THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 29, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:48 p.m. [ET] to consider 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, I declare the meeting in session. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you’re not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I’m from Treaty 6 territory, and I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will remind my honourable colleagues that at our first public meeting on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, recused herself from her role as chair for the duration of this study in order to preserve its neutrality. It is 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 province or territory.
Senator Prosper: Senator Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator McNair: Welcome. I’m John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Hello. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba, Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Red River Métis.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Cree from Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario. More specifically, Cornwall, Ontario, on traditional Mohawk Haudenosaunee territory.
Senator Tannas: Hi. Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: Judy White, Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador, home of the ancestral homelands of the Mi’kmaq.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, we will continue our study on Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas vs. Canada, and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a band list maintained by the Department of Indigenous Services.
I would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses today. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Indigenous Bar Association in Canada, Drew Lafond, Member-at-Large. He is accompanied by Suzanne Patles, Board Member.
At the table, please welcome, from the Papaschase First Nation Band 136 Association, Chief Darlene Misik. From the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, Littlechild Law, Chief Wilton Littlechild, International Chief of Treaties No. 6, 7 and 8. He is accompanied by Laurie Buffalo, Intergovernmental Policy Analyst, Treaty and Indigenous Rights Technician. Welcome to you all. Thank you for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
I will now invite Ms. Patles to give Mr. Lafond’s opening remarks. We’re having some technical difficulties, so it’s falling on her shoulders. The floor is yours, Ms. Patles.
Suzanne Patles, Board member, Indigenous Bar Association in Canada: [Indigenous language spoken.]
Hello, my name is Suzanne Patles. I’m from the Mi’kmaq territory. I’m here with Drew Lafond representing the Indigenous Bar Association.
First, we would like to say that this rule and our position on the second-generation cut-off have serious implications for First Nations and identity membership. It’s based on a colonial arbitrary blood quantum formula, and it is discriminatory and increasingly restrictive over generations.
Our recommendations for Bill S-2 are the following: That legislative change is urgent and necessary, that Bill S-2 must abolish the second-generation cut-off rule immediately and replace the rule with an inclusive system, that any direct descendant of an Indian or someone entitled to status should be eligible for status, end Canada’s unilateral control over Indian status and recognize First Nations-led citizenship systems.
In terms of the Crown’s liability and the need for redress, a mechanism is needed to compensate those harmed by Indian Act discrimination. We acknowledge Crown immunity allows for the Crown to amend legislation, but this creates challenges and seeks to redress accountability and could lead to a large class-action lawsuit or Charter challenges.
With that said, the legal definition of Indian status continues to evolve through litigation and response in legislation. Discriminatory provisions have been addressed in a piecemeal fashion, and significant gaps for full equity and status recognition remains incomplete. The court decisions and legislative responses still do not meet the demands of Indigenous communities for self-determination and identity recognition. Incremental change leaves First Nations and governments in a place of responsive governance.
The following key provisions that currently exist and that are currently available are specifically due to a response to court challenges. The Crown must acknowledge the harms caused, recognizing that status does not repair intergenerational harm. Harms are systematic and ongoing. There is a loss of community membership; denial of education, health care and housing; erosion of Treaty rights; social exclusion; and diminished well-being.
A compensation mechanism is for both justice and reconciliation, and Canada must acknowledge its responsibility and take steps toward reparation. Without redress, Canada violates the Charter and international human rights obligations.
There are still current gaps in Bill S-2 because it fails to address residual harms for decades of exclusion. There are no provisions for compensation. Non-liability clauses in previous Indian Act amendments still shield the Crown. There is no meaningful remedy to address justice.
Our recommendations for Bill S-2 are to include a redress mechanism, compensation for sex-based discrimination and enfranchisement provisions, create a proactive compensation table, define classes of affected individuals and design compensation models and self-government of citizenship. First Nations have an inherent right to self-governance, including the authority to define their own citizenship.
The current Indian Act framework imposes colonial definitions of identity and belonging. Canada’s control over Indian status determines First Nation sovereignty and self-determination. However, Bill S-2 presents an opportunity to affirm and operationalize this inherent right. Legislative reform must support First Nations-led systems that are essential to reconciliation and nation building.
With respect to an opt-in framework for exclusive jurisdiction, Bill S-2 must affirm citizenship as inherent jurisdiction and recognize exclusive First Nation authority to define belonging. This jurisdiction is grounded in section 35 of the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the international instrument and the federal act. Opt-in provisions for First Nations to implement citizenship systems independent of the Indian Act replace colonial constructs, such as blood quantum, section 6 status and band membership.
In terms of legislative reform requirements, citizenship laws must have the force of federal laws and must provide a clear transition from the Indian Act to nation-led systems. Reform must be able to empower First Nations to lead development, ensure access to registry data, include transitional supports for service continuity and provide adequate resources.
Bill S-2 must include a statutory funding mechanism for citizenship administration, data storage, personal and genealogical population growth impacts, long-term sustainability, increased administrative pressures and capacity building. It must be a collaborative process with First Nations, and Canada must invest in community engagement, Elders and Knowledge Keepers. Canada must invest in community engagement, archival research and oral history documentation, systems development, staff training, technology and infrastructure and ongoing operational support. This goal will enable independent and cost-effective governance.
In terms of transition and accountability, investment must support self-determination, revitalization of traditional citizenship laws and continuity of federal programs and services. Bill S-2 must require government accountability, commitment to collaborative funding development and require Canada to report on progress and funding concerns.
Interestingly enough, the 1850 legislation almost defines best when Indians were first defined by legislation — and they do say “persons” — that all people of Indian blood belonging to and recognized by their tribes and descendants. If you get rid of the “blood” portion of that sentence, you will have a perfect definition of status. And to imagine, that’s from 1850.
Ever since that time, from 1869, 1879, 1918 and continuing on until today, these processes have not done enough to ensure that First Nations are not legislated out of existence.
The status of this collaboration process is, if initiated, a process that still remains incomplete and needs urgent action.
Phase 2 is not complete. Bill S-2 must include an embedded timeline to resume and conclude the collaborative process, fund and prioritize meaningful engagement, regardless of the delays.
We have, one, reviewed the Indigenous advisory process final recommendations and feedback report; two, gathered community input; and, three, carefully considered potential conclusions.
Our position on the cut-off rule is this rule has had significant implications for First Nations and the government must do more.
Thank you, those are our submissions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I will now invite Chief Misik to give her opening remarks.
Chief Darlene Misik, Papaschase First Nation Band 136 Association de la Première Nation Papaschase Bande 136: [Indigenous language spoken. ]
I am Chief Darlene Quinn-Gladu Misik of the Papaschase First Nation Band 136 Association and I speak on behalf of descendant members of the original Papaschase Band and Edmonton Stragglers who were on our Treaty paylists.
The Papaschase Band is a Treaty 6 First Nation whose reserve within the present-day City of Edmonton was unlawfully surrendered, and whose band list was dissolved by the federal government in the late nineteenth century.
As descendants of peoples who no longer have a legislated framework to operate in as a First Nation band within the Canadian polity, we have had our fair share of both internal and external struggles formalizing governance and verification processes that properly identify our own people.
In 2019, after holding four pipe ceremonies with Chief Papaschase’s pipe, with the late Pipe Carrier and great-grandson of Chief Papaschase, Floyd Quinn, we formalized the Papaschase First Nation Band 136 Association to uphold integrity with our genealogical identification of descendants, not just for our own good but for the good of the public. Taking responsibility for our own governance and membership are important acts of self‑government.
We support Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act, in principle, as an important corrective to persistent inequities in Indian Act registration.
The bill rightly extends eligibility to descendants excluded by past discriminatory provisions, voluntary and involuntary enfranchisement; however, it does not address the more profound structural injustice that erased entire Nations such as Papaschase and their minor Treaty children, who were automatically included in the scrip taking of their parents.
The Papaschase experience illustrates the limitations of addressing exclusion solely through individual registration.
For historically dispersed Treaty 6 descendant communities, reconciliation requires collective — not only personal — recognition. Our written brief proposes detailed, targeted amendments to Bill S-2 that would: establish a legislated process for the reconstitution of historically dissolved nations; affirm Indigenous-led oversight in registration and recognition; ensure that oral histories, genealogical continuity and integrity, and community-verified evidence carry legal weight equal to Crown archival records; and protect collective rights by preventing deregistration actions that could undermine a nation’s pursuit of reconstitution.
While the Indian Act authorizes the minister to constitute new bands under section 17, there is no public application process or legislated right to seek reconstitution. Decisions are discretionary and rest entirely with the minister, with no timelines, appeal mechanisms or Indigenous oversight.
The process depends almost exclusively on written archival records held by the Crown and does not recognize oral histories or community genealogies as valid evidence. There is no formal mechanism for redress when a band’s dissolution resulted from coercion, surrender, or administrative removal.
The absence of a transparent, rights-based mechanism for reconstitution is inconsistent with Canada’s reconciliation commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP Act), particularly Articles 8, 9, 13 and 33, which affirm Indigenous People’s collective right to maintain and determine their own identity, retain and protect their own names for communities from which they descend, and membership.
Our proposed amendments, outlined in detail in our written brief, collectively operate within the existing framework of the Indian Act.
Bill S-2 marks an important step toward addressing individual registration inequities, but it does not resolve the broader collective erasures affecting dissolved nations. The involuntary enfranchisement of the minor Treaty children of the Papaschase Indian Band in the scrip taking of their parents, during 1885 and 1886, for example, was not legislated by the Indian Act’s scrip provision until an amendment to this provision, specifying that the minor children would be included in the scrip taking of their parents. This amendment was made after the fact.
Furthermore, children born in the band would never have qualified for half-breed scrip as they were born Indian under the definition of the applicable Indian Act, and they, along with their descendants, should still be recognized as part of that band and entitled to significant damages for loss of identity, way of life, culture, land and resources.
For Papaschase, reconciliation must mean more than individual registration — it must mean collective band recognition.
[ Indigenous language spoken. ]
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Misik. I will now invite Chief Littlechild to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Wilton Littlechild, International Chief of Treaties No. 6, 7 and 8, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, Littlechild Law: [ Indigenous language spoken. ]
Good evening, I bring you greetings in my language, Cree, to address your mandate in terms of the Senate studies undertaken by you regarding the federal government’s constitutional, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations.
As you know, in 2019 Bill S-3 came fully into force and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of the changes to the law under Bill S-3, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally all the way back to 1867.
These issues include enfranchisement, deregistration, acquired rights to natal band membership, the second-generation cut-off, cross-border issues and voting threshold challenges.
We would respectfully submit that we must view and take into consideration that the cumulative effects of these legislative initiatives are a direct assault on Treaty as it violates both collective, individual, inherent and Treaty rights, including article 19 of the U.N. declaration.
These stated issues have been thoroughly researched and considered by the Samson Cree Nation Treaty Protectorate and Enforcement office. This led to the Samson Cree Nation Treaty Based position on treaty jurisdiction over membership and nationality, dated by motion 10 February 2025, which we submit in full text for your consideration and inclusion.
We argue that a bilateral, Treaty-based solution to the issues outlined above is necessary and timely, as this Treaty position states in part:
Samson Cree Nation rejects the colonial, Indian Act Definitions of “Status” and Membership and the Indian Act’s classification of “status” Indians and its associated membership provisions are colonial constructs that do not reflect Samson Cree Nation Treaty based laws, traditions, or understandings of kinship and belonging.
The second-generation cut-off rule, imposed under the Indian Act, is an act of forced assimilation that systematically undermines and erodes SCN Treaty populations and violates Treaty and Indigenous human rights. The removal of individuals from membership due to arbitrary federal rules is an infringement on the Treaty relationship, Inherent and Treaty Rights of Samson Cree Nation.
We see this respective focus on Bill S-2 as sidelining our fundamental human right to self-determination including collective and individual inherent rights protected under Treaty 6, 1876, and 1877 adhesion thereto, as also affirmed in section 35 and section 52 of the Constitution Act, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is further enhanced by the American Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.
Very recently, the United Nations Human Rights Council held an expert workshop on the family and family-oriented approaches in May of this year. That takes into account the Indigenous perspectives of family and kinship as stated in part from the report:
We recognize that children are a gift from Creator and our future, children as our sacred bundle, with this responsibility . . . . We have the right to protect our home fire by maintaining our family unit and unity, to nurture our children, to . . . therefore protect our homefire ....
The narrow focus on Bill S-2 presents an opportunity to consult and cooperate in good faith, with Indigenous peoples concerned.
For example, our relationship in Treaty 6 in the 1876 and 1877 adhesion affirms the need to fully consider our Treaty principles as it relates to membership and nationality. As an illustration, our perspective includes specific reference to recognition based on ancestry and as inherited from original Treaty paylists which illustrate our enduring traditional kinship and customary international law. This current Bill S-2 excludes and sidelines both directly violating the Treaty right to belong at birth.
While respecting your time, we highlight other areas of concern within Bill S-2, for example, reintroduction of previously repealed language in sections 111 and 112.
Second, matters decided under provincial law, property off‑reserve, the no-liability clauses in 9, 10 and 11 and the administrative hurdles at Indigenous Services Canada.
In support of what you have already heard, there remains a very serious need to address the persistent and ongoing forms of genocide through various legislative, administrative policies and processes applied without consent to Treaty Peoples, Tribes and Nations. This current study provides an opportunity to expand on the positive development and inclusion of Treaty-based solutions.
In that regard, we applaud this Senate committee and its ongoing efforts, specifically the previous study on the numerous forms of non-derogation clauses, and respectfully recommend the inclusion of your non-derogation clause, which will ensure that previously repealed sections of the Indian Act remain repealed. This inclusive non-derogation clause would advance reconciliation and in search of a remedy would promote justice and a solution to this and numerous other very difficult lived experiences faced by Indigenous Peoples.
Taken from your report:
Every enactment is to be construed as up holding the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.
Honourable senators, this is our respectful submission for you to include this in the bill.
Finally, Lord Denning, in the High Court of the United Kingdom on January 28, 1982, stated:
There is nothing, so far as I can see, to warrant any distrust by the Indians of the Government of Canada. But, in case there should be, the discussion in this case will strengthen their hand so as to enable them to withstand any onslaught. They will be able to say that their rights and freedoms have been guaranteed to them by the Crown — originally by the Crown in respect of the United Kingdom — now by the Crown in respect of Canada — but, in any case, by the Crown.
No Parliament should do anything to lessen the worth of these guarantees. They should be honoured by the Crown in respect of Canada ‘so long as the sun rises and the river flows.’ That promise must never be broken.
In closing, I leave with you the reflection of what we can do in these critical areas, being mindful of those little boys and little girls? Where are we taking them?
Hiy hiy, thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Littlechild. We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a four-minute intervention, including question and answer, with a 30 second heads-up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask a question.
Senator Francis: This question is for Chief Littlechild and Ms. Patles.
It seems clear to me that the Government of Canada is contravening section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; section 35 of the Constitution Act; the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP; and more if the second-generation cut-off and other inequities are allowed to persist. Do you agree that the federal government cannot delay addressing all known sex- and race-based discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act through Bill S-2 if it is to fully to comply with its domestic and international obligations?
Mr. Littlechild: I agree with your opening remark about the violations that you outlined, but embedded in the UN Declaration, for example, are the solutions. That’s why we reference directly to the non-derogation clause that includes the UN Declaration.
I’m not sure about the time that you mentioned, but certainly what we’re looking at is the cumulative effect of all the issues under Bills S-2 and S-3. This is only focusing, really, on the cut‑off, which we say, Yes, it’s a direct violation of Treaty, when we look at the jurisdiction of treaty membership and citizenship as granted under especially Treaty 6 in our case, but, literally, all the numbered treaties.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Patles, I understand that you will take the question and respond in writing; is that correct?
Ms. Patles: Yes, due to technical issues, we are going to respond in writing to any of the questions. We’re writing the questions down. I apologize for not being able to answer them on the fly, but Mr. Lafond was going to answer these questions from the Senate. We will still take your questions, but we will respond in writing. Wela’lioq.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator White: Thank you to all the panellists, it was great to meet you and hear from you. My question is for our esteemed Elder, doctor, lawyer and Indian Chief. He is all those things for the record.
What I’d like, doctor, is for you to speak more generally about the inconsistencies of UNDRIP and the Indian Act and how you think that Canada can best move forward, generally, as it relates to honouring our commitment to UNDRIP.
Mr. Littlechild: I think, first of all, the total, I’ll say, inconsistency with the act is its racist background, because no other race, we understand in terms of a race, is legislated by an act in terms of citizenship and membership.
So the example I’ll use is Article 7 of the UN Declaration, that every individual has a right to a nationality, and in our case we say that we have a right to Samson Cree Nation nationality.
Also, I would reference the subsequent articles of the UN Declaration, Articles 7, 8 and 9, actually. There you will see illustrated the direct inconsistency of that legislation to the point that if you go to the logical extent of that, as I mentioned in my comment, within the four corners of the definition of “genocide,” it fits the definition.
This is a very direct assault, not only on the Canadian Constitution, in a sense, from the birth of the act but also, more importantly for us, the assault on our inherent right to self‑determination as informed by Treaty Number 6, in our case.
There’s a very serious inconsistency, in a sense, that here we have a legislation that is racist and violates international law, human rights law, and we need to fix that. When we suggest we fix it, it is to focus, in our case, on the treaty relationship, because embedded in that relationship is also the solution.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: My question is for Mr. Lafond. For clarity, you will respond in writing live, or you will respond in writing some other time, like tomorrow?
Are we getting a written response live on the chat, or are we getting a written response now?
Sébastien Payet, Clerk of the Committee: In a few days.
Senator Sorensen: That’s unfortunate.
I would like a response from Mr. Lafond, but I will put the question to the other witnesses.
I want to talk about Bill S-2 the way it’s written now. In my opinion, Bill S-2, as written, will move quickly and successfully through the Senate and the House — that’s my prediction. That will result in, I think it is, 3,200 Indigenous People, who were omitted or deleted from the Indian registrar, who will have that mistake corrected.
Knowing any amendments will likely delay that action for those people, I respectfully and delicately ask: If that was the outcome, are you comfortable with that?
Mr. Littlechild: Not without the consideration of the two previous Senate studies on non-derogation of treaty rights. Simply, we’re saying use your previous work and add it into this bill, and that will solve a whole lot of other issues.
Senator Sorensen: Did you want to answer at all?
Ms. Misik: I’m going to support the honourable doctor Chief Willie Littlechild on that response.
Tardiness is something that we can’t afford as a country as well, but we also need to do things the right way.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I appreciate your answers.
Senator Tannas: As an Albertan, I just want to say what an honour it is to be here with you, Chief Littlechild. You are a luminous Canadian, and as an Albertan, I’m very proud of the work that you do and have done.
We’re trying to sort through the issue of urgency that we hear around the second-generation cut-off verse and temper that with what the minister is telling us — that there’s a consultation process under way, and if we just give it a bit more time, the solution will emerge out of the consultation with respect to the second-generation cut-off.
We know that the oldest section 6(2) status Indian turned 40 this year, so they are in the midst of a lot of babies making — that group of people — and those children have no status. We’ve heard some testimony from other bands where they’ve got almost a majority in their community of section 6(2), so they have a whole bunch of kids that are starting to hit the school system that are unfunded, and it’s becoming a problem.
I know that your community is blessed with more wealth than many, but can you give us some observations — either you or Ms. Buffalo — around whether this is becoming an issue, even without necessarily the monetary pressures that other bands would have, this idea that there are children in the community with no status, and are we starting to create another problem?
Again, I’m just looking at this urgency issue to see what you could tell us about that.
Laurie Buffalo, Intergovernmental Policy Analyst, Treaty and Indigenous Rights Technician, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, Littlechild Law: Thank you for that question, Senator.
In the numbers that were shared in 2024 on the Bill S-2 impacts, what had come out from Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, was that for us specifically in Samson Cree Nation, we had 9,566 people impacted. Of that, the percentage was 21%, which results in 2,028. I’m here to tell you that those numbers are incorrect.
Samson Cree Nation has 9,750 individuals, and our impacted people directly with the second-generation cut-off is 2,072. That’s 22% of our population. Of that population, 1,220 are adults. The remaining are all children, and some of those individuals have been ineligible for upgrades, and we understand — and I know it just came out in the Auditor General’s report — the significant delays around the upgrade process.
Our reality on Samson is that if you’re lucky, you will be registered within 18 months to 2 years. We have babies right now that have been waiting for a number of years, because they’re only covered under their mother’s registration status until 18 months. Once 18 months and 1 day hits, it’s 100% out of pocket, directly violating their treaty right to belong.
This is a pervasive issue, and part of the section 6(2) issues are not just unstated paternity. It’s how Canada recognizes Indigenous ancestry.
Many of our numbers under section 6(2), for many of those individuals, the parent is an American Indian, so by virtue of Canada’s inability to recognize status, our children, who are directly eligible, are being removed and are being impacted. This issue around the second-generation cut-off is impacting lands, wills and estates. We have over 180 wills and estates issues that are outstanding. Some of them are 30 plus years old, because some of the individuals are section 6(2), or the individual who was left to take over their family’s land is actually ineligible, because they’re non-status.
Those are realities, and these things are very difficult to deal with, because we have community members on a daily basis, asking, “Why isn’t this being fixed?” These things are out of our control.
We have never relinquished our ability to determine who our people are. It’s set down in our traditional laws, and it is set down in our Creation stories and how we are to understand and recognize our kinship and how we are responsible to take care of one another.
Section 6(2) and the other limiting provisions of the Indian Act membership don’t make the situation better. They completely remove our ability to do what we are meant to do and to recognize our people, especially our children, and that’s not just today but well into the future.
Senator McPhedran: Let me thank every witness online and in person. Chief Littlechild, I just want to say that I have been a great admirer, not only in Canada but I have watched you in action at the United Nations in Geneva. I think it’s a very powerful representation for our country.
Along with the late senator Murray Sinclair, who was a principal architect of Bill S-3, you noted in your presentation, Chief Littlechild, that Bill S-3 was promised to eliminate — that was the word, “eliminate” — sex discrimination. Many of us around this table worked on that, and we believed it was true at the time. Clearly, it was not.
In Volume 6 of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, page 53 states:
The Commission rejects any use of Indigenous or other laws that fundamentally treat women or men in ways that communicate or create subordination. Any law that creates or reproduces gendered hierarchies that subordinate women or men must be contested and overturned.
The question I want to ask — to you, principally, but it’s open to any responses from the panellists — is that it is widely recognized that sex discrimination in the Indian Act is still a tool of forced assimilation — and several of you made that point already — and the second-generation cut-off is the most recent version of the “disappearing Indian” formula. Canada is bound by Article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the way we turned it into domestic law in Canada and is, therefore, obliged to amend its laws to comply as well as to provide compensation and reparations.
I have two key questions. In Bill S-2, we still have bars to compensation for Indigenous women. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Clearly, in Bill S-2, we come nowhere close to meeting the standards set out in both international and domestic laws, as well as what has been pointed out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report, Volume 6.
I would very much welcome commentary on that, please.
Mr. Littlechild: Thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, in our written submission that will be submitted to you — I have only used a few pages of it — but we reference that very specific quotation from the report; it’s included in our written submission.
I’m trying to link our report in connection with this challenge that we have with Bill S-2 by, again, going back to the UN declaration. The issue of a study that the commission did was not only to seek the truth about what happened in residential schools but to take those stories and shape what reconciliation could and should look like. So we reference in our statement the link with reconciliation and how this work, together on Bill S-2, if we do it right — and one of the ways we say we do it right is to include the Treaty non-derogation — that will advance reconciliation and will solve, I think as I mentioned, other consequences of the historic injustice from the residential school legacy.
They are connected. Unfortunately, I didn’t say it in my statement, but it’s in my written submission, to respond to your question. I’ll give the floor to Ms. Buffalo.
Ms. Buffalo: To add to that, back in January this year, we actually held a session that directly discussed the impacts of the second-generation cut-off. We tabled our final report with the United Nations recently — in July. We stated, as part of one of the recommendations, that the Indian Act membership provisions need to be addressed, specifically the second-generation cut-off policy that adversely impacts and restricts the inherent and Treaty rights of Indigenous women and their children. By denying membership recognition based on unsubstantiated, flawed and false mathematical equations intended to deny the ability to pass on sacred ancestral lineage, these processes directly and adversely impact Indigenous nationhood. Women are at the centre of nations.
Targeting Indigenous matrilineal systems undermines the importance of our sacred Traditional Knowledge, customs, laws and protocols. Indigenous Peoples and their governance systems require financial support to remedy these longstanding negative financial impacts of the numerous and unconsented-to Indian Act amendments experienced by Treaty Nations and Treaty family units, including Elders, children, women, men, those living with disabilities, and those who have experienced forced enfranchisement. As long as Treaty mothers are birthing Treaty babies, Treaty Peoples will always be here for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.
We commend the Senate. In 2019, this committee called for a formal apology and for the removal of legislated bars to compensation outlined in those already “no liability” clauses 10 and 11.
We also called to support Treaty women and children, while ensuring that remedy and financial redress for those harms that have been perpetuated for so long. The expert mechanism has recommended previously that in providing redress to Indigenous Peoples for the negative impacts of state’s laws and policies, states should prioritize the views of Indigenous Peoples on appropriate forms of redress. Justice always includes redress.
We object to the no-liability clauses for those individuals who have been harmed and continue to be harmed by the Indian Act membership amendments. Those must be in line with reconciliation and they must include redress and remedy.
We recommend the inclusion of legally binding — because, in there, there is no liability indemnification clauses — but if those have to stay in, then there should be equal, legally binding, no‑liability and indemnification clauses of equal legal weight specifically for the protection of Band Councils. This has not been our legislation, but we have been directly impacted. Specifically in my nation, we are dealing with a 100-person-plus class action lawsuit because of Bill C-31.
The Deputy Chair: Senator, we’ll put you down on the second round. There are more in the first.
Senator Prosper: Thank you so much to all of our witnesses here. I have a question for Chief Misik, and thank you for your testimony.
I can only imagine the implications of an entire community being just erased, essentially. The absence of a legal mechanism — from what I understand, you’re seeking amendments where it’s discretionary, so there needs to be some way for the community to come back together. For the record, I am hoping you could clarify something if you could: I understand there are two organizations representing the different members of Papaschase First Nation descendants. For the record, could you clarify which of those two organizations you represent?
Ms. Misik: In my opening comments, senator, I had indicated I represent The Papaschase First Nation Band 136 Association, which was reinvigorated in 2019 after holding four pipe ceremonies with Chief Papachase’s pipe in Ermineskin.
Our cultural and natural laws are the ones where we get our authority to exist, and since that time we have had a number of challenges in terms of genealogical verification of descendants because we are a diaspora, we are scattered everywhere. The importance of proper identification of descendants is paramount because these are the rights holders.
We have been taking steps since that time to put transparent governance in place, based on our wahkohtowin and Clan Mother law as well which is what Ms. Buffalo had mentioned, the importance of women in our societies.
So this has been a very challenging process, because we have no protection in place regarding our resurgence and reconstitution with the exception of our own laws, which again, are not enforced or protected by Canada. There is nothing there for us, which is unfortunate. Under the UN we are supposed to have those protections.
In particular with regard to the use of our name, Papaschase is an intellectual property name meaning it can be used by anybody. Our position is it should only be used by a collective and organized group of verified descendants. Canada’s job is to provide protections for us because right now, anybody could use that name. That’s what has been happening.
So we would like to see that sort of protection. I know that’s outside the scope of Bill S-2, but the Indian Act has devastated our communities.
It wasn’t just based on individual registration, but it was the individual targeting of our children, in particular, that caused our band to disperse in significant ways. We have never forgotten who we are. I have known since I was a young girl who I am, who I come from. I come from Headman Bateau#2 on the Papaschase Treaty Paylist. I also descend from the protocol Chief Ermineskin.
My journey has been one of not just personal identification, it’s also been one of providing hope to others who are in the same position that I am in, of reconstituting our tribe, which can extend to the Tail Creek Nation in that area, the Beaver Hills Peoples.
Thank you for your question. The Indian Act is the only piece of legislation in the world which governs a race. That needs to stop. As we indicated in our written submissions, our communities need to have that support from Canada to reinvigorate our nations in accordance with our laws, our membership processes and our citizenship.
The Deputy Chair: Second round.
Senator McCallum: [ Indigenous language spoken. ]
Thank you. It’s so good that you are here to help us work this out.
There has been a lot of pressure on us to stick to the narrow scope of this bill so that it can move successfully and fast. But the word “successful” is questionable.
Remember that the House of Commons still has the option to deal with our amendments. So it should not and will not prevent us from making amendments.
The bill deals with individuals and not the collective. Why is it critical that the collective is involved? Would individualism continue toward loss of identity and self-determination? How would it affect restitution? If we don’t deal with the second-generation cut off in this bill, what will the consequences be?
I know that there are more overarching problems, but the second-generation cut-off has been the main one for 90% of the witnesses we have had. That’s why I’m bringing it in. But we need to deal with what you have brought up with treaties.
Mr. Littlechild: It’s a very important observation to make. That question is so important, because in our perspective, there is a need to balance individual rights with collective rights. That’s why we suggest that using the Treaty framework as a collective right — I don’t like to use the word “instrument,” but a sacred agreement.
Most of the human rights law, as you know, are individuals. It’s individual human rights, and we agree with that. But in our instance, we have collective human rights under Treaty. So whenever there is a conflict of that individual right and collective right, we try to make sure that there is a balance in relation to seeking justice for individuals. So that’s why we want to direct some attention to the Treaty relationship, because of that notion of collective rights.
I remember a challenge at the UN for women seeking recognition as human beings, human persons, with human rights. And we went through that same journey because there was a denial of group rights for women as there is a denial of collective rights for Indigenous Treaty Peoples, tribes and nations. It’s a very important question. But I guess the answer would be, can we seek in that framework a balance where within that balance we can accomplish justice?
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I’m going to move on. I’m cognizant of time. I want to give everybody a chance.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. My question is for you, Chief Littlechild. Thank you for raising Lord Denning’s comments and reminding us of the commitment that was made at that time, not only the United Kingdom historically and colonially, but also Canada’s Treaty obligations.
You have heard from many others that the push is to pass this bill without amendment. I remember learning from you, decades ago, when we were preparing for UN meetings that these are policy choices and decisions that the Canadian government makes. Just as easily as they make this one, they could actually change it and amend this legislation.
Is there any reason you could see that we should not amend this bill to correct it in the ways that you have described?
Mr. Littlechild: I wish I could, but I can’t find a reason not to allow improvement and strengthening of the bill. One way we would do it is the inclusion of the Treaty respective — non‑derogation clause on Treaty. That alone will strengthen and improve the bill.
But is it an amendment? Maybe for some it would be. That’s why we rely on your previous work as the Senate in two studies. We’re simply saying, “Let’s use those previous studies and submit them to improve and strengthen Bill S-2.”
Senator Clement: Thank you for not only your legal expertise, all of you, but you bring lived experience as well which makes it all the more powerful and painful.
I’m going to come back to this pressure that Senator McCallum was talking about in terms of putting forward Bill S-2 as is. If it passes as is, it will be incremental change. We heard testimony from people saying that incremental change brings lateral violence within communities. People with equal genealogy are being treated differently.
So, we are now having to think about that. However, we’re being told that the incremental change will continue.
So my question is this: Have any of you been invited to participate in consultations on the ending of second-generation cut-off? Have you sensed a plan within the government that this is in play? Do you trust them to get it done without a court challenge?
Mr. Littlechild: I’m glad you raised that because of some of the previous testimony you heard that our focus is on consultation with communities — consultation, consultation, consultation — but that’s not good enough. As there’s incremental process, if you want to end that lateral violence or ongoing injustice the most important part of it is to not just look at article 19 — that we quote in our statement — and article 37 on Treaty. I’m trying to figure out a specific response utilizing what is available to us, yes, but to move quickly and at the same time to make sure there is justice, healing and reconciliation.
I can only turn back to and rely on the solution we’re proposing because, to use an illustration, for example, with the treaty that we’re talking about, a sacred agreement, it’s actually supported by the UN declaration, which was called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to be adopted and endorsed by all governments.
When you see those two — the Treaty and the UN Declaration — they are like two wings of an eagle, and it takes both wings — the UN Declaration and the Treaty — to fly, for our rights to fly.
I keep coming back to that, because they are embedded in those solutions. The solutions for what the scenario that you just illustrated. If we don’t do that, yes, there will be ongoing lateral, horizontal or direct violence.
Ms. Buffalo: To add to that, the incremental change approach, the piecemeal approach, really does contribute to ongoing disposition, displacement and trauma for those individuals who have been directly impacted.
I want to state that to reinstate a few, a couple — my nation has 2,072 people waiting. They are not included in that number. To reinstate a few would just be joining them into the queue of the tens of thousands who have been backlogged and are still waiting. Where is the justice in that? Who is going to determine which ones get approved first? Who is getting justice and recognition when there are some sitting there for years? Those are questions that need to be answered. We have been asking for those.
On the consultation piece, my nation had a region reach out to ask us to participate in a consultation. We were given three weeks to respond. That’s completely inadequate. So we responded with a letter stating that it was completely inadequate.
We have been consulting on this issue for well over 10 years, and this actually goes back prior to Bill C-31, and I would like to just remind you for the record that Minister Crombie at the time had attended a public meeting in our nation at our local recreation hall. He stated, “Nothing in this bill will financially impact your nations.” We’re in 2025, and that is very much a different reality. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Panellists online and those with us: We will not, as the Senate committee, let Bill S-2 leave here without substantive amendments. Is that our advice?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes.
Ms. Buffalo: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much.
Senator Prosper: Hopefully, I’ll be equally brief, but I wanted to go back to some of your testimony, Ms. Buffalo, in just two areas: wills and estates. That’s because you can only deal with land in accordance to those status people who are part of that band. If somebody is leaving property, a Certificate of Possession, or CP, or whatever, if they are not status, but a child, I never thought of that aspect.
The aspect you mentioned I was quite curious about was intermarriage between another “Indian,” but an American Indian, an Indian nonetheless let’s just say. They are not recognized. It’s equivalent to another non-status person, I guess. Correct? Thank you for that clarity.
The Deputy Chair: Did you want to respond to that?
Ms. Buffalo: Absolutely. I just wanted to add that with the Indian Act amendments in 1951, and then where section 10 and section 11 came in, we were given the responsibility to manage the band lists, but we were not given the ability to determine who ended up on those lists.
Still today, individuals — which is their right — seek application within whichever region they might be currently located, when those registrations happen, and we ask for them as an autonomous nation, we have the right to know who is on our list, we are not given any information so we cannot verify Treaty ancestry. We are not given anything other than a general list that says, “These are your people,” and we don’t know that for sure.
When we have requested that this information be sent back, we don’t receive it. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. The time for this panel is complete. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Mr. Lafond and Ms. Patles, we will look forward to your responses. We will look for those. Unfortunately, we had technical difficulties. Please submit other things that you want to submit.
I would now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses for this evening. Please welcome at the table with us from the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, Beverley Asmann, Board Member. Welcome.
She is accompanied by Troy Chalifoux, Senior Counsel, Maurice Law.
And from the Giganawenimaanaanig MMIWG2S+ Implementation Committee, Sandra DeLaronde, Chairperson.
Thank you all for joining us today. Our witnesses, as in our previous panel, will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Ms. Asmann to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Beverley Asmann, Board Member, Michel Callihoo Nation Society: Good evening, honourable dignitaries and ladies and gentlemen. I acknowledge we are on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Tansi. My name is Beverley Asmann. I am the great-great-granddaughter of Chief Michel Callihoo. My Cree name is Hummingbird Woman, and I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
I am one of ten directors of the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, or MCNS. As directors of MCNS, we represent the modern collective of the descendants of the former Michel Band Number 472, and we are unified by a cause of re‑establishment of our Michel Callihoo Nation as a recognized band. The ten directors of the MCNS are representatives of the following groups:
Persons who lost status because of purported enfranchisement of the historic Michel Band in 1958 and descendants; persons who were transferred to the Alberta General List because of the purported enfranchisement of the historic Michel Band in 1958 and their descendants; persons who lost status because of the purported enfranchisement of the ten families of the historic Michel Band in 1928 and their descendants; and, finally, persons who lost status because of individual enfranchisements or commutations between 1878 and 1957 and their descendants.
Some of our directors are present here with us in the gallery today. I first want to address my sister, Linda Buffalo. We’ve been on this journey together for 25 years. That’s my sister.
I also want to recognize Roslyn Callihoo, Dan Godbersen, Kim Beaudin and Dayle Callihoo Campbell. I want to thank each of them for their support. I also want to acknowledge our board members back home who could not attend.
Thank you to the committee for bringing Brandy Callihoo as a witness a few weeks ago. She is also one of our board members. I must also thank our legal team at Maurice Law for all that they do for us.
Each of our stories are our own, but we share the same tragic history: enfranchisement of our Michel People and the dissolution of the Michel Band under the Indian Act, which caused the loss of our strength through our Indigenous community and families. I’m here tonight to tell you my story.
In 1958, the year the Michel Band was enfranchised, my grandmother, Louisa Callihoo, and her minor daughter Stella — my aunt — were transferred to the newly created Alberta General List, known as the 838 list. My grandmother was number 2 on that list — the very same list that we all sit on today.
My grandmother was a vulnerable person, unmarried, and she could only speak Cree, which made her a burden to the plan of enfranchisement of the Michel Band in the government’s eyes.
My grandmother and my aunt were both labelled “mentally incompetent Indians” under the Indian Act, a term that is still used to this day. Although they retained their status, this was done so the government could carry out their plan of enfranchising the Michel Band under section 112 of the Indian Act.
My grandmother was institutionalized her entire life. They sterilized my grandmother. I’ve seen the medical records, and I’ve read:
This dirty obese Indian woman should never be allowed to procreate because her offspring is certain to be mentally challenged as well.
I am the result of this woman’s procreation.
They also stated in records that she sat in the corner crying and blabbering incoherently. Well, she was alone and afraid, and she could only speak Cree. That must also be the definition of a “mentally incompetent Indian.”
My grandmother died alone in a mental institution and is buried in an unmarked grave in Red Deer, Alberta, identified only by a number.
My mom never got the chance to be a daughter. We never got the chance to be grandchildren. This is what enfranchisement did to our family. My mom, Rose Evelyn Callihoo, never got the chance to be a big sister or an aunt. We never got the chance to be a niece, a nephew or a cousin.
My aunt was sent to residential school in Ermineskin, Alberta, at a very early age. We never did meet this lady. We heard she had married and had some children. My sister Linda hired a private investigator to find her. He lost her trail in Prince George, B.C., in the 1970s.
We may have cousins and more extended family out there, but we have no way to find them. To this day, she remains on the murdered and missing Indigenous list in Canada, and I wait for the day that my DNA finds a match so that maybe we can find some closure. This is what enfranchisement did to our family.
My mother was raised in residential school. She never did return to the Michel Band. She was forced to enfranchise and marry a non-native man in 1949. At that time she was given a red ticket. This entitled her to come back to the reserve if her marriage did not work out for a 20-year period.
Well, due to the enfranchisement of the band, her red ticket was invalid. She lost out on family, culture, language, a home and so much more due to the enfranchisement of the Michel Band. This is what enfranchisement did to our family.
My father was an abusive alcoholic. Many times, guns and knives were held against my mother’s head and pointed at us children. She took many beatings at the hands of her husband. As children, we were also victims to his abuse as well. Thanks to enfranchisement, she had no mom to go to for help and protection. She had no sister to connect with in these awful times and no aunties or cousins to find support in. We were forced to remain in this toxic, unhealthy environment alone, thanks to enfranchisement. This is what enfranchisement did to our family.
Over the years, we’ve tried to find family, but, sadly, they’re also broken and often the stereotype of my grandmother’s label of “mentally incompetent Indian.” It means we are still unaccepted, alone, and we only have us to rely on. This is also what enfranchisement did to our family.
Bill S-2 will help us restore the right of our Michel People, our support structure, family and community to exist once again, and we are relying on this.
There are some people who say, “Enough tinkering with the Indian Act,” and say that instead we should wait until the entire system is overhauled or the Indian Act is replaced entirely. It’s now almost 60 years since the government first suggested scrapping the Indian Act, and nothing since has come close. I cannot stress enough that as Michel descendants — and the other victims who have been waiting 40 years, since 1985, to share in the benefits of Bill C-31 — will be the first victims of waiting for this to happen, as our people are getting older.
I’m fortunate that I was able to regain my status through Bill C-31. When it passed in 1985, Bill C-31 was also incomplete. Still, that bill was both necessary and well intentioned, because it did what it could to help fully restore the right of thousands of other individuals.
Now, we, as Michel descendants, recognized right away that Bill C-31 did not rectify bad enfranchisement that dissolved our band in 1958, but it was a start. After that, two different ministers of Indian Affairs promised us that this was an oversight and that in one or two years down the road, it would be fixed. Four decades has gone by, and here we are, so close to the finish.
We know that Bill C-31 did not live up to the purpose of reversing gender discrimination. That’s why the amendments in 2010, 2017 and 2019 were passed. Still, none of these amendments corrected the exclusion of the descendants of the Michel Band in 1958 from registration. It must also be mentioned that while the band enfranchised in 1958 was the final straw, in 1928 enfranchisement of 10 families must be highlighted for the vast number of descendants that will be impacted by this Bill S-2. Michel descendants are aging and sadly many have passed without the ability to reclaim their rightful identity as status Indians. Bill S-2 is another step toward the original goal of Bill C-31 to further eliminate discrimination with the Indian Act, and it must be passed by Parliament this session.
We all watched Bill C-38 with great anxiety and it broke our hearts to watch that bill die on the floor of the House of Commons. We are also aware that during a lifetime of discussions on Bill C-38, there were concerns raised about what some would perceive as its limited scope and application, in that it did not go far enough to address the second-generation cut-off issues. We’re also aware that today similar concerns have been raised and that some are suggesting that the bill be delayed further to address such deficiencies. We are not here today to say that the scope of this bill is deficient. It’s most certainly not for the descendants of Michel. We have waited long enough and are the largest-impacted group that this bill covers. Any further delays would be a travesty of justice to force these descendants to wait further for Canada to address an issue that has been before it for decades. The time for the Michel descendants is now. I ask you please, on behalf of the thousands of Michel descendants who have been waiting for decades, don’t let that happen again. We look forward to your questions, if you have any. Hiy hiy.
The Deputy Chair: I will now invite Ms. DeLaronde to give her opening remarks, the floor is yours.
Sandra DeLaronde, Chairperson, Giganawenimaanaanig MMIWG2S+ Implementation Committee: Good evening. Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to present to you. I appreciate the intent behind Bill S-2, however, the time for incremental adjustments to the Indian Act is long past.
Because of the Indian Act, generations of First Nations women and our families have lived as domestically displaced persons without our identity, and cut off from our culture, territories, communities and our birth right. This discrimination is unacceptable in its own right, as the Treaty bodies have repeatedly told Canada, it’s a clear violation of the fundamental international protected human rights.
More than that, as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls affirmed, there is a direct connection between the intergenerational displacement of Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people and the shocking levels of violence that we face in Canadian cities.
We know from our work that the majority of our missing and murdered sisters are women, girls and gender-diverse persons who had been displaced from their own communities, displaced by intimate partner violence, economic marginalization, natural disasters, environmental disruptions and by the Indian Act.
In 2023, all parties in the House of Commons supported a unanimous resolution recognizing violence against Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse persons as a national emergency.
National emergencies require an urgent and concerted response from all Parliamentarians. This includes — finally, and at long last — eliminating all gender discrimination in the Indian Act.
I am thankful for this opportunity to address this important issue. Our name, Giganawenimaanaanig, means we all take care of them. We are a Manitoba network of First Nations Red River Metis and Inuit families, Knowledge Keepers, urban and Indigenous-led organizations, Two-Spirit led, and First Nations, Métis and Inuit representative organizations and governments. The City of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba also sit at our table. Our network first came together to call for the national inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and we continue to advocate for the full implementation of the inquiry’s Calls for Justice, and for Canada’s compliance with its international human rights obligations.
As you know, United Nations Treaty bodies have repeatedly urged Canada to eliminate all gender discrimination in the Indian Act, not just some discrimination, but all of it.
As we begin to look at the circumstances of this bill, we also think that it means learning lessons, from all incremental changes that have come before, going back to Bill C-31 in 1985, some 40 years ago. When restoring status under the Indian Act, Canada must also dedicate the resources needed to address all the implications of doing so, including honouring Canada’s Treaty commitments. This must be done in partnership with Indigenous women and with Indigenous Peoples consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the national inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and gender-diverse people.
In addition, when status is restored, recognition must begin from birth, not from the date of registration. Anything else is unfair, and undermines the dignity of those individuals and affirms the ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples.
Senators, my organization, Giganawenimaanaanig, is among the many Indigenous organizations and individuals who have gone to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, because of Canada’s persistent, ongoing failures to eliminate discrimination under the Indian Act. We shouldn’t have to do so. Indigenous women shouldn’t have to keep going back to UN Treaty bodies because of half measures like Bill S-2 that allow for continued discrimination under the Indian Act. It’s time now for legislative change that removes all systemic barriers to Indigenous women, and in this case, First Nations women, from enjoying true equality. Meegwetch. Thank you for listening and I will be pleased to answer any of your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have three minutes for your intervention, including question and answer, with a 30-second heads-up. I’ll begin with Senator Pate.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I thank you, Ms. Asmann, for raising the concern about wanting to see immediate action. I think you were here when I asked the question of Chief Littlechild, and we know that the government could take action immediately if they chose to resolve this. So my question is for Ms. DeLaronde, and thank you for your decades of work representing Indigenous women, but also non-Indigenous women in the international and national forum.
Part of the legislation we’re being asked to pass, and being encouraged to see it as an incremental move, involves clauses that would say people can’t sue the government anymore. There’s a non-liability on the part of the government. Now there’s a court action under way at the moment challenging those previous positions in Bill S-3, but I’m wondering if you would like to comment on that, and what, to me, sounds like an incredibly hypocritical position for the government to say “Wait for the next incremental change,” meanwhile while they’re trying to preclude those very changes by refusing to allow the government to be held liable.
Ms. DeLaronde: Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s a hypocrisy to eliminate the only opportunity women have had since the first iteration of the Indian Act to create change is by going to court. That’s the only way change has occurred. Bill C-31 was because women had taken the responsibility to international bodies that forced Canada to create change. Anything that is a protected right for all Canadians under the Charter should not be in this act.
Troy Chalifoux, Senior Counsel, Maurice Law, as an Individual: Thank you for the discussion and for the opportunity to be here.
Yes, it feels like, if the legislation passes, Canada has thrown these people a life vest, but taking away the ability to seek compensation for it is like a life vest without any air: It’s meaningless.
They need this. Status is important. They have been stripped of their culture and everything. The Michel Nation is also in the process of seeking Band status. Not having the ability to seek compensation for the tragic wrongs that have occurred to them seems to be just the same as heaping more violence on them.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here, witnesses.
I just want some clarification on the statement that you made, Ms. Asmann, with respect to this bill recognizing and being there to confer status on you, your family and the people of the Michel Nation, as well as others who are in similar situations.
Am I right, though — and maybe Mr. Chalifoux can add to this — that you’re getting this because of a court decision. Is that right? The clause that affects you is specifically being done because of a court action that you have won; is that correct?
Mr. Chalifoux: Some of the members received their status back from Bill C-31. The anticipation with Bill S-2 is because of the direction from the court in Nicholas, so it would be as a result of this legislation that they would have that status reissued.
Senator Tannas: If we don’t pass this bill by a certain date, that will happen anyway, will it not?
Mr. Chalifoux: No.
Senator Tannas: Okay.
Mr. Chalifoux: No, there is no status for them.
Just to reiterate, the Michel Nation is the most impacted section 35 rights-holding group that will be impacted if Bill S-2 passes or does not. There are close to 3,000, approximately. We’re not even entirely sure, but it’s in that range, so it has significance.
Senator Tannas: We were given to understand that this bill would affect 3,200 people. That is essentially all of your folks?
Mr. Chalifoux: Almost. There will be individuals not affiliated with the Michel, but we think there is close to 3,000 Michel descendants who will be impacted.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Mr. Chalifoux: As an association, there are around 1,200 registered descendants with them now. It’s just a constant process of identifying descendants, which is arduous because of some of the ISC practices.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Ms. Asmann, I just want to convey apologies, and also thank you for the courage and the generosity that you demonstrated here with your colleagues and family tonight. Thank you.
My question is primarily to Ms. DeLaronde. You have had extensive experience doing international work at major UN decision-making bodies, in particular the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Given the very first human rights case from Canada came from our own retired senator, Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, can you just help us understand why you bother; why is it important to litigate outside of Canada on these issues? Also, to the extent you can relate that to the bill we have before us tonight, we would be grateful.
Ms. DeLaronde: Thank you for your question.
History has shown us that Canada has not given us anything without litigation or by going to international bodies, such as the UN. We had called upon Canada to call a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women for 20 years, and it didn’t happen. Collectively, the women — the grandmothers and the aunties — had to go to the UN and ask for their support to have a national inquiry because it is an ongoing crisis.
Nothing that we have had, ever, has been given to us without a fight, and we have to bring in our friends to fight with us.
Senator McPhedran: And Bill S-2?
Ms. DeLaronde: It will be the same thing. Our closing comment to the national inquiry was “the only thing Canada understands is a court battle.” As women, it’s like we have to get up every day and go to court in order to have our rights recognized.
Senator McPhedran: What if it’s confirmed, as some of us think, that Bill S-2 will actually be a bar to any litigation for Indigenous women?
Ms. DeLaronde: It’s just wrong. That clause has to be removed because we have had to always fight through the courts against eliminating that opportunity for us to create change and have substantive equality now and for our children, and the generations to come. If we look at the bill, from our guiding principles of seven generations, this does not work. The House of Commons needs to know that. If they eliminate the right for to us go to court, then it is a termination bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Senators, I’m really watching the clock.
Senator McCallum: I want to thank all of you for all the work you have done. It’s a lifetime of work; I have seen it. I also want to welcome MP Billy Morin who is sitting there. He is from the Edmonton Northwest. Welcome.
I want to say again that amendments will not delay this bill. I don’t know why people keep saying that. If the Senate and House of Commons agree to address the discrimination and bring the Indian Act into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then we should do it together. I don’t know why we keep hearing that amendments will have the bill die. They shouldn’t. We should be able to address your issues and the majority, because 90% of the witnesses have spoken to the second-generation cut-off.
I do have a question for Mr. Chalifoux and Ms. DeLaronde. Ms. DeLaronde, thank you for the work you do. I have witnessed it.
When you look at the work you do, it’s in an urban setting, which is very different from other witnesses who have come here. You talk about full implementation. What are the impacts and obstacles of enfranchisement that our people face in an urban setting?
For Mr. Chalifoux, my question is this: How many of the people who are involved in the Nicholas case will fall into the second-generation cut-off? But I will ask Ms. DeLaronde to answer first, okay?
Mr. Chalifoux: To answer that question, as a group we are not part of that litigation. There are descendants that are, but as an organization, they are not involved in that.
Senator McCallum: But some of them will?
Mr. Chalifoux: I will say for sure, second-generation cut-off is a big issue for the Michel Nation. But we can’t speak to the numbers because we are still trying to figure out who they are, the first part, right?
Senator McCallum: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. DeLaronde: Thank you for recognizing that the majority of us as First Nation People, women and our families, have been intergenerationally displaced to urban environments because of the Indian Act. When people were reinstated under Bill C-31, that just gave legal recognition but did not include other things like rights to land or a place for people to live and given the opportunity to be part that have land base. There was no discussion of portability of rights.
So what the first generation of reinstatement did was in many ways gave people a sense of being, but not a sense of place. So I think that as urban people, that there is still is an opportunity to look at the portability of rights that come along with reinstatement.
Mr. Chalifoux: Senator, your earlier question, we sincerely hope you’re correct that any amendments would not delay this bill. But the elephant in the room is that in its current form, it affects a few thousand people. So the financial impacts on Canada could be better known. Whereas, if you attempt to address the second-generation cut-off, you’re talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
Senator McCallum: [Technical difficulties].
Mr. Chalifoux: So it’s hard not to imagine some additional thinking to go around to understand better what the impacts of that would be before passing a bill that will impact 300,000 people.
Senator McCallum: Yesterday I talked about the number of immigrants. I am not anti-immigrant. They brought in 382,000 immigrants in 2025, and they are going to bring in another 350,000 in 2026, another 300,000 in 2027. It’s ongoing and they have delivered billions of dollars.
So why are First Nations not taken into consideration? This is their land.
Mr. Chalifoux: We agree.
Senator McCallum: So why use that as an excuse to say we shouldn’t consider it? That’s not our job. That is the government’s.
Mr. Chalifoux: We agree.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Francis: This question is for Ms. Asmann.
It is deeply unfortunate that the Indian Act and the government administering it continue to divide and harm our people. Even if Bill S-2 restores status to those who were enfranchised, their descendants will still face systemic discrimination, risking not only the loss of status and rights but also the loss of identity and belonging. This legislated extinction is a form of genocide.
Are you not concerned about the impact this will have on your own children and grandchildren? Ours will still have to worry about who they love or marry just to keep their status, a heavy burden to inherit at birth. Why shouldn’t Parliament seize this moment to end all discrimination once and for all? Why continue accepting incremental equality that condemns future generations to fight the same battle?
Ms. Asmann: I’m going to answer part of that, then I will refer to Mr. Chalifoux. I believe second-generation cut-off has to be dealt with, I do. But in our situation, we’re trying to become a band again. We’re trying to find our people. We’re trying to find our platform to begin that journey.
We have got other First Nations here who have been 150 years. They have a band list. They have their ways. They have all the things they need to have to fight these battles and to maybe prolong them until they are satisfied. We don’t have that option.
We do not have that time. We need to get our band back. We have to find our people and then begin working more like every other band does. The Chief of council fights the Indian Act every day. We have to get in a position to be there to do that and we’re not. That’s why if we get this passed now, we find our people, we bring them home, the Creator gives us that reserve that we need back, that band status. Then we fight for more. Because my children and my grandchildren deserve every bit as well. I am speaking for every grandchild and great-grandchild to come. We need them too in order to carry this on.
But for the Michel people, we are the most unique around. We have to get a starting point. Thank you.
Mr. Chalifoux: This bill is not a panacea, even an amended bill is not a panacea to address the deficiencies of the Indian Act.
There is a legacy of incremental change in every aspect of it in its history. I finished law school 30 years ago. Willy Littlechild was one of the first Indigenous lawyers. I was right behind him. But it’s a frustrating question because we’re here today to talk about things that were already known in Bill C-38. In Bill C-38 we were talking about things that were already known in the truth and reconciliation, in RCAP, in UNDRIP. What more does Canada need to move forward with these?
The reality is we will take what we can get, and that’s the legacy of this colonial government. We don’t have a choice, so we can’t sit and worry about how can we fix everything. Many have tried. It’s really hard to be asked this question about what happens if this bill passes to the rest. It’s not our choice to make, right? It’s not a fair question. It’s like throwing us a lifeboat and choosing who gets to come in. It’s patently unfair to put it into a situation where these nations are competing against themselves. We’re not the problem. We’re not the problem.
I hate to say it but we will take what we can get. These people, these 3,000 or so souls are terrified. They are dying. They are dying. And sadly, Ms. Asmann’s story is not unique.
Behind me are other elderly members of the board who represent a very old group of people. They want to see some change. We don’t want to say, sorry, you second-gen cut-offs. Because we have second-generation cut-offs within the descendants. We will continue to be advocates, but we need to act now on what we can.
Senator Francis: To what Senator McCallum said, we shouldn’t have to choose one or the other now. We can do it all now.
Mr. Chalifoux: We will support that. We will support that.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all the witnesses. I want to recognize you, Ms. Asmann, for your story, for being here and it’s a story of incredible resilience, vision, determination. It’s sad but in a way, it’s an inspiration to see you here for you to tell your story, and those who are with you and behind you because there is a lot more people behind you than in this room. I just want to recognize that and acknowledge you for that.
As you know, we’re struggling here because of the injustices and from the testimony. There has been a lot of testimony. I realize the question being, do we go with this for now and then work on something bigger? I realize from your previous testimony, Mr. Chalifoux, that the 6(2) question does exist but you’re not in a position to know the numbers with respect to descendants.
The unique position we’re in — and it was an appropriate analogy, you mentioned about a lifeboat and saying, well, these are the people that get in. For me I’m saying, get a bigger boat.
These opportunities don’t roll around often. Previous testimony said the government on their own initiative doesn’t do this. Ms. DeLaronde, you mentioned that they’re forced time and time again through litigation, it’s not really their goodwill. Obviously when they get these court cases, there is always the minimal amount they will do.
So when I’m thinking about timing and about trying to address the descendants of the Michel Band, and trying to offer a package to them that is a plus kind of package, because, let’s face is, second generation is coming around for everyone.
If this takes more time as a matter of weeks as opposed to years, that’s the dilemma. What would you say in response to that?
Maybe, Ms. Asmann, yourself first and then Mr. Chalifoux.
Ms. Asmann: I don’t know what to say. If I hear you correctly, you’re asking me is three weeks too much time to wait? Because, no, I’m 60 years old. I started this with my sister when I was 15 and I just turned 60 last March. Three weeks is nothing, but another 40, 50 years is too much.
If they can pass with the second gen in there, please do it, but do not kill this bill as it sits today, thank you.
Mr. Chalifoux: Any day, any single day is too long, senator. Because what’s going to happen in three weeks? What might happen in two weeks? When might the next writ drop? These are things that — you think about it all the time, I’m sure, but on this side of the fence it’s just abject fear.
I want to be optimistic, like some of you are, that this will go forward and it can include amendments, but we don’t want to wait.
I thought Parliament was going to be finished in 10 years, I found out it’s another three. All of these things have consequences.
Ms. Asmann is right, three weeks is nothing, but what’s going to happen in those three weeks? This could have been addressed in Bill C-38. How many more mandates does the government need to deal with this?
Ms. DeLaronde: If I could just respond? These amendments are so important, and this bill can be amended and should be amended. I believe that the rights of Indigenous women and girls, Indigenous People, should not be taken away by this bill.
We should always have the opportunity to litigate, because it is stated, and we know that is the only way Canada moves. Canada — Parliament is supposed to represent all Canadians and represent the rights of all Canadians, and that includes Indigenous women and girls. This bill does not give us that right. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our panellists. Hiy hiy. The time for this panel is complete.
I wish to once again thank our witnesses for joining us here today.
If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk, if you want to add more please do so.
Honourable colleagues, that brings us to the end of our meeting today. The meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)