THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:52 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
[Translation]
Sébastien Payet, Committee Clerk: Honourable senators, as clerk of the committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair and to proceed with the election of an acting chair.
[English]
I am ready to receive the motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator McCallum: I nominate Senator Prosper.
Mr. Payet: It is moved by the Honourable Senator McCallum that the Honourable Senator Prosper do take the chair of the committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Payet: Motion carried. I invite Senator Prosper to take the chair.
Senator Paul (PJ) Prosper (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Honourable senators, it is an honour and privilege to chair this very important meeting today. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and all other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure 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 would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit people from across Turtle Island.
I would like to at this time recognize the delegation we have with us from New Zealand. Thank you for joining us.
I will remind my honourable colleagues that, at our first public meeting, on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, recused herself from her role as chair for the duration of this study in order to preserve its neutrality.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator McNair: Welcome. I’m John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Martin: Good evening. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator McCallum: [Indigenous language spoken]. Thank you for coming here to help us with this work. Mary Jane McCallum, Cree, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, senator for Ontario, more specifically living in Cornwall, which is on traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator Pate: Thank you and welcome. I am pleased and honoured to live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin Nation.
Senator Tannas: I am Scott Tannas, senator 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, Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would like to extend a special welcome to our New Zealand delegation who wanted to hear and meet our minister. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Good evening, folks. Senator Dhillon from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good evening. Pierre Moreau, senator for the Laurentides division in Quebec. I am the government representative in the Senate.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Today we will continue our study of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
I would now like to introduce our witnesses today. Please welcome back to the table, the Honourable Mandy Gull-Masty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services. Thank you, Minister Gull-Masty, for joining us today.
Accompanying the minister, from Indigenous Services Canada, please also welcome Gina Wilson, Deputy Minister; Catherine Lappe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to Individuals Sector; Lori Doran, Director General, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector; Stuart Hooft, Director, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector; and Sacha Senecal, Director General and Chief Data Officer. Thank you all for joining us today.
The minister will be invited to provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I will now invite Minister Gull-Masty to give her opening remarks.
The Honourable Mandy Gull-Masty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services: [Indigenous language spoken].
Hello. Good evening. Thank you for having me once again. I am translating for the translators who do not translate in Cree this evening. It is a pleasure to be here. My name is Mandy Gull-Masty, appointed by Prime Minister Mark Carney to support and work for Indigenous Services Canada. It is a pleasure to be here.
[Translation]
Thank you for having me here once again. I do not believe it is normal procedure to appear before a committee more than once.
[English]
I don’t think it is a normal process for a minister to come multiple times to be a witness in a committee. I am not your normal, average minister, I guess I will say, because I am new in the role, an Indigenous person taking on this duty, so thank you for receiving me.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to be here and to speak with you about Bill S-2. Since my last appearance, I have had the opportunity to speak with many of you. Thank you for these important conversations. This process has helped me greatly.
[English]
Bill S-2 was introduced here as a long overdue response to systemic discrimination against First Nations People that is embedded in the Indian Act. That discrimination has disproportionately harmed First Nations, especially women and their descendants.
[Translation]
Tonight, we must discuss the rapid adoption of Bill S-2.
[English]
We must have this important conversation.
Parliament has a critical deadline of April of next year to enact the changes in the Bill S-2. It is in the Nicholas decision that the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that parts of the Indian Act, its registration and band membership provisions, violated the Charter’s guarantee of equality. Passing Bill S-2 is necessary to uphold those rights and to prevent further harm.
Mr. Chair, you’ve heard from some witnesses the imperative to avoid delaying making these needed changes in the Indian Act. Their message was clear. I have listened to the testimony. They cannot and will not and should not be denied their rightful entitlement any longer. It was really important for me to come here this evening and share that message.
Bill S-2 would restore entitlement to registration for individuals and their descendants who lost it through enfranchisement, in some cases involuntarily. We also recognize that many of these individuals did not choose enfranchisement. It was not a true choice. Some of them were driven out of desperation, the need to protect their children from being taken to residential schools, and others lost entitlement simply because they pursued professions, such as becoming doctors, lawyers, taking on roles, and that really unjustly and unfairly further included First Nations women, continuing to bear the impacts of discriminatory provisions that we see today.
Until 1985, a woman could lose her entitlement if her father or her husband lost theirs or if she married a non-status partner. She and her descendants were stripped not only of legal recognition but of their identity, their vital connection to community and, most importantly, their rights as Indigenous People. Far too many people continue to feel that today.
Bill S-2 was created to right those wrongs. It looked to restore entitlement to approximately 3,500 First Nation members and the descendants who gave up and lost those rights. These are not just numbers on a page. These are the people from whom you have heard — their mothers, their fathers, their children, their aunties, their uncles, their grandparents. This bill was created to restore identity, dignity and recognition.
You’ve heard it in their testimony. I want to share a quote:
Bill S-2 will help us restore the right of our Michel people, our support structure, our family and our community to exist once again, and we are relying on this.
The witness went on to say:
We waited long enough and are the largest-impacted group that this bill covers. Any further delays will be a travesty of justice to force these descendants to wait further for Canada to address the issue that has already been in place for decades. I ask you, please, on behalf of the thousands of Michel descendants who have been waiting for decades, please, don’t let that happen again.
[Translation]
I have listened to the testimony presented during the study of the bill, and I recognize that it does not correct all the inequalities in the Indian Act.
[English]
I have to acknowledge that.
[Translation]
The bill we have submitted allows us to make progress. It brings about essential changes in collaboration with First Nations.
[English]
I heard, and I agree and I fully support the concerns that were raised in the second-generation cut-off. I want to be very clear. Everyone who came here and spoke to the second-generation cut-off, I fully support and understand their testimony. It was accurate. It was factual. It was a reality. I have to also be clear that it is a critical issue that has to be addressed in the right way.
I want to reiterate to you, today, the question of now and whether or not we will do it. I want to ensure that this conversation includes how we will do it. We need to follow the lead of community. We need to ensure, as we are required, that they determine the path forward, not only to ensure that the solution we bring forward for them is supported by community, but it is in consensus from rights holders.
The second-generation cut-off is not the only remaining barrier. More importantly, under section 10 of the act, many nations still struggle to reclaim control over their membership lists. There are high-voting thresholds, simply too high for them to be able to address it. This is critical. This is part of the solution that I, as a minister, seek to adjust. Just like the changes in the Indian Act and Bill S-2, we are right now presently engaging First Nations holders, organizations, for their input on how to address this issue and to find the path ahead.
The duty to consult is not merely a checkbox. It is something, as minister, that I am required to do, that I will uphold and that I will respect because it is the foundation of a solution for second gen.
Right now, we are awaiting submissions, which will be completed by December, for First Nations organizations and rights holders. Second-generation cut-off is the discussion that they are having in a collaborative approach, an approach that frames the consultation discussion.
It is important that I recommit to this committee that I will come back and provide that information to show you the work we are doing, to showcase the pathway forward.
These engagements form the basis for a direct, in-depth discussion with First Nations on how to address changes in the act. Introducing an amendment to Bill S-2 without meeting our fundamental legal duty to consult would repeat outdated processes that unilaterally impose legislative solutions.
I also have to mention, it jeopardizes the thousands of individuals who have been waiting in limbo for Bill S-2 to pass.
I want to be very clear on this point. Canada must uphold its duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada, and it is one that I take very seriously. As a former Grand Chief in my Nation, as a Deputy Chief in my community, it is a position that I reaffirm that we are obliged to ensure that the government respects the duty to consult. That message continues in my role as a minister. It is not one that I will change.
[Translation]
Changes need to be made that affect Indigenous peoples and their rights, but we must realize that we have to work together. I am determined to resolve the issue of exclusion after the second generation, but we must respect the fact that this fundamental principle is based on a solution that must come from them.
[English]
I want you to hear me say, when I cannot support an amendment on the second-generation cut-off at this time, it is because I am fulfilling my constitutional and legal duty to consult First Nations. If we were to move ahead with that process before we hear from community, we are risking unintended consequences to those whom we are trying to help. It is not an acceptable outcome for me as a minister.
[Translation]
The bill is an important step towards ending colonial discrimination, but personally, I want to work collaboratively with the nations. The solution must come from them, and it is my responsibility to represent them and engage them in a consultation-based process. Thank you. Meegwetch.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Minister Gull-Masty. We will now proceed with questions from senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a three-minute intervention, including a question and answer, with a 30-second heads up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator Francis: Good evening, minister. Thank you for taking the time again to come again to our committee. It has been implied that this committee and by extension, the Senate, should forego amending and improving Bill S-2 to address the second‑generation cut-off and other inequities; yet that would mean discarding our constitutional duty to provide sober second thought and protect the rights of underrepresented groups. Most witnesses who have appeared at our committee — and I would say it is about 90% or more — have urged us to use this opportunity to finally address the second-generation cut‑off and other inequities because they and their children, families and communities cannot afford to wait any longer and this severe and irrevocable harm inflicted by Canada needs to end. The risk, minister, is that while we know that your intentions are good, history shows us that the Government of Canada uses consultation to perpetuate discrimination and only makes small, narrow fixes when compelled by the courts. I know that for a fact being a former chief.
So if senators choose to act now to not only protect the rights of individuals affected by enfranchisement, but also all those harmed by second-generation cut-off and other inequities, is the federal government ready to prioritize the passage of an amended Bill S-2 through the House of Commons? That did not happen with Bill C-38, which our government did not prioritize, but we are seeing it right now with Bill C-3 that you can if you want to do it. Would Prime Minister Carney and the rest of the cabinet then be ready to work with us now to end a long-standing pattern of delay instead of continuing to allow for discrimination to persist?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, senator. I want to actually address your question with a question. You and I were both former leaders. You and I both served our people. You and I probably both asked this government to respect the rights of consultation. You and I both probably fought to ensure that that process would be in place, respected and that the solutions that we had to bring our members came from them. I share that space with you.
The creation of legislation does require that second sober thought. That second sober thought should be based on a bill that comes from information that is derived from a consultation process that is driven at the community level. I am not, and will not, bypass the duty to consult Indigenous rights holders. They are the ones that will form the basis of their solution, and I truly understand and respect that the Senate is trying to address something in this time. I know that, I can acknowledge that. But the solutions that we try to determine here and place on community do not reflect the duty to consult. What is required of us to respect FPIC and UNDRIP? Those are the values that I had as a leader. That I continue to carry as a minister because I know that if we want success for solutions we are trying to apply, it has to be driven from the community. Once again, I want to be clear. I acknowledge that the Senate is trying to bring forward a solution. What I have to be clearer on is that community needs to define that solution for themselves. That’s through a consultation process. This is where we will truly work with, on the government side, through all leaders around the table, bringing something forward that reflects the reality of what nations want their solution to be for themselves, by themselves.
Senator Francis: If I can respond to that, as a former chief, I would say we’ve been consulted since 1985. Consultation has been going over years and years and years and we have court decisions and court challenges. If you look at Bill C-5, I don’t see any form of reasonable consultation that happened with that. Going back to being a former chief and what my people have gone through with the second-generation cut-off and all the intergenerational trauma that existed from that, let’s get this right and let’s do it now.
The Acting Chair: We are going to move on.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Minister, thank you for being here today, and thank you also to the people accompanying you.
You have described yourself as an “unusual minister”; I would say that you are a persistent minister, on the one hand, and one who is very available for the work of the Senate. I thank you for that.
My understanding of Bill S-2 as proposed — I have reviewed the testimony heard and the positions taken by members of the community — is that it creates, in my opinion, a consensus within the group. Senators are ready to move forward and recognize that this bill is justified, with the caveat that it does not go far enough. This is the purpose of the proposed amendments, namely to go further and address the issue of inadmissibility after the second generation.
In your introductory remarks, you described very well the importance of consultation. My question concerns two aspects. First, can you confirm to the committee that there is currently a consultation process under way on issues related to exclusion after the second generation?
Secondly, I would like you or your advisers to answer the following question: What would the impact be if we were to proceed with amendments that have not been subject to the consultation process? We know that consultation is a constitutional obligation under section 35, as you yourself pointed out.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, senator.
First, I want to be very clear in my response: I am here to talk about Bill S-2. I sense that there is consensus among the members of the Senate to move it forward. However, I am also here to deliver a message: For me, as minister, it is essential that I follow the consultation process. One of the messages I have heard is: “We will have to do this properly.” The collaborative process that defines the consultation method and involves several groups is already under way. It is a process that has already begun and reflects the reality of the moment we are in.
In my opinion, it is also a process that will ensure the community’s inclusion in terms of how they will receive their members, and that is important. Everyone around the table needs to understand that it’s not just a matter of “removing” exclusion after the second generation. We also need to create a way to prepare the community to welcome its members, a way to engage new members and determine how we can help them welcome them into the communities.
I have heard of several cases of people who suddenly received a new status or learned about their Indigenous identity, tried to return to their community, and sometimes had a wonderful experience, but sometimes a very difficult one. We cannot have a process that does not create the possibility of welcoming people properly. Otherwise, we will do more harm with the solutions we are trying to create.
Also, I want the members around the table to understand. Removing exclusion after the second generation does not just mean creating a process, but respecting all nations, all communities, to create the way they want to define the process. It’s not just one solution for everyone.
If we want to do a good job, if we want to do things properly, we really need to give space to the people who lead their nations and communities, the elected officials, the rights holders, to ensure that they are the ones who define the future of their nations. It is not up to us to find a solution for them and consult them on that solution. I refuse to do that. As a former Grand Chief, I will respect communities, their rights and their responsibility to determine the future of their nation.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you, minister, for coming back. Much appreciated. We heard testimony on growing numbers of children that are now the third generation, so they have been cut off either in communities and the communities are trying to carry the load for funding with respect to education, medical, et cetera. We now know that the oldest 6(2) has had their fortieth birthday so there is now potentially a fourth generation that is starting to grow as well.
As you go through the consultation process and trying to craft the idea of what you are going to do about something that was put on by a government in 1985 without consultation and you are going to ask the communities what they ought to do and it might be something different, although I doubt it. If that is going to take a period of time, is there an interim step where you would have the power to provide funding to communities that are struggling with this issue? Some have the ability through, as you know, own-sourced revenue to carry the load; others don’t. Is there some mechanism by which for a temporary period of time, for however long it takes, to get this issue resolved one way or another to provide funding for those communities and specifically those children, young adults and fourth generation?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. I want to reiterate once again the purpose of my presence here which is really to speak to Bill S-2. This is what I submitted to the House. I’m receiving questions on second-generation cut-off. I’m here to also answer those because I want to be clear about that next step, but I want to reaffirm the purpose of Bill S-2 and the natal bans and the enfranchisement is the frame of Bill S-2. I know there are questions on second gen.
You speak to what I am going to do with crafting an outcome. That is really not what consultation means. Consultation means that we are creating a space, a collaborative space, where we are working with community to define what they want consultation to look like. They are going to define the timeline, the path, what their expectations are, how we will collaborate together. It is really a complementary process to ensuring that we understand the outcome that we’re looking for. I will not supersede what community is asking me to do because it is a legal, constitutional obligation for me to ensure that I respect them in the consultation process. I want to reaffirm that again.
In terms of what a solution could be, if community comes to me with a solution, this is where I will take direction. I know and I understand that Senate is maybe looking to frame some of that opportunity, but once again I have been very clear. As a minister, I will go to rights holders, I will consult them and I will let solution come from them. I know that many of you were appointed here. Many of you are representing the secondary sober thought that is required when passing legislation, but as a minister, I am in a space where I must respect — I am obliged to — and I will uphold the consultation process. Any solution on second gen or Bill S-2 will be driven by them and from them.
Senator Tannas: I appreciate that. You’re here for a second time specifically to invite us not to amend this bill. Let’s be clear.
We have heard all the testimony. We understand Bill S-2 and what it provides. I’m looking to see if there is a response to a specific issue that has been pointed out that is here today and a growing issue. I asked you a funding question and maybe what you answered was the communities need to ask you for funding and that you would find a way to respond. And if they asked you, that’s different than me asking you. I see. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Clement: Hello, minister.
[Translation]
Thank you for coming back to see us a second time and doing things differently.
[English]
I’m going to ask you two questions, and then I will get out of the way and let you answer. The first question is going to be on consultation, and the second question will be on timelines.
I am referring to your brief now. Your brief references a co‑developed consultation process launched in November of 2023. It includes a list of partners for solution development. I appreciate the importance of consultation and, indeed, the government’s and your responsibility to do so. But in looking at the list of partners that you have provided, it appears that many of them, as Senator Francis indicated, have already gone on the record to call for the end of the second-generation cut-off. They have already gotten on the record.
I can’t help but compare this to Bill C-5 and how consultation did not happen until after. I’m trying to understand the difference with this. I can’t help but worry about consultation of rights holders and women being excluded from that definition of rights holders by the very legislation that we are attempting to remedy. Those are my concerns. So the question is what is the role, really, of further consultation here?
Number two, timelines. So when you appeared in the Senate last month, our colleague Senator White asked you about timelines, and you said that you would not rush communities. However, communities themselves are looking for reassurance that these problems are going to be addressed quickly. How long will this remain a priority? How challenging will the solutions be to find? Do you see this government amending the Indian Act to address the second-generation cut-off next year, the year after? Do you feel that these delays are legitimate especially when we have heard testimony from family members saying that it is urgent and that they feel divided from their own families?
So the question there is: What are your timelines for that next piece? I understand you are here to speak to Bill S-2, but those are my questions on the record. Thank you.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. I appreciate that. I am very appreciative that this conversation continues to be an engagement for dialogue. Your question speaks to the importance of consultation. I want to be very clear. It is the requirement of consultation, the legal and constitutional obligation that this government has to ensure that we go to community and ask them to define what the solution is. It is not just important; it is required.
In addition, I have also observed the witnesses’ testimony. They have reaffirmed in their comments a positive response to what you have proposed as the Senate in your amendment. What they have not responded to is what I have proposed, which is furthering the solution that the amendment speaks to, ensuring that communities can have control over their membership lists, that I can help them build capacity to receive these new members, that they can have a strategy to integrate their membership, that they can truly define for themselves what they are going to do in the absence of second gen. And I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be disrespectful. That question was not asked of them.
The individuals that I heard come to this table and speak were passionate and moving. I myself had tears in what I heard. I understand the unfairness of second generation. In my own family, I have members who face this. I want you to know that this is very personal to me. This is something very important to me. This is something that I push within government, to ensure that my colleagues — the ministers who work with me and the Prime Minister — understand the importance of removing the racist, systemic, unfair and unequal treatment of First Nations in this country. The fact that the Prime Minister has chosen me to do this work is a testament to the direction that he wants to see the change for Indigenous People in this country.
I also want to be very clear on timelines. The duty to consult is co-developed with First Nations communities; they determine their timelines. We will respond and work with them in the place that they are, if they are prepared to onboard people quickly, we will support them in that place. If they need to build capacity, if they need tools, we will meet them in that place. We will meet them at where they are. I understand the urgency of this, but I want to reassure that when they find the solution for their members, they are able to do it in their space, that we are not rushing to create a solution that we all want at this table, but they are defining the proper solution for their nation and their members.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you again, minister, and thank you to all your officials for being here. I want to pick up where Senator Clement left off, because I said it to you the first time you came and have certainly said it to many other witnesses since then, that I have no doubt about your sincerity, none. But I have been in this place now for a few years, and I have seen that sincerity in other ministers. I have heard the same commitments. I have heard the same promises, and then I have seen people shuffled out of the position.
I also saw what happened with Bill C-5, and today I’m seeing the response of Indigenous leaders to the budget. I know that when you have competing Charter interests and obligations, you need to weigh those, and you have competing ones. You have talked about the duty to consult, and I agree. You also have a duty to end the discrimination, particularly both the racial and the gender discrimination. That’s a legislative duty you have, as well, as a minister on behalf of the Crown. You have a fiduciary obligation to those rights holders.
I am a bit confused. Maybe it was referring to different things, but in your letter that we received today, you say that, to date, the government has not formally launched the consultation events for First Nations on this issue and that they will take place in early 2026, but in your testimony on September 24, you said these consultations have been under way for a long time. Can you help clarify that?
Also, how do you see dealing with your obligation to protect the rights of Indigenous women and their descendants?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, senator.
I will speak to the consultation process first. For consultation to begin, there needs to be a framework that’s established. That means that the responsibility to define what that looks like, what dialogue looks like and what a timeline looks like are driven by a community. I will always protect the integrity of rights holders being able to determine what their solution is and what their path is.
The next part of that is to engage in the formal consultation. Whatever solutions we hear being given by a community, we go back and validate them. We ensure that it is a conversation, because consultation is not based upon “We have determined what the solution is for you, and then we’re going to come and tell you that this works for you.” That is not consultation. I will always adhere to and uphold the duty to consult, because that’s what I expected when I had the role of Grand Chief. I took government to task for it. I will not change my position on that. In the events that have occurred in community, I’ve had leadership call me from the very list that we submitted. They informed me that they would engage in litigation if the duty to consult was not respected.
I know there is a strong desire to have a solution, but I will, first and foremost, uphold my responsibility as a minister and address the duty to consult. Unfortunately, I may not be kind in my remarks, but trying to predetermine a solution for somebody or a group, if you do not live with their reality of that issue, is racism itself. I will not uphold that as a minister.
Senator Pate: I have the greatest respect for what you are saying. You are essentially saying that you have a duty to consult about whether you will end the discrimination. That’s what the consultation will be about if you don’t address this. What am I misunderstanding?
Ms. Gull-Masty: The entirety of my response. The duty to consult empowers community to determine how second‑generation removal will proceed, what the outcome will look like after the second-generation removal and how those communities will be prepared to receive those members. What will be the function of the rollout of the implementation, for instance?
I am also saying that creating a determination of a solution here at this table and then asking me to go and consult community when this solution is driven from a group that is not of Indigenous descent and does not realize the impacts of the second-generation cut-off is racism itself. I’m sorry, I will not proceed with that. Indigenous People know what solutions are for themselves.
Senator Pate: I hear you to be saying that you understand you have to get rid of the second-generation cut-off. That’s the discrimination. In response to several senators, starting with Senators Francis and Tannas, they asked about an interim measure, because it sounds like you agreed that you have to get rid of it. Now it’s about how to do it, which is the consultation part. You could make a decision that you will get rid of it, and then consult about how to do it.
That’s the question we’ve been pushing for. It isn’t to do it or not to consult. Anyway, it sounds like we are talking at cross-purposes.
Senator McCallum: Welcome, Minister Gull-Masty, and all the people who work with you.
In your speech, you said that Bill S-2 is an important step toward existing inequities that remain in the Indian Act and that it proposes four critical reforms. The first is restoring entitlement to individuals and their descendants who lost it through enfranchisement, often involuntarily. Then you say Bill S-2 represents a critical step toward addressing long-standing inequities under the registration provisions of the Indian Act that have deeply affected First Nations individuals and families for decades. For decades, thousands have lost their entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities as a result.
That is a description of second-generation cut-off. When we talk about consultation — and we brought in rights holders who were the impacted people — the women and children — they have already started consultations. One family did so 54 years ago. We heard so many stories from different people, having conversations in their home communities, asking why someone else has something and they don’t.
The consultation happens between the people in the community. It will not happen with outsiders. It will not happen with Chiefs. It happens at the grassroots with people.
Who defines the very essence of who we are? Women and impacted children do. Who defines the social, political, individual and collective harms created through discrimination in the Indian Act because of their experience? Only people who have had that experience will be the ones who can say, “This is how I have been affected.”
I have heard that at home. I’ve heard that in the Opaskwayak Cree Nation. I have heard that in Thompson.
They consult among themselves, and it is already started. I’ve heard people say that they are ready to welcome members. I don’t know where that rumour has come from. There is a book from Cowessess First Nation, and the book says that, as well.
When we look the scare tactics like this bill won’t have time to be passed before April, we are doing clause by clause in a few weeks. It will go to the Senate, and it should be in the House of Commons before Christmas. Then there is February, March and April. So we do have time.
As senators —
The Acting Chair: Do you have a question, senator?
Senator McCallum: When you talk about consultation and this timeline, they’ve already started doing it. So why do we now have to go back and revisit that consultation again?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for your question. I want to repeat what I heard in your question, which is why do we have to go back?
Senator McCallum: You are doing a second or third round of consultation.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Why do we have to go back and do consultation? In the seats that we fill — me, as a representative of the Crown and you, as an individual and a senator — we do not have the authority to speak for rights holders in their decision making as part of these institutions of government; that lies with community and rights holders.
I completely agree with you.
Communities have already started to speak among themselves about the consultation process. That’s why when you go to community and speak to elected leadership, they speak to elders, women’s groups and youth. They take the time to do that work in community. They take the time to frame what the expectations are of the outcomes of the questions asked in consultation. That’s why we have to wait for them. That is their work to do. That is not the work of the Senate. That is not the work of me as a minister.
My duty is to respect the fact that that process has to unfold. That’s a very personal position for me as well. I have been in that seat. I have had to bring people together. I have had to do the work to go and ask people, “What do you think of this?” Sometimes that conversation was extremely challenging. It was also one that was transformative in some of those discussions.
Once again, I will reiterate the duty to consult and allow communities to take their rightful place to have that discussion is a requirement of all of us on the House of Commons and Senate sides.
We must respect the commitments that are made for FPIC, the UNDA Action Plan and UNDRIP. That is one of the things it determines to set out and address.
We cannot supersede community in trying to find a solution. I am firm in that position.
I implore once again Senate to remember Bill S-2 speaks to the urgency of 3,500 people who will be immediately registered and regain rightful status.
The Acting Chair: I am sorry. We are running out of time, and we have another speaker. My apologies.
Senator McPhedran: Chair, could you tell me the time now available, please?
The Acting Chair: We are scheduled to end around 7:45.
Senator McPhedran: There are more questioners after me?
The Acting Chair: One more. I’m hoping to get a question.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Are we talking three minutes?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I will cede one minute of my time to Senator McCallum for her clarification.
Senator McCallum: What I wanted to say is, when I came here as a senator, I did not come as an individual. I met with the Elders in Manitoba. You know what they said to me? “You belong to Canada now. You belong to the province. You don’t belong to us.”
I work with people all across Canada. It’s that collective I work under. I wanted to make that clarification.
Senator McPhedran: Minister, deputy minister, officials, thank you for making the time to be here.
Minister, thank you for making the time to meet with Senators Clement, Pate and myself some time ago.
I will ask my question in a way I hope invites fairly brief answers, but it is in two parts. The question is: As a minister of the Crown, do you acknowledge that the second-generation cut‑off perpetuates pre-existing sex discrimination against Indigenous women and their descendants?
If you answer that you do acknowledge that second-generation cut-off perpetuates pre-existing sex discrimination and its harmful effects on section 6(2) women, could you explain please what justification you and Canada offer for forcing these women, and their descendants whose rights are being violated now, to wait longer after 40 years?
If you do not acknowledge the question, then my question to you becomes: Will you please provide to this standing committee of the Senate the written opinions from your own department and/or from the Justice Department that explain your position?
To repeat the question, do you acknowledge that, right now, the second-generation cut-off perpetuates pre-existing sex discrimination against women and their descendants? Added to that is do you acknowledge these Indigenous women are rights holders?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. We had an interesting conversation with the three senators. I appreciate you took the time to do that.
The Indian Act has been unjust to all individuals under the Indian Act. Clearly, that harm was perpetuated to a greater degree against First Nations Indigenous women. I can say that. I can say that because that is something I have experienced in my own daily life as an Indigenous woman.
Unfortunately, that reality continues to be perpetuated in parts of society today. It is not just the Indian Act that is discriminatory. There are many injustices that Indigenous women face on a daily basis.
I want to respond to your question. I will take the space to do that.
I want to be clear. When we had a discussion, you asked some questions of me I thought were important. Asking me what a rights holder was in that discussion, proceeding to tell me prior you felt you knew the solution for this, really showed me it was clear that you, yourself, didn’t understand what a rights holder was.
Then proceeding afterwards to tell me, “We know the solution for second-generation cut-off. We know the solution because we’ve been working in this space for a very long time,” when you yourself have not lived the reality as an Indigenous woman.
Then finalizing that conversation by telling me it is your duty to apply the Indian Act does not showcase to me you understand what harm the Indian Act causes to people.
I am going to be clear.
Senator McPhedran: You are misquoting me.
Ms. Gull-Masty: I’m not, I’m sorry.
Senator McPhedran: Significantly.
Ms. Gull-Masty: Okay.
Senator McPhedran: It was a private meeting we had. You are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said.
Ms. Gull-Masty: I will be fair to you and say if you feel I am not quoting you appropriately —
Senator McPhedran: Definitely.
Ms. Gull-Masty: — and I have written and read the briefings of that meeting, telling me that advocacy groups have guided you to determine the best solution for second gen is a fair statement, which is what you told me.
The Acting Chair: Excuse me, I will interject here. My apologies. I appreciate the dialogue and the discussion.
We are all trying to advance this issue through our own means and mechanisms. If I can take the chair’s prerogative and ask a question, if you don’t mind? I certainly benefit from the dialogue.
We are here, as senators, fulfilling a constitutional duty, a privilege we have. We listened to significant testimony from people who have been engaged in this issue for a long time.
Consultation, there are many derivatives of it, but foremost is the honour of the Crown. That is at stake here when we are talking about consultations. What I believe is at stake is the landscape of the second-generation cut-off, and what it warrants government to do about it.
There has been a lot of history. Senator Tannas talked about 1985. Where was the consultation for the second‑generation cut‑off in the first place? Now we’re having a stringent requirement for consultation? Now, later, when there was none to begin with?
Getting back to that point, our role is to look at the evidence and, from the evidence and the historical context — because these witnesses talk about history, reports and the second‑generation cut-off — it almost seems like it’s being viewed in a vacuum of, “We have to go to community. That’s the only mechanism.” When all this work has been done before.
Where is the value of that work? Does that not warrant government to act honourably? Essentially, what we are talking about is consultation on extinction of people and communities. How would you respond to that?
Ms. Gull-Masty: I know that this evening has been a challenging conversation. I do acknowledge that.
I want to be very, very clear. Previous attempts at second‑generation cut-off were based on a direction from that minister. I will not comment on the work that they did. I’m going to comment from the place of myself, as a minister, me as an Indigenous person, me as an Indigenous person who has a very intimate, personal experience with the reality of what it means to be an Indigenous person. I am glad I share that space. Some of you have had very fruitful conversations with me in reflecting that. And I can also say that everyone around this table acknowledges the truth and the testimony that the witnesses provided. I can very confidently say that.
What I do have to address is, it is not speaking in a vacuum when you discuss consultation. Indigenous leaders across this country, former and present, fight for the right daily to ensure that the right to be consulted is awarded to them.
I, as a minister, in my responsibility for this file, will always put that at the forefront of decision making. That’s why in my approach to second-generation cut-off, it will be based on solutions that come from the community because I will uphold duty to consult, not just because it is my legal duty, but because it is morally the right thing to do and it is what I identify as commonality with my relations across this country.
The question in duty to consult is not about how or whether. It is about what do we do next? How do we create that space? How do we create those tools? Part of consultation is developing an answer to the problem, but it is also about ensuring there is success in the solution. That’s the importance of this process to me.
I will reiterate once again, the purpose of Bill S-2 is to change the lives of those individuals who were enfranchised, who had to give up their status, who felt challenged, who often felt that they needed to, or were forced to, because of circumstances. Those 3,500 people and their descendants will have reinstatement immediately of their status. They have been taken out of the system. They have been identified. There is a list. I have asked my officials to expeditiously treat these requests because it is the right thing to do. We have the authority, we have the capacity, in passing Bill S-2, to ensure that we meet that requirement, not just for them but to also reflect the timeline, the deadline, that is put in place because of the decision that came from the Nicholas case. I also want to reiterate that for me, it is extremely important that it is understood around the table that I have a commitment to second-generation process, but I must uphold the duty to consult because I know and understand that solutions for this must be driven from community. It is not our responsibility to determine that for community and then ask them to validate it.
An amendment — that’s what it would do, determine a solution for them. We cannot do that. We must uphold our continuity to community, our connection to community. And I want to be very clear. Second generation is not a one-solution blanket that we throw across this country. We have to refine it, and we have to format to meet communities individually. There are too many different intricacies and instances that are so complex that, if we try to do a one-solution approach to second generation, we will under-deliver in trying to serve those and inadvertently hurt them more. This I cannot do as a minister. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Honourable colleagues, the time for this panel is complete. Please allow me to thank Minister Gull-Masty and ISC officials for their presence this evening and for coming back a second time. It is much appreciated. Wela’lin.
We will now turn to our second panel. I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Please welcome at the table from Statistics Canada Laurent Martel, Director, Centre for Demography; accompanied by Gayatri Jayaraman, Director General, Justice and Indigenous Statistics Branch, Social, Health and Labour Statistics. Thank you both for joining us today.
Mr. Martel will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a short question-and-answer session with senators. I would now invite Mr. Martel to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Laurent Martel, Director, Centre for Demography, Statistics Canada: Honourable senators, we would first like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to contribute to your work on Canada’s Indigenous peoples.
Statistics Canada recognizes that we are here in Ottawa on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
My name is Laurent Martel and I am the Director of Statistics Canada’s Centre for Demography. I am accompanied by Gayatri Jayaraman, Director General of the Justice and Indigenous Statistics Branch, Social, Health, and Labour Statistics.
Statistics Canada collects and disseminates a wide range of statistical data and analyses on Indigenous peoples living in Canada, often in collaboration with Indigenous Services Canada and Indigenous organizations.
To do so, Statistics Canada draws on numerous data sources, including the population census, the Canadian Indigenous Peoples Survey, other social and economic surveys, and administrative data.
Among the products developed, Statistics Canada produces population projections, including projections based on self‑identified Indigenous status in the census. The latest projections on this subject were released in 2021 on our website and covered the period from 2016 to 2041.
Statistics Canada also responds to customized projection requests from numerous clients, including government departments and organizations across Canada.
In 2024, we worked on behalf of Indigenous Services Canada on projections of the Indian Register population for the period from 2021 to 2066. These projections include a dozen scenarios that indicate how the population registered in the register could evolve in the future, based on various assumptions related to fertility, mortality, exogamy of unions, or legislative changes such as Bill S-3 or the former Bill C-38. The numbers I will mention are taken from these projections.
First, it should be noted that the size of the population registered in the Indian Register more than tripled between 1981 and 2021, when it contained approximately one million people.
Although the growth of the registered population has slowed, our most recent projections show that this population is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades, reaching between 1.2 and 1.6 million people in 2066. These results were obtained by applying the current rules of the Indian Act on the transmission of Indian status eligibility in our projections.
As part of these projections, we also developed scenarios to determine the potential impact of removing the exclusion after the second generation among people born in 2021 or later. The number of 300,000 people who would register before 2066 as a result of the removal of this exclusion has been mentioned several times before this committee.
This number, more precisely 320,000 people, is based on the scenario of strong growth in the registered population and therefore represents the upper end of these projections. The same exercise, using a low growth scenario, gives a total number of additional registered persons of 205,000. This is the lower end of the range. In total, with the removal of exclusion, the size of the registered population could be between 1.4 and 1.9 million people in 2066.
According to our projections, 90% of these additional individuals would be born off-reserve.
It is very important to note that these numbers only refer to people born after the start of the projection, that is after January 2021. They do not include people born before the start of our projections, i.e., before January 2021, who would be affected by a retrospective withdrawal of exclusion after the second generation.
These individuals would therefore be added to the range of 205,000 to 320,000 additional individuals that I mentioned earlier. The number of people affected by a retrospective removal of exclusion is difficult to estimate.
I will conclude by reminding you that population projections are never predictions. Rather, they are a tool that allows us to understand the possible future trajectories of the Canadian population, according to certain scenarios, and are therefore a relevant tool for planning. Statistics Canada’s projection work also benefits from the input of advisory committees, particularly from the provinces and territories.
Thank you for your attention. We are available to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martel. We will now proceed with questions from senators. Honourable senators, you each will have a two-minute intervention which includes a question and answer with a 30-second heads-up.
Senator Francis: You can provide the answer in writing too if you feel that is easier. Do you agree with the estimates shared by Dr. Palmater? If not, how many people out of the 300,000 does your department think will actually register? With all the previous amendments, fewer people were added than were initially predicted. What assumptions are you using to make these projections?
[Translation]
Mr. Martel: In our projections, we first project the number of people eligible for a change, and then we apply enrolment rates based on data observed in the census and the Indian Register. So that would be the actual number of people who will be able to register.
It is important to be aware that there is a pool of potential people, but then there are a certain number of people who will actually be registered. This is a very important distinction.
I would quickly add that the figures of 205,000 to 320,000 people that I mentioned, i.e., the range of people who could be registered if the exclusion were to end, are taken from the low, high and medium scenarios in our demographic projections, to which we obviously apply the changes that would result from this exclusion sheet if it were to be implemented in the coming years.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Are there any further questions?
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to bring up the point that when we look at our history, I talk to people about problems they have with finding their ancestors simply because they did not name the Indians. It was just an Indian. I have read books — the priest that lived at home for 50 years did not name the people in the community. He just said, “an Indian woman,” so there is a lot of loss. It makes it so difficult for people to register. Unlike the Métis, who can say, “Oh, I found an ancestor, seven years ago. Now I’m Métis.” That’s discrimination there, so it is difficult for them to trace their roots. I don’t know if you can speak about that.
When you look at the projections and how they expect, I think, 225,000 or more, how accurate is that? I know you just said it wasn’t, but you know what, that is being used against the second-generation cut-off. They are saying, “It is 300,000 people coming and look at what we have to do for them,” and it isn’t fair to us because it is a projection. When Chiefs came they were told — how many did they have? Ten thousand? Yeah. And they had 2,000 when they went through their members, so that’s a big difference.
I don’t want that number used against the second generation, and I don’t know if there is anything you can do to help clarify that a bit more.
[Translation]
Mr. Martel: I will answer in two parts.
With regard to the issue you raise concerning people’s names, this is not a factor that can be considered based on the data available for making projections, such as the Indian Register, as requested by Indigenous Services Canada. Currently, this factor is not taken into account in Statistics Canada’s population projections.
The other thing I would like to point out, and it is very important to understand this, is that there is always a degree of uncertainty associated with population projections. They must be used in this context. That is why Statistics Canada always publishes a number of scenarios for future developments. We do not have a crystal ball. We always publish a number of projection scenarios that provide a possible range. This helps to understand the uncertainty that can surround population projections. This applies to the work being done here, but also in other areas. It is very important. Statistics Canada fully recognizes the uncertainty associated with projections.
Finally, I would like to say that this is why Statistics Canada regularly revisits and adjusts projections, in order to be able to adapt these projections to changes in Canadian society. Uncertainty is inherent in any projection exercise. By using multiple scenarios and revising our projections regularly, we are able to reflect this uncertainty and remind users to exercise caution when using projections.
[English]
Senator McCallum: When you look at the number 300,000 which was given to us and then you look at your lower end of 225,000, that’s a huge range. Can you write to us about what argument you would make if this were being used against you?
Mr. Martel: I would simply refer to the fact that they are projections and based on three different scenarios. For the lower range, the 200,000 that you are referring to, it is based on the low-growth scenario, which assumes, for example, lower fertility. Nobody knows what the fertility in this country will be in 25 years or in 50 years. That’s why we’re developing scenarios and assumptions. The 320,000 people that we’re referring to is based on the high-growth scenario, which has an assumption of high fertility. That’s how we develop such a range, and in some cases, yes, the range can be quite significant because there are some components where there is more uncertainty than others. Another example of that is that sometimes there is a lot more uncertainty around, for example, components such as migration compared to other components such as, for example, mortality where life expectancy usually increases slowly year to year. It is easier, and there is less uncertainty about that. But for other components, there is more uncertainty. Certainly, the assumptions we developed for the second generation are subject to a large variability, yes.
Gayatri Jayaraman, Director General, Justice and Indigenous Statistics Branch, Social, Health, and Labour Statistics, Statistics Canada: Senator, thank you for that question. I might just add that Mr. Martel and team have produced estimates and projections at the provincial-territorial level. It sounds counterintuitive, but the more the granularity, the greater the uncertainty, and so I suspect there would be interest in knowing what this is at the reserve level, but there is going to be even greater uncertainty there. That’s why, in part, we’re sticking to the Canadian level and, to the extent possible, the provincial-territorial level.
Senator McCallum: But we are talking about the reserve level, so really you have no idea, is that what you are saying?
Ms. Jayaraman: What we are saying that we have the information for all of Canada but not each reserve specifically.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Senator Pate: I am not sure if this will help clarify or not. One of the responses we had from the department was that part of the challenge of predicting numbers was the fact that with the second-generation cut-off being removed, transmission of status could continue in perpetuity. It strikes me that it’s the same issue for anybody. What is your prediction the population of Canada going to be because I can pass on my status in perpetuity? So it strikes me as an odd way to frame it, like “Oh, now that we can’t extinguish First Nations People, we have to count them?” Sorry, maybe it is just me. Maybe it is late, and I’m too stunned to be able to figure anything out.
[Translation]
Mr. Martel: Perhaps I can help clarify.
What we show with the various scenarios we have developed in partnership with Indigenous Services Canada is that, obviously, if this exclusion were to end, the registered population would grow more rapidly than if the exclusion continued to exist. That is very clear. The Indigenous population could reach up to 1.9 million registered individuals in 2066. If the current provisions remained in place, there would be 1.6 million registered individuals. That is a significant difference. This is what ending the exclusion would lead to: faster growth in the registered population.
I would also like to point out that, overall, Canada’s population growth is based on other factors. For example, permanent and temporary immigration plays a particular role in Canada’s current population growth. This growth has been very rapid in recent years.
[English]
Senator McCallum: I just remembered something when you said that. When you look at your self-identification, we know that there are a lot of “pretendians” out there that can balloon the number, and that’s one of the things that I have been working on is the people that are pretending or that have self-identified. That’s what you have. So it doesn’t seem like it is a reliable method for First Nations, and why do you even self-identify? Why is it not more rigid, more secure?
[Translation]
Mr. Martel: We need contributions and parameters to feed into the projections and consider all the factors of change. In our work, we must remember that we are trying to identify individuals who, for example, if exclusion ended after the second generation, would be eligible for registered status. We identify pools of individuals through the information available to us in the Indian Register and the population census, using variables related to First Nations, to people who identify as Indigenous when they answer the question where they can self‑identify as such. They did not necessarily identify with First Nations, but they have First Nations ancestry based on ethnic origin. There are different variables that allow us to identify pools of relevant people to fuel changes that may occur in the coming years, including the end of exclusion. This is how it works in the projections: There are pools that are identified based on the census and the Indian Register.
[English]
Ms. Jayaraman: Just to add to Mr. Martel’s comments, Senator McCallum, the numbers that Mr. Martel shared are based upon the Indian Register, which is not about self‑identifying, as you are well aware. The census is self‑identification. We also do projections using the census, but the numbers provided by Mr. Martel are based upon the Indian Register, an administrative data source.
Senator McCallum: — the self-reporting individuals could apply for second-generation cut-off, then?
[Translation]
Mr. Martel: I mentioned a range of 205,000 to 320,000 people who could obtain registered status if there were an end to exclusion after the second generation, but the pool behind these figures is more like 250,000 to 390,000 people. That’s a lot more, actually. There is a pool of 250,000 to 390,000 people. In this pool, there would be between 205,000 and 320,000 people who are actually registered. This is a smaller proportion. This is what needs to be clearly identified. The projections allow us to proceed in two stages, and these are the two stages.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Thank you. The time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us today.
I would like now to introduce our third panel of witnesses. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Shuswap Band, Chief Barbara Cote; and from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, Rochelle King, Policy Analyst. Thank you both for joining us today.
Chief Cote will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a short question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Chief Cote to give her opening remarks.
Chief Barbara Cote, Shuswap Band: Kukwstsétsemc, senators, for the invitation to appear. I am Kukpi7 Barbara Cote, elected Chief of the Shuswap Band. I am appearing from unceded Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh territories. I am here to speak to the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations submission, or BCAFN, advocates on behalf of the 204 First Nations in British Columbia.
Last week, B.C. Chiefs-in-Assembly passed a unanimous resolution calling on Canada to end all legislative and sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act; to eliminate the section 6(2) status and the second-generation cut-off; to reinstate all women and their descendants affected by enfranchisement and ensure that women and their children can return to their natal bands without discrimination; to remove the no-liability clauses in Bill S-2 and previous amendments; and to amend the membership provisions of the Indian Act to ensure consistency with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.
Chiefs have been calling for these changes for many years and have passed numerous resolutions calling on Canada to enact them. Canada hasn’t listened.
Thank you to those who spoke powerful words before me. The many Chiefs and Councillors, leaders of the First Nations organizations and First Nations women and youth who have appeared before you are all rights holders. I echo their voices in supporting Bill S-2 if it is amended to remedy the remaining inequalities in Indian status. Without the amendments I mentioned, the descendants of the Nicholas plaintiffs will be facing the same discrimination and will only give their descendants half status or none at all.
I also want to make an important distinction between Indian status and band membership. In our nation, we know who our people are, and Chiefs-in-Assembly have consistently affirmed and reaffirmed our right to determine our citizenship and membership as called for in BCAFN Resolution 05/2025, passed with unanimous consensus last week.
However, Indian status is different. Status represents the legal relationship between Indians and the federal government. While we did not create the Indian Act, nor do we promote its racist underpinnings, we know it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Therefore, since Canada determines Indian status, and Canada was the one that made a mess of Indian status rules in its attempts to forcibly assimilate us, then Canada is responsible for fixing this mess. Canada must, therefore, immediately eliminate the second-generation cut-off and enable First Nations women and men to transmit status equality, as one parent.
The minister told the Senate that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution to the second-generation cut-off, but, senators, section 15 of the Charter is one size fits all. Section 15 affirms equality. Section 15 of the Charter says you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex or race, and that is one size fits all. Equality is for everyone.
The minister also said that the answers must come from communities. Well, the answer from communities in B.C. is clear: 204 of Canada’s 630 First Nations are saying, “Eliminate the second-generation cut-off now.” That is one third of all First Nations.
BCAFN is part of Indigenous Services Canada’s Collaborative Process, and we have been consulted over decades on this. Given the timeline set out for the process, it will be four or five years before new legislation removing the second-generation cut-off could be in effect. Even this depends on the Liberals staying in power.
Senators, we are suffering the impacts of the second-generation cut-off now. It must be immediately removed, as 27% of all First Nations individuals in B.C. are section 6(2)s. In Shuswap, 40% of my members are section 6(2)s. Our children and grandchildren are being excluded right now, not in some distant future.
We at the Shuswap Band include all of those children who have been rejected by Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, because of the second-generation cut-off. We use our own source revenue so that these community members can enjoy the same programs and services as all status members, such as sports, education, culture and arts. We include them in anything that a status child would get.
In my own family, we are impacted by the second-generation cut-off, which divides our families and communities into haves and have-nots. When my mother regained her status in 1985, she was not given her — band number but was instead given her father’s band number, which was Shuswap, when she was actually raised as —. This meant that she was not able to inherit her mother’s or her father’s land as a woman, and her brother’s children inherited all the land.
It is long past time to end the discrimination and move toward meaningful reconciliation based on respect for our women and children.
Thank you, senators. Kukwstsétsemc.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Chief Cote.
We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a two-minute intervention, including questions and answers, with a 30-second head’s up.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much. I had a question for Chief Cote. I don’t know whether you were able to follow the exchanges that we had here this evening with Minister Gull-Masty.
I note that your First Nation is on the list of the 90 communities and organizations that are being consulted and that Minister Gull-Masty feels she owes it to not move forward today but to consult and at some later date, potentially, address this issue. In the meantime, we should not in any way entertain any amendment.
What do you say to that, given your unique status here at a time when we have difficult decisions to make? You are one of the ones being consulted. We are in this moment where we need to make decisions in the next week or so.
What advice would you give us, please?
Ms. Cote: I guess we call them community members, those people who do not have status. We support our non-status members in our community. We are lucky that we have our own source revenue to do that. We support things like recreation, education, hockey, paying for tournaments and overnight travel, formative experiences, cultivating a healthy lifestyle, a sense of belonging, empowerment and inclusiveness. We believe everyone should be able to access education and education funding for all our community members, status or not.
Contribution agreements from ISC are made based on the number of status Indians, and fewer status Indians means less funding for programs and services. More status Indians means more funding for child care, education, safe and healthy homes and for reliable community infrastructure. Adequate funding proportionate to the people who comprise our community should not be a point of contention or justification for delay.
As the minister said in the Senate chamber last week, ensuring that we respond to and provide funding to address years of critical underfunding for First Nations communities is not something that we should identify as requiring justification.
Take this opportunity to eliminate the second-generation cut‑off now. You cannot continue to consult on rights violations. You cannot consult on legislative extinction, which amounts to genocide.
It has been 40 years since the second-generation cut-off came into effect, and in the view of the B.C. First Nations, it is time to stop consulting and address the rights violations and end the post-1985 sex and race discrimination.
The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, along with the Union of British Columbian Indian Chiefs, or UBCIC, is part of the 90 involved in the collaborative process, and we believe that the current consultation should be about the transition plan. What is needed? There are resource issues. What can the government do to support individuals and communities?
The consultation should be about how the removal of the second-generation cut-off can be facilitated and supported, which is exactly what was promised to us by government and by the minister.
In this collaborative process, we have never been asked or told about Bill S-2. No one came to us in this process and said, “Did you know there is a chance that all of you could be changed through amendments to this legislation?” The duplicity is clear proof. We will never be handed our rights by the government. We will always have to fight for them.
Ongoing consultations and ending the legislative extinction of First Nations under the Indian Act are not mutually exclusive. Amending Bill S-2 to eliminate the second-generation cut-off does not take away the voices, authority or self-governance of bands who want to determine their own membership codes, which are distinct from their Indian status.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Chief. You have been very clear. It is much appreciated.
Senator Francis: Welcome, Chief Cote. Those opposed to making amendments to this bill have cited the need to first assess the potential cost of reinstating status for potentially hundreds of thousands of people. What would be your response to that?
Ms. Cote: This is fear mongering and totally inaccurate. In my community, we want to welcome all our people home and are prepared to do so. Statistics Canada predicts that the removal of the second-generation cut-off will see new entitlements to status for 22,000 individuals immediately and about 320,000 over 45 years. Spread out over 630 First Nations, this is a few people per year per band. Obviously, bands will be impacted differently, but clearly there is no cause for alarm any way this is looked at. Even if everyone eligible applied and everyone was accepted and everyone returned to a reservation, which is unlikely, the financial burdens to bands will be minimal. Also, at the time of every single amendment from 1985 to present, the number of those newly entitled and those who registered was higher than the number that actually registered.
Senator McCallum: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. You said that the majority of B.C. First Nations are ready to move with this and that they are one third of all First Nations. If the majority are ready, would you agree that a transition plan in the form of a framework would help transition different groups through the different places?
If B.C. is ready, they prepare a framework to look at what that means to them. Then other people could follow suit. Do you know what I am saying? They would have a transition plan in the form of a framework.
Ms. Cote: I hope I’m going to answer your question in a way that makes sense. There is no half-way or middle ground, compromise or interim solution that with respect the legal rights of First Nations women and our descendants to be free from sex and race-based discrimination in Indian status.
Senators, use this opportunity, please, to end the second-generation cut-off now. You heard from Sharon McIvor and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. Let’s end the discrimination now and stop sowing division among our young people.
Senator McCallum: The reason I brought that up is that this bill cannot have money attached to it. Otherwise, it is beyond the scope. The Senate cannot. When I said to one of the women that we are going to do the amendment, she said, “And we will decide what it is we need,” which separates the funding from the amendment. That’s what I’m trying to establish here. That’s why I said, “framework.” We cannot attach a money figure to you.
Of course, people don’t know what that is anyway. You still have to decide what you need. That’s a conversation between you and the government, but I thought if there is a framework in place — $300,000 is a lot of money, and they use that as a scare tactic.
If we went through different provinces or to different groups, because some will be more ready, then they could be the framework: This is how we did it. That’s why I brought that question up.
Ms. Cote: Thank you, senator. I will take a pause, and, if I am able, respond to you in writing.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Ms. Cote: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Chief, of those First Nations — I believe you mentioned one third of all First Nations — came up with a definitive position on this bill and the need to remove the second-generation cut-off, among other things that you mentioned. Would you characterize those nations as rights holders?
Ms. Cote: Yes. Absolutely.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: The minister mentioned the importance of hearing directly from local Chiefs on this issue. You can share with us BCAFN’s process when developing a position on issues?
Ms. Cote: BCAFN is a group for all B.C. Chiefs to attend, and there are motions that are brought to the floor, seconded and then voted on there. That’s my take on it. I don’t attend all of the meetings, but they meet monthly.
Just last week, the elected Chiefs in assembly spoke on behalf of their communities and unanimously passed a resolution calling for an immediate end to the second-generation cut-off. This resolution can be shared with you.
We have resolutions at BCAFN also, from 2023 and 2019, and our partner on the First Nations Leadership Council, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, have resolutions going back to at least 2007 on addressing the racial quota introduced in Bill C-31, stating that Bill C-31 undermines the ability of First Nations to maintain and protect the legal legislative status and existence of its present and future citizens.
Senator Clement: Chief Cote, I just want to thank you. I don’t have a question. It looks like you will be the last witness we hear from on this. It has been good work, tough work, and you were very clear today. I will say Merci and Niá:wen, which is thank you in Mohawk.
Ms. Cote: Kukwstsétsemc
The Acting Chair: Chief, before we conclude, I offer you the last word, if there is anything further you want to add before we conclude this proceeding.
Ms. Cote: My last word is to say, take this opportunity to eliminate the second-generation cut-off now. You cannot continue to consult on rights violations. You cannot consult on legislative extinction, which amounts to genocide. It is 40 years since the second-generation cut-off came into effect, and, in the view of B.C. First Nations, it is time to stop consulting and to address the rights violation and end the post-1985 sex and race discrimination.
The Acting Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I wish to, again, thank our witnesses and their support staff for joining us today. Thank you so much. Wela’lioq.
Ms. Cote: Thank you, everyone.
The Acting Chair: Honourable colleagues, that brings us to the end of our meeting today. Before we adjourn, please let me inform you and the public that, when we reconvene on Tuesday, November 18, the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-2. To this end, the committee clerk, on behalf of the steering committee, will send via email tomorrow a standard memo to all APPA members, encouraging them to consult the assigned Parliamentary Counsel in the Law Clerk’s Office for assistance in drafting amendments.
(The committee adjourned.)