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

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

moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Nunavut.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi. Waajiye. Bonjour. Hello.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

The Indian Act of 1876 is a remnant of our colonial history and an attempt to completely assimilate first nations peoples. It sought to absorb our languages, cultures, governance structures and, ultimately, our identity as first nations.

Through a process called “enfranchisement”, first nations individuals were told that they would gain the basic rights that other Canadians already had. They simply had to give up who they were. They would have the capacity to vote, to own property, to practise law and to become a doctor. Imagine having to make that choice. I recognize that for many individuals who did choose enfranchisement, it was truly not a choice at all. Imagine someone being told that their education, profession or ambition would cost them everything: their identity and their children's identity.

I stand here to speak to Bill S-2, a vital step towards addressing inequities in the Indian Act. It is worth remembering that before 1960, a first nations woman like me would never have had the opportunity to sit in this chamber as a member of Parliament unless she first gave up her status. To serve in Canada's democracy, she would have been required to renounce legal recognition of who she was. That was the price of enfranchisement: participation in exchange for erasure.

Now, for the first time, the indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services is standing before members to advance reform on the very injustices of enfranchisement.

It is an honour for me to help move forward Bill S-2, which specifically addresses these inequalities.

This legislation would restore entitlement to approximately 3,500 first nations individuals and their descendants who gave it up or lost it. These are not just numbers on a page. There are more than 3,500 mothers, fathers, children, aunties and grandparents who are all looking for the restoration of identity, dignity and recognition, what they should have always had and what belongs to them.

Across this country, thousands of first nations individuals are waiting for enfranchisement decisions, waiting for their identity to be restored, waiting for their children to be recognized and waiting to be told by Canada what they have always known: that they belong.

I have heard first-hand the impacts of enfranchisement on individuals, on their families and on their communities. They have been clear that it is imperative to avoid delay and that changes are needed in the Indian Act. Their message is that they cannot, will not and should not continue to be deterred or denied their rightful entitlement any longer.

This bill gives first nations peoples back the power to have their name removed from the Indian register and take back control of their identity.

It also amends the act to remove outdated and offensive language related to dependent persons, language that is a legacy of colonial mindsets. In addition, it makes it easier to reaffiliate individuals, particularly women, with their natal first nations band.

These changes matter because they correct real harms and bring people home. Bill S-2 is a step in the right direction.

I want to share and state clearly that I recognize that it does not address all inequities in the Indian Act. The second-generation cut-off rule continues to harmfully erode entitlement over generations. Under the rule, if an entitled person marries someone who is not entitled, their children hold entitlement, but their future children, the second generation, do not.

This is a critical issue that must be addressed the right way. I want to reiterate today that the question is not how we will do it, but when we will do it. We need to follow the lead of the community to ensure that the solutions we bring forward are not only supported by the community but have the consensus of rights holders.

That is why we launched the collaborative process in November 2023 to address the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds.

Many first nations and organizations have developed proposals for solutions to these very issues, and through the advisory council, the proposals are presently being studied and evaluated based on legal viability. This work is grounded in lived experience, community knowledge and the realities of administering membership systems. Broad consultation, the second phase, will focus on these solutions and be quickly launched in the coming weeks.

Advancing these amendments to Bill S-2 without meeting the legal duty to consult would repeat outdated processes that unilaterally impose a legislative solution, not to mention further jeopardizing the status of thousands of individuals who have been waiting in limbo for the bill to pass, to address enfranchisement.

I am firmly committed to addressing the second-generation cut-off, but we must respect this fundamental principle or we risk repeating the very wrongs we are seeking to right.

Getting this next step right is important. Legislative change without implementation readiness is not reconciliation. That is why addressing the second-generation cut-off requires a distinct legislative path forward, one that allows space for meaningful engagement with partners and also for government and communities to be prepared to support the changes that need to be made.

While we are engaging in the collaboration process with first nations on broader reforms, we cannot ignore the urgent need to help people who are waiting right now, people who have applied to register and been denied because of enfranchisement, people whose parents or grandparents were forced to choose between their identity and their children's safety.

People have lived in this system without recognition, because the system was designed to erase their rights. The court decision in the Nicholas case found that certain registration provisions in the Indian Act violated the equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gave Parliament a deadline to act. That April 2026 deadline is fast approaching.

If we fail to pass the bill in this time, we risk leaving 3,500 people behind. We risk creating uncertainty for families who have already endured too much. Further, we risk unequal application of the Indian Act across the country, and we risk allowing unconstitutional provisions to remain in force. This cannot happen. While I know and address this as a colonial policy, I want to ensure that the solutions that we bring forward are going to be based in further protecting the implementation process of what they are designed to do to ensure that we bring forward equality. We want to also make sure that we are fighting to protect community, and that they are leading the solutions, the true message of reconciliation.

Experience grounds me and reminds me that this work is deeply personal, including for me and for my own family. I carry that with me every time I stand in this place. We have the opportunity before us to correct a painful legacy, to restore the rights that were unjustly taken from thousands of people asked to make a simple choice that perpetuated further harm.

Bill S-2 is necessary, it is urgent, and it is a meaningful step towards justice. I urge for the passing of the bill as it was originally introduced to Parliament, so those who have waited far too long do not have to wait any longer.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech and acknowledge the history that she spoke about and the history that she personally represents. I am very proud to see that happen in my lifetime.

In this House, we have legislation that affects first nations on multiple issues. Earlier in this Parliament, we talked about things like Bill C-5. We debated an Alberta MOU. At that time, first nations were complaining that there was no consultation with them.

On this one, the opposite is happening. First nations are saying they do not need any more consultation to do the right thing and end discrimination in the Indian Act. Could the minister address that double standard? Why is the government delaying things, such as to end sex discrimination, but on other things it does consultation?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 in its original form was intended to look at enfranchisement, one of the challenges with the Indian Act. I can answer that there are many cases of discrimination under the Indian Act.

I am looking for a solution that is going to ensure we are able to reach consensus on what the solution truly is. In this case, the amendments put forward are looking to implement a one-parent solution, but is that truly the only solution that we can bring forward? Is it blood quantum? Is it the one-parent rule? Are there alternatives?

We should challenge ourselves to do more and allow communities to maintain jurisdiction over their lists and make decisions for themselves.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the minister for her important presentation.

Does the minister support the amendments that were made by the Senate committee on this study? They made very important amendments that would help to equalize first nations rights so that they are on par with Canadians' rights.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the intention of Bill S-2 was to address the enfranchisement and the return of 3,500 people. This is how the bill was framed.

I want to commend the Senate for the work they do and the important history of speaking to this file and the discrimination that the Indian Act has in place. At the same time, I also want to ensure that it is clear with my colleagues that we have launched a collaborative process that is engaging with community and asking them to submit proposals that are presently being looked at for legal risk and legal validity, to ensure the solutions we bring forward are going to be upheld and truly meet the standard of what a solution should be for community.

While we are doing this consultation process, it is imperative that their voice be part of the solution, building well beyond what is offered in the amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2. It restores an important right, the right to transmit status.

What does the minister think of the Indian Act in general?

First of all, the name of the act no longer works. There are sections in it that need to be reviewed. Should we not be doing even more to recognize first nations' rights and achieve a true nation-to-nation partnership?

I hope that a sovereign Quebec can do that soon, but I would also like to see Canada begin this work.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that this is one of the biggest challenges I face as Minister of Indigenous Services. I have to work with a law that is highly discriminatory against Canada's indigenous peoples.

That is why my approach to finding solutions will be based on the guidance I receive from the community. We must prioritize including indigenous peoples to ensure that solutions are adopted by and for them.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for her phenomenal leadership in this regard. It gives me great pleasure to be in the assembly as I listen to her mark this day with a very important speech and something that I think we can all be proud of as Canadians.

My question to the minister is this: As we celebrate this step, there are many steps forward. What is next on the agenda as she embarks on this bold, new journey?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his support. There is much work left to be done in terms of the bill itself. I am looking forward to the debate and the process that will be undertaken. This is imperative work. I believe that the voice of leadership across this country, the locally elected chiefs and councils, must participate and bring forward the solutions they are looking for. As I said, it should go beyond the scope of what these amendments are offering.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the minister for sharing her time with me on this important bill, Bill S-2, to amend the Indian Act.

Bill C-38, from the last Parliament, was a bill that I could not support at the time because of the inequities that first nations would continue to have. However, the NDP supports the Senate amendments to Bill S-2 and hopes that the bill will pass quickly. It is about time to finally make sure that first nations women and children get the justice they deserve.

I thank the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group for its tireless work and advocacy. Its members are role models of what it means to never give up. The working group consists of Sharon McIvor, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Cora McGuire-Cyrette, Marjolaine Étienne, Chief Judy Wilson, Dr. Pamela Palmater, Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Dr. Gwen Brodsky, Mary Eberts and Shelagh Day. In their work, they remind us of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report in 2019, where the call for justice 1.2(v) calls on Canada to eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

It is clear that the Liberal agenda is to delay the passage of Bill S-2 and the Senate amendments by using the need to consult on the “how” and the “range of potential pathways” that need to be consulted on, which I heard during the indigenous and northern affairs committee meeting in February when Lori Doran, director general, individual affairs, Department of Indigenous Services, appeared.

Some of the work that has occurred to fix the discrimination in the Indian Act includes but is not limited to the following: First, Bill C-38 was tabled in the 44th Parliament. Second, Indigenous Services Canada, in 2023, reported that it was beginning a co-development consultation process to address the second-generation cut-off.

Third, the Assembly of First Nations provided a brief in 2020 that said, “Enfranchisement had an impact on all subsequent generations of people. It did not matter if an individual was voluntarily, or involuntarily enfranchised—subsequent generations could not appear on band lists or on the Indian register as status Indians.”

Fourth was Nicholas v. Canada in 2011, which required the tabling of Bill C-38. Fifth was Bill S-3's final report to Parliament in December 2020. Sixth were the amendments to the Indian Act, including Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2010 and Bill S-3 in 2017. I remind Parliament that these amendments, like Bill C-38, were only in response to court cases against the federal government.

I am struck by the stark contrast of pace the Liberal government chooses to make, depending on whether it respects indigenous peoples rights. Very clearly, we see the contrast in how the Liberal government fast-tracked Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 became enshrined in Canadian law in record time. It received royal assent on June 26, 2025, only one year and two months after the election.

First nations, Métis and Inuit all called for the federal government to slow down to give indigenous peoples time to understand the potential impact of Bill C-5. The Liberals ignored these calls and used House procedures to ensure a quick passage. They violated the rights of indigenous peoples as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They did not receive the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

Now, in Bill S-2, the Liberals want to do consultations on how to remedy this issue, stating that there is a “range of potential pathways”. All of a sudden, they worry about whether Bill S-2 would be charter-compliant. The Assembly of First Nations supports Bill S-2. In fact, it calls upon the federal government to “immediately and without delay end any and all sex- and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act” in its December 2025 motion in response to Bill S-2.

The delay tactics are so clear to indigenous peoples that we have responses like the one from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, who stated that they will not participate in the consultations on the second-generation cut-off. They explained, “The consultation process is a clear conflation of status, membership, citizenship, and self-government, which are all separate legal issues”.

The Chiefs of Ontario support amendments that, as stated in the media, “aim to address its longstanding inequities and remove discriminatory language that should never have existed.” They further call on the federal government to “work directly with First Nations to create a framework that allows them to fully control their own membership, free from restrictive federal oversight, with decisions recognized as authoritative for all purposes.”

Instead, the Liberals are opting to consult on how to remedy the issue of the second-generation cut-off. They have stated their so-called concerns about the huge increase of potential members that would happen if Bill S-2 passed.

A leading expert, Dr. Pam Palmater, stated at the indigenous and northern affairs committee that:

There have been no [less] than 10 Supreme Court of Canada cases that said you can't use consultation as a delay. You can't use financial costs by the federal government. None of these excuses are at play.

They also say that you cannot use an incremental approach to get rid of section 15 discrimination, and that's exactly what this is.

Why are they doing it? Well, it's unjust enrichment on Canada's part, because the longer they delay making these amendments, the less money they have to spend on people who should rightfully be included, and then they insulate themselves from liability with non-liability clauses, and that's wrong.

The other thing that I think is really important to remember is that millions of people aren't going to be added. In fact, the estimates are 7,500 people a year, divided over 630 first nations. We all know that with every single amendment, millions were never added. It was 130,000 for Bill C-31, 38,000 for Bill C-3, and Bill S-3 is 88,000 so far, divided among 630 first nations.

The Government of Canada can make substantial changes to the Indian Act to end discrimination, but it has chosen to hide behind future consultations and small legislative steps to say it is making progress.

The NDP calls upon the Liberals to end their delay tactics. I call on them to use the same pace they used in Bill C-5 to expedite the passage of this bill and ensure that discussions with first nations achieve their inherent jurisdiction over citizenship and membership.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can agree that the Indian Act has challenges, that the Indian Act has created discrimination and that we need to move beyond the second-generation cut-off. However, there is no consensus out there on what the solution is.

My question for the member opposite is this: If there is a community out there that does not want these amendments, if there is a community out there that wants something else, if there is a community that wants to do it themselves without Parliament and the Senate telling them how to run their communities, should we force this on them? Should they not be given the option to opt into something, as opposed to the Senate or Parliament saying they know what is best for that community?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will remind the member that those kinds of questions should have been asked when they were expediting Bill C-5. They did not take into consideration that there had been different solutions and different things requested by different first nations, Métis and Inuit, yet they were able to expedite the passing of Bill C-5. If they were able to do that with that bill, they should be able to do it with Bill S-2 as amended.

[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.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the original version of the bill is Bill C-38 through the Nicholas decision, and it affects primarily the Michel band in particular, of over 3,000 people approximately. I think the Liberals are phrasing this as one or the other. We can have both, and we can make history today. The government has traditionally gone through litigation to change the Indian Act. This time it can redefine reconciliation and be proactive to stay out of long, costly court cases and do both to honour the Michel band but also get rid of the second-generation cut-off for generations to come, today.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, very quickly, could the member share with us whether the Conservatives will support the amendments that were made by the Senate?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support the amendments made by the Senate.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise to speak in the House. Today, it is on Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act, legislation that would make an important step toward correcting long-standing discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

Before I get into the meat of my speech, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Edmonton Northwest, on his inspiring words today. He gave a great speech, and he provides great leadership in our caucus on many issues, including the indigenous file. It is a pleasure to work with him and many others as we move forward.

At its heart, Bill S-2 is about justice. It is about equality. It is about ensuring that first nations families are no longer divided by outdated rules that have no place in a modern, charter-compliant Canada.

It is important to note that Bill S-2 has two main parts. The first deals with enfranchisement. In the past, first nations women have been less able than first nations men to pass on their status to their children and grandchildren. That has meant that families have been separated, unfortunately, by bureaucracy. It has meant that parents are unable to pass on their identity, their rights, their homes and their traditions.

The bill would also work to correct wrongs in terms of the people having to give up their status to avoid such things as fighting for Canada in a conflict or avoiding the horrors that Canada has inflicted, such as the sixties scoop, among many, many others. It would move us toward a simple and fair principle, that first nations women and men have the same ability to pass on their status to their children. Conservatives supported that main piece of legislation in a previous Parliament, and we still support it to this day.

As for the second part, there are the amendments made in the Senate, which talk about eliminating the second-generation cut-off, because quality under the law is not negotiable. We have heard from many first nations families that have spent years and even decades navigating complex registration rules and that feel their line is coming to an end, not because of their choices but because of a technical formula imposed by the government.

The second-generation cut-off was introduced in 1985 through Bill C-31. It applied only to people born after April of that year, but over time, its effect has been clear. It does not simply manage registration; it also legislates the gradual disappearance of status Indians. Some have called this an administrative policy, but for families facing the end of their legal identity, it is not administrative; it is existential.

Bill S-2 is not a one-drop rule. It would not open the door to distant or speculative claims. It would apply to the children and grandchildren of current status holders, people whose connection to their community is real, recent and meaningful. Removing the cut-off would also allow families to pass on homes on reserve, family businesses and traditional rights. It would allow parents to pass on not only legal recognition but also culture, language and livelihood. This is about survival, not expansion.

The bill would also align the transmission of first nation status with a principle that Canadians already understand. In Canada, citizenship is passed on through one parent. Inuit and Métis recognition follows a similar logic. The one-parent rule reflects how identity is carried forward in families. Bill S-2 would restore that same principle for first nations, fairly and equally for both men and women. It would go beyond what the courts have required.

The Nicholas decision addressed only individuals who enfranchised personally. Bill S-2 and its predecessor extend fairness to people whose entire bands were enfranchised, ensuring that no community is left behind. Let us also remember what enfranchisement meant. First nations people were forced to give up their status simply to vote, to own property or to access basic rights. Today we are still repairing the consequences of those policies.

Some people have raised concerns about numbers and costs, so let us look at the facts. Stats Canada estimates that between 200,000 and 320,000 people may become entitled over the next forty years. That is roughly 5,000 to 7,500 people per year after the initial phase. Spread across more than 630 first nations, that is about a dozen people per community per year. This is not a flood. It is a gradual and manageable restoration of rights.

We also know from previous legislation that the projected uptake is rarely reached. Past reforms saw far fewer registrations than were expected. In some cases, fewer than 12% of eligible individuals actually registered. Most new registrants will live in urban areas and continue their existing lives. The Parliamentary Budget Officer previously found that virtually none moved onto reserve after earlier reforms.

The estimated cost is about $2,000 per registrant per year, which would represent only about 2.5% of the operating budget of Indigenous Services Canada over time. To put this into perspective, Canada welcomes more than 300,000 newcomers each year, and records hundreds of thousands of births annually. Compared to that, the number of new registrants under Bill S-2 would be modest. Most importantly, cost cannot be used to justify denying charter equality rights.

There are no misconceptions about tax advantages and benefits. The reality is that tax exemptions apply largely on reserve and are rooted in pre-Confederation protections to preserve first nations' economic capacity. Income tax exemptions apply only to the people who live and work on reserve. Many commonly cited benefits are limited or do not apply in urban settings. This legislation is not about special treatment. It is about equal treatment.

Others have raised concerns about fishing rights or community resources, but food, social and ceremonial fisheries are collective rights administered by first nations governments. The modest increase in membership expected under the bill would not create sudden or disruptive changes. What would be disruptive would be allowing the current rules to continue, because if the second-generation cut-off remains, the long-term outcome is clear: fewer and fewer status Indians in each generation. In some regions, legal status could disappear entirely within decades. This is not reconciliation. This is legislated extinction.

This legislation also reflects the long tradition of expanding rights in Canada. Conservative governments have supported major equality measures, including the restoration of status through Bill C-31 and Bill C-3, the extension of voting rights to first nations peoples in 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Time and again when Canada has faced a choice between maintaining outdated systems and improving equality and expanding it, we have chosen to expand and improve equality. Bill S-2, of course, would continue that tradition.

There is also a practical consideration. Passing the legislation would now keeps the Indian Act compliant with the charter and reduce the need for ongoing litigation. Instead of waiting to be taken to court again and again, Parliament could now act proactively to fix discrimination where it exists.

The proposed one-year implementation period, I and many on this side believe, is reasonable. It would allow Indigenous Services Canada to address technical issues and improve processing capacity, including reducing the current backlog of more than 12,000 applications.

At the same time, we support first nations' authority to develop and manage their own membership codes. Status under the Indian Act and band membership are distinct, and communities must retain the ability to define their own belonging.

At its core, Bill S-2 is not about numbers, budgets or administrative systems. It is about families. It is about a mother who is unable to pass along the status to her child. It is about an angler who cannot take their child onto the boat because that child lacks status. It is about grandparents who fear their legal identity would end with the next generation. For those families, the legislation matters deeply and is the difference between disappearance and continuity.

Status Indians represent less than 5% of Canada's total population, but equality is not determined by numbers. Rights are not reserved for majorities. Justice does not depend on scale. If we believe in reconciliation and in equality between men and women, and if we believe that first nations identity should not be legislated out of existence, then the path forward is clear.

Bill S-2 would restore fairness, strengthen families, align the law with the charter and help to ensure that first nations identity can be carried forward to future generations. I urge all members of the House to support it and take this important step toward justice, equality and reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am quite surprised that my colleague is willing to support the bill only if members remain in urban areas, and that this is equal treatment of first nations people. Therefore I am not sure I can truly support the position and reasoning he is bringing forward.

If communities accept this process, are they not continuing to support the further discrimination of the Indian Act because their members remain out of territory or out of community? I want to understand how the Conservatives intend to provide the opportunity to first nations communities to develop status, membership and authority of their members who reside off community, which the bill would not offer.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister heard exactly what I said because that is not exactly what I said. That is not even close to what I said. That description was in the context that in the vast majority of cases, status Indians, as they are called in the act, live off-reserve. I was making the link that some choose to return home, but in the scale that it could happen in a manageable fashion, the nations themselves would have time and capacity to prepare for those wanting to move home. I think that is something we all consent to. I think the minister clearly misheard me, because that is not what I said at all.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving alongside him on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I have a question for him. The committee is currently conducting a study that deals broadly with the right to registration, as well as the consultations the government would hold to address the gaps that remain in this bill regarding registration. I have a theory, but I am not sure about it, which is why I want to ask my colleague a question. I am concerned that this could result in a delay or that the Supreme Court could even be asked to postpone the passage of such a bill in order to deal with the other provisions.

Does my colleague share my fear that Bill S-2 will not be passed with the proposed amendments and that the adoption of such provisions could be put off indefinitely?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member for the Bloc on the indigenous and northern affairs committee once again. It is always a pleasure to work with her and to have her knowledge and leadership on the file. As my colleague from Edmonton Northwest pointed out, the government likes to choose when consultation works, and when it does not, as the member for Edmonton pointed out, there is a path forward. Nations that are ready are willing to step up and take this on.

I know the government seems to want to buy more time for the department of indigenous services to figure all this out. There is capacity within the department, but there has to be leadership on the political level. We hope the Liberal government takes that.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I have come here as a new member of Parliament, I have witnessed ISC over the last number of years go from 4,000 to 8,000 employees. I have seen ISC programs double and the results for first nations and indigenous peoples come down.

Can the member reflect on how focusing on empowerment through root causes is better than focusing on expanding budgets for government bureaucracy and bloated programs?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Northwest for his leadership on the file. That is absolutely correct. We have brought up many times in committee and in the House the expansive role ISC has. It was taken from a mere, although I cannot say “mere”, 4,000 or so employees when the split happened between ISC and CIRNAC all the way to 8,000 employees and still counting, yet the actual results in community have gotten worse.

Something we continue to press on this side of the House is that if the increase in spending is happening, which we support, we want to see results equal to that spending, and right now the government has not done that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to hear that the Conservatives will be supporting the amendments coming out of the Senate, and I am shocked that the Liberals are so adamant to keep sexism in the Indian Act. That is going to result in the extinction of first nations people. As a first nations woman, I am very offended. I am wondering what led the Conservatives to take the right position in this instance, to ensure respect for first nations people and our rights.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a long history of Conservatives supporting progress with indigenous people and repairing that relationship that has been broken for over 100 years. It was John Diefenbaker, a Conservative prime minister, who returned voting, which was wrongly taken by a Liberal government under Laurier. As such, there are many instances of Conservatives showing leadership.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today as part of the debate on Bill S‑2.

Before addressing the bill directly, I would like to start by expressing my sincere solidarity with women. The Bloc Québécois also stands in solidarity with them. I mention women specifically because they are the ones who have been experiencing gender discrimination since 1876. As I said, I would like to express our solidarity and tell them that the Bloc Québécois is fully in favour of passing Bill S-2.

That said, although the Bloc Québécois is in favour of passing the bill, it should be noted that Bill S-2, like others before it—I am thinking of Bills S‑3 and C-31—addresses injustices recognized by the Supreme Court, but in an incremental and piecemeal approach. These legislative measures do not really address all the discrimination being experienced by indigenous women and, in this case, their descendants, with regard to the transmission of status.

I will echo the words of the Assembly of First Nations. The second-generation cut-off rule remains a colonial practice and, as such, it is indefensible. It is also arbitrary. The government cannot force a nation to be or not to be what it is. The government cannot tell people that they are indigenous or that they are not. It is not up to the federal government to decide who is a first nations person and who can give or grant status to their children. Simply calling it “granting status” or “giving status” is telling. I think we need to be empathetic when we are talking about Bill S‑2 and anything to do with registration entitlements. I would find it difficult for a government I do not even recognize to dictate what I could pass on to my children, such as my identity, my values, my language and my culture.

That is what is at stake every time we come back to the House. I mentioned two bills earlier. For more than 40 years, we have been coming back to the House to say that we need to fix arbitrary, discriminatory provisions, especially when they impact women.

According to Chief Verreault-Paul, despite Bill S-2, the definition remains a colonial definition of first nations people. That is what is we are tackling. We know it is a huge undertaking. I mentioned that it has been more than 40 years, but we have to vote in favour of this bill, this amended bill even. We know that the bill was introduced in the Senate and that the Senate heard from a lot of witnesses who said that the bill was incomplete and that several amendments had to be made to it. We are ready to do that. Discussions have been held and we can go further to address these discriminatory provisions.

The second-generation cut-off breaks up families over rules that could be abolished. We hope to overcome this. The fact is children are being excluded. This deprives thousands of people of their rightful place in their communities. It jeopardizes, and I will come back to this later, the present and future of communities, their language, and their culture.

We hope that Bill S-2 will help put an end to the government's control over indigenous identity. It may not be the only bill that will achieve this. The government always waits until it is pushed to the brink or cornered before making changes to the Indian Act when it comes to registration entitlements.

What is happening today with Bill S-2 is the same thing that has happened before with other bills, namely Bill S-3 and Bill C-31. There are Supreme Court rulings that call upon the government to amend the act to make the unconstitutional provisions constitutional, but such changes always take a really long time and then that becomes an excuse for failing to take action. First, the government is not taking action when it could be doing so. When I say that nothing has been done for 40 years, I am referring to 1985, but I could just as easily say that nothing has been done since 1876. Second, when the government does decide to implement a bill, it takes a really long time and it does not necessarily allocate the resources needed to implement the bill properly.

I would like to continue by talking about the requests made to the Senate committee by the organization Quebec Native Women, which wanted something to be done about the systemic discrimination against women and children. I believe the first amendment they suggested involves doing away with the second-generation cut-off. We agree with that and that is what we are interested in, although I will not say that it is what interests us the most, all things being equal. In this case, there is discrimination. No form of discrimination is any better than another, but this provision affects a huge number of people.

If we take a closer look, we realize that this is really a strategy. The reason I say that there is an underlying intention behind the act and the bill, that a real assimilation strategy is at work, is because this exclusion denies second-generation children their indigenous identity. If we do the math, as the generations go by, the children who are denied indigenous status will no longer be included in the statistics. Obviously we are talking about people here, but I have to talk in terms of numbers. This is just a roundabout way of extinguishing the indigenous identity of children who should be recognized as indigenous. Once again, the government is deciding for them.

Quebec Native Women obviously wants to point out that women have been the primary victims of this kind of discrimination, especially under the exclusion provisions that no longer recognized a woman as indigenous if she divorced or separated from her husband or was widowed. That has been resolved, but now it is the second generation's turn. Through the various amendments or bills that have been passed, the government has simply put its intention—I say “intention” because I believe that the government knows perfectly well what it is doing—to assimilate first nations people on hold.

We could look at the figures for Canada, but Quebec Native Women pointed out that in Quebec, for example, by 2046, 22,445 children will have been excluded. By 2066, 54,745 children will have been excluded under subsection 6(2). What is more, by 2066, 60% of registrants will be registered under subsection 6(2); 60% is huge. We know that these 60% will no longer be eligible for registration. These children will not be eligible for registration. As the representatives of Quebec Native Women said themselves, this rule functions as a demographic countdown. I am reminded of a young woman who appeared before the indigenous affairs committee and spoke about her daughter. The young woman is indigenous, but her daughter's father is not. Her daugher is therefore of mixed parentage and is not considered indigenous, which is absurd.

We keep talking about provisions, the Supreme Court and systemic discrimination, but this example alone clearly shows that some children are being denied the right to be who they are. I could also have mentioned the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The issue was raised there, and it contravenes two articles of the declaration.

I also want to add that one of my Senate colleagues, Michèle Audette, spoke at committee during the study of Bill S‑2 and said that the government was making it harder for first nations people to pass on their identity than for other Canadians to pass on citizenship. We can see that there is already a double standard. Indigenous people cannot pass on citizenship in the same way as other Canadian citizens.

I will now talk about transferring authority over first nation membership to first nations. This is the same type of thing. This is another thing that is being called for by Quebec Native Women. As we know, the government has authority over first nations registration, but first nations are asking for that authority to be transferred to them so that they can decide who belongs to their band or community.

This request makes perfect sense to me. We are talking about identity and citizenship. It makes no sense to me for one nation to be responsible for deciding who belongs to another nation. This is something that all stakeholders are calling for, including the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador.

This registration rule applies to all communities, except for those covered by section 10, which enables some first nations to use customary law. It basically applies to all first nations in Canada. Once again, I would like to remind the House about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada is once again violating article 33 by not giving first nations this authority. This is a clear, direct and overt violation of the right to self-determination. We hope that this authority will be transferred to first nations.

Another issue raised by Quebec Native Women is the right to end the obligation to provide the father's name. Since 1985, if the mother does not identify the father, the department assumes that the child is not eligible for registration. This means that the repercussions affect mothers of unrecognized children covered by subsection 6(2).

Once again, we must refer to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. My colleague Michèle Audette testified about this in committee. Unfortunately, women and girls have suffered a great deal of violence and trauma as a result of these exclusion clauses, which have torn women away from their families and communities. I am talking about women, but this also happened to boys and men. It was decided overnight that they were no longer indigenous, that they no longer had any rights. They were deprived of their culture. They were deprived of their families. They were deprived of their language. They were asked to leave their communities.

Forcing women to identify a child's father does much the same thing. Once again, it was decided that certain children no longer had the right to be indigenous. We are asking that women no longer be required to identify the father.

I mentioned violence, but I could have said rape. Let us call it what it is. Cases of rape occur, and sometimes it is best not to identify the man for safety reasons. In some situations, unfortunately, the father's name is not even known. In any case, for women who are victims of violence, this is a violation of their charter right to security and dignity.

Another issue that was the subject of much debate, and that may also be debated in the House, was the whole question of officially recognizing and redressing the harm caused by the Indian Act. Each reform, whether it is Bill C-31 or Bill S-3, introduced a provision that excluded any possibility of compensation for victims of discrimination, and the same is true of Bill S-2. For women, the impact is much the same: loss of status, exclusion from the community, denial of socio-cultural rights, intergenerational trauma. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls for effective redress. Victims are entitled to redress under article 8, paragraph (2)(d).

Quebec Native Women is also asking for an official apology. They want redress, but the government needs to apologize for having systematically discriminated against indigenous women and indigenous peoples since time immemorial and into the present day. As I said, we cannot delude ourselves. Despite everything, whether Bill S-2 is amended or not, systemic discrimination continues to exist.

Before I wrap up, I would like to make a final point because I have a concern that I raised earlier today when I talked about the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The committee is currently conducting a study that talks about eligibility for registration, but more broadly than Bill S-2 does. I bring this up today, but obviously, the bill has not yet been referred to the committee for study. The fact remains that there is a lot of talk about consultation. There is talk of going on a cross-Canada tour to see if everyone agrees and if there are any other provisions that could be addressed.

Knowing that the bill is expected to come to us soon, I am concerned, as are all members of the committee. There is a deadline. The Supreme Court says that the matter must be resolved by April 26. Time is already short, but now we are hearing about possible consultations. I am afraid that will take too long. I think we also need to be clear, because all the stakeholders have called on us to take action on this. The situation is urgent. I spoke earlier about the year 2046 and then 2066. We see that rights are being extinguished among children, which means that indigenous communities themselves are being threatened. Considering how long consultation and implementation will take, these communities are truly at risk.

Obviously, there is the issue of the government's intentions. Does the government really want to move forward quickly? It can hold more consultations later. No problem there. It can move forward gradually, not too fast, but little by little. That is what it has been doing from the start anyway. First, we should pass the bill with the amendments proposed by the Senate. Then we can go on our tour. Furthermore, we know that thousands of people are still waiting to register. In terms of delays in the department's service standards, thousands of people have not obtained their status within the prescribed time limits. The situation could snowball. More resources are badly needed to address this situation, and more resources are needed for first nations too. The community is about to grow, but services and funding for first nations are already falling short of the mark. This will have to be done properly.

In closing, I would once again like to quote Chief Verreault-Paul and Quebec Native Women. I am using their words as my own. Representatives from Quebec Native Women said the following:

It is only by integrating [the Senate's amendments and their] amendments and providing communities with necessary resources that Canada will be able to definitively end legal assimilation policies and respect its commitments regarding human rights and reconciliation.

Chief Verreault-Paul said that first nations people have the inherent right to define their own people. He urged all members of Parliament to join forces to dismantle the colonial scaffolding of the Indian Act.

To conclude, I would say that the Bloc Québécois obviously agrees with putting an end to all of the federal government's systemic colonial practices, because we alone must decide our own identity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, as proposed, would affect many of the constituents I represent, so I know there is a fairly keen interest in the subject matter. I also know and recognize that this is something that must be indigenous-led. I really appreciated the introduction by our minister earlier this morning. She brings a very strong personal touch to the issue.

The question I have for the member opposite is this. Would she not concur, given the very nature of the subject matter, that we should be going out of our way to ensure we have that feedback from the community, or indigenous people in general? That is why it is important that the legislation have that committee stage process.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are actually duplicating the work in committee because, when the bill gets to committee, we will be studying this issue and hearing from witnesses, as was done in the Senate.

We are already doing this work as part of another study. I would not say that we are wasting our time. The testimony we are receiving is all relevant and interesting.

I hope that we can include these in the next study so we can hear from as many witnesses as possible. I think the first nations would agree. I am their critic, so I am going to say this very humbly. I am not going to put words in their mouths. However, I can say that we held consultations a long time ago and that we have known what to do for a long time. Now we need to act.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we ask that it be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.