An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)

This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) that was rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec on August 3, 2015, and to provide that the persons who become so entitled also have the right to have their name entered in a Band List maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This enactment requires the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to initiate consultations on issues related to registration and band membership and to conduct reviews on sex-based inequities under the Indian Act, and to report to Parliament on those activities.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other S-3s:

S-3 (2021) An Act to amend the Judges Act
S-3 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act
S-3 (2013) Law Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act
S-3 (2011) Law Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 3
S-3 (2010) Law Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010
S-3 (2009) Law An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act

Votes

Dec. 4, 2017 Passed Motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration)
Dec. 4, 2017 Failed Motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) (amendment)
June 21, 2017 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration)
June 21, 2017 Failed Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) (report stage amendment)
June 21, 2017 Failed Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) (report stage amendment)
June 21, 2017 Failed Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) (report stage amendment)

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have to move forward. Unfortunately, the court decision had a mandated time period in which we had to address the issues.

Human rights should not be a topic where we have to extend debate. It should be automatic. Unfortunately, we cannot change yesterday, but we can change tomorrow. Moving forward, we understand that phase two is supposed address all sexual discrimination for indigenous people.

I am looking forward to phase two. It is important that there be continued progress with Bill S-3 and phase two.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:30 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, since its inception, the Indian Act has accorded privilege to male Indians and their descendants and disregarded female Indians as second class. While piecemeal changes to this discriminatory act have been made over time, there is still a sex-based hierarchy of the status categories.

To sum up where we are right now, despite unprecedented government promises of indigenous reconciliation and respect, Liberals are trading off human rights based on budget lines. Indigenous women, who have been fighting 40 years in court for equality, watched in dismay last week as Liberals gutted reforms that would have made the Indian Act less vile. Canada's laws still say that indigenous people with a university degree, with military service, or with a white husband lose their Indian status. Would one not think that a government pledged to a new nation-to-nation relationship built on respect would want to fix this?

Indigenous women who lost their legal status after marrying white men convinced the Senate this month to adopt Indian Act changes to overturn these long-standing injustices. However, last week Liberal MPs stripped those changes out after the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs threatened “dire unintended consequences” from what looks to me like a fundamental human right. Is there any other group in Canada the government would discriminate against in this way?

“[I]ndigenous women deserve the equality the charter is intended to ensure and protect”, so said litigant Lynn Gehl in Ottawa this month at a press conference.

Courts ordered that the government end discrimination in the Indian Act once and for all. This bill, gutted by Liberal MPs last week, could have done that.

To honour National Aboriginal Day tomorrow and to validate the Prime Minister's feminist rhetoric, the Prime Minister should do the right thing in this week's vote, maybe even in tonight's vote, and that would be to adopt the amendments proposed by my colleague in the New Democrat caucus and by the Green Party leader to restore the elements of the Senate bill that were cut by Liberal MPs at committee last week. Let us end this session of Parliament on a just note and send Canada on a good path for its 150th.

There is much support for the government ending sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Canada has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which clarifies state obligations to respect self-determination, including the right to determine membership. Canada must get out of the business of deciding who is and is not an Indian under Canadian law.

The United Nations commission to end discrimination against women, just in November, called out the government for the need to act on this file. It said:

...the Committee remains concerned about continued discrimination against indigenous women, in particular regarding the transmission of Indian status, preventing them and their descendants from enjoying all the benefits relating to such status.

The Committee recommends that the State party remove all remaining discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that affect indigenous women and their descendants, and ensure that indigenous women enjoy the same rights as men to transmit their status to their children and grandchildren.

The government has failed. It has given this House a flawed bill, uninformed by any indigenous woman's input. After 40 years of litigation by indigenous women, many of whom are still alive, and indigenous lawyers who have been fighting alongside them, the government failed to ask them what they thought and have them inform this vital legislation before us.

The government has stalled for 18 months, knowing that it had a court-ordered requirement to do this work. It is scrambling at the end of this session to meet that court deadline. Having been given 18 months by the court to make this right, they had testimony from witnesses that could have made it right. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to pass a bill that is being heavily criticized by the majority of indigenous people.

I will quote from the Ontario Native Women's Association. It said,

By rejecting the “6(1)(a) All The Way” amendment to Bill S-3 the federal government has betrayed its promise to Indigenous women. The amendment would have reinstated our sisters and removed all sex based discrimination from the Indian Act.

The Senate did repair that flaw. The Senate amendment, which came to this House, has support from indigenous women. That repaired bill, given to the government, was really a gift to a government that is struggling to deliver on its first nations promises.

On the eve of National Aboriginal Day and the celebration of Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation, this would have been a real gift to the country to actually move forward and end gender discrimination under the Indian Act. Instead, the Liberal members of the committee gutted the bill, bringing us back to what we are debating today. It could be repaired by accepting the amendments that are on the floor right now.

This has left indigenous women out again. There is strong criticism, repeated again and again, by almost every indigenous women's organization we have heard from.

This has left us, then, scrambling in the final days of Parliament, disrespecting the advice of indigenous women and disrespecting Canada's deep need for reconciliation. This is breaking trust. It is a dangerous game. We have cynicism from the women most affected, and their children, when we have the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs saying that there will be “dire unanticipated consequences” of this bill. Indigenous women say repeatedly that this is a human right, that gender equality is a human right already and that we do not need to consult on it.

This is a government that consults on everything, endlessly, things we did not think needed to be consulted on, such as restoring habitat protection to the Fisheries Act. In that case, we are consulted in the absence of action.

In this case, we have the government's failure to consult with the indigenous women most deeply affected. It brought a bill twice to the Senate on which there was no consultation, and now it is saying that we can only bring a half-measure bill, because we have to consult with indigenous people on the unintended and dire consequences the minister cites.

The government cannot have it both ways, not without breaking a great deal of goodwill and breaking a great deal of faith with indigenous women in this country.

As Sharon McIvor, litigant and now defence lawyer, asked at a press conference last week, why would they consult on whether they can continue to be discriminated against? Lynn Gehl, also a long-time challenger of this discrimination in court, said that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is using consultation as a weapon. That is no way to move forward.

We have strong indigenous women leading in this country already. I want to pay my respects to Shania Pruden, from the Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba, and Teanna Ducharme, whose Nisga'a name is Aygadim Majagalee. Both of these young women, in association with the Daughters of the Vote program, came to this House and testified at the status of women committee. They are articulate, strong, brilliant leaders.

I also want to honour the late Shannen Koostachin, who initiated Shannen's dream and was at the root of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal challenge on equality of treatment in child welfare. There are three rulings now the Canadian government has not honoured.

There is also Helen Knott, Treaty 8 leader, who is advocating and saying strongly that violence against the land is the same as violence against women. We need to move forward in a good way.

I ask the government to please either adopt the Senate amendments or ask the court for an extension so that it can really do this right. We cannot afford half measures in this country. Gender equality and first nations respect is a solemn promise of the government that I am going to keep working to have it keep.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:40 p.m.

Labrador Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Yvonne Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the judge rejected the plaintiff's application for a further extension. The member is aware of that. More than 35,000 people have been waiting two years since this court decision was exercised to exercise their rights. She understands that we need to pass this legislation immediately to address the discriminatory gender-based gaps that exist in the Indian Act. We have also committed to stage two.

Will the member support those people who have been waiting for the past two years and support the second stage so we can do the consultations properly and get the real changes that are necessary in the bill?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government was in opposition, it proposed the very same amendment to the Conservative government that, now that it is the government, it rejects. This has been on the Liberal Party's agenda and radar for a very long time. When they formed government, they would have been briefed on this. They have had 18 months to ask indigenous women whether the new legislation proposed in S-3 was adequate. Twice, the Senate told the government it was, because the Senate actually talked to indigenous women when the government failed to.

The message we are getting loud and clear from every native women's organization is that they want the Senate version of the bill passed. It is the perfect undertaking. That is what we are urging this government to do now. If the Liberals really are so surprised about the same amendment they proposed in 2010, and that the Minister of Justice advanced when she was an elected chief at the highest levels in British Columbia, imploring this Parliament to take the very same action she now opposes, which is stunning to me, then the government should ask for an extension, because it did not. In fact, the court ruling this morning said that the judge was unwilling to get in a battle between the Senate and Parliament unless the government itself was going to invite it in and leave the door open. The government has failed to ask for that extension. It has no credibility.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:45 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her passionate advocacy on behalf of indigenous women in this context.

I was disappointed to hear her say that the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs has claimed “dire unintended consequences”. I would like her to advise the House just what those consequences would be, because gender equality is a human right, as she said. One would hope that would be the number one priority. What are these dire unintended consequences? Are they real, or are they simply a smokescreen for a failure to do the right thing?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's frustration. We cannot think of another group within Canada that is discriminated against more than indigenous women. It is a double whammy in our system, which we really hoped this government was going to try to change.

No one should have to have consultation on their human rights. This is not unlike the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The government has now been issued three non-compliance orders. The courts have said that indigenous kids should get the same funding and treatment as non-indigenous kids. The government in that case said it could not afford the $155-million tab to do that. The government is very willing to spend on all kinds of other areas, but that it is not willing to spend on human rights is inexplicable, and it has some explaining to do.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to representatives of the government. I very forcefully won amendments. I put forward amendments to restore the provisions that eliminate all gender discrimination. I do think, in fairness to the hon. minister, that there are issues. My view is that we can solve the issues.

There is one I will mention to the hon. member. If a whole flood of new members were accepted as legitimate members of a first nation community, they would then have voting rights. Some first nations communities have a quorum that requires 25% of all those people in the nation to vote before the election is valid.

There are ways to handle unintended consequences. Deciding to continue gender discrimination is not a way to handle an unintended consequence.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. The government has had years to examine these “unintended consequences”. The amendments proposed today are identical to those that the Liberals proposed while in opposition in 2010. They certainly should be aware of what the implications of their amendments were. They should stop their hypocrisy and move ahead to end gender discrimination against indigenous women.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

Is the House ready for the question?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

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

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2017 / 6:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.