THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.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: Good morning, honourable senators. I declare this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples open.
Before we begin, I would like to ask that all senators and other in-person participants 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 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 begin now by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I am the deputy chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I would like to read something into the record this morning.
I have done some research on enfranchisement, the provisions in Bill S-2, and my own family history. Based on the available information I have, I do not believe that I fall within the scope of new entitlements under the current wording of Bill S-2, nor would any family member. However, if Bill S-2 should be further amended to address the second-generation cut-off or other issues of entitlement and I find that it impacts me or members of my family, I will keep the committee informed so as to ensure I do not find myself in a conflict of interest.
I invite my colleagues at this time to introduce themselves.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator McNair: John McNair, senator from New Brunswick. Welcome this morning.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario. More specifically, Cornwall, Ontario, on traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba, Treaty 1 territory, and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.
Senator McCallum: Welcome to all of you. It’s good to see you here. Mary Jane McCallum from Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region, Barren Lands First Nation.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Senator Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kuei. [Innu-aimun spoken] I want to say hello to the incredible men and women we have with us and, of course, my fellow senators. I am Michèle Audette [Innu-aimun spoken] from Quebec.
Senator Moreau: I am Pierre Moreau, and I represent the senatorial division of The Laurentides, in Quebec. I am the Government Representative in the Senate.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues, and welcome to all of our guests as well.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to address a possible conflict of interest like you did.
I spoke to the Ethics Officer. I met with him because it was brought to my attention that there might be a conflict because of my history and my First Nations having always lived under the Indian Act. I met with the Ethics Officer, and we went into the code and what was considered immediate family. Then he asked me, “Do you have any private interest here?” I said, “No, I don’t. We are here to look at the rights that were removed because of racism and discrimination under the Indian Act, and it is my responsibility to ensure that they get those rights back.” He said, “Okay, no conflict of interest.” I just wanted the committee to know that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum.
Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) 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 Canada.
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 my honour and privilege to chair this very important meeting.
Before we begin with the clause-by-clause portion of this meeting, I would like to turn the floor over to Senator Moreau for five minutes of remarks. Senator Moreau, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I want to commend you, Madam Chair, on your handling of these proceedings.
I would like to thank Senator Audette, who agreed to sponsor the important piece of legislation that is Bill S-2, as well as all the committee members for the work they’ve done.
[English]
Colleagues, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has undertaken some important work over the last months. It has spent long hours in and outside of committee. You have heard very personal and powerful stories. I commend and thank you for your work.
Before clause by clause begins, I wish to briefly put the government’s position on the record. I don’t expect it will surprise any of you with what I have to say.
Colleagues, Bill S-2, as the chair has just underlined, is primarily a response to Nicholas v. Canada. The bill will ensure entitlement to registration for individuals and their descendants who lost it through enfranchisement, affecting approximately 3,500 individuals. As the minister explained, this is the first and primary concern of Bill S-2. This is the core of the bill, and I question whether the amendments fall within its scope.
As you all know, there is also a core deadline that must be respected of April 30, 2026. Further delay would add uncertainty and potentially further harm those 3,500 people, some of whom you’ve heard from during your study.
The minister noted that a lot of work done by this committee focused on an amendment regarding the second-generation cut‑off. Despite the importance of this issue, the minister must exercise her constitutional duty to consult. The minister cannot neglect this step. As she explained to the committee, if the process is bypassed, the government opens itself up to litigation.
Without disregarding the remaining inequities in the Indian Act, the government is committed to finding ways in which to address the second-generation cut-off and the section 10 voting threshold. Work to develop possible solutions is now under way with a collaborative process that will conclude next month, in December.
The minister has said that she will return to this committee and share the results of that work. I have all the confidence that she will do so as promptly as possible.
The minister has said she must respect the duty to consult. She noted, as a former Indigenous leader, that duty is the criterion that she will uphold in her work in respect of free, prior and informed consent and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The government is in the process of hearing from many First Nations rights holders and organizations on proposed solutions for a path forward as to how the second-generation cut-off can be addressed. In consulting First Nations rights holders, the government also avoids unintended consequences that could entrench new barriers or exclusions and replicate the very kinds of discrimination we all seek to eliminate.
It is the government’s position again — and I must underline it — to respectfully request that the duty to consult with rights holders is respected on this critical issue.
Colleagues, everything I have communicated with you today is consistent with what you have already heard from the minister and, again, should not come as a surprise. The debate on the second-generation cut-off has evoked passionate reactions and a vigorous exchange of ideas, but I trust that, as the chamber of sober second thought, we will carry forward our mandate, respect the Constitution and respect the obligations of the Crown.
Thank you for your time. Thank you, deputy chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
Senators, we will now move on to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-2. Before we start, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any time a senator is not clear where we are at in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identify to the committee other clauses in the bill where the amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
I will take my time in this process so that we are all on the same page, and I will not be hurrying in this regard. Are there any questions to the points that I have just raised? Seeing none, we will proceed.
Before we do that, I would like to invite to the table government officials present in the room with us today. Please welcome, from Indigenous Services Canada, Lori Doran, Director General, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector; Stuart Hooft, Director, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector; Jean-Charles Lebeau, Legal Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, CIRNAC/ISC Legal Services, from the Department of Justice Canada. Welcome to the table.
Ms. Doran, Mr. Hooft and Mr. Lebeau are here if members have any questions regarding Bill S-2. They are here to support us with their knowledge. Thank you.
To start, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Thank you. Shall the title of the act stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Moving to clause 1, shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. I understand that there is an amendment from Senator Prosper around clause 4. I invite you, Senator Prosper, to read your amendment. You have the floor to speak to it.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move:
That Bill S-2 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,
(a) by adding the following after line 28:
“(1.1) Paragraph 6(1)(a.3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a.3) that person is a direct descendant of a person who is, was or would have been entitled to be registered under paragraph (a), (a.1) or (a.2);”;
(b) by adding the following after line 31:
“(2.1) Paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(f) at least one parent of that person is entitled to be registered under this section or, if the parent is no longer living, was or would have been so entitled at the time of their death.
(2.2) Subsections 6(2) and (2.1) of the Act are repealed.
(2.3) The portion of subsection 6(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(a.3) and (f),”;
(c) by adding the following after line 37:
“(4) Paragraph 6(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) a person who is described in paragraph (1)(a.1) or (f) and who was no longer living on April 17, 1985, is deemed to be entitled to be registered under that paragraph; and”.
Colleagues, before I begin, I want to thank and take a moment to recognize some people in the room: Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Zoë Craig-Sparrow, Mélanie Savard and others. These people and many others appeared before us in committee and are sitting with us today as members of the public gallery observing today’s clause-by-clause consideration. Good morning to you all.
Colleagues, I believe we carry a great responsibility when we sit around this table. Part of that responsibility includes the need to ensure that we seriously weigh the advice and experience of those who have taken the time to come here and testify on this legislation that we are deliberating.
Now, we are here today, and we have an important choice to make. Do we listen to the minister, do nothing and wait patiently for stand-alone legislation to fix the second-generation cut-off? Or do we listen to the numerous individuals and collective rights holders who have come before this committee pushing for us to make that change now?
Since September 24, we have had 10 meetings. We have heard from 57 unique witnesses and received 47 briefs. We followed a long-standing tradition in this committee to recall ministers when dealing with important legislation, and we heard from the minister twice. Looking back on the last time that we amended registration provisions in the Indian Act — namely, Bill S-3 — this committee also heard from the minister twice and summoned officials to testify three different times over the course of that study.
Of all the testimony we received outside of the testimony from government, the only testimony that expressed some concerns around potential amendments were the lawyer in the Nicholas case and members of the Michel Callihoo Nation, who were clear that they were not opposed to removing the principle of the second-generation cut-off, but instead, worried about how any amendments would affect the timing and passage of this bill.
In fact, Mr. Ryan Beaton, who represented the plaintiffs, stated:
The only thing I would say as counsel for the plaintiffs is, of course, it would be ideal to fix everything that could be identified in this bill. For the situation of the plaintiffs, we do have a court-ordered deadline. The plaintiffs would certainly not oppose addressing other issues in the bill, but there is a deadline by which the remedy needs to be in place for the plaintiffs themselves.
To them I say today that this amendment does not have to slow down the bill. We have worked hard to listen to all concerns, and I believe that this amendment and the accompanying amendments that I will propose if this main amendment is passed responds to the majority of concerns raised, including those around timing.
I look at the programming motion the government introduced at the end of the second-generation cut-off for Canadians born abroad, and I certainly see where there is political will, there is a way to expedite things, and we wouldn’t even need a programming motion.
I say again for clarity, there is no reason why this bill cannot pass the committee today. As long as the government does not engage in procedural tactics, an amended bill could be debated at third reading as soon as next week. Under the current rules, depending on the will of the chamber, an amended version of this bill could be voted on and sent to the other place as early as next Thursday.
The amendment has four parts. The first part is the proposed 1.1, which removes the 1985 cut-off. The second part, 2.1, moves to a one-parent rule. Part 3, 2.2 in the amendment, removes the second-generation cut-off. Part 4, 2.3 in the amendment, makes sure that current generations would still be entitled to be registered even if their parent has passed, if that parent would have been entitled to be registered under the new rules.
I have worked closely with the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group on this amendment, and I certainly want to take the time to thank the women who have pushed so hard for decades to fight this wrong.
I chose to champion this amendment because I believe there is nothing more vital to the survival of First Nations than this change. The fact is that we cannot govern whom First Nations people fall in love with. This change says love who you love and do not worry because your children will not fall by the wayside just because you choose to parent with someone who is not First Nations. This change says no, the government will not continue its divide and conquer strategy of creating inequities among First Nations children by continuing to place limits on who is and who isn’t recognized as a First Nations person. This change stands up against a policy of extinction, and it embraces the lost generations who, despite it being their birthright and being known and claimed by their communities, cannot access the programs and services that are only made available to those with a piece of paper that says they have status.
Since Bill S-2 was introduced in the chamber, I thought about this moment in history. I have sat with Elders and leadership and contemplated today in ceremony. I can’t not do something.
Just last week the Mi’kmaq Grand Council, alongside Wolastoqey leadership, I held a press conference in support of these amendments. I know from every Indian Chief in Nova Scotia who support these amendments, and I know from my time as Chief and Regional Chief, that many people have called for this change for decades.
It is my hope that colleagues around this table will stand in solidarity with the many witnesses who have testified and the tens of thousands of individual rights holders represented by the various Chiefs and organizations that have passed resolutions, written letters, briefs and given testimony in support of this amendment. Wela’lin. Thank you very much.
Senator Francis: Thank you, Senator Prosper. I’m in full support of this amendment. It is the direct response to the calls we heard from most witnesses, many of whom stressed that further delays in addressing the discrimination created by the second-generation cut-off and related inequities was causing ongoing, severe and irreparable harm to individuals, including children.
This change is urgently needed because it ends the legislative extinction, a key component of the assimilationist agenda of the past 150 years. As a result, it is key to ensuring the continued survival of First Nations. This step is fully in line with the constitutional obligation of senators to ensure the federal government respects the rights of vulnerable populations.
I also want to remind everyone that multiple witnesses cited the report this committee issued in 2022 entitled Make it stop! Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration, where we called on Canada to take immediate action to address the second-generation cut-off and other inequities.
National Chief Woodhouse, in particular, said that the Assembly of First Nations requested that the Senate’s consistent support remain the same to remove all the discriminatory provisions in the act.
Additionally, Jeremy Matson said:
I came here in 2022 and 2023 regarding various studies. What good is the Make It Stop! report? Why would this committee make a report about the same subjects we talked about years ago and then not resort to making amendments and doing exactly what this committee said it would? That would be an insult to me and to the United Nations, which came here before with the CEDAW. I think that was one of the first times the United Nations appeared before a committee in this country.
In my opinion, having been the chair of this committee at the time the report was released, I feel it’s important that the committee stand firmly with the recommendations it made back in 2022. This amendment does exactly that. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. Let me begin by thanking Senator Prosper and team for pulling together such a comprehensive package, and to note that it is entirely consistent with the 2022 report by the APPA committee, then chaired by Senator Brian Francis. It is also an important continuation of work that was done by some senators still around this table. I’m thinking Senator Tannas and myself maybe being the two, with Senator Pate arriving soon, we hope.
In that, for 2017, eight years ago, we had a similar opportunity. More than once in the process, senators made the decision to address and attempt to redress the unquestionable, ongoing discrimination on the basis of sex against Indigenous women in this country.
One of the reasons that Senate leadership is so important and what we have before us with this amendment is just the most recent example of our fulfilling our duties as senators in that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has two sections that particularly pertain to Indigenous women in this country, who are as deserving in law for their Charter rights as any other woman in this country.
Section 15 is the equality guarantee. I speak to this with some considerable personal experience with being involved in drafting both sections 15 and 28, and I thank the thousands of women in Canada who made it possible for us to actually change the Constitution in this regard.
Section 15, as the equality guarantee, specifically addresses discrimination on the basis of sex. Section 28, often forgotten as the other notwithstanding clause in our Constitution, is very clear that nothing in the Charter is to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, that everything in the Charter is equally applied to male and female persons.
So we have before us today a pattern by governments of Canada, more than one — a 40-year history — government after government after government that has only done what the courts, for the most part, have told the government they must do, always finding that the Government of Canada is discriminating on the basis of sex against Indigenous women in this country.
Eight years ago, senators did their best to try and fix this once and for all. We actually believed that, through Bill S-3, we had succeeded. We were wrong, and that has been proven over time. Eight years later, we sit here today with the opportunity to actually address fully and comprehensively discrimination on the basis of sex against Indigenous women, which is clearly unconstitutional.
In terms of Senator Moreau’s reference to constitutional duty for the minister to consult, let me suggest that the constitutional duty is to eradicate sex discrimination against Indigenous women in this country, and with an opportunity like we have again now, to do it fully, comprehensively, and not, yet again, in a piecemeal, mean-spirited manner.
I speak with strongest possible support for Senator Prosper’s amendment and would urge other senators to consider it in positive terms as well. Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: We heard from 57 witnesses. So many witnesses, so many women. I want to thank Senator Prosper for this package of amendments. I am going to support all of them. I’m going to speak now, briefly.
Chief Slett, Pam Palmater, Mary Eberts, Zoë Craig-Sparrow. I say those names because many of these women that testified were not only experts in their fields — lawyers, administrators, mothers, grandmothers, professionals using their expertise to provide testimony to this committee — not only using their expertise, but pouring their own lived experience into the record to talk to us about going further with Bill S-2.
I struggled with this. I listened to the minister, carefully. I listened to Senator Moreau this morning, carefully. Often in this place, we are told, “Don’t amend. Perfection is the enemy. You know, it will delay things if you do this. Don’t do that. This is good enough.” So I struggled to the point where I needed to consult a friend, an Elder, who doesn’t necessarily agree with me in supporting these amendments. But I struggled and spoke to him, and he said to me, “So, Bernadette, did you listen?” Yes. “Did you learn?” Yes. “Then do your job and vote.” I think that’s pretty clear advice.
So I’m letting you know how I’m voting. I’m going to support. I am persuaded by the legal arguments presented by Senator Prosper. I am persuaded by the legal arguments that Senator McPhedran also laid out. And I am persuaded by the evidence of Mélanie Savard, who told us that to continue in this direction, this incremental, piecemeal direction, means that lateral violence will continue within communities. So I support this amendment.
[Translation]
That’s all. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Clement.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Madam Chair, I very much appreciate your approach and the way you are presiding over the consideration of this bill, a polarizing and emotionally charged piece of legislation. It evokes the old idea that, because we are Indigenous women from First Nations, we should accept the bare minimum, if not much less than the bare minimum, when it comes to human rights.
I thank the government representative for sharing the government’s official position. My official position has never changed: I wanted to join the Senate in order to do away with or amend the Indian Act.
It’s been 28 years now, and the articles can prove it. I said it. I was 28. When Senator Francis was chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples, he informed us that Bill C-38 would soon be debated in the House. We were virulent and thoughtful in our stance, saying ever so diplomatically that, for us, the bill was an opportunity to discuss issues that had been neglected after the passage of Bill S-3, demands that had been disregarded and the position that had been held by Judge Masse in Descheneaux.
Today, in relation to Bill S-2, I maintain my position that nowhere in the contract to advance a bill does it say that the legislation cannot be improved or that a wide range of solutions are not possible. I may not have the answer, and perhaps someone’s comments will help me see things in a way I hadn’t considered.
When I read the amendments with you, it’s perfectly clear to me. Keep in mind that, for Bill C-31, there was no court decision. Canada showed some courage: it had an obligation to amend the law, under the Constitution, the Charter, and the sections Senator McPhedran referred to.
There is a helpful precedent that tells us we may not have to wait for the courts to rule before we take action or do more following a ruling. I don’t think that means we can’t collectively appreciate what it is like for an Innu woman who has been rejected, who has returned to her reserve and who has suffered discrimination.
I am hopeful that procedural tactics will be set aside. I am hopeful that the experts will be believed, those who, for 40 years, have been talking about this issue. I am also hopeful that those who cite the duty to consult will put forward amendments that are the culmination of extensive consultations.
I want to praise Senator Prosper’s amendment for two reasons.
[English]
When I was young, I was told the enemy will be the Chief if you want to have an amendment. So it was very powerful to hear from a man, former Chief and regional Chief, that this bill should go further, and your amendment is showing what you said in your speech for the second reading in the chamber. So I support — I’m allowed to support this amendment. Am I going to support all of them? I don’t know. But this one — it’s a long overdue amendment that should have been there in 1985. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette.
Senator McCallum: The gift of being in committee is that it allows us to hear the stories of the affected that gets to be entered as evidence and to teach us to become compassionate. Whether written or oral, the witnesses give us much, and we give them hope — hope that, as parliamentarians, we will do our work to bring them justice.
What I have gotten from this experience of committee work with Bill S-2 is that stories reveal themselves in powerful, purposeful ways, and that is our way of being and knowing. When that happens, we are in the midst of the sacred. Remember that.
As a First Nations person, I do my work in Senate committees with my ways of being and knowing. I understood that senators were picked to represent people, bring their voices and concerns to the floor, not as an individual, but to represent the collective. And that is how we First Nations people were taught before residential schools.
When we have experienced the Indian Act as closely as we have, part of the job as a senator is to decolonize one of the most — they call this the belly of the beast, and that’s where we are.
This is a quote from Judge Masse:
When Parliament chooses not to consider the broader implications of judicial decisions by limiting their scope to the bare minimum, a certain abdication of legislative power in favour of the judiciary will likely take place. In such cases, it appears that the holders of legislative power prefer to wait for the courts to rule on a case-by-case basis before acting, and for their judgments to gradually force statutory amendments to finally bring them in line with the Constitution.
From the perspective of Canadian citizens, all of whom are potential litigants, the failure to perform this legislative duty and the abdication of power that may result are obviously not desirable.
Collective rights make Canada unique. Collective rights belong to groups of people and are entrenched in the original Constitution Act of 1982. The purpose of collective rights is to affirm the collective identity of groups in society, to create a society where people of different identities belong.
As First Nations, we have a precontact collective identity that is shared identity as a group with a common language and culture. Collective rights are rights guaranteed to specific groups and Canadian society for historical and constitutional reasons. Unlike individual rights, which protect every person, collective rights protect specific groups and require government action for their implementation.
People have focused on the individual rights, but there are collective rights. We are a collective. I know that. I have lived that life.
There is a role that senators hold. They hold a duty to promote core principles and values of our democratic system, especially given the Senate’s traditional role in acting on behalf of groups under-represented in the House of Commons whereby the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Reference re Senate Reform 2014:
Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process . . . .
That is our job as the Senate. The House of Commons does not have that responsibility. It’s our only opportunity, unless they take away the amendments, and then we’ll have to put them back in. So we’ll wait.
With the order of reference for the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on March 3, 2022, they were authorized to examine and report on the federal government’s constitutional treaty political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. That is what we have here. That is what we have.
As a senator, I have a responsibility to create entry points for First Nations who have been excluded to make their way back, respectfully, timely, and not at the whim of a prime minister through a minister. It comes from my own need and longing to engage with my Nokiiwin ancestry and to say to the Senate world that my culture counts. The Elders say that if our work comes from spirit and heart, and if it’s done in a good way, it will count. As senators, we engaged in a good way.
The stories from witnesses were complex. It gets to the heart of why senators, who are First Nations, Métis and Inuit matter in the first place. We must choose our actions carefully, because before us stands the future. The people who have been left stranded, some for a lifetime, in the second-generation cut-off, are questioning whether they can embrace their First Nations, Métis and Inuit identity and culture. The concerns centre around belonging.
The specific reasons of living a life in limbo are ours collectively because of colonial history that shadows our being. We have the right to know who we are, like other Canadians, and that this right involves responsibilities.
How can the government speak about the critical importance of reconciliation when the eventual result of the second-generation cut-off will be a drastic decline in the population, eventually leading to extinguishment? That has been documented. How will second generation and registration achieve reconciliation? Overall, it is critical for the future of the First Nations population and identity that they exercise exclusive responsibility for determining their citizens as it has always been.
First Nations need to be involved in determining appropriate solutions. How would consultation address that there is a need for policy solutions that are tailored to First Nations? You let the communities get on with their decolonization and healing after years of oppression and head toward self-determination after years of assimilation and genocide.
I still have times when I want to kill the Indian in me. That is assimilation. That is what is happening here.
I want to say that I fully support this amendment. I want to end with this: The Clatworthy projection that the population of descendants who will not be entitled to Indian registration is projected to increase with just four generations. That’s 100 years. Over half of First Nation individuals expect to be non‑entitled to status within 75 to 100 years. In other words, within only one generation, a majority of children born to First Nations parents are expected to lack entitlement to registration. Within four generations, roughly 15 of every 16 newly born children are expected to lack entitlement to registration.
When I look at that, and I look at the intersectionality of what is happening here, we acknowledge the experience is shaped by a combination of our race, gender and class, and we must look at this issue as multidimensional, constantly changing, and we need to address it in a timely manner. Thank you.
Senator McNair: Thank you to Senator Prosper for all the work you have done on this file and this important issue, and your staff.
Thank you to the clerk and the staff of the committee for all the work they have done in turning things around so quickly.
Thank you to my colleagues for your comments. There is nothing that has been said today that I would disagree with in any substantial way.
Most importantly, thank you to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, for your honest and heartfelt testimony, which is very difficult. It’s incomprehensible that the Indian Act and the discriminatory language that still exists in it are here in this day and age.
Senator McCallum talked about the future. I thought it was fitting to hear a young child earlier in the committee meeting, because that’s why we’re all here. Everyone in this room is hoping that child’s future is better than it is today.
My colleague, Senator Moreau, correctly indicated earlier today that Bill S-2 was drafted to deal with the Nicholas case and specifically drafted for that reason. It imposed a deadline of April 30, 2026, which we’re all aware of.
Minister Gull-Masty indicated to the committee that we have an opportunity, with Bill S-2, to immediately restore status to 3,500 people. She also committed to the committee to find proper solutions and collaborations with First Nations partners on the second-generation cut-off and the section 10 thresholds and set out a timeline, at least initially, to deal with this process.
This has been a difficult discussion. I struggle with the fact that I believe Bill S-2 with amendments is at serious risk of not passing in the other place. I also struggle with the fact that the Michel Calihoo Nation Society supports Bill S-2 passing in its current form. Beverley Asmann, a board member of the Callihoo Society in her emotional testimony asked the committee not to kill this bill in its present form. Bill S-2 in its current form benefits approximately 3,200 Michel band members.
I believe the more prudent approach is to pass Bill S-2 unamended and to work with the minister to prepare stand-alone legislation to deal with the second-generation cut-off and the section 10 thresholds which everyone unanimously needs to be done as quickly as possible.
I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I wasn’t expecting to take the floor again this morning. However, I feel I must, to set the record straight regarding some of the things Senator McPhedran alluded to in her remarks. I also feel the need to say that, ultimately, the issue that seems to divide senators here — the government’s position and the position of senators who support the amendments — is not the real issue.
I was here both times the minister appeared in connection with the bill. She is the first to recognize the discrimination inflicted on Indigenous peoples under the Indian Act. She is the first to recognize how important it is to remedy the second generation cut-off. She is the first Indigenous person to hold the role of Indigenous services minister, and she herself experienced the discrimination caused by the second generation cut-off in her own family. Her remarks were poignant.
I think all senators can agree that the emotion expressed by the witnesses who so generously agreed to appear before the committee and the emotion conveyed by the minister during her appearances are rooted in the same things. These emotions not only come from a place of passion, given how deeply the stakeholders care about the issue, but also reflect the extent of the wounds that have been caused, pursuant to the Indian Act. We can all agree on that.
The government doesn’t plan to deny the discrimination or constitutional obligations around the lack of discrimination. Senator McPhedran referred to the fact that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in every respect, not just towards Indigenous peoples and generations, but in every respect. The government sees things exactly the same way.
The issue we are grappling with today isn’t about whether to address the second generation cut-off, which the minister herself committed to doing. The issue we are grappling with today is how to do that in a way that respects constitutional obligations and obligations to the Crown. As a chamber of sober second thought, we cannot shirk our own constitutional obligations or develop legislation that, if passed, could raise constitutional issues that would nullify what we are ultimately trying to achieve, something that is in the best interests of Indigenous communities. For a number of reasons, that is precisely what the amendments could end up doing.
Senator Audette referred to procedural tactics. With all due respect to my fellow senator, this is not a procedural tactic. We are talking about a fundamental constitutional duty, consulting First Nations affected by an amendment to their rights.
I was here when the minister reminded Senator Francis that when they were both Indigenous leaders, they both argued in favour of the government’s having a constitutional duty to consult. We are engaged in that very exercise in relation to the second generation cut-off. Certainly, you don’t want to run roughshod over what Indigenous peoples gained at the end of that long struggle. That part of the minister’s remarks should resonate with our mandate as senators, to ensure that the bills and amendments we support are consistent with the obligations that the government imposed on itself and the obligation that the Supreme Court imposed on the government: the duty to consult. We cannot simply say, “This is what we are proposing.” The minister was very clear about that. The duty to consult is about having First Nations bring forward the solutions they feel are necessary to address the discrimination caused by the second‑generation cut-off.
I will conclude on this. I am not of Indigenous heritage. I do not claim to have suffered the discrimination Indigenous peoples continue to suffer. However, I recognize that it is the duty of all Canadians to remedy the situation, whatever their background, and that the best solution is not only the one that Indigenous peoples accept, but also the one that they craft. It is that solution that will be subject to the constitutional obligations that will ensure its validity once the bill has received Royal Assent.
The only thing that stands between us is this question: Do our constitutional obligations include respecting the duty to consult? That does not go against the amendments Senator Prosper so eloquently and brilliantly drafted. It simply goes against our obligation — and I’ll paraphrase Senator McCallum’s comment — to do things in the proper order when it comes to the rights of Indigenous peoples and our constitutional obligations, both in the House of Commons and here, in the Senate. I say that with the utmost respect for the arguments put forward by my fellow senators. I say it in the hope that we will also find a solution to address the second generation cut-off, which is not the purpose of Bill S-2, a bill that, in its current form, had the support of many witnesses heard by the committee.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to my colleagues and thank you, Senator McNair, for thanking all the officials and our staff and all the folks who have worked on this.
I want to weigh in on some of the last few comments. It will be a bit repetitive. I apologize to my colleagues and those listening, but many of us have been on this path before.
When I first joined the Senate, we were addressing a bill that was very similar to this where the commitment was made by the government of the day that they would eliminate all sex discrimination in the Indian Act, and we trusted that process. It turned out that wasn’t the case in the end negotiations.
When it came to the disability benefit, many of you will remember a similar commitment being made by the government of the day by the first minister responsible for disabilities who had a disability herself and made a commitment. None of us questioned her integrity, her honesty, her willingness to do that, but very quickly after she was the minister who brought in a benefit that was inadequate, she was then moved out of that portfolio.
We have expressed the same concern. I have personally expressed the same concern privately and publicly to Minister Gull-Masty. I have the greatest respect for her. I do not question her integrity, her desire, her commitment to ensure that the discrimination in the Indian Act is removed. However, there is no guarantee that she will be the minister who will be able to fulfill that obligation going forward.
This, in my humble opinion, should not be seen in any way as a challenge to the integrity of the minister at all, but instead, a look at our responsibility to uphold the constitution. We cannot be, in my humble opinion, responsible for continuing discrimination we know is currently in the Indian Act and will continue if we pass this bill as it currently reads. We have an obligation as senators to represent the interests of those who aren’t otherwise represented by elected officials, sometimes referred to as minority issues. This, to me, is clearly one of those moments where we must stand up in support of those groups.
We heard about the consultation. It sounded inconsistent to my ear. I asked about it the last meeting we had with the minister. We were told at one point it had begun, and at another point we were told it was ongoing or that it was going to be in the future.
The duty to consult is the duty to consult about how, not whether. We are talking about an amendment which says that discrimination must end. Consultation can happen about how that occurs, but the duty to consult is not about whether the Charter, in terms of the equality interests, must be upheld. That’s the heart of this amendment.
I encourage us not to abdicate our responsibility to represent minority interests, not to abdicate our responsibility to uphold the Charter, and in every communication continue to express our support for the intention and goodwill of the government, but to draw the line on saying no more. This would now be, I think, the fifth piece of legislation, if we passed it, where we would be allowing the discrimination to continue. I think we need to say, “No more, not in our name.”
I want to credit my colleagues for the work you did on the report Make it stop. If we issued a report — and I say we, I wasn’t on the committee at that time — but to issue that report and then not to stand up at this moment in support of the amendment that Senator Prosper is putting forward I think is to abandon our responsibilities and not do our job.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Audette: I have a question for either the representative from the government or my colleague, Senator Moreau.
My understanding is that we propose amendments, and it goes to the other chamber and they do their due diligence. And we’ll see if it passes or not, as long as we do our work and we all have to respect that deadline. So far, we managed to respect the deadline with or without amendment.
We’re capable of doing that. It’s not the first bill that we are passing here with deadlines, but it’s very important for me that people understand how proud we are to have the first ever First Nation person as the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. I note that the Minister also speaks three languages.
It was great for many of us because since 1975 — I don’t know the exact date of the modern treaty. It’s 40 years with the James Bay Agreement, they have that one-parent rule with their nation. So it was for us, she knows what’s good or not good or what should be improved if we bring amendments.
I have to clarify that it’s already happening for many decades in her nation, one-parent rule, very important.
For me, why suddenly? Because I’m Innu status, and my status changed a couple of times because of amendments. Suddenly we have that message, duty to consult, but Bill C-5, it was imposed. I just want to understand. So from now on, my nation will always flag this duty to consult for any bills. I don’t want to be out of scope, but just so I understand.
How come we cannot do exactly what Senator Pate just said? We bring those amendments, and how the nation will implement, some are so ready, others will see, et cetera, this is where we can work on the how. But the duty to consult for me suddenly, why is it again always on our shoulders? I’m exhausted. And I’m the first Innu senator by the way, with love.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette.
Lori Doran, Director General, Individual Affairs Branch, Services to Individuals Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the question.
I would take us back to the report of the minister’s special representative. In her report, having looked at the inequities in the registration and membership provisions, it made it clear that there was not one solution coming forward. The one-parent rule, one of a number of possibilities.
Her recommendation was that extensive consultation was required in order to determine the best solution to the second-generation cut-off. So that is what we have committed to do in the current consultation process.
It was co-designed and co-developed, and it started with a call-out to interested groups to propose solutions to us. So it wasn’t a consultation around whether or not, it was how. So that’s ongoing, and we expect reports back next month.
The second step in that process was to take a look at what came forward and assess for legal viability and assessment. So it’s a multistage process.
Senator Audette: As you know, yesterday we were wondering if we are going to still have a government, two votes. This is why it is so urgent for us to pass those amendments. If there is a fragile political environment in the other chamber, it doesn’t stop us from being fed by the strength or the message or the position that was given through that process that started.
So for me, I see that we can combine with the amendment that I read. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: On race-based discrimination under section 15 in Bill S-2, in Nicholas v. Canada, a trial-level decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada conceded that the challenged portions of the Indian Act section 6(1) unjustifiably infringed section 15 Charter rights because it discriminates on the basis of race or ethnic origin by limiting the ability of the descendants of those enfranchised to pass on to their children the entitlement to register under the Indian Act. Proving discrimination that violates section 15 typically involves showing differential treatment based on a protected ground such as race and demonstrating that the law or action reinforces, perpetuates or exacerbates disadvantage.
Canada, in its submission to the Nicholas case, conceded that the two-step test required under section 15(1) of the Charter demonstrated both that section 6 creates a distinction based on race or ethnic origin and that section 6 denies registration benefit in a manner that reinforces disadvantage and is thus discriminatory.
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that provisions of the Indian Act that denied status to people with family enfranchisement where their relatives gave up their status and the benefits it entails infringed on the plaintiff’s section 15 Charter rights, and they gave the Canadian government until April 2026 to amend the Indian Act to make it Charter compliant for the Nicholas plaintiffs.
The Nicholas plaintiffs are individuals with at least one ancestor who was enfranchised under the Indian Act following that ancestor’s application for enfranchisement.
At paragraph 42(f), Canada acknowledged that the Indian Act currently has other forms of enfranchisement, which may also be considered in the context of legislative amendments. That is what we are doing here.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum. That exhausts my list of speakers. I see Senator Prosper would like to speak again and Senator Sorensen. I want you all to have an opportunity. This is very important in front of us.
Senator Sorensen: I want to jump in and thank the gallery that’s here today. It’s helpful, impactful and we appreciate your time in being here today.
I certainly want to thank all the senators who have spoken so passionately and so eloquently on this topic, and certainly my thanks to Senator Prosper for your commitment and hard work on this.
Just for the record, I do have a grandchild who would benefit from this amendment passing, but I understand from a number of sources that I’m not considered in conflict. Based on previous training I’ve received, it’s always good to mention it. I just want to point out that I, of course, support Bill S-2 and its original intent, and will be supporting this amendment.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to my colleagues for providing your comments, perspectives, insights and wisdom. Certainly, as we sit around this table, we have the benefit to hear from a wealth of testimony, many people from different communities and different situations.
I keep coming back to this special duty or privilege we have as parliamentarians to consider what we have heard, to exercise sober second thought and to step forward in the moment and do what is right.
An Elder once told me that a leader is someone who steps forward. Certainly, when I look at the gallery here, I see people who have stepped forward, not just for an issue over a year, but for decades, where it has represented a significant plight. In fact, it goes to the very core of who we are — as we say, L’nu people — to ensure that there is some legacy left for our children in perpetuity.
We all know the numbers. We’ve heard the numbers. We know what the demographics say. If we follow the second-generation cut-off, what that means is at least the legislative extinction through status lines of people and nations.
When you think about this moment, this time in history where we are faced with this question, it’s not a novel issue. We all know that. It has existed certainly since 1985 post the Constitution and post the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I’m sure if we were to look at the record on second-generation cut-off, it wouldn’t be volumes of consultation documents you would see. To raise it here as a strict duty to consult doesn’t do justice, I believe, to the significance of the issue that it presents today.
I would refer to the submission by Pamela Palmater that talks about a number of documents about the work that very committed individuals and organizations have done on the subject of second-generation cut-off. I share what my colleagues have mentioned, wherein we all want what is best and really are quite proud of the minister being the first Indigenous minister. It’s an incredible milestone, but as Senator Audette mentioned, we’re all quite aware of what happened yesterday. That was a pretty thin margin.
If we don’t act now, how long will we wait? How long will children be waiting? How long will they have the opportunity to feel proud about who they are, to hold their heads up high and say, “I am a L’nu person and I’m proud of it. Look at my community. Look at my family. This is who I am as a proud L’nu person.”
The numbers are there. The minister’s list of the 90 individual groups, bands and organizations, it’s actually 75. Then when we look at our witness list, there’s a vacuum of 28 that haven’t been before us here. We heard witness testimony from Chief Barbara Cote representing 204 First Nations in B.C. where it is unanimous that they want to get rid of the second-generation cut-off. Ms. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell representing 49 First Nations groups. We have letters from all the Mi’kmaq Chiefs in Nova Scotia, and it goes on and on.
There is significant movement and a recognition that this change has to happen, and it has to happen now. To put it within the cloak of consultation and a constitutional duty is to lose sight of the fact that it was not there in Bill C-5? Where was that in Bill C-49? I would remember because I was there and spoke about it. It gets to the core. This isn’t a light issue.
I want to underscore, not only for purposes of the record but in recognition of all the people who have come before us, spoken and advocated for their people. Wela’lioq. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Prosper.
To reiterate, is there anybody else who would like to speak on this amendment?
Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Prosper that Bill S-2 be amended in clause 4, on page 2.
(a) by adding the following after line 28:
(b) by adding the following after line 31:
(c) by adding the following after line 37:
Can I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed?
Senator Prosper: Can I have a recorded vote, please?
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. I will first ask the clerk to name all of the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time.
Sébastien Payet, Clerk of the Committee: An easy task today, because I see only members at the table. If we can dispense to name all the senators and go to the floor already. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: If any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now. After that, the clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair, and followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order.
Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying “yea,” “nay” or abstain. The clerk will announce the results of the vote. The chair will then declare where whether the motion is carried or defeated.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Greenwood?
Senator Greenwood: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Audette?
Senator Audette: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Francis?
Senator Francis: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McNair?
Senator McNair: Nay.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: Yea.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yea.
Mr. Payet: Yea, 10; nay, 1.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion as carried. Thank you.
Do we have another amendment to clause 4 on the floor? Thank you.
Shall clause 4 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried as amended. Thank you, senators.
Shall clause 5 carry? I understand there would be a subsequent amendment to this.
Senator Prosper, you have the floor.
Senator Prosper: I move that Bill S-2 be amended in clause 5, on page 2, by replacing line 38 with the following:
5(1) Paragraph 11(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following: (d) that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) and at least one parent of that person is entitled to have their name entered in the Band List or, if the parent is no longer living, was or would have been so entitled at the time of death.
(1.1) Paragraph 11(2)(a) of the Act is repealed.
(1.2) Paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) and a parent referred to in that provision is entitled to have their name entered in the Band List or, if no longer living was or would have been, at the time of their death, entitled to have their name entered in the Band List.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Prosper.
The floor is open for debate. Are there any questions around this proposed amendment? No?
Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Prosper that Bill S-2 be amended in clause 5, on page 2, by replacing line 38 with the following — may I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Deputy Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Shall clause 5 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, this is carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I understand there is an amendment to clause 9.
Senator Prosper, you have the floor.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill S-2 be amended on page 4 by adding the following after line 23:
That Bill S-2 be amended on page 4 by adding the following after line 23:
“9.1 For greater certainty, subject to any deletions made by the Registrar under subsection 5(3) of the Indian Act, any person who was, immediately before the day on which subsection 4(2.2) of this Act comes into force, registered and entitled to be registered under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act is deemed registered under paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act.
9.2 For greater certainty, for the purpose of paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act, the Registrar must recognize any entitlements to be registered that existed under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act immediately before the day on which subsection 4(2.2) of this Act comes into force.”.
The Deputy Chair: That you, Senator Prosper.
Are there any questions or debate on this motion?
Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Prosper that Bill S-2 be amended on page 4 by adding the following after line 23 — may I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Shall the new clauses 9.1 and 9.2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: This is carried.
Moving on. Shall clause 10 carry?
An Hon. Senator: No.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Defeated.
My apologies, colleagues. Can we go back to clause 9? Shall clause 9 carry as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your indulgence.
Moving on. Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Thank you. Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. The clerk will name all of the senators present who are entitled to vote. If a member does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table. The clerk will now read the members’ names.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Greenwood? For or against clause 10? Just to make sure.
Senator Greenwood: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Audette?
Senator Audette: Are we voting to remove the clause calling for non-liability or imposing non-liability?
[English]
We’re voting to remove the non-liability clause?
Mr. Payet: Yes.
Senator Audette: I would say yes. 2025, ah . . .
An Hon. Senator: So you’re voting no?
Senator Audette: No. Thank you. Remove it. Remove it. Yes, remove it. So —
An Hon. Senator: So that’s a “no” vote to remove.
Senator Audette: Okay. No. Okay.
An Hon. Senator: That’s why I’m getting clarity too.
Senator Audette: Okay. Whew. Thank you.
Mr. Payet: Are we okay?
An Hon. Senator: Are you?
Mr. Payet: I don’t think so.
The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Francis?
Senator Francis: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McNair?
Senator McNair: Yes.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Payet: No, 10; yes, 1.
The Deputy Chair: I declare that clause 10 is defeated.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: The clerk will move to this.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Greenwood?
Senator Greenwood: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Audette?
Senator Audette: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Francis?
Senator Francis: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McNair?
Senator McNair: Yes.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: No.
Mr. Payet: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Payet: No, 10; yes, 1.
The Deputy Chair: I declare clause 11 defeated.
Moving on. We have another amendment, I understand, from Senator Prosper. Senator Prosper, you have the floor.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move:
That Bill S-2 be amended on page 5 by adding the following after line 19:
“Coming into Force
12 Subsections 4(1.1), (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (4) and 5(1) and (1.2) come into force six months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or debate? Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. I would like to propose a subamendment, which I have discussed with a number of members here, that would specifically change the words “come into force six months after the day” to “come into force 12 months after the day.”
I want to make some comments. I didn’t speak at the opening amendment. I want to say how proud I am to be a part of this committee. I will say it again, and proudly, that I am the senior member of this committee, having served into my thirteenth year here. Through the time, I was thinking of a number of senators who would be proud who were here in the early days of my service — Senator Watt, Senator Sibbeston, the wonderful Senator Lovelace Nicholas, Senator Dyck and Senator Sinclair. I think they would be proud of the work of the committee today.
There was an era where this would never have happened. They were at that era, and I know it broke their hearts how many times they were denied opportunities to do the right thing for circumstances that don’t exist anymore today.
I believe that the coming into force 6 months is not enough time, and I think that 12 months provides some acknowledgment of Minister Gull-Masty’s plea to complete consultation, as we have talked about the how. And, in fact, Senator Pate, Senator Audette and a member of the administration here of the government said that is exactly what the consultation is about. It’s not about if; it’s about how.
In Minister Gull-Masty’s initial appearance, I certainly got a sense — I can’t point to the evidence — but I got a sense that in 12 months, within a year, we would see something.
I think it’s fair to say that this would be somewhat of an acknowledgment that there is a consultation process under way and that it should finish and could finish and have an impact. But I think it also responds to the urgency of this situation, although again, we didn’t get the evidence. We heard it in words, but we didn’t see the numbers, but we believe there is a slope of decline that is about to come on us on status Indians at the same time that there is an explosion — because there were very few before — of the population of children status Indians who are now cut off.
This situation was conceived of and implemented 40 years ago and is a bomb that is going off now, which is exactly what was intended. I think it is unfolding today. It is an urgent issue, but I believe that this small subamendment of an additional six months shows that we understand and acknowledge the activities of consultations that are under way.
Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Audette: Thank you, Senator Tannas. You have experience. You have corporate or Senate memory. Thank you so much.
I’m sure you’re aware that we passed legislation, and we sometimes add an article for a transition. Bill C-31 is a good example. We gave how many months to First Nation communities to have their own ways of membership code? They had 12 months, 18 months in 1985?
Antoine Csuzdi-Vallée, Analyst, Library of Parliament, Senate of Canada: With Bill C-31, it was 24 months.
Senator Audette: Okay. So in 1985, we allowed officially in a bill time for a community to set up their own membership code. With this amendment, 12 months is way better, I guess. It’s more time. I also see in the document for the consultation that the department is there for statistics, research, et cetera, to support any First Nation community to put in place their own ways of how they will recognize their own people.
I think 12 months is intelligent. I agree. Thank you for your wisdom.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all members of APPA for the good faith that has been demonstrated here today. I think maybe Senator Pate and I get to be the second senior next to Senator Tannas.
I wanted to speak briefly to support the proposed amendment and to underline what I think is a very important, good-faith gesture on the part of this committee to respect the reality that, pretty much, always more time has to be taken beyond what the target was. This is a functional reality of government, but also as a sign of respect to Minister Gull-Masty, and to give as much of a reasonable runway as we can to move forward in a good way.
I will support the amendment.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
Senators, we’ll deal with the subamendment first. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas:
That the motion, in amendment, be further amended on clause 12, page 5, at line 19, by replacing the number 6 with the number 12.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the subamendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. The subamendment is carried.
Shall the motion, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: The amendment is carried.
Shall the new clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Clause 12 is carried.
I understand that we have another amendment from Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, but I’m more than satisfied with what we have done today. I’m withdrawing the amendment.
The Deputy Chair: The committee agrees with the withdrawal of Senator McPhedran’s amendment. Thank you.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Title is carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: The bill, as amended, is carried.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: It is agreed.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? Yes.
I’m looking at how close we are to eleven o’clock. We have to adjourn. We will come back to the observations at our next meeting on Wednesday, if you’re all agreeable.
Senator McPhedran: I was going to ask, Senator Francis, whether we were each given the observations. Were they shared?
Senator Francis: No.
Senator McPhedran: So then we have to wait.
Senator Francis: We’ll do it the next meeting.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators, for your work.
(The committee adjourned.)