Bill S-2

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

This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a Band List maintained in the Department of Indigenous Services.

Indian Act

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Indigenous Services covers Inuit, Métis and first nations, in particular. It is my understanding that Inuit people have no second-generation cut-off rule and Métis people have no second-generation cut-off rule, but first nations do.

Could the member reflect on the injustices under that ministry and how that definition cannot continue to go forward?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, that is an important question. It is definitely very obvious that the federal government has used its colonial efforts to divide and conquer indigenous peoples, be them first nations, Métis or Inuit, and we need to make sure that, as indigenous peoples, we stand in solidarity to make sure that these injustices, such as the second-generation cut-off, are addressed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I respect her very much. I want to repeat the question I asked the minister earlier.

Of course, we are in favour of the proposed change but, in our opinion, it is a fairly timid effort to change a law that is still sexist, discriminatory and the list goes on. Does my colleague not think that a next step needs to be taken to establish a true nation-to-nation partnership, which I hope we will eventually be able to do in a sovereign Quebec?

I would like to hear her opinion and learn what the next step would be.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I agree with the line of questioning of the member. It does not go far enough. First nations need to achieve their inherent jurisdiction over citizenship and membership. That dialogue needs to go further, and making sure we have swift passage of Bill S-2, with the Senate amendments, would help push that agenda forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation certainly needs the amendments of the Senate. Bill S-2 must include dealing with the first-generation cut-off.

I want to ask the hon. member if she heard an answer when she asked the minister if the government was prepared to support the Senate amendments so this bill could be passed expeditiously. I am still not certain, and I ask the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I did not hear a favourable answer, unfortunately, and I think our fight will end up being that we make sure that those Senate amendments are included in Bill S-2, particularly because, for example, in Bill C-38, there was a provision where first nations who had experienced discrimination would have been disallowed from seeking restitution. The Senate amendments to Bill S-2 propose to fix those kinds of injustices.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I chose to come to Ottawa to do right by my constituents, to do right by our country and all its people as defined by Treaty No. 6, and to do right by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including Canada's first nations people.

Bill S-2 would bring justice to first nations people by helping to end discrimination, discrimination that primarily affects first nations women and children. The Senate has rightfully challenged the 45th Parliament of Canada to make history with this bill by, one, addressing the Nicholas decision and, two, ending the second-generation cut-off now. After some reflection, my fellow Conservatives and I are prepared to meet the challenge of the Senate to address the Nicholas decision and end the second-generation cut-off rule now, during this Parliament.

With respect, I hear the indecisiveness on the other side of the House when it comes to this bill, which was introduced by the Liberals themselves. I want to respond to some of the concerns they have raised and the notions presented.

One is consultation. Of course consultation is important and is best practice, but first nations feel they have already been consulted on this for decades.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs recently stated:

We cannot...support yet another consultation process on how to end the second-generation cut-off when, through decades of research, court cases, collaboration, engagement, and studies, you are aware that the sex- and race-based discrimination violates s. 15 of the Charter, s. 35 rights....

Sharon McIver, a kokum champion with the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group, recently wrote the government to say:

In light of the Senate's amendments, the justification for further consultation is extremely unclear. It seems to be a delay tactic. But the consultation process is also conflating and confusing status, membership, citizenship, and self-government, which are all separate legal issues.

I, myself, being a former chief, a status Indian and an MP, have heard time and time again from coast to coast to coast that the second-generation cut-off has been breaking families up since 1985 and it needs to end yesterday.

I also challenge the Liberals to be more principled when it comes to consultation in their loose application of the Mikisew v. Canada 2018 decision principles. How is it that the Liberals can justify further delay through consultation in ending the second-generation cut-off on Bill S-2 but did not consult before passing bills in Parliament, such as Bill C-5, and signing the Alberta MOU?

The minister has heard concerns expressed by chiefs and communities about how this affects membership and costs for first nations. I acknowledge the concerns of chiefs on shortcomings when it comes to housing, education, child welfare, water and infrastructure. Those issues also need systematic fixes, but outside of this legislation. We must not let perfect get in the way of progress.

In addition, on the projected numbers for this bill, the government says that this bill would add approximately 22,000 people in the first year to the status Indian registry and approximately 7,000 to 8,000 net new people per year for the next 30 to 40 years. The direct costs are those basic social supports that ISC covers, which are projected to be approximately $50 million of a $25-billion budget. This pales in comparison to the billions spent and the numbers added by the Liberal mismanagement of immigration over the last decade.

Finally, there are the legalities of this. It has never been the case that Canada has voluntarily amended the Indian registry provisions after conducting nationwide consultations. The Vriend v. Alberta 1998 decision says, “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.” Failing to quickly act is a denial of charter rights. The decision continues, “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.”

Possibly out of a fear of risk, the government is choosing to focus on excuses, but the risk of doing nothing is greater. We have a chance now to change the narrative. The government can be proactive in reconciliation by doing the right thing now before going through long, costly litigation to end sex discrimination in the Indian Act.

As Conservatives, we want to help lead a new chapter in reconciliation. We are proud to be an opposition that challenges the government to meet higher standards. That is the power of Parliament and its relationship with first nations peoples. It is a relationship that can be one of the defining aspects that shows that the House can work together rather than being defined by political differences.

Mr. Speaker, I need to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I was proud to sit in the House and witness my Conservative colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes be supported with the unanimous consent of all parties to amend the Criminal Code to end coerced and forced sterilization, which unfortunately disproportionately affects indigenous women and girls. It was a powerful moment between all parties that will bring justice and hope for the future.

Furthermore, the 45th Parliament is unique. In 2025, Canada helped elect the first indigenous woman to become Minister of Indigenous Services, and I am proud to have been asked by our Conservative leader to sit as the shadow ISC minister. I respectfully challenge the minister and offer my help and advice for the work necessary to help end discrimination against women and children and end the second-generation cut-off in that work.

I give thanks to my fellow Conservatives for giving me the ability to issue that challenge, which is rooted in aligning first nation and Conservative values to end discrimination. It is also rooted in aligning values, such as self-determination and self-responsibility, lower government control of the people, the protection of traditions and the transmitting of those traditions down through generations, and the protection of the institution of family to keep families together. Conservative values and indigenous values can align.

This is ultimately about keeping families together. Since the Senate initiated this challenge, I have heard some of the toughest stories. If the government is truly about nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation, it will have to act to respond to these stories by getting rid of the second-generation cut-off and honouring the Nicholas decision.

There are stories such as that of a chief from Manitoba who raised her daughter with language, culture and ceremony, but because of the second-generation cut-off, the chief's daughter is systematically not a first nations person. Who is the government to uphold the law in telling the chief that her daughter is less than others in her own family? This is certainly not reconciliation, and it is not nation to nation.

We have heard from an uncle who signed a nephew's birth certificate so that the child did not have to be ostracized from their own community and from a kokum who lives on reserve and is transitioning to her spirit journey who is not able to pass on her life's belongings and her home to her children and grandchildren. We heard from first nations entrepreneurs, including an owner who will be forced to sell his business to a band in order to keep it indigenous-owned because his daughter is non-status. We listened to the AFN youth council speak to how they are not leaders of tomorrow, but leaders of today, who are there to address the government on this issue because they will ultimately not be a part of seeing whole first nations communities and families go extinct in their lifetime.

There is a longer-term, principled fix here. The ISC minister and my own community have found it. Membership and families should be defined by the first nations themselves, not by Ottawa. Nearly half of first nations have found the solution, and the government should focus its efforts on the capacity to facilitate first nations to move from section 11 to section 10 bands, or modern, self-government, self-determining agreements with the federal government.

The first nations need to meet Canada halfway and make this a priority by putting in the work to define their own membership laws. That was my attitude when I was chief, and it is the attitude I still carry to this day as a Conservative member of Parliament. First nations are the masters of their own destiny, not Ottawa.

Ottawa needs to focus less on political ISC programs and more on the systematic empowering of indigenous peoples. I am proud to say that this is also the guiding principle of our Conservative leader and the Conservative team when it comes to indigenous-Canada relationships. I think all members of the House know that to be true, but the House has to be better at acting on that principle.

I am finding the balance of being an MP and a person with first nation status. When my time here is done, I cannot look back and say that I did nothing to speak to and act against the extinction of first nations people, which by some accounts will peak in approximately 30 years. I am here to honour the principle of treaty that Canadians and first nations people will work together as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.

I challenge the Liberals to not use delay tactics when it is politically convenient, to show leadership and to put in the work to pass Bill S-2, which honours the Nicholas decision and gets rid of the second-generation cut-off, expediently during this Parliament.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge and echo the challenges of being a first nation person doing this critical work.

We know this bill has been put forward as something to address enfranchisement as part of the Indian Act. If we are truly going to support the process of community having jurisdiction and authority over defining membership and status, will my colleague support and create the space needed for community to do that work internally and have authority over choosing procedure, or will my colleague support amendments that would eliminate the opportunity for them to do so?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, as I said, the decisions and the destiny of first nations and indigenous people lie in their own communities. I agree with that principle, but I also think that this is a delay tactic from the Liberals. Quite frankly, it is not consistent with their position when it came to not consulting on Bill C-5 and on Alberta's MOU.

Right now, I think that first nations have that opportunity. The amendments contemplate a one-year transition period, but there is more than ample opportunity and resources for first nations to do the right thing, which they want to do, to move their own membership definitions.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and tell him that the House is fairly unanimous in supporting Bill S‑2.

However, I am curious to know whether he thinks it might be time to go a little further and carry out a more in-depth overhaul of the Indian Act. My Bloc colleague said that the name of the act itself is repulsive.

Is it not time to take things to the next level and go even further in our relationship with first nations?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the Indian Act needs to be dispelled, but it is first nations that have to be the primary driver of that. I agree with my colleague in that regard.

For this legislation, I accept the amendments the Senate made. Again, we cannot let perfect get in the way of progress. The Indian Act is still going to be generations and decades ahead at different paces for first nations communities, but ultimately what we are talking about here today is the federal government's relationship specifically to status individuals, and government being able to lead on that to get rid of it today and get rid of discrimination.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is in my neighbouring riding. He will be well aware of the history of the Michel band in Sturgeon County, one of the only first nations in Canada that was forcibly enfranchised.

I am wondering if he can talk about the impact this legislation would have on first nations peoples like those in the Michel band and how we can do a better job of creating reconciliation to recognize first nations' status in this country.