Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), for what I sincerely hope will be the last time.

On Tuesday, this chamber faced an important question: Did it trust the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples enough to accept its report, with amendments — which was, I remind you, supported by committee members 10 to 1?

In anticipation of that significant vote, my office and I reached out to Grand Chiefs, Chiefs, councillors and youth, organizational and grassroots leaders who were in Ottawa for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, Special Chiefs Assembly. While we were aware of between 30 to 40 who were interested, what came next was a wave of close to 100 who came to bear witness.

I later heard from so many that they were overcome with pride to see one of their own stand in this august chamber and speak out on their behalf. I was stopped all day yesterday by Chiefs and AFN attendees whom I had never met who expressed similar sentiments.

While I acknowledge that it broke protocol, I found it to be a beautiful moment, for First Nations have gone far — from not being able to vote to being represented in Parliament in both chambers. We have gone from having parliamentarians passing laws to erase us to having parliamentarians standing up to defend our inherent rights.

For a chamber whose very existence is constantly challenged, our debate at the report stage proved to those in the room and listening at home that the Senate is a vital part of our democracy. It has been gratifying to hear over and over again variations of:

I never really knew what the Senate did. I was really impressed and so proud of you guys for standing up for us.

I wanted to ensure that all senators heard these words in hopes that you feel some pride in our work and in being part of such a significant and historic debate.

I also want to dwell a little bit on that phrase “significant and historic debate.” While I feel gratitude for the support that I have been receiving from rights holders across the country, I am also cognizant of the great responsibility that their trust and faith place upon me. I am wary of the fact that every time I speak in committee, every time I rise in this chamber and with every initiative I undertake, I must ensure that I am upholding the values and teachings of my ancestors and pushing for changes that will benefit the next seven generations of L’nu people across this country.

Several times throughout this process I have experienced moments that I feel were almost surreal. Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought that I would be sitting in a Senate committee, reading out an amendment to erase subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act. I remember thinking: Am I really doing this?

I never believed that I would be able to count warrior women such as Sharon McIvor, Pam Palmater, Mary Eberts, Shelagh Day, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Chief Marilyn Slett, Cora McGuire-Cyrette, Zoë Craig-Sparrow and Rachel Singleton-Polster as friends of mine whom I would have the distinct honour of working with. Just yesterday, I sat on a panel at the AFN with Sharon McIvor, and she received a standing ovation the minute she was called up to the podium. That’s how significant her contributions to the fight for equality and inclusion have been.

And now senators are called to write their part in this decades‑long history of struggling against the discrimination embedded within the Indian Act.

To me, the amendments removing the second-generation cut‑off, ending the 1985 cut-off and restoring the one-parent rule, have never been a choice for me to make. I have always viewed them as part of my responsibility to listen to my elders and to community.

The second-generation cut-off was unilaterally imposed by Canada in 1985 through Bill C-31 as a means to eliminate what was known as “the Indian problem.” It was an assurance that we would be eventually assimilated into Canadian society, as the lawmakers of the day knew that we could not survive if we were relegated to only marrying among ourselves to preserve status.

Through the wording of this imposition, Canada has also created an absurd reality, where siblings with the same parents could find themselves with different levels of status — and thus different rights regarding status transmission — meaning a grandparent could now have a mix of grandchildren who are both status and non-status: a mix of grandchildren who could access programs, health care and educational supports that fulfill the government’s statutory, treaty and fiduciary responsibility to First Nations, and grandchildren who could not access these supports.

The return to a one-parent rule would mean that women who are victims of incest or rape, or whose partners refuse to sign the paperwork to acknowledge their children as a way of abusing or holding power over the mother, will not have to go to their Chiefs, teary-eyed, begging for them to sign off as the father so that their children can have status.

These are not theoretical situations we are considering. These are the true-life, lived experiences of First Nations across this country. I have heard countless stories from every corner of this country. The choices we make in this chamber will ripple through time and create positive change far into the future.

Some will say that these amendments will bring back a flood of so-called pretendians, and people with a distant relative a hundred years in the past will suddenly be added. That is not true. The second-generation cut-off was introduced in 1985. That means that the oldest 6(2) status Indian is 40 years old. We are talking about the legal recognition of their children and, in some cases, grandchildren. We are talking about children with direct living relations.

Even Statistics Canada has projected that the impact of these amendments would be approximately 300,000 people over the next 40 years. That’s about 7,000 people per year across 634 bands.

Other opponents to these amendments will talk about the funding implications. The fact is community funding is determined on a per capita basis. The longer these children are excluded from status recognition, the longer communities will have to divert own-source revenues meant to help decrease their reliance on government transfers in order to support community members.

Still others will decry the dilution of bloodlines. There have been a few minorities who speak out about the need for some sort of cut-off. That is not a First Nations teaching I have been raised with. If that is a strong belief within other nations, then certainly they are able to define their own custom code under section 10 of the Indian Act. Many have done so.

Similarly, it should be noted that status does not affect a nation’s ability to determine citizenship. Band membership eligibility can be customized under section 10; citizenship can be determined through a formal self-government agreement. Status is the legal relationship between an Indian under the Indian Act and the Crown. It is not easy to disentangle ourselves from this relationship. It will be decades and, likely, generations before First Nations can be truly free of the Indian Act. That is how deeply entrenched this colonial, patriarchal and racist policy is in the lives of First Nations people.

I was delighted to hear from Senator Moreau during the clause‑by‑clause consideration of this bill and throughout the report stage about the commitment of this government to true, meaningful consultation. It is my sincere hope that this commitment is equally applied across all of this government’s future undertakings, as I did not see consultations conducted prior to the cutting of Jordan’s Principle funding, nor did I see them when the government announced their openness to a pipeline that would need to see a partial exemption to the tanker ban off the B.C. coast, a move widely denounced by B.C. First Nations.

Senators, we have heard from all but 28 of the 75 nations, communities and organizations that are participating in the collaborative process in committee. They were clear that they were forced into yet another process by Canada, when what they really wanted was to stop talking about this issue and to do something now.

Grand Chief Kyra Wilson of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, representing 6 of the 75 collaborative process participants, stated:

I’m here to confront the issue that threatens the survival of our nations, Canada’s continued use of section 6(2) of the Indian Act as a policy of legislated genocide.

I know we are here to talk about Bill S-2 and how this seeks to correct some of these injustices and speak to enfranchisement, but it does not address the deeper harm that’s embedded in the law. Right now, what we see is that Canada continues to decide who our people are. To me, that is a problem. I know that many of our First Nations see that as a problem as well.

Chief Marilyn Slett, Elected Chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, representing 21 of 75 collaborative process participants, stated:

With respect to the second-generation cut-off, our position has been unwavering: The second-generation cut-off must be removed from the Indian Act, and we must return to the pre-1985 one-parent rule. It must be applied equally to men and women to prevent legislated extinction. Elimination of the second-generation cut-off is supported by advocates, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, and is explicitly called for by First Nations via resolutions.

Grand Chief Norman Sylliboy of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council, at a press conference on Bill S-2, said:

We have wanted Canada to immediately stop the discrimination against Mi’kmaq in the Indian Act. Canada keeps stalling the end of their discrimination against Mi’kmaq.

Under the Constitution of Canada and UNDRIP, the Santé Mawio’mi has the right to determine who is Mi’kmaq.

In enacting the UNDRIP Act 2021, Canada has promised to make the Indian Act consistent with UNDRIP.

The Santé Mawio’mi fully support Senator Prosper’s amendments to implement our constitutional and inherent human rights.

Senators, over and over again, our committee heard that the time to act is now.

I want to share with senators a few points regarding timing from the government’s website describing the collaborative process.

First, the timeline leading up to the collaborative process shows that over seven years and three different ministers, we have been talking about ending the second-generation cut-off. We know that Minister Gull-Masty didn’t restart the collaborative process until September 2025. This is on top of all the work that has been done over the past 40 years.

The website goes on to outline that the consultation activities and events will include time for an assessment of the legal viability and impact of a proposed solution by a panel of experts. On that panel is Dr. Pam Palmater, and she informed me that the panel has not yet been struck.

We also know that Minister Gull-Masty, on October 28, 2025, during ministerial Question Period, refused to commit to a timeline for these consultations ending. She stated:

I am not going to give a timeline, and the reason for this is very specific. I will not rush the communities that I work with to ensure that I’m finding a solution that meets the timeline of an outside institution. We have to be sure that we respect our partners in consultation. We have to give them the space they need to do that work. I know and sense that there is true urgency from the Senate to try to address this. I share that urgency.

Colleagues, I and fellow supporters of these amendments have never called into question the sincerity of Minister Gull-Masty’s stated desire to end the second-generation cut-off, but I am forced to look at certain realities.

The first is that this is a minority government. We surely all remember the tension on Parliament Hill when there was uncertainty around whether or not the budget would pass its confidence vote in the other place. By the thinnest of margins, we avoided a winter election. What happens to the children affected by the cut-off if the government fails before consultations are concluded? What happens to the children if the government cannot pass stand-alone legislation in time? In that way, these amendments, with the one-year coming-into-force delay, act as a fail-safe in these uncertain and unpredictable times.

When Bill S-2’s predecessor, Bill C-38, died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament, we could not have foreseen that the then deputy prime minister and finance minister would step down from her position in such a way that it would create a chain of events leading to the then prime minister stepping down, a leadership race for the Liberal Party, the dissolution of Parliament and a spring election. We cannot take anything in a minority government as a given.

Another scenario is one in which the minister is able to table stand-alone legislation and bring forward a bill that would lead First Nations down a path to true citizenship and self‑determination. I have spoken with the parliamentary Law Clerk’s office, and I am assured that coordinating amendments could be drafted to address these amendments if they are passed into law.

I would also point out that transitioning to citizenship takes time. We know from the experience of Jeannette Corbiere Lavell that work on the Anishinabek Nation citizenship code began in 2008. After being consulted with community, it was passed and adopted by the nation in 2011. However, it has been only recently that the nation has had the capacity and funding required to operationalize their citizenship code. That’s 17 years.

Senators, what will happen to the children who are non-status in those 17 years? That’s an entire generation left waiting — an entire generation that cannot apply for programs and services set aside for status Indians alone. In this instance, these amendments act as a stopgap measure to ensure we are leaving no First Nations child behind.

In the minister’s letter shared by Senator Moreau, the minister talks about finding consensus, but there has never been a requirement for complete consensus on any bill affecting First Nations before. Senator Moreau also underscored the minister’s desire to see these solutions come from community. I would argue that we heard and saw support for these amendments from community.

As a reminder, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, or BCAFN, representing 204 First Nations in B.C., has passed a resolution in support of these amendments. All 13 Chiefs in Nova Scotia support it. All 15 First Nations in New Brunswick support these amendments. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., or MKO, and the Southern Chiefs’ Organization Inc. support these amendments. The Anishinabek Nation, representing 39 First Nations, and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, representing 49 First Nations in Ontario, have issued statements of support.

I met with the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, or FSIN, and they support these amendments, as do nations from Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8.

Grand Chief Alatini of the Council of Yukon First Nations, which represents 9 of the 14 Yukon First Nations, called section 6(2) “legislated extinction on a delay.”

National Chief George Mackenzie of the Dene Nation, which represents 30 communities, told us:

But if you are a descendant of a status person that you have from the past, the parents, the grandparents, that has to be honoured. Who is to say that you are no longer an Indian? You are born an Indian; you will die as an Indian. It’s important that all this is understood.

For those keeping count, that’s over 360 First Nations out of 634 that have expressly supported these amendments. Senators, this is the solution community wants.

Colleagues, I, for one, do not intend to develop carpal tunnel from wielding a rubber stamp.

Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Director of First Peoples House of Learning for Trent University and a former president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, explained that:

. . . in 1985, when the 6(2) category was created, the government created a legal situation that is causing irreparable harm to our young people. We know that having a sense of belonging is vital for mental health. Yet, every day we see First Nations youth who are in crisis, who feel like they don’t belong in their First Nation, that they don’t have a right to be there, that they are not real Indians, that they are lesser than other community members because they have 6(2) status.

We cannot let our children continue to suffer, isolated by their lack of status.

Many years ago, while in law school, I learned about the concept of irreparable harm as it relates to those who seek injunctive relief. In basic form, it is a harm that cannot be compensated with money, a harm that cannot be quantified or cured.

Over the past two days, I spoke at many gatherings at the Special Chiefs Assembly. Many people spoke to me about Bill S-2 and how their lives were impacted by the registration provisions within the Indian Act. Some spoke of the irreparable harm associated with separation and isolation.

Last night, I had the unexpected pleasure to once again speak to Sharon McIvor, a true matriarch in every sense of the word. She shared that at times people would approach her, and, after a brief introduction, they would say, “I am one of yours.”

These stories are about family connection, identity and belonging. They are about one’s right to fall in love, have children and leave a legacy for future generations. This is not just a legal right but a basic human right.

Colleagues, if I can indulge you for just a moment, I ask that you take a pause, relax, close your eyes and imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when, during the course of your day, a complete stranger walks up to you. They introduce themselves and say, “I am one of yours.”

Honourable senators, I urge you to vote in favour of this bill and send it to the other place where it is my hope that our elected counterparts will listen to the will of the majority of their First Nations constituents and accept this bill as amended. Wela’lioq. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise because the Senate stands at a crossroads — not because of what we did yesterday but, instead, because of what I believe we will be called upon to do tomorrow.

Yesterday, we also stood at a crossroads, and we answered the first of three questions that, while not on the scrolls, have framed this debate and will continue to frame this debate. The questions are the following:

First, should procedural rules trump the need to respond to structural injustice?

Second, should we remain silent in the face of ongoing colonial legal mechanisms that deny Indigenous Peoples their rights simply because they are legally entrenched?

Third, should we — as a chamber entrusted with protecting minority rights — decline to act, even symbolically, when the law itself is unjust?

Should procedural rules trump the need to respond to structural injustice? The Senate responded with a resounding “no.” To vote for the amended Bill S-2, we will affirm our highest role: to bear witness to injustice and expose its continuing impacts. By adopting the report on Bill S-2, this chamber affirmed that the principles of justice, equity and truth must prevail, even when the rules say, “Not yet.”

While we have answered the first question, our work is far from done. I hope this amended bill will go to the other place. It is their right as elected members of Parliament to accept or reject it. All signs point to rejection. We must prepare ourselves and prepare First Nations people for that probable outcome. This means that the hopes we have raised may soon be dashed.

Yet, honourable senators, let us not retreat from what we have done. In fact, let us build upon it. What occurred in this chamber over the past several days is what the Senate was created to do. We bore witness to injustice. We spoke with courage. We placed the interests of future generations above the convenience of the present. We were the Senate at its best.

Much of what we did yesterday is directly related to the new independence in the Senate. The majority of the current Senate is non-partisan. I do not believe we would have done what we did yesterday if we had been in a partisan chamber. It is that very independence that allowed us to act on moral clarity, procedural integrity and structural injustice. Senators stood and named truth after truth.

Senator Prosper and Senator White spoke from deeply considered positions. Though they raised different considerations, both pointed in the same direction: the urgent need to resolve the exclusion and harms caused by the second‑generation cut-off.

Senator Audette asserted:

. . . for every decision given concerning the Indian Act and status, emancipation or discrimination between men and women under sections 6(1) and 6(2), whether subtle or overt, we, the Parliament, have said, “We can do more.” The point we are trying to make is that we have that responsibility.

Senator McCallum said:

We must show Canadians that we stand for justice and equality for all. Supporting this report and Bill S-2, as amended, would send a strong message to First Nations and First Nations women and children, conveying that they are deserving of equality and that they have a place in their own country and a place in “Building Canada Strong.”

Senator Housakos asserted:

At the end of the day, the government in the other place will do what they want. They have that right. They’ve been elected. But we have the right to raise flags, to highlight things for the government and the other place and to express to them some elements that they might have missed in terms of voices and corners of this country so we can help them come to a better solution.

Honourable senators, the Indian Act is often described as a beast — an instrument of legislative colonialism that defies dismantling. However, yesterday the Senate reached for one of its teeth and pulled. In doing so, we faced the second and third questions of our crossroads.

Should we remain silent in the face of ongoing colonial mechanisms that deny Indigenous rights simply because they are legally entrenched? Should we — as a chamber entrusted with protecting minority rights — decline to act, even symbolically, when the law itself is unjust? Our answer must continue to be a resounding “no.”

Colleagues, we’ve answered the first question with clarity. Let us now acknowledge the reality of where we stand. It was signalled quite clearly that the amendment this chamber adopted was considered to be out of order by the government. It is highly probable that the other place will reject the amendment. That outcome, if it comes, will not undo the truths that we have spoken. But it will mean that the witnesses before the Indigenous Peoples Committee, whose testimony moved so many of us, will not receive relief through this bill — not yet.

The good news is that our work as a chamber is not over. In fact, it is just beginning. The Senate made a moral, legal and parliamentary claim that the second-generation cut-off is a colonial wound and that the law can be amended to reflect justice.

If the other place disagrees, it does not end our responsibility; it only heightens our responsibility. We now have a duty to consider what else the Senate can do through its committees, inquiries, studies and procedural authority to ensure that the hopes raised are not permanently dashed.

To adapt the old saying, “If a door closes in the other place, let us open another one here.”

Honourable senators, we must show First Nations that an appointed Senate can use its full constitutional powers to hold the government to account. Voting in this chamber is our most visible tool, but it is not our only one. We can launch a committee study, as permitted by our Rules, our Constitution and our powers as senators. We can work with committees, and we can, I believe, work between committees or even across partisan boundaries to investigate the long-term effects of the second‑generation cut-off. We can hold the government to account for 40 years of fiduciary failure.

Let me say this clearly: For four decades, succeeding Governments of Canada have failed to act in the best interest of Indigenous Peoples. They have acted in the best interest of the federal treasury. The second-generation cut-off is not just a policy. In my view, it is a continuing breach of the honour of the Crown. It is a breach of fiduciary duty. It is a breach of treaty rights. It is a breach of Indigenous rights. It is a breach of human rights. That is unassailable.

Canada’s treatment of Indigenous Peoples is our national shame. It is a stain on our international reputation. It is fundamentally antithetical to the democratic values that Canadians hold so dearly. The second-generation cut-off rule is a mechanism that carries forward that shame by embedding discrimination directly into law.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the honour of the Crown arises whenever the Crown interacts with Indigenous Peoples. That honour requires good faith, fair dealing, consultation and protection of Indigenous rights and treaty rights. That is not an option.

Senators have stood in this chamber to call that out. We must now act on that knowledge.

The Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples heard compelling, accurate, factual and credible truths. The amendment, in my view, was a matter of logic, touched certainly by empathy and heartbreaking lived experience.

Canadians do not want a Senate driven by partisanship or emotion. They want principled, fair decisions rooted in the rule of law. That law requires procedural fairness, moral integrity and equity.

The law is not only about process, it is about substance. When law causes harm, we as parliamentarians have both the authority and the duty to fix it.

The federal government is committed to reconciliation. In fact, the government announced yesterday its intention to cure the Indigenous child welfare issues once and for all. That is a powerful commitment, and it shows that where there is political will, there can be legislative and policy innovation.

I am confident in the statements that the Government of Canada has made that they are committed to fixing the 6(2) cut‑off as soon as possible. But we must ensure that that confidence is matched by accountability. The Senate has a critical role to play in holding the government to its word.

As I said earlier, I believe the Senate is at a crossroads.

Today, we must look beyond the vote. We must recognize that our challenge now is to prevent the Senate’s action from being a moment of rhetorical clarity followed by legislative retreat.

We cannot simply say, “We did our job,” and move on. That would be a betrayal of the work that has been done and the people we claim to serve.

We must answer the call to act. I believe that we, as senators, will need to answer that call to act again on this issue of the second-generation cut-off.

In acting, we must use every tool we have: committees, studies, parliamentary questions, independent reports, Indigenous witnesses and institutional courage.

Let me take the liberty of thinking outside the box. Let me suggest that this may require a unique joint effort between the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, perhaps the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and perhaps the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Perhaps an inter-committee mandate will be required.

Yesterday we spoke our truths. Today we must live them.

We must show First Nations people that the Senate of Canada is not just a chamber of rhetoric but a chamber of resolve.

Let this be our legacy — not as a chamber that watched and waited, but as one that rose and responded.

The second-generation cut-off is not over. It will come back. It will be soon. When it does, let us not be caught unprepared.

Let us stand ready — together and on the side of justice.

I support the passage of this bill. Thank you. Kinanâskomitinawow.

Senator Batters?

Yes.

I have no comment on that, but, Senator Batters, you always have great ideas. I think we should all consider that.

Honourable senators and colleagues, I am here today to speak at the third reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), as amended.

Before I start, I want to tell the chamber that, with the help of Jackie and Jeffrey from the Conservative caucus, I met with the Ethics Officer and was found not to have a conflict. One of the questions he asked me was, “Do you have a private interest here?” I said:

No. These are rights that the First Nations always had, and the racist and discriminatory Indian Act took it away from them. What we’re doing here is giving it back to them.

He said, “Okay.”

Before I speak to the matter at hand, I want to acknowledge our ancestors who are here with us today. I honour their dedication, perseverance and tenacity to set the path for us. That is the path that you are on and that we are all on. They did it so that we wouldn’t be in the same place they were. Now we are the seventh generation, and we are also living ancestors. We now have an obligation to do the same to the generations who are walking towards us saying, “What are you doing to make this a better world for me?”

I want to thank the writer of one of our written submissions. Thanks to Emilie, who is watching. Also, thanks to her parents for giving me consent to read this letter she sent.

My name is Emilie Sioui. I am 11 years old and in Grade 4. My mom, Sabrina Sioui, is Wendat. I wish I didn’t have to write this letter. I should be having fun with my friends. I actually really don’t want to write it because every time I think about what words I want to use, I can feel myself getting angry, and I get a weird feeling in my stomach. I asked my mom why my stomach felt that way. She told me, “Emilie, that’s what happens when we’re anxious. It’s called anxiety.”

That day, I learned what anxiety was. But even if I didn’t know the word before, it wasn’t a new feeling for me. In fact, I felt this feeling a lot in the past few years. I always said I was stressed, but it is much deeper than that. You see, I am 11 years old, and I’m tired — tired of feeling anxious, so I decided to tell you part of my story as a Wendat child without status, the story of a child who wants to belong to something that is so close yet so far at the same time. My story — the one where I feel rejected by my own community and by those who make the rules that prevent me from being who I am.

Every day, I get up in my home in Wendake. I live there with my mother, not in Quebec City but in Wendake. Wendake is the only place I have ever known; it is my home. Then I leave our house and go to Wahta’ elementary school, which means “maple” in the Wendat language. I haven’t mentioned it yet, but I’m learning Wendat at school. I love it because I think it sounds really nice and also I’m good at it.

When we have language classes, I feel like I’m taking a trip back in time because my ancestors spoke that language. I say “my ancestors” because that’s what my mom taught me. She is Wendat, and everyone in my family who came before her was also Wendat. Well, at least one person in every generation, anyway. It goes back so far. My mom couldn’t even tell me how far.

When I grow up, even if I have a child of my own and if they have a child themselves, I will never be someone’s Wendat ancestor. Even though I know that I am Wendat deep down, I also know that my community doesn’t recognize me and that the government has a law that also doesn’t recognize me.

I should not have to care or know anything about that, especially since I’m just 11 years old, but I did some research with my mom. I had too many questions, too much anger and frustration every time I was told I couldn’t participate in an activity. Normally, at 11 years old, I should be able to get up in the morning, and the only thing I should have to think about would be going to school in my community and looking forward to participating in the great activities that are organized throughout the year.

I shouldn’t have to find words I don’t usually use to try to describe my sadness in a letter to adults working in another city.

In the last two years, I’ve experienced lots of sadness and tears. There was a time when I couldn’t attend Camp Tourilli. It is a summer camp where you stay in the forest for several days and do lots of activities related to Wendat culture. But I couldn’t go because I don’t have a band number. Most of my class went because they are status Wendat. There was also a competition to write a text about our ancestors for the community museum. We had to pick an ancestor to write about and say what they represented to us, and the best ones would be displayed at the museum. We could even win a gift certificate if our work was selected.

I put a lot of effort into mine. I chose Marguerite Vincent Lawinonkié, one of the greatest Wendat women who ever lived. When I found out I had been selected, I was so happy. The problem was that there were too many texts, so to narrow it down, the teachers decided to remove the texts by all the non-status children, not because they weren’t as good, just because I wasn’t a Wendat with a card. I cried so much when I got home.

That time, I even told my mom that I didn’t want to go back to school. When I went back to class, we talked about what happened again, because my friends asked why my text was taken away. My teacher told the whole class that it was because I wasn’t Wendat. All the kids in my class laughed, and even though it was only for a few seconds, to me it felt like it would never end. I reacted in the only way I knew how in these situations — silence. Nobody would really understand anyway.

There was a third thing that happened, too, with hockey. I get to play hockey at school, and I love it. Every year, Wendake organizes a minor hockey tournament for young people in my age bracket and a few others. Lots of my friends participate. I wanted to sign up, thinking that since we live in Wendake, it should be all right. So my mom called the Wendake recreation centre. She was told that, unfortunately, I couldn’t participate because, once again, I didn’t have a band number. I had to watch with several other people like me while our friends had fun playing hockey against teams from other communities — without us — because we aren’t Wendat to our community. I’m here, but I don’t belong anywhere.

Someone who helped me write my letter said, “You are invisible.” It is funny because I immediately understood what she meant. I am invisible in my community. No matter what I do, it’s never going to be enough. I’m always going to be the one who wants to be Wendat without ever really being Wendat.

Why don’t I get to have the same opportunities as my friends? I feel like something inside me was stolen and that I’ll never be able to find it. I do everything I can to be accepted. I even took smoke dance lessons, but what’s the point? They probably won’t even let me dance at the powwow if I wanted to.

I’m just 11 years old, so I don’t know very much about status and laws. But I know one thing: If I had status, I wouldn’t feel like this today. Why can’t my mom give it to me? What is the difference between my mom and my mom’s friends’ moms? The rules need to change and I want my mom to be able to pass on her status to me. Please stop the second-generation cut-off. I’m tired of feeling bad, tired of being afraid of being rejected. One day, I’d like to be someone’s Wendat ancestor.

[Wendat spoken]

We are looking at an act that attempts to kill the child in the Indian, which is happening today and it happened to me in residential school in 1957. We are still there. And thank you, Emilie. You are here.

My people knew where they belonged, and you compare her to me now.

It’s on the land, or aski. Aski is where our cultures, communities and etinewak people rooted themselves and gave themselves definition. Instead of rooting themselves in one particular place, as we do in cities and towns, they travelled aski to follow the food, accommodating their lifestyle to the environment, the seasons and where they lived their everyday lives.

Each geographical space we settled in became imbued with meaning. All environment was seen as a living space and the ideal location for living. We left it virtually untouched until the northern store started to stock items that were not degradable. Those places of nature were not something that we humans made, and these places were influenced by non-human actors. Our relatives — the birds, animals, insects, fish and ecosystem — occupied aski and played a huge role in the continual shaping and evolution of our culture. In effect, the land was occupied, but the newcomers didn’t see it that way. They saw it as empty, and they wanted the land.

Aski is meaningful to me. She gives me life. We cannot bind her nor make borders to own her. As cultural groups and a collective, First Nations define themselves, their governance and their code of ethics from the places they lived out on the land since time immemorial. We carry this notion of home in our collective blood memory, free to live out on the land, educating ourselves as we, the children, watched our parents live out the traditions and life skills so we could become independent, but also interdependent, to take our place and honour our purpose in this earth world. Growth involved not only the physical and mental but also the intellectual and spiritual. This is how I came to know and understand myself. I was able to exercise the creativity and the curiosity I had. There was no place like home out on the land.

I believed I was special then; that I was capable and quick to observe; that I could mimic what my parents could and did do; that I was capable of thinking, imagining, laughing, running; that I understood that I mattered and, therefore, I did. I trusted myself in my growth. There was something in me, something that was from the Creator and that was not male or female, not old or young, a kind of worth that was inherent and unshakeable.

I was at home with my people’s history, stories of trapping, my ancestors living out their lives in their own time, in their own way in the vast askew.

I stand in support of Bill S-2 as amended, and I ask that you all stand behind First Nations, in particular, First Nations women and children, and vote in favour of passing Bill S-2 as amended.

We the Senate have all been given a precious gift. We have been gifted the stories, teachings, expertise, experiences, vulnerabilities and trust of the many First Nations witnesses who appeared before us, trust that we hear their voices, that we understand their suffering and that we are committed to and will take immediate action to uphold their fundamental human rights.

Their trust is not to be taken lightly. We are here as senators to represent those voices that have been excluded for far too long. Not everyone is so fortunate to receive a gift like this, and we are forever changed by it as people and as human beings.

Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to the First Nations women and their descendants who have given decades of their lives to uphold the very Charter rights that Canadians hold so dear.

The First Nations’ battle for equality ensures our right to equality for all Canadians is protected.

Thank you to Mary Two-Axe Earley. Mary was a Mohawk woman from Kahnawà:ke who gave more than two decades of her life fighting sex discrimination in the Indian Act. She persisted despite staunch resistance from her own First Nation, First Nations Chiefs and the federal government. She once famously said that a dog had more rights to be buried on the reserve than she did.

Her passion and commitment to protecting the equality rights of First Nations women were unwavering and helped unite First Nations women across Canada. Not only did she spearhead a new advocacy organization, Equal Rights for Indian Women, in the late 1960s, but she was also actively involved in the Canadian women’s rights movement. She gave powerful testimony at the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. The Commission’s recommendations in 1970 included a call for Canada to act: “Legislation should be enacted to repeal the sections of the [Indian] Act which discriminate on the basis of sex.” This was in 1970, before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thank you to Jeanette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bedard. Jeanette is an Anishinabek woman from Wiikwemikoong, and Yvonne Bedard was an Onondaga woman from Six Nations. Their court challenges against Canada for persistent sex discrimination in the Indian Act went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Their battle involved the Canadian Bill of Rights, and while they lost the case, they won the hearts of First Nations women all over Canada who joined together and advocated for equality.

Jeanette faced threats of violence and vocal opposition from First Nations Chiefs but continued her advocacy and went on to become president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Thank you to former senator Sandra Lovelace-Nicholas. Sandra is from Tobique First Nation and challenged the ongoing sex discrimination at the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which decided in her favour. The UN found that the Indian Act prevented Sandra from enjoying her culture with community. Because of this case and her advocacy, the Indian Act was amended in 1985 to address some of the sex discrimination. She, too, faced organized opposition from First Nations leaders and the government, but she never stopped advocating.

When she joined the Senate, she joined the Indigenous Peoples Committee and successfully helped push for critical amendments to Bill S-3.

Thank you to Sharon McIvor. Sharon is a woman from the Lower Nicola Indian Band in B.C. She successfully challenged sex discrimination in the Indian Act post-1985 and won her case. As a result, Canada amended the act in 2010. She instantly became the grandmother to thousands of new status Indians.

Because Canada refused to address all the sex discrimination in 2010, she took her case to the UN Human Rights Committee, which decided in her favour. The Human Rights Committee called on Canada to register all those in the same position as Sharon and her descendants, remedy any remaining discrimination within First Nations communities resulting from discrimination in the Indian Act, take steps to prevent discrimination in the future and make full reparations to her. Canada has yet to act on this decision.

Thank you to Stéphane Descheneaux and Susan and Tammy Yantha. Stéphane, Susan and Tammy are Abenaki of Odanak First Nation who challenged the sex discrimination in the Indian Act that resulted in differential treatment of cousins and siblings born out of wedlock based on whether they descended from matrilineal or patrilineal lines. They won their case, which resulted in the Bill S-3 amendments in 2017. Madam Justice Masse from the Quebec Superior Court called on Canada to fulfill its legislative obligation to make further amendments to address other forms of discrimination to ensure the Indian Act complies with the Charter.

Thank you to Lynn Gehl. Lynn Gehl is an Anishinaabe woman from the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation who also challenged sex discrimination in Canada’s “unstated paternity” policy, which presumes the father of a child born to an unwed First Nations mother is a non-Indian. She won her case at the Ontario Court of Appeal, and because this decision came out during the consideration of Bill S-3, Canada has to include amendments to make the unstated paternity fairer for First Nations women, as it only impacts First Nations women.

Thank you to Jeremy Matson. Jeremy is from the Squamish Nation and successfully challenged the ongoing sex discrimination in Indian registration at the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW.

CEDAW called on Canada to make reparations to Jeremy and his children; recognize them as status Indians without conditions; recognize their right to transmit that status to their descendants; amend the Indian Act to fully eliminate sex discrimination and eliminate cut-off dates, such as the 1985 cut-off; and ensure descendants of First Nations women are equal to those of First Nations men.

Thank you to Sharon, Terra and Nicole Nicholas and all the other plaintiffs.

Sharon is from the Haida Nation, and she, together with the other plaintiffs, challenged the race-based discrimination in the Indian Act’s historic enfranchisement provisions, which denied Indian status and the ability to transmit Indian status to one’s descendants. In this case, Canada conceded that the inability to be registered and to transmit status to your children and grandchildren amounted to race discrimination and violated the Charter. Canada also admitted that this has caused significant harm to their sense of identity and belonging in their First Nations and economic damage due to the denial of federal programs.

As a result, Canada had to introduce legislation to address this discrimination, which is Bill S-2 before us. Like with Descheneaux, the court pointed out that Canada is not limited to only dealing with this case and could seek extensions to the deadline to make amendments.

Thank you to Pam Palmater. Pam is a Mi’kmaw lawyer from Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. She is a mother and grandmother who has been working on this specific issue for 40 years, since she was a youth. Pam knew she’d have to battle the federal government in every forum, including in the media, in inquiries and commissions, as part of her research and publications and in parliamentary committees and studies, as well as at the international level, including at the United Nations, courts and tribunals.

In order to prepare for this battle, she has worked with First Nations communities and organizations all over Canada, especially First Nations women’s grassroots groups, on Indian status and band membership. She also earned four university degrees, knowing that to compete with Canada, she needed to learn a lot. Her doctorate in law was on this exact topic. Her massive public outreach campaign in the media and on social media has helped educate an entire nation. Her only wish now is that her grandchildren don’t have to suffer like her family did.

Thank you to former senator Lillian Dyck. Lillian is a Cree woman from George Gordon First Nation in Saskatchewan. She has advocated for equality and justice for First Nations women for many years. Not only did she advance women’s rights while a sitting senator, but she was also the Chair of the Indigenous Peoples Committee during the consideration of Bill S-3 in 2017 and, together with the other Indigenous Peoples Committee members, forced additional amendments that went beyond the Descheneaux case.

Thank you to every First Nation mother, grandmother, auntie, sister and daughter, and thank you to all the male elders, leaders, activists and youth who stood with them to advocate for the equality rights of First Nation women and girls; shine a light on violence against women; advance our domestic and international human rights; call out discrimination in the foster-care system; work to end discrimination in jails and prisons; persist in efforts to combat human trafficking; raise children, care for elderly parents or contribute to their communities; protect our lands, waters, plants and animals; and advance our inherent, Aboriginal, treaty and land rights, as well as our right to be self-governing. Where would our communities be without all your passion, dedication and persistence? You navigate the minefield that is historic and ongoing genocide so that First Nations and Canadians alike can live in a more just society.

I want to make a special mention that I had a lot of help from Dr. Pam Palmater. She helped me with this speech and another speech, and she provided me with a lot of advice.

Despite centuries of colonial oppression, dispossession and discriminatory federal laws, policies and practices, you come before Senate committees like the Indigenous Peoples Committee in hopes that we will truly listen and take steps to protect our rights.

Thank you to all the First Nation witnesses and experts who put so much time and effort into ensuring our committee was fully educated on Canada’s legal obligations to end sex- and race-based discrimination in Indian registration and, in particular, the second-generation cut-off that would lead to the end of family lines, divided families and the legislated extinction of First Nations.

Only one First Nation testified against the entirety of Bill S-2 with or without amendments. The rest, which included Indigenous women’s organizations, individuals, experts, elders and youth, as well as individual First Nations and First Nations organizations that together represent all the First Nations in Canada, all supported the removal of the second-generation cut‑off. It’s important for the Senate to understand just how significant that is. The near-unanimous consensus from First Nations and organizations was to end sex discrimination and remove the second-generation cut-off.

I also want to thank the Indigenous Peoples Committee and all the senators in this chamber for passing the report. It really means a lot.

Remember what the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Andrews case:

Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society because it epitomizes the worst effects of the denial of equality, and discrimination reinforced by law is particularly repugnant. . . . It is against this evil that s. 15 provides a guarantee.

Their words are important. They said, “. . . a guarantee” — not a promise, not a commitment, not a discussion, not a meeting, not a consultation process and not an action plan to be developed over the next few years.

Section 15 equality for First Nations women is a guarantee. Not only is the Charter of Rights the highest law in Canada, but the Supreme Court of Canada has also repeatedly reinforced this interpretation of section 15 equality rights. There are no legal options to enact a law that is not Charter compliant.

We, as a Senate, can’t do it. The House of Commons can’t do it. Justice Canada knows this, and so does Indigenous Services Canada. Canada cannot use the arguments that Indian registration rules are complex, that it would be more convenient administratively to amend one tiny part of the act at a time or that increasing the number of people entitled to registration could cost more as legal justifications to deny equality rights.

I am not a lawyer, so I have to rely on the constitutional, human rights and Indigenous rights experts who appeared before us, like Mary Eberts and Pam Palmater. They reminded our committee that the law is very clear. I will share some of the jurisprudence that they shared with us.

In Vriend, the Supreme Court of Canada held that government incrementalism cannot justify an infringement of Charter rights:

In my opinion, groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. . . .

It went on to explain that:

If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.

Yet, the federal government is asking First Nations women and children to wait.

In Schachter, the Supreme Court of Canada, or SCC, explained that financial considerations alone can’t justify a Charter breach:

This Court has held, and rightly so, that budgetary considerations cannot be used to justify a violation under s. 1.

In Eldridge, the SCC rejected the government’s assertion that speculative costs constitute minimal impairment:

Assuming without deciding . . . that the objective of this decision — controlling health care expenditures — is “pressing and substantial” . . . I find that it does not constitute a minimum impairment of s. 15(1).

They went on to hold that the deference a court must give to the government is not infinite.

The SCC also dismissed the government’s argument that a change to the act would be a financial burden on small First Nations, stating in Corbiere:

. . . the possible failure, in the future, of the government to provide Aboriginal communities with additional resources necessary to implement a regime that would ensure respect for equality rights cannot justify a violation of constitutional rights in its legislation.

The government’s other argument pertaining to the duty to consult has been seriously considered and debated in the Committee on Indigenous Peoples and in this chamber. It is the subject of a great deal of discussion. It bears repeating: It was the federal government — this Liberal government — that chose to battle the Mikisew Cree First Nation in litigation all the way to the SCC. The government fought strenuously against the legal duty to consult when enacting legislation.

The federal government won: The SCC held that the federal government has no legal duty to consult when it enacts legislation. I am not proud that Canada fought a First Nation on this issue, but the SCC has now settled that point.

In my speech on Monday, I referenced all the national inquiries and commissions that raised the issue of ongoing sex‑and race-based discrimination that deeply impacts First Nations women. The National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls found Canada guilty of ongoing genocide, a manifest pattern of conduct that demonstrates a clear intention to destroy Indigenous Peoples, including unique forms of gendered genocide.

The minister has conceded many times over that the second‑generation cut-off is “very discriminatory” and “one of the most harmful things.” Canada has conceded in the Nicholas case that the inability to transmit Indian status to your descendants is discrimination based on race or ethnic origin, and breaches their section 15 equality rights.

Everyone knows that the second-generation cut-off is unconstitutional and must be remedied immediately. Here are some of the tangible and intangible benefits denied to First Nations and, in particular, First Nations women if we do not vote for Bill S-2 as amended:

The “repugnant,” “evil” sex- and race-based discrimination continues; it sends the message to society and First Nations that First Nations women are less valuable, less worthy, not deserving of equality, not important enough to enjoy human rights, less Indigenous and less deserving of remedial action; it perpetuates divisions within families, extended families, communities and Nations; it prolongs disconnection from community; it creates barriers to accessing language, culture, ceremonies and teachings from Elders; it denies a political voice in the communal governance of their home First Nation; it denies the social cohesion of regular interactions and relationships with other community members; it can result in rejection by other community members if they lack status; there is exclusion from political or legal land claim, Treaty or other settlement negotiations; they can be prevented from participating in First Nations elections and referendums; it is a barrier to accessing Treaty rights without harassment; they can be denied access to federal programs and services which are First Nation-specific and those offered on reserve; they would be unable to access First‑Nations‑specific pandemic supports, which may apply in the future to other endemics, epidemics or pandemics; it impacts their sense of self-worth and identity and belonging; and it harms their physical, mental and emotional health.

Senators, we must pass Bill S-2 as amended. This is the only protection available for First Nations women and children right now. We are the only barrier that can prevent them from waiting four years or more — if ever — for equality and justice. We must, then, be ready to stand firm in our defence of the Charter and the equality rights of First Nations and all Canadians should the House of Commons try to strip out these amendments.

People have talked about rejection, but people have gone to the other side and have talked to groups there. They are being supported. So I don’t know where people are getting this story.

The 12-month delay for the coming into force of these amendments is not ideal. It means women will wait longer, but it is a fail-safe to protect their rights should the government try to drag their feet or not act at all.

I will vote in support of Bill S-2 as amended, and I ask that all of you do the same. Imagine what message a unanimous vote to uphold Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms would say to the House of Commons. Thank you. Kinanaskomitinãwaw.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

I just want to mention that if there’s no agreement, it will be an hour, so I’m going to ask the question again: Is there an agreement on the length of the bell? Fifteen minutes was indicated. Is leave granted?

The bell will ring for 15 minutes. The vote will take place at 4:23 p.m.

Call in the senators.