Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm here before you today to present a clear and urgent message. The federal Indian status and Indian register system must be replaced by a legislative mechanism that enables first nations to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship and belonging. What I wish to convey in my remarks today is that continuing to allow Canada to define who does and doesn't belong to a first nation is not merely a policy failure. It's constitutional deficiency, a human rights liability and a sustained act of colonial control over indigenous identity.
The current registration regime, under the Indian Act, places decision-making authority over identity and belonging with the federal government rather than with first nations themselves. This regime has entrenched sex-based and intergenerational discrimination, disproportionately harming the descendants of first nations women, who are historically excluded under earlier provisions of the Indian Act.
The consequences of this have been profound. Families have been taught to measure themselves using Canada's rules. Divisions have deepened between status and non-status people. Women and their descendants have experienced a loss of identity and culture, as well as increased vulnerability. Many individuals have been made to question their own legitimacy and belonging. These impacts have not only fractured communities but also contributed to the conditions that place first nations women, girls and two-spirited people at greater risk of violence.
I respectfully submit that while immediate remedial measures, such as eliminating the second-generation cut-off rule through a single-parent rule, are legally compelling and urgently needed, they are not a complete and durable solution if they operate as a permanent federal definition of belonging. Without mechanisms that enable first nations to assume jurisdiction over citizenship and membership, any reform risks entrenching a new unilateral federal identity regime rather than advancing first nations' self-determination. Even well-intentioned federal reforms may amount to what the Indigenous Bar Association has described as a lateral infringement, in which Canada remains the final decision-maker on first nation identity, without any ability of first nations to assume jurisdiction on citizenship.
My concern is grounded in constitutional law. Canada's continued unilateral control over Indian Act status constitutes a prima facie infringement of section 35 of the constitution, as it interferes with indigenous authority over belonging and displaces indigenous legal orders. Such an infringement is difficult to justify when indigenous-led citizenship governance is a viable and less rights-impairing alternative.
My legal analysis is unequivocal: A legally viable solution must satisfy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as given domestic legal effect through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Taken together, these instruments require that any legislated solution avoid arbitrary federal limits on status transmission; eliminate ongoing sex-based and lineage-based discrimination; recognize and operationalize indigenous authority, not merely consult on revised federal rules, and avoid permanent federal control over citizenship; respect self-determination and free, prior and informed consent, as any solution imposed without consent replicates assimilationist practices; protect first nations' jurisdiction over membership, subject to sex-equality guarantees, without recolonizing governance; and reduce systematic discrimination without forcing first nations citizenship disputes into colonial human rights forums.
Transfer of control is strongly aligned with section 35 principles because it removes Canada from the role of defining “Indian” and relocates authority over citizenship and belonging to first nations themselves. It's also the strongest and most direct alignment with UNDRIP, because the decision to assume jurisdiction rests with indigenous nations themselves.
Finally, I wish to emphasize the critical importance of sequencing. I acknowledge the tension between the urgency of immediate relief for individuals currently excluded by the second generation cut-off and the time required to design and implement comprehensive jurisdictional transfer. However, the experience following Bill S-3 demonstrates the risk of delaying relief while consultation and policy development unfold.
My recommendation is to implement a single-parent rule immediately, as a transitional measure, paired with a statutory commitment and a defined timeline to introduce an opt-out first nation citizenship framework.
Legislative frameworks such as Bill C-92 provide a useful operational analog under which indigenous governing bodies give formal notice of their intention to exercise jurisdiction, to engage in coordination processes and to bring their laws into force, with the force of federal law.
In closing, I'd like to say that colonial control over identity must be replaced by first nation governance grounded in fair procedures, adequate resources and clear transition rules that protect both individuals and communities. The legal analysis, the constitutional imperatives and the human cost of inaction all point in one direction. The time has come for Canada to enact legislation that recognizes first nations' inherent jurisdiction over citizenship, provides the institutional and fiscal support necessary to make that jurisdiction real and begins the long overdue process of returning to first nations what was never Canada's to take: the authority to determine who belongs.
Those are my submissions for today. Thank you.