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.