Hon. Michèle Audette:
[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]She said: Honourable senators, I thank the Anishinaabe people. Thank you for allowing me to tread on your land every day when I put on my senator’s moccasins.
Before we began, I had a big surprise that made me cry. I didn’t think my partner would be there to support us. It’s true, this affects your children and mine. You supported me during the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, when Joyce Echaquan’s case came to light, and especially during the study of Bill S-2 since June, with all the reading I had to do. What’s more, you feed me every day, and I thank you for your patience.
I don’t know how he manages to be so patient, but in my message, I will try, with a lot of love, to share with you the impatience and injustice that far too many people suffer. Naturally, I rise today with what I was going to call an unshakeable sense of conviction about my responsibilities, as we begin consideration of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), at third reading, now that it has been strengthened and transformed by the Senate’s amendments.
I also want to point out that it was the Senate that was asked to carry out the initial review, as our colleague Senator Ringuette explained it so well. Thank you for raising this important issue, something I believed in. I believed in it when Bill C-38 came before the previous Parliament, which was apparently a previous government as well when, in fact, it was the same Liberal Party in power.
When Bill S-2 came along, my message was the same, knowing that we have court-imposed deadlines, imposed this time by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Over time, deadlines changed, which was perfectly normal for people thirsting for justice and reparations, because we finally had the opportunity and the momentum to bring back to the forefront what we had always been saying, namely that all discrimination stems from the Indian Act.
Furthermore, the love and pride that I feel for this person, for Mandy Gull-Masty, are unshakable. In a family like mine, with five children, consensus is a rare thing. All of us are diverse, whether emotionally, intellectually, debate-wise or generationally, and both of us are trying to engage in this debate respectfully.
The minister expressed it well this morning at the Special Chiefs Assembly, and with a lot of tact, by saying that she and I had taken two different paths. I liked that. During our discussions, I told her out of respect that the other place is an elected chamber — and I have tremendous respect for that — but that this chamber is elected with a beginning and an end, elected on the basis of a certain priority and a certain government. I respect that. However, Canada has embraced a type of democracy that seeks balance, or sober second thought. This time, it is the Senate’s turn to have the first look, to be able to amend, change or adopt bills that come its way during this journey, which is my life as well — and I hope that my health will allow me to stay here for a long time to come.
I would like to thank all the courageous individuals who came forward to speak, to once again repeat and relive these palpable traumas. I would also like to thank all the others who, through their work, their healing and their empowerment, have given us countless ideas of how to strengthen the Indigenous Peoples Committee’s position with the proposed amendments.
Chiefs came to testify, as did former chiefs, experts, lawyers and even women who studied law in order to challenge the bill. I’m referring to Sharon McIvor, who has been fighting for 50 years. I’d like to mention something before delving into Bill S-2. We are not little silos; we are senators and we have a great duty toward every bill. I take certain bills very personally. I’m human, but I try to remain respectful.
Sometimes we do things without realizing how quickly everything is moving. I have truly felt that the gap is widening between the rights of Indigenous women and those recognized elsewhere within our own legal system.
That I know. I feel it and I have seen it. We have seen it together. We have witnessed it and have even been party to it. I also know that it was not out of malice or ill intent. I know that this is often done out of ignorance. An old doctrine of power is to keep people in ignorance. This time, I don’t want to say that we are going to be kept in ignorance, but if we know something, then now is the time to say something.
Yes, Bill C-5 was rammed through, and I’m sure there are various explanations for that. However, I want to talk about another bill that was passed. Bill C-5 will be the subject of another important debate. When did I feel that there were two separate constitutional regimes and that one was detrimental to the other? That is what I felt.
I’m trying to understand why the legal and, of course, political systems in Canada are poised to recognize the second generation born abroad but have maintained a phasing-out mechanism since 1985, when the Indian Act was amended to add the cut-off rule after the second generation without our consent.
When examining the text of Bill C-3 — formerly Bill C-71 under the previous government of the same political party — the website states that:
On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that key provisions of the first-generation limit for those born abroad are unconstitutional.
When I saw that, I thought it was an argument in our favour. There cannot be two standards of justice. That is simply not possible. Further on the website, it states that the Government of Canada didn’t appeal the decision because we agree that the current law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country. We’re talking about our children who were born here. As Innu mothers, Mohawk mothers, Atikamekw mothers, we do not have those rights. Tell me why? I simply cannot and will not accept this.
I want to scream. We all want to scream, but we’re intelligent people. In the legislative summary, we come across documentation that still includes the term “lost Canadian” in this important bill. Further on, it states the following:
Lost Canadians and their descendants refer to anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. To demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, a parent who was born abroad would need to have a cumulative 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child. As far as I’m concerned, this is a no-brainer; it refers to a parent. So they are going to say yes to them, but no to me because I am an Indian woman under the Indian Act.
In my heart, in the circumstances before us today, I don’t feel like a lost Indian woman, but that just proves to me once again that there are two separate constitutional systems. We honour and celebrate identity, as Senator Coyle so eloquently said concerning Bill C-3, and I thank her, but I’d like to be able to celebrate the identity of our women, our sons, our brothers and Indigenous men, rather than continue on the path of identity extinction.
It is therefore imperative that we pass Bill S-2 with the amendments proposed by the committee. I will list them for you again to refresh your memories. I think it is important. The bill proposes the following:
To restore eligibility for Indian status for individuals and their descendants who lost it because of enfranchisement, in accordance with Nicholas.
Enable individuals to remove their names from the Indian Register if they so desire. This was not set out in Nicholas; it was added.
Remove the use of outdated and offensive language, particularly the expression “mentally incompetent Indians”. That is a good thing, but I want to reiterate here that this wasn’t included in Nicholas.
Enable women who were automatically transferred to their husband’s band to go back to their birth band.
That is good. They should be given back that right. In the amendments that we examined, debated and adopted by 10 senators to one, the message was unequivocal. The people who came to talk to us confirmed that we need to take action to eliminate any remaining forms of discrimination stemming from the Indian Act. It is essential that we eliminate the non-liability clauses.
Eliminating the second-generation cut-off tore families apart and continues to do so today. From a purely mathematical point of view, consider how the Department of Indian Affairs, as it was once known, or Indigenous Services Canada today, performs a complex calculation to ensure that we are enfranchised, that we are no longer there, and, as Sharon McIvor so aptly put it this morning at the Assembly of Chiefs, when there are no more Indians, the lands will revert to the Crown.
This is a very powerful political issue, but unfortunately it is not being discussed openly. I’m telling you, I’ve witnessed it, I know what I’m talking about. We conducted a national inquiry into missing and murdered women. We have seen the evidence. I also want to highlight the work of my colleagues.
Senator Francis, when you were Chair of the Indigenous Peoples Committee, the report was very clear.
The Indian Act perpetuates assimilation. The full name of the Indian Act is An Act for the gradual enfranchisement of Indians.
It’s the same act but under a different name. First of all, I’m not a lost Indian woman. Second, I’m not a savage, but this legislation still decides whether or not my child will be recognized. That doesn’t cut it for me.
The amendments propose eliminating persisting sex-based inequities, repealing non-liability clauses, and reinstating the one-parent eligibility rule if one parent is deceased. I was in Maliotenam not long ago and had to accompany a fearful and stressed mother to collect the father’s signature. How is it possible that today, in 2025, we have to escort a woman to protect her safety because she can’t go there alone. That is also unacceptable to me. Fortunately, the person concerned gave his signature, but women who brought children into the world shouldn’t have to go to such lengths; they shouldn’t have to come face-to-face with people who were once violent or possibly absent.
Of course, there’s another important amendment, the one that calls for a 12-month implementation period.
Senator Tannas, thank you so much for proposing this amendment. It is clear that you have expertise. Whichever pair of shoes or moccasins you wear, it is clear that you have expertise with the Indigenous Peoples Committee as well.
He stated in committee that 12 months would provide some acknowledgement of Minister Gull-Masty’s pleas to complete the consultation.
I agree with him that the government should continue its consultation process. This consultation should be about how to support First Nations communities in welcoming new members. This is very important.
The concern of fraud was also mentioned. We have that concern — well beyond the Indian Act. However, that is another subject, because it also affects universities, when people apply for funding, jobs or to boards whose postings indicate that they are looking for an applicant who is First Nation, Métis or Inuk. When it is fraud, it’s an important subject to debate. I agree that we are all concerned about fraud.
The witnesses want the government to do away with the second-generation cut-off. Everyone agrees, except one chief from Kahnawà:ke, who wants nothing to do with Bill S-2. I am putting that on the record out of respect, because, yes, one nation, one individual, opposed the entire bill. The National Chief came to tell us that.
She stated that while the Assembly of First Nations supports the fight against discrimination and the bill is intended to eliminate discrimination, it also believes that this bill is yet another piecemeal approach to combatting discrimination, an approach that has never worked. It does not restore justice and will never offer lasting solutions.
She added that the Assembly of First Nations endorses the amendments to the Indian Act that repeal the second-generation rule and that introduce a system for granting Indian status to direct descendants of a registered Indian or a person eligible for registration who may be eligible for that right.
I agree with Sharon McIvor when she said this morning that you are the leaders of today and tomorrow of what she has been doing for 50 years, and many of us walk beside you. Thank you so much.
Zoe Craig-Sparrow said during testimony that the second-generation cut-off has devastated families for 40 years. All major consultations, including those conducted by the federal government, have concluded that it is discriminatory. We don’t need another decade of studies. We need action.
Chief Barbara Côté, representing 204 First Nations — or one-third of First Nations in Canada — said that ending the second-generation cut-off and doing away with non-liability clauses are not controversial in our communities. It is urgent. We have been ready for a long time.
Chief Verreault-Paul pointed out that these exclusion rules have broken our families and excluded our children. They jeopardize our languages and cultures. Patching them up is not enough. They must be eliminated entirely.
Serge and I are proof of this. Our mothers married the most handsome Québécois men. We were expelled from the community. We no longer speak the Innu language every day. We have to live in Montreal or Dupuis, in Abitibi, and so on. We have experienced the effects of this discrimination when a woman marries a non-Indian, and later those who correspond to subsections 6(1) and 6(2).
Concerning the non-liability clauses, my experience has been that, for a long time, regardless of the government in power, the public service — operating under different names, like Indian Affairs, Aboriginal or Indigenous Services or Relations, and the like — kept telling me, and I do mean for a very long time, “Yes, discrimination exists, Michèle, but we’re waiting on court proceedings, and then we’ll make changes based on how the proceedings turn out.” I was naive enough to wonder if that was just the way that bills worked. I soon learned that it wasn’t. What was clear was the message that I was given each time: If you want to argue, argue with your Chiefs. I have no problem challenging my Chief, but I’m challenging a federal law, an outdated federal policy that you forced on us, and I’m supposed to complain to my band council? No. As I see it, it’s important to keep things in their proper place.
Let’s not forget that Indigenous women have only been able to file complaints before a human rights tribunal since 2007-08. For us, the case law is recent. We are witnesses; we know that exists. I believe we shouldn’t keep putting things off. It’s important to pass Bill S-2 as amended and send it to the other side quickly.
Senator Pate explained very clearly that she couldn’t find any clauses indicating that an individual could not file a complaint after being discriminated against. The same goes for our great leader, Sharon McIvor, who pointed out that nowhere does it say that when the Charter is violated in terms of equality, it cannot be challenged.
I can tell you, for example, that when we get involved, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a hard time when it receives complaints relating to Indian status and membership. The federal government will immediately appeal, saying that it has no jurisdiction over this matter. Once again, it shuts down any opportunity for women and men to seek justice. Of course, in my view, the courts are not the only solution, but that is the path we are told to take. It’s starting to feel normalized that the courts are the only option, but there is a long list of individuals, families and class actions relating to the Indian Act and section 6 of the Indian Act. If this bill passes with these amendments, many cases in the courts would be resolved.
We’re talking about taxpayers’ money in court. Where does these women’s money go? Where are they getting it? There’s no real Court Challenges Program anymore, but perhaps it’s back, which wouldn’t be a bad thing. I’m telling you that the courts are being swamped with cases and legal challenges. I want to reassure the minister, who tells us that she doesn’t want to appear in court, that the problem is not the minister; the problem is Canada and its government. If people are afraid of the amendments — that’s something I was told, that people don’t want to appear in court — let’s just pass them, and lots of people will drop their court cases.
Does it bother you to hear that 40 years of consultations have come and gone? It bothers me too. I’m tired of repeating myself. There have been consultations of every description — scientific, social, legal and academic — imposed by commissions of inquiry and experts. All kinds of consultations have taken place, and every time we reiterated, repeated and hammered home the same thing: the second-generation cut-off is causing pain, extreme confusion and deep division in our families. Among the exploratory processes proposed by various governments since 2011, even the consultations launched following Bill C-3 were referred to as an “exploratory process.” I assure you, nothing has changed since then.
Special Representative Claudette Dumont Smith — a woman I admire — also says that there’s no doubt that the second‑generation cut-off was the most troubling inequity that was discussed throughout the collaborative process. The Senate published a report entitled Make it stop! A report is no small thing. Consultations were held, the evidence is overwhelming and the harm is known. It is Parliament that is slow to act. Even during the national inquiry, I made sure to add Call for Justice 1.2(v) on eliminating gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act. This is not an option; it is a legal imperative.
This is a national commitment. There is great debate around the duty to consult. You heard me speak about this yesterday. My rights as an Indian woman are non-negotiable. My rights are non‑negotiable. I can’t believe that we are heading in that direction. I agree completely with what the first female Cree minister said in the consultation about wanting to ensure that First Nations are able to welcome people, grow and work around this, but not when it comes to subsections 6(1) and 6(2). By fixing up these provisions, we will just be doing the same thing again, making small corrections when we should be honouring the major principles set out in section 35 regarding our Aboriginal and treaty rights. I have frequently heard the expression “nation to nation” used here in this chamber.
How can we build a real, honest relationship on something that is crooked, not good and unacceptable, which is this policy that we call the Indian Act? We cannot build a nation-to-nation relationship — an honest one. But if we do it on a modern treaty or a treaty or by honouring the treaty already in place, I will honour that every day.
The beauty of section 35 is that we also know as women, the entire section guarantees equality to men and women. When Minister Gull-Masty will go with a nation-to-nation approach, we will make sure to ask, “Did you involve women? Did you involve youth?” And we’ll say, “I’m sure you did, because it’s written in the federal guidelines on how we do consultation and accommodation.”
We fought to have that, and court decisions helped us to clarify and ensure we honour that.
The duty to consult, which was upheld in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), is very clear. This duty exists when measures are likely to affect Aboriginal or treaty rights.
This morning, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, was saying the Indian Act and citizenship are totally different. It’s the Indian Act and status Indian. We’re not debating on citizenship. For me, the real debate in having a first-time-ever Indigenous minister should be on this part: a nation-to-nation relationship and citizenship, as well as how we honour, how we celebrate, how we welcome them back and how we connect with them. For me, that is a real and honest consultation.
It worries me when there are calls to extend this duty to consult to other areas, particularly to the reform of discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Parliament is exercising its duty when correcting constitutional injustices that have been recognized by the courts. That is what I’m trying to do, with conviction.
In Nicholas v. Canada (AGC), Canada recognized that the inability to transmit Indian status because of the enfranchisement of parents constituted an unjustifiable infringement of the rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter on the grounds of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.
Even there, Canada agreed that they suffered a historical disadvantage, and the infringement was not justified.
As witnesses who are experiencing this and thinking about the next seven generations, we cannot pretend that this didn’t happen. Several reports have outlined the many psychosocial, physical and political effects. We could name them all. They are there; they are palpable.
It was my understanding that the Senate has an obligation to minority groups and to Indigenous women and men. When an opportunity like this arises, a wave of ancestors and living people do it not only for today, but also for the next seven generations.
Political uncertainty is alive and well. Budget 2025 passed recently by just two votes. Do you understand why we’re concerned when we’re asked to trust the first Indigenous person who wants to bring about change? It’s not that we don’t trust her. On the contrary, we want to support her. We are afraid because of the system and the political uncertainty. I can only hope, but also, I can’t do nothing. We have an opportunity and we have obligations. We must act now. I don’t think that’s up for debate.
Today, I heard that she may no longer be here. She mentioned that. I don’t know why people are saying that. However, we need to support her, whether she’s here or not. Discrimination has been proven, and we have the opportunity to remedy it, once and for all, with Bill S-2 and its amendments.
Thank you.