a numbered treaty.
Discrimination is still happening when it comes to treaty benefits. You corrected things in 1985, with Bill C-31, regarding First Nations women who married non-First Nations men losing their status altogether. In this day and age, treaty women may marry into a Dakota Nation or a Lakota Nation or a non‑numbered First Nation. Without a numbered treaty, they lose all their treaty benefits altogether. They are no longer treaty nations. And yet the treaties talk about how, as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow, those treaties will be with you. So why don’t those treaty benefits go with the women, regardless of whom they choose to marry, Dakota or not?
My daughter is a living example of that. Her mother was from the Cote First Nation, Treaty 4. She married me; she made a choice to transfer to our nation. Suddenly, her Treaty 4 benefits don’t come with her, and they don’t go with my daughter nor my granddaughters. That is another wrong that we’re not talking about around this table, and it needs to be talked about if you want to talk about rights for women.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Bear.
We proceed now with questions from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: My question is for the Grand Chief of my three children, Awastia, Sheshka and Yocoisse.
I’d like to understand something. In your brief, you refer to an amendment or recommendation arising from the Sioui lawsuit against Canada, the gentle and noble warriors behind you. If Bill S-2 proposes amendments related to the second-generation cut-off, I imagine it would correct the problem facing the families you represent, would it not?
Mr. Picard: Legally, yes, absolutely.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you all for being here. Can Chief Bear flesh out my one question on the proposal for this interim measure to continue to grant 6(2) status to children of 6(2)s? It is a very eloquent potential answer to the problem we have here. They can allow the consultation to take place and take their time thinking about what the legislation needs to look like, all of that, but no one is left behind in the meantime.
You mentioned this community connection. Can you give specifics around what that would mean? Does that mean a living person in the community? Does it mean that you can point to an ancestor and say that is a direct connection? Is there something you can put on the record around that? What does it mean, “connection to the community”?
Mr. Bear: First, I also want to acknowledge Councillor Bradon Eagle from Whitecap Dakota Nation and Murray Long, who is our Director of Self-Government.
If you don’t mind, Alyson, I will turn it over to you.
Alyson Bear, General Legal Counsel, Whitecap Dakota Nation: Good day, everyone. I wish to acknowledge everyone in the room, and I shake each of your hands in a good way.
I know we don’t have much time, so in regard to this question, it is an interim solution because we need to have some sort of compromise when the government doesn’t want to move quickly on getting rid of section 6 completely. That is the ideal.
Therefore, this allows First Nations to create their own membership and citizenship codes and to take back their own laws in that sense, regarding that connection to community.
Bill S-2 will affect nations differently, for nations who actually are self-governing and who have their citizenship and membership codes. A lot of nations are moving towards being self-governing nations, creating their own laws and revitalizing their traditional laws. We’ve always had laws, prior to European contact. It was the Indian Act that dismantled those laws. The Indian Act imposed the band council system. The Indian Act is imposing all of this administration on our people.
Therefore, allowing us to create our own membership codes, giving us that right, is also implementing UNDRIP and Article 33 in regard to our self-determination. This is an opportunity for all the nations across Canada to take part in making sure they know who is connected to their community and to bring them back in, also in a good way, with a community connection.
Senator Tannas: We are talking about government status and community citizenship. I don’t know how we would put this in a bill without actually defining what “connection to community” means. Have you given that any thought? Because we will have to do that. Maybe later, if you give it some thought, you can send us a brief to say how you think “connection to community” could be defined. Because we are changing a law that has definitions all over the place. Government people stamp it, et cetera, so we must give them very specific guidance. I like the proposal, and I would invite anyone to provide some written context on that.
The Deputy Chair: We invite you to send us a brief around that. That would be extraordinarily helpful.
Senator Klyne: Chief Bear, you have spoken about the second-generation cut-off and allowing First Nations to convey 6(2) status on their own authority to an individual with at least one 6(2) parent and a connection to the community.
On the face of that, this could be a workable solution that would respect the principles of self-determination, heritage connection to status and community connection. This is a sort of opt-in model in terms of exercising a First Nation’s own authority to convey this type of status.
My question is this: Do you anticipate finding openness and support for this potential change among other First Nations?
Mr. Bear: Provided it is an opt-in model, every nation could say they will opt in and this makes sense. They would create their membership code and, as part of that, they would enable a 6(2) parent to pass on their status to the next generation. Every nation has to make that decision. It is not up to this body to dictate what their membership codes look like or how they pass on that 6(2) membership.
We talk about connection to the community. We are talking about some people who want to be connected back to their nation. That is their decision; they want to be connected back. Others, maybe they do not want that. We can’t force them. It is up to them. If they have that connection to the nation and want to be a part of it, we can have an application process, and then our membership code can recognize them because they have one parent who has 6(2) status.
Whomever we recognize, though, we need to ensure that Canada also recognizes that they have status. Right now, we can develop membership codes. For example, with the example of the late senator’s granddaughter Ophelia, we can say she’s a member, but she has no status. If we develop our membership codes and include someone as a part of our membership, they should be automatically recognized as having status. They have a blood tie to our community, and if they want to be a part of our nation, they should be allowed to be.
There has to be a blood connection. We’re not saying that we can make just anyone a member and get them status. There still has to be a connection to being Dakota. For any nation, there has to be a connection back to the nation as far as the blood quantum goes.
That is our version. Another nation might say otherwise. I can’t speak for them.
Senator Clement: My question is for Chief Bear, but I start by thanking Grand Chief Wilson.
Your description of “rights holder” was so clear. It brought us a lot of depth. I struggle with understanding what “rights holder” means, and you just brought it to life in a way that was very clear, and so nia:wen to you.
[Translation]
Grand Chief Picard, thank you for your presentation. It was very clear. Thank you as well for reminding us of what Ms. Savard told the committee when she was here. Her description of lateral violence was so vivid and compelling. It was very helpful to us, so thank you.
[English]
Chief Bear, I am a Black Canadian, the daughter of one Black parent. I have checked off that box on every government form to ensure that I count. I was raised as a Black Canadian by one Black parent. My White parent is francophone, so I was raised as a francophone, in French, and that guaranteed access to education in French.
Your brief and opening remarks comment on the fact that with French, one parent can pass that on and it supports minority‑language survival. Why is it important to talk about that particular example, that particular comparison in this country with only 2 official languages — 2 colonial languages — and over 70 Indigenous languages?
Mr. Bear: It is important to make the comparison because we are the First Peoples of this land. As the First Peoples of this land, there should be no legislation that says that after two generations, we are no longer Dakota. You have to remember that the French and British, the newcomers, came after. We were here first. Section 23 protects the French Canadians, saying that only one parent has to be French Canadian and it just keeps going and going, like the Energizer Bunny. Ours, though, after two generations, it stops and is over. Obviously, you are no longer Dakota.
I am making the comparison that there are benefits like the French education you can receive, just as we have benefits over here. But our benefits end after two generations. Yours do not. That is the comparison I am making. I’m not trying to be facetious or anything; I’m just making a comparison. Here we have the First Peoples of this land; after two generations, they are told they are no longer Dakota, or Cree, or Saulteaux, or Dene and so on. But French Canadians get to be French Canadians as long as one parent is French Canadian, and it keeps going and going.
It is the same thing with the Métis. I’m not running down the Métis. I’m saying that there is no Métis act that says they have to have a certain blood quantum and then after the second generation, it is over. They can define their membership, and they get benefits as well.
So that is all that I am doing, just drawing a comparison and trying to ask why we are being treated this way. Why are we being discriminated against in this country? It is a country that once belonged to us, as far as North America goes — Turtle Island. That’s all I’m saying. I hope that I did not offend you.
Senator Clement: Not at all. I just want you to be clear on the record. That is very helpful. Thank you, Chief Bear.
Senator McCallum: I want to thank all of the panellists for the work you have done and offer a special welcome to my Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. It is good to see you.
My request is for Grand Chief Wilson to comment on what you have heard today about the interim measure. When I met with the minister, I asked, “Could 6(2) be repealed but you action it in two years?” One of the lawyers had suggested it. She said no. I do not know if you have discussed it with the minister, but could you comment on that, Grand Chief Wilson?
Ms. Wilson: Yes. Thank you, Senator McCallum. It is nice to see you. Thank you for the question.
Thank you to the senator beside you for your positive comments.
Thinking about these processes in which we are presenting and talking about citizenship, as Chief Bear mentioned, we have been talking about this for decades. It has impacted generations of people and continues to impact my own family — all of our families.
When we look at the interim measures, in terms of a conversation with the minister, I have not had one yet.
What I will say in terms of interim measures is that we have an opportunity to correct the current issues that we’re seeing. We have been talking about it for so long.
Let’s just do it now. Why do we have to wait? We have an opportunity. I acknowledge all of the senators around the table here today. I acknowledge everyone who has done so much work, including the other presenters here. We have the information. Our leadership has ideas and solutions. So rather than these interim measures that may take a couple of years or even longer, let’s just do it today. Whatever the interim measures may look like, we have the solutions as First Nations.
Canada cannot dictate what that means for citizenship for our people. We have to decide. We have the solutions. We have had the answers. We still have the answers today. That would be my recommendation in terms of the interim measures. Let’s just figure it out today, because our children deserve better than what we are providing them today. Meegwetch.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of the participants here. I have a follow-up to Senator McCallum’s question earlier, a question for Grand Chief Wilson and Chief Bear. One of the propositions being put forward with respect to Bill S-2 is to amend that piece of legislation to deal with the second‑generation cut-off — to get rid of that and bring it back to a one‑parent rule while, at the same time, giving government the opportunity to come up with a solution to the 6(2) issue over a certain period of time. So the legislation would go through, and then government would have a certain period of time to come up with a solution to the 6(2) issue, because it is dealt with within the legislation.
You both mentioned interim measures, yours, Chief Bear, being connection to community; and Grand Chief Wilson, you had a number of interim measures with respect to connection to treaty, co-development and things of that nature over a 12-year period. Do you think this could be a viable fix, if the government had this opportunity and obligation to get rid of 6(2) but had that window of extra time to come up with that solution for the purposes of this legislation in amending it? I will ask Chief Bear first, then maybe Grand Chief Wilson.
Mr. Bear: I agree with Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. We already have the solutions here. We could go straight ahead and get rid of section 6 to let us create our own membership codes at the nation level instead of having these interim measures. We realize that as legislators, the government doesn’t want to go forward with eliminating section 6 altogether. We’re saying that is what should happen. That is what I believe in. Why the hell do we have section 6? Why are we defined as far as second-generation cut-off goes? It is discrimination. If the French Canadians have one parent that is French Canadian, it goes on and on. The Métis can have one parent and it goes on and on. Why are we being treated differently? It is totally wrong.
I agree with Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. Let’s get rid of section 6 altogether. Why dance around the issue and have interim measures? We don’t need them. We know who our members are. We can define that. Let’s just get rid of it.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. Grand Chief Wilson?
Ms. Wilson: Yes. Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
Looking at Bill S-2, some of the wording that is being proposed right now as an interim measure, as Chief Bear has already identified, is that full recognition of First Nations jurisdiction over our citizenship. We have a list of who belongs to our nations. It is not necessarily based on the reserve system. It is based on our nations, our families and our kinship.
I know that was a question from one of the other senators as well: What does that community connection look like? We have all of the answers. What I would ask of all senators and what I would say to Canada is this: Give us some time to gather as leadership and bring together all of our citizenship codes, our ideas and our solutions. We don’t need Canada to dictate this process. We have all of the solutions.
That would be my interim measure: Give us the space to come together and discuss and then be able to present that. It’s not a blanket statement. All of our nations have their own ideas, codes and laws, but we can still come together and discuss the solutions. We have those solutions. Thank you again for the question.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I will take the chair’s prerogative for two minutes and invite Grand Chief Picard to respond to this question as well, around interim measures and what the solutions are. I know we are short of time, but I wish to give you two minutes to hear what you think.
[Translation]
Mr. Picard: As you know, in 1985, Bill C-31 provided a golden opportunity to put an end to all the discrimination. Although it addressed the situation of women who married non‑Indigenous people, restoring their status, it led to discriminatory measures because of the one-step-at-a-time approach. If we are talking about interim measures, what we would obviously like to see this time are measures that do away with every form of discrimination related to the transmission of status for good.
As I mentioned earlier, by 2050, the Wendat Nation could lose half of its members by virtue of their losing their status. Grand Chief Wilson and Chief Bear made this point very clear. It’s not up to the federal government to determine who should and should not be Wendat.
The federal government has a responsibility, one that it must fully assume, to rectify the discrimination it inflicted through the Indian Act. However — and I’m speaking on behalf of the Wendat Nation — it is not for elected representatives alone to decide who is Wendat; it is for the Wendat Nation to decide. It is for the Wendat to decide their future. This is about the nation’s future and survival, and those decisions are entirely for the Wendat people to make.
The federal government’s job now is to eliminate once and for all every form of discrimination arising from section 6 of the Indian Act.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to every one of the Chiefs with us this evening, and also Alyson Bear. I think I’m hearing every Chief say the same thing at this point. Every one of you, to my ears, has said, “Get rid of section 6.”
To bring about any of the interim measures — and we have had different proposals about interim measures — would require amendments to this bill. The minister has already told us she does not want any amendments. Here is my question: If we’re going to amend the bill, why don’t we just fix it? I have heard each of you say, “Get rid of section 6.” Why would we go for interim measures? Why wouldn’t we get rid of section 6, as you have advised?
Mr. Bear: No, I’m all for it. I think we should get rid of section 6 and empower each nation. We’ve already gone down this path. We all know who our members are. As far as creating our membership codes, we should be able to do that, as is our inherent right, and move forward. I don’t know why we have to sit here and keep talking about section 6. I’ve always said to get rid of section 6; it’s very discriminatory. It’s up to our nations to decide who their members are.
The government has to recognize our membership codes and our citizens. If someone is a member of Whitecap Dakota Nation or another nation that has a membership code, they should be recognized, just as we talked about how French Canadians are recognized and how Métis citizens are recognized. Why can’t the First Peoples of this country have membership codes, be recognized and not be discriminated against? This has to end.
Senator McPhedran: I totally agree, but this is where I’m confused. Why don’t we just get rid of section 6, since you have told us that that should happen?
Mr. Bear: I’m all for that.
Senator McPhedran: Rather than interim measures, let’s just do it.
Mr. Bear: I’m all for that. If that’s the way you want to go, I’m all for that.
Senator McPhedran: We have yet to determine that, but that is what has been confusing for me.
Mr. Bear: If you look now within the Saskatoon Tribal Council, we have 15,000 members; 5,000 of those members are 6(2)s. Now they have to choose who they are going to love if they want to continue. It means they have to love another 6(1) or 6(2), but what happens if they fall in love with somebody else? Suddenly, their child is no longer First Nations. Since when does the government go into the bedrooms of Canadian citizens?
The Deputy Chair: Can we move on? I think we are in agreement here. I think you are right. That is what I have been hearing. Senator Pate, you have the last question of the evening.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for being here. Thank you for your ongoing work on behalf of your nations and for presenting to us today. You have all been very clear. There is one area that I may have missed, and I apologize if I have, but I haven’t heard any of you tonight on this panel comment about the restriction on being able to sue the Crown and the liability issue. I am curious: Do you think we should get rid of the liability clause?
You may have heard me ask this question of the previous panel. The only time I have ever seen that before was when they tried to stop prisoners from being able to sue for having their rights violated, and here they are preventing First Nations from being able to sue over rights violations. Would you agree to having that struck from the bill as well?
Ms. Wilson: I can speak to that. I’m not sure if the other presenters wish to speak as well.
I would say that we have seen the Indian Act so deep-rooted within the history of First Nations people. We’ve seen that this legislation has created so many problems for our families and for our nations. That is why you are seeing a lot of the court actions that are taking place across the country with many nations based on a number of different issues. What we’ve seen historically is legal action taken against Canada when it comes to citizenship. If we don’t get this right, Canada will continue to see legal action taken against this legislation that Canada is imposing and continues to impose on our people.
At the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we were not consulted on this bill. We were not consulted in this process, which is unfortunate because the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs represents 63 First Nations here in Manitoba.
What I would say is that you cannot limit our people to protect the rights of their own citizenship. It’s not up to Canada to decide what that looks like. Any liability or legal action is a decision made by each individual.
If there is any clause within the bill that speaks to not being able to protect our rights, whatever that looks like, that should be taken out. There should always be the protection of rights of individuals. That would be my recommendation. Meegwetch.
Ms. Bear: I think it’s important to acknowledge. I agree with Grand Chief Kyra Wilson that we cannot be putting clauses in that people are not aware of and that we have not consented to. No one has given consent to put in a clause that says we are not able to practise our rights and sue regarding something that discriminates against all of us. That’s basically saying, when this act is amended and it comes into force, that we will see all this discrimination still playing out and my children and grandchildren can no longer fight for their rights.
So that is definitely something we have not agreed to; none of our Nations have agreed to or even been made aware of that clause within Bill S-2, and it definitely needs to be struck from the bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, everyone, for this evening. The time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us today. Hiy hiy to all of you for being here.
If you wish to make any further submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.
Honourable colleagues, that brings us to the end of our meeting today.
(The committee adjourned.)