Honourable senators, more than a century ago, Duncan Campbell Scott, who was the Deputy Superintendent General of the Department of Indian Affairs, stood in our country’s Parliament and declared the following:

I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. That is my whole point. . . .

Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.

I have repeated Scott’s words in my own interpretation hundreds of times in speeches and presentations when I talk about the treaties and the treaty relationship in this country. I can tell you that this quote is not a relic of the past; it remains seared into the legal and administrative architecture that governs Indigenous life in Canada.

Today, the language in this quote repels us; however, its intent has not been fully dismantled. In the guise of progress, the Indian Act continues to carry forward this assimilationist vision, not through blunt instruments but through procedural exclusions, registration formulas and inherited inequities that punish families for the choices and circumstances of their ancestors.

Though the language now strikes us as shocking, the legacy of that thinking persists not only in the discrimination that Indigenous peoples face every day in this country but also in the laws that still govern their identity, their belonging and their children’s futures.

This is the context in which we must evaluate Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). This is the backdrop against which we must measure whether we are finally moving away from colonial control or simply softening its edges.

Today, we are debating Bill S-2 — a bill that proposes limited amendments to the Indian Act. I rise in support of this bill, but I do not do so in celebration but with a deep sense of responsibility because while Bill S-2 addresses some of the damage, it leaves far too much untouched.

The Indian Act is still a tool of exclusion. Let us be clear: The Indian Act remains a colonial statute designed not to affirm rights but to administer assimilation. While amendments have been made over the years — in 1985, 2011, 2017 and now with Bill S-2 — the act retains its colonial government policy that sought, in Scott’s words, to “get rid of the Indian problem.” It imposes sex-based discrimination, where Indigenous women and their descendants remain disadvantaged in their registration eligibility. It created a two-tiered system of status through sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the act, effectively writing into law the extinction of identity over two generations. The second-generation cut-off is a bureaucratic extinction formula that denies grandchildren status if both parents have only one status parent.

The act still ties identity to male lineage and declares children born out of wedlock or without paternity disclosure to be non‑status. These unjust barriers around parentage disproportionately affect women, notably those who are survivors of violence.

Equally controversial, the act maintains federal control over band membership, which is a continuous denial of Indigenous self-determination.

Despite amendments in 1985, in 2011 with Bill C-3 and in 2017 with Bill S-3, each reform has been driven not by the federal government’s goodwill but by litigation and Charter challenges by courageous Indigenous women and families who stood up to the state — individuals like Sharon McIvor, Dr. Lynn Gehl and Mary Two-Axe Earley — not freely offered by the state.

And with each amendment, the response has been partial, seemingly reluctant and ultimately insufficient.

Bill S-2 is the federal government’s legislative response to Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General), a case in which the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the Indian Act continued to discriminate by excluding the descendants of individuals who were involuntarily enfranchised; in other words, they lost their status as “Indian” under the Indian Act.

Bill S-2 reinstates registration entitlements for those whose ancestors lost status due to enfranchisement, allows individuals removed from their natal band to reaffiliate, provides a mechanism for voluntary deregistration and updates outdated and dehumanizing language, such as replacing “mentally incompetent Indian” with “dependent person.”

The bill also represents a rare moment: It is sponsored and carried by an Indigenous senator, our colleague Senator Audette, whose leadership I deeply respect and whose voice I will return to shortly.

What does Bill S-2 not do?

Despite its merits, Bill S-2 leaves several foundational injustices untouched. The second-generation cut-off remains intact. Under section 6(2) of the Indian Act, a child of two section 6(2) parents — who have only one parent with status — is not entitled to status. This cut-off, carried forward from 1985, means that in two generations, status ends. It is a legislated extinction code that punishes families for intermarrying and denies children their rightful identity. It leads to the statistical erasure of entire family lines, even as individuals retain strong cultural, community and ancestral connections.

The government acknowledges the urgency of this issue. It was ranked as the number one concern in the 2019 collaborative process, and yet we’re told a legislative fix is not likely to even be proposed until the fall of 2026. This is promising, but it is also late. The harm of this cut-off has now persisted for over four decades. For many, especially those whose grandparents regained status under Bill C-3 or Bill S-3, this delay will mean the difference between being recognized under law or being erased.

The two-tiered status system — section 6(1) versus section 6(2) — remains. This system continues to assign lesser status based on historical sex discrimination. Women who regained status under Bill C-3 or Bill S-3 are often granted section 6(2) status, which means it limits their children’s entitlement, unlike men who never lost their status.

Generational inequality persists, particularly against matrilineal lines. As Senator Audette pointed out, mothers — particularly those who are survivors of sexual violence — are still expected to name the father of their child in order to complete a status registration application. This requirement is discriminatory, harmful and potentially retraumatizing.

Control of band membership is still with the federal government. The federal government retains authority over band lists, unless a First Nation has developed a custom membership code under section 10 of the act. This means that for many communities, Canada still decides who belongs and who has the status of “Indian” under the act. That is unacceptable in a post‑UNDRIP period.

Consultation has been inadequate. Senator Audette has said it best: “I’m not satisfied.” Real consultation must be transparent, inclusive and accountable. Yes, the government has made important strides since 2018-19 in its consultation process. There has been funding for community-led sessions; outreach materials have been created, translated and shared widely; and information sessions were held. It is also true that Indigenous organizations co-developed the consultation process. Yet, as our colleague Senator Martin rightly asked, if consultation is still under way, how can it properly inform the bill already before us?

Why support this bill? Senator Audette supports this because she knows that Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) is currently stayed in British Columbia. If we delay the bill to make improvements, individuals in British Columbia will be affected, while others across the country may have to relitigate the same issue province by province, an expensive and emotionally draining process.

Senator Audette also reminds us this bill does not fix the foundation. She has called for the repeal of subsections 6(1) and 6(2), opposed the requirement to name fathers in registration applications, questioned the continued discretion of the registrars, criticized the quality and transparency of the consultation and warned that if we do not do more, we will continue to legislate discrimination under the guise of reform.

Senator Audette’s concerns mirror mine. I believe they mirror the concerns of many of us here in this chamber. We are not debating whether this bill does some good — we acknowledge that it does. The real question is this: Does it do enough? If it does not, are we committed to taking next steps? If we accept the second-generation cut-off, we accept legal identity extinction by design. If we keep band membership under Ottawa’s control, we deny First Nations their right to determine their own citizens. If we allow paternal disclosure rules to remain, we place bureaucracy above dignity.

Let us say clearly that the Indian Act, even reformed, is not a rights-affirming law. It is an administrative vestige of a colonial regime, yet it still governs the lives, the status, the belonging and the access to Treaty rights of many Indigenous Canadians. If we are serious about reconciliation, the federal government must, first, co-develop a new consent-based framework for membership and status; second, dismantle discriminatory registration criteria, including the two-tiered regime of the second-generation cut-off; third, respect the right of Indigenous peoples to define their identity on their own terms, in their own laws; and fourth, uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not just in principle, but in law.

Honourable colleagues, I will vote in favour of Bill S-2, not because it is sufficient, but because it is urgent. People who have waited a lifetime to reclaim their identity should not be told to wait again while we perfect the process.

But we owe them more than just this bill. The vote must be paired with public and parliamentary commitment to complete the work to end the cut-off, restore Indigenous control over identity and ensure that no one is left out of the circle again because a law passed in 1985 decided that they did not belong.

Let me be absolutely clear: This vote is not the final word. Let Bill S-2 be the floor, not the ceiling — the beginning, not the end. It is a promise to those disenfranchised against their will, to those stripped of their identity and to the grandchildren who will still carry the weight of their grandmothers’ disenfranchisement. We will not let it stop here.

Let this chamber today resolve not simply to support this bill, but to finish the work that has begun and that justice, fairness, equity and reconciliation demands. Thank you. Kinanâskomitinawow.

Yes.

Senator Arnot, I want to mention that your time has almost expired. Are you asking for more time to answer the question?

That’s a good question. I probably shouldn’t, but I will. I am asking for more time.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you for the question, senator. I realize that is a conundrum. I don’t have an answer. It’s of great concern. This has been long-standing for 40 years. It must be addressed. I think that’s where we should put our hearts and souls. It may well see an amendment in the committee; I don’t know. I hope it goes to committee, and I hope it is a foundation for moving in the right direction if it isn’t settled soon. Thank you.