Tshinashkumitin, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee.
I will now address the topic at hand.
In the Nicholas decision, the government itself admits that the Indian Act unjustifiably violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, it acknowledges that it is discriminatory.
In reality, however, there are two distinct constitutional regimes. The first is a system in which rights are protected, and the second is a system in which rights are extinguished. I can attest to this because we are among those that are sought to be erased. Our rights are under attack. We know what we're talking about, because we've experienced it for a long time. We have been speaking out against this for a long time.
You will also understand, colleagues, that when Bill S‑2 came before our chamber, we had a real opportunity to correct several discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. That is why the amendments proposed by the Senate are essential, particularly those aimed at eliminating exclusion after the second generation, a major source of inequality. I repeat: Canada, the government, has acknowledged that discrimination exists, so it should see this through to the end. It should not take half-measures or do the bare minimum—yet we are currently seeing attempts to do just that.
I would like to add that we see very concrete examples of this in our daily lives. These examples are unacceptable, and we are asked to be patient. Why, as an Innu woman, must I disclose the name of my child's father? If I do not, things become extremely complicated. Yet a Canadian or Quebec woman does not need to provide that information, and her child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. What's more, recently, this government has widened the gap even further by telling second-generation individuals born outside the country that, if they have one Canadian parent, they are entitled to citizenship, whereas we—first nations women who have been living in these territories for millennia—are denied the one-parent rule. We are denied the ability to pass on our status to our children. If those are not two distinct constitutional systems or regimes, then please explain what they are. For us, the difference is real, and its impact is equally so.
The amendments brought forward by the Senate are not excessive. They are logical. They simply aim to ensure that the legislative response fully respects the right to equality. Most importantly, there are already solutions available. We have even drawn inspiration from different nations and communities that have their own membership rules. In some cases, such as the James Bay Agreement—Minister Gull‑Masty is from James Bay—inheritance is based on the one-parent rule. So it works in their case, but not in ours. That's hard to swallow and accept. We wonder why there is such reluctance.
We have shown you, and it has been shown to us, that solutions are available: This is not theoretical, nor is it unrealistic. Of course, to achieve this, nations need support through a parallel process, whether to build their capacity, document their practices, or develop their own approaches to membership. It is important to have a parallel process alongside Bill S‑2.
Finally, we must also remember an institutional reality: governments change—people who are here today will eventually move on—but laws remain. They remain for a long time. Their effects shape lives—the lives of many people—across several generations.
The Indian Act is imposed by Parliament. As such, it is our collective responsibility to address the discrimination it embodies. By maintaining these inconsistencies, a message is being sent.