An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)

Sponsor

Patty Hajdu  Liberal

Status

Second reading (House), as of March 22, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-38.

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, 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 in the Department of Indigenous Services.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from 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 C-38s:

C-38 (2017) An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)
C-38 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 2, 2014-15
C-38 (2012) Law Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act
C-38 (2010) Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-38 aims to amend the Indian Act by addressing inequities related to enfranchisement, allowing individuals to deregister from the Indian registry, enabling women to regain membership in their natal bands, and replacing outdated and offensive language with more respectful terms. These changes seek to address historical wrongs, promote self-determination, and align the Act with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, while acknowledging that further work is needed to fully transition away from the Indian Act. The Bill is expected to make approximately 3,500 more people eligible for registration.

Liberal

  • Supports addressing inequities: The bill addresses major inequities in the Indian Act, responding to concerns raised by First Nations regarding registration and band membership. It aims to rectify historical wrongs and advance reconciliation by returning control of identity to indigenous peoples.
  • Key issues addressed: The bill addresses the legacy impacts of enfranchisement, returns autonomy by allowing First Nations to deregister, recognizes the rights of all First Nations individuals to their natal band membership, and eliminates stigmatizing language about First Nations persons with disabilities.
  • Move away from Indian Act: While acknowledging the Indian Act as a tool of colonialism rooted in racism, the bill is viewed as a necessary step toward self-determination. It reflects policies First Nations have long advocated for and is seen as essential before communities can regain full control and jurisdiction over membership, registration and citizenship.
  • Focus on Reconciliation: The Liberal speakers emphasized the importance of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through addressing the wrongs of the past. They view the bill as a step towards transferring control and delivery of programs and services back to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and fostering a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

Conservative

  • Supports the bill's aims: The Conservative party supports the aims of the bill, which are to continue to address gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act and move towards reconciliation and self-determination for First Nations. However, they also express concerns about the slow pace of progress and the bill's limitations, viewing it as a series of fixes rather than a comprehensive solution.
  • Need for faster action: Conservatives urge the government to prioritize Indigenous-led legislation and address the slow pace of change. They criticize the government for taking too long to make relatively simple changes and for not prioritizing Indigenous issues, emphasizing the need for quicker action and proper consultation.
  • Self-determination is key: The Conservative party emphasizes the importance of self-determination for First Nations, advocating for greater control and autonomy for First Nations individuals and communities. They promote initiatives like the First Nations Resource Charge to enable First Nations to directly benefit from resource projects on their lands.
  • Fix broken systems: Conservatives advocate for fixing the cumbersome bureaucracy and broken systems that hinder First Nations' access to rights, status, and services. They highlight issues with status card processing times and the need for a change in how First Nations issues are approached, emphasizing the importance of empowering First Nations to control their own destiny.

NDP

  • Supports sending bill to committee: While the bill does not go far enough, it is needed. Sending it to committee will show how the bill fails to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and demonstrate the necessity of amendments.
  • Incremental change is insufficient: The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is insufficient because the bill only makes incremental changes and does not address all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act.
  • Bill perpetuates discrimination: If Bill C-38 is passed as is, it will continue discrimination against first nations women and their families, failing to meet the minimum standards set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  • Reparations are prevented: Bill C-38 includes clauses that prevent victims of discriminatory policies from seeking reparations for the harm they have experienced, a right afforded to other Canadians facing human rights violations.

Bloc

  • Supports amending the Indian Act: The Bloc supports Bill C-38 as a step against injustices perpetrated by the Indian Act, addressing issues like deregistration and reaffiliation. The bill allows thousands of indigenous individuals to reconnect with their cultural heritage and reclaim their identity.
  • Indian Act as colonial law: The Bloc sees the Indian Act as a racist, colonial law that introduced a system of domination and ghettoization. They advocate for its abolition and replacement with a new, respectful regime founded on dialogue between nations.
  • Addresses historical wrongs: Bill C-38 promises better days by addressing individual and collective enfranchisement issues, potentially granting registration access to nearly 3,500 people. It allows voluntary deregistration while preserving the right to re-register and pass on entitlement to descendants.
  • Gender discrimination addressed: The bill responds to historical gender discrimination in registration and band membership, particularly against women and their descendants. It recognizes the acquired rights of all first nations to membership with their natal band and aims to re-affiliate women and their descendants to their natal bands who were automatically moved to their husbands' band list upon marriage.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to discuss a monumental step forward in our nation's journey toward reconciliation and justice for first nations communities. The proposed legislation, Bill C-38, seeks to amend the Indian Act in response to long-standing concerns voiced by first nations individuals and communities, as well as to address the residual discriminatory impacts highlighted by the Nicholas v. AGC litigation.

For too long, the Indian Act has been a source of division and inequality, its outdated provisions casting long shadows over the promise of equity and unity. Bill C-38 represents a pivotal moment in our collective history, a chance to right the wrongs of the past and lay the groundwork for a future where justice and equality are not just ideals but realities.

The proposed changes would be both comprehensive and transformative. First, the bill seeks to eliminate known sex-based membership inequalities from the act. This would be a critical step toward ensuring that all first nations individuals, regardless of gender, have equal rights and opportunities. By addressing these sex-based inequalities, we would not only uphold the principles of justice and fairness, but would also honour the resilience and dignity of those who have fought tirelessly for these changes.

Second, the legislation aims to address inequities caused by the practice of enfranchisement. This historical practice, which stripped first nations individuals of their status and rights, has left deep scars on communities. By rectifying these injustices, we would acknowledge the wrongs of the past and take a significant step toward healing and reconciliation.

Additionally, Bill C-38 would allow for deregistration from the Indian register. This change would recognize the autonomy and agency of first nations individuals, providing them with the freedom to define their own identities and affiliations. It would be a move toward self-determination, empowering individuals to make choices that reflect their personal beliefs and circumstances.

It is essential to emphasize the gravity of enfranchisement. The process unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status, severing their ties to their communities and heritage. Although the practice was abolished 35 years ago, the shadows it cast are long and dark, with its harmful legacy still felt today. The scars left by enfranchisement are not merely historical footnotes; they are also lived realities for many, manifesting in lost connections, identities and rights.

In alignment with our commitment to reconciliation, and guided by the wisdom of first nations partners, our government is dedicated to confronting and eliminating these registration inequalities at a systemic level. Bill C-38 is not just a legislative measure; it is a testament to our resolve to address these injustices head on. By targeting these inequities, we are taking a stand against the vestiges of policies designed to assimilate and erase first nations identities.

Moreover, the bill's commitment to eradicating sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act would address a critical aspect of inequality that has persisted for far too long. These discriminatory practices, embedded in the act, have undermined the principle of equality and fairness. By confronting these injustices, Bill C-38 would be setting a precedent for the kind of nation we aspire to be, one where equality is not just a principle but also a practice.

Let us recognize that Bill C-38 represents a step forward in our journey towards reconciliation. It is a journey that requires our collective effort, commitment and compassion. As we move forward, let us do so with the understanding that true reconciliation involves acknowledging the past, rectifying injustices and working towards a future where the rights and dignity of all first nations peoples are respected and upheld.

Bill C-38 would commit to removing outdated and offensive language found in the Indian Act. Language shapes our perceptions and attitudes, and by eliminating derogatory terms, we foster a more respectful and inclusive dialogue. This change is not just about updating terminology; it is about reshaping the narrative and affirming the dignity of all first nations people.

In our journey toward progress and inclusivity, we encounter a significant obstacle: our legal code, a labyrinth of statutes, some of which date back a long time to a previous era. Among these laws are provisions that no longer reflect our current values, ethics and understanding. Even more concerning, some contain language that is offensive, discriminatory and wholly out of step with today’s standards of respect and equality.

The task before us is not merely administrative; it is morally imperative. To rectify the situation, we must undertake a comprehensive review of our legal system. The review should not only identify outdated and offensive provisions but also evaluate the relevance and applicability of laws in the contemporary context. The goal is not to erase history but to ensure that our legal framework is just, equitable and reflective of the society we aspire to be.

The process requires a collaborative effort involving legal experts, historians, ethicists and, importantly, the community at large. Public consultation would ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to the diverse needs and values of our society. Technology can aid in this endeavour, enabling more efficient review and broader engagement. Moreover, this effort presents an opportunity for educational outreach, helping the public understand the evolution of our legal system and the importance of laws that are just, inclusive and respectful. By engaging in this critical work, we affirm our commitment to democracy, justice and the dignity of all individuals.

The bill includes further required consequential amendments to ensure that the act would reflect the values of equality, respect and justice. These changes are not merely administrative; they are a testament to our commitment to addressing historical injustices and building a more equitable society.

Bill C-38 is more than simply legislation; it is a beacon of hope. It signifies a profound shift in our relationship with first nations communities, one rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. As we move forward, let us do so with open hearts and minds, committed to the principles of reconciliation and equity.

Together we can build a future that honours the rich heritage and contributions of first nations peoples, ensuring that our nation's legacy is one of unity, justice, and mutual respect. The path to modernizing our legal system is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our democracy and to build a more inclusive society. Together let us embark on this journey with determination and hope.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly remember, as the bill came forward, expressions of disappointment that it did not go farther, that it would bring relatively minor changes in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown, and that much more would need to be done. However, I did not hear anyone suggest that it was not a good step forward, though small.

I wonder whether the hon. member can inform us of the extent to which more substantial changes will be coming in the legislative scheme of this country's racist laws.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with her that much more needs to be done. We are taking a step in the right direction; that is the most important thing. We have the intention and have already shown that we are converting our intention into reality by taking this step.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1 p.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the need for reaffiliation and membership is extremely important and that we must move forward.

My question for my colleague is this. Why, after five years and after everything that has happened, did his government not take action, and why is its current action so limited?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are many more things that we could have done and should have done, but the important thing is that we are doing them now.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of Bill C-38, the department estimates that around 3,500 individuals would be enfranchised. That ultimately means that any financial costs of integrating them would be put onto Indian bands.

Section 10 bands have the autonomy to determine membership. Therefore, an individual would be able to obtain status from the Indian register after Bill C-38's passage. However, that leads to a question I have, which is whether this would complicate the section 10 process that has been well established. Does the member think that this needs to be studied further or that some amendments or some clarity from the government needs to be forthcoming?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, to be very honest and frank, I am not very sure as to the specific nature of the question the member asked, and I do not have the answers for it, but hopefully the government will listen to the question and provide some clarity.

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do remember that in 2019 there was a bill called Bill S-3, which I thought was the government's answer to all of these problems. Is Bill C-38 not an admission on behalf of the government that it did not get Bill S-3 right?

Indian ActGovernment Orders

March 22nd, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, many times, we may not cover every single thing that we aim to do. Sometimes there may be things that were not covered, but the important thing is that we have recognized it and have come up with the legislation that is before us.