Hon. Judy A. White: Honourable senators, I absolutely agree with these amendments, but I cannot support them at this time. Let me explain.
My perspective is guided by the Mi’kmaw principle as espoused by Elder Albert Marshall of Eskasoni, the Two-Eyed Seeing — the gift of learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing and from the other eye with the strengths of Western institutions and law. It teaches us that true progress requires balance — not choosing one world view over another but using both together for the well-being of our people.
I am also conscious of what His Majesty King Charles III referred to in this Parliament’s Speech from the Throne as the “clear-eyed” approach, facing hard truths without romanticizing them, acknowledging where systems have failed and committing to the honest, sometimes uncomfortable, work of repair.
It is in this spirit, with Indigenous insight and clear-eyed responsibility, that I speak to Bill S-2.
Bill S-2 aims to correct long-standing inequities in the Indian Act. It does so through three important amendments. First, it replaces outdated and offensive language; second, it creates a new process for individuals who wish to have their names removed from the Indian Register; third, it addresses inequities created by enfranchisement and restores entitlement to status for those affected, including allowing pre-1985 married women to transfer back to their natal band.
This bill corrects specific injustices that have affected Indigenous families for far too long. It represents progress, albeit small, and it represents harm stopped.
As Senator Audette said at second reading, this legislation is:
. . . the beginnings of a response, a response to decades of injustice that people, human beings, men and women, have experienced and continue to experience.
The bill before us today is rooted in lived experience, community knowledge and a fierce commitment to justice.
Today, I will offer some details about the scope of Bill S-2. I want to talk about the wrongs that will be righted by this legislation. This bill is only one piece of the puzzle. It is important to recognize that there are many forms of discrimination that still prevail in the Indian Act, and this bill is not attempting to address all of them.
I will discuss some remaining issues surrounding membership, considering both the second-generation cut-off generally and the specific case of the Qalipu First Nation in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will also emphasize the historic significance of this bill being sponsored by First Nations women in both chambers of Parliament, and I will conclude by reiterating the importance of continuing to push back against colonialism and injustice in the Indian Act and everywhere.
I am from Flat Bay, a small Mi’kmaw community on the west coast of the island portion of our province. It is governed by Chief and council. There are no municipalities. We are a member of the Assembly of First Nations. We were Indians before being Indian was cool.
When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, our province became the tenth province, but the Mi’kmaq were deliberately left out. At the union, the Indian Act statute was not drawn down. Indigenous identity in Newfoundland and Labrador was effectively erased on paper. This was not an oversight. It aligned with the national sentiment of the time: Eliminate the “Indian problem” by eliminating the Indian. On paper, we did not exist. For the most part, we did not even know. We continued to live our lives the way we had always lived.
Given time constraints, I’ll provide a condensed version — it will make Coles Notes look very short.
In the early 1970s, Indigenous people in the province began to unite. They took the federal government to court, ironically, for discriminating, as they were not treating the Indians in Newfoundland and Labrador as they were in other parts of the country. After many years of negotiations, even a hunger strike by nine warriors of Conne River, a reserve was created in Newfoundland. Flat Bay, my community, was to be next, and so on, but the political winds shifted and we fell off the radar. The court challenge continued, and that brings us to 2009, when the Qalipu First Nation was formed.
Colonial rules still shape whom Canada recognizes and whom Canada denies. Identity remains in federal control, not fully in Indigenous hands, and nowhere is that more evident than in the experience of the Qalipu First Nation.
When Qalipu was created — a landless band that is basically a corporation — it was meant to right a historic wrong, to restore recognition to the Mi’kmaq of our province who had been left out of federal policy for generations. But the process was flawed as 100,000 people applied to be registered Indians. The population of our province is only 500,000. People applied in good faith only to see the rules rewritten after the fact.
Families with deep cultural roots and community presence were rejected. Meanwhile, many who lacked true connection to Mi’kmaq heritage were granted status. We call them “paper Indians” at home. The result is an inconsistent registry that includes people who should not be there and excludes people who always should have been.
This has caused real harm. It has left legitimate Mi’kmaq families without the recognition and rights they deserve. It has allowed federal bureaucracy to determine Indigenous belonging instead of Indigenous communities themselves. It has left some of us from my community, myself included, to apply for recognition under a flawed process.
I have couple of examples of how flawed it is. There were three children and the oldest and youngest were granted status; the middle child was not. They have the same parents. The second example is about two siblings. The son got registered but the daughter did not because she was at university. This is how flawed the process of registration is.
Now, we have the Qalipu First Nation and its membership erasing us by replacing us, trying to erase my community from the Assembly of First Nations, not acknowledging our Elders in a respectful way, saying, “Oh, don’t talk to the Elders in Flat Bay,” the very people who are the foundation of the Indigenous movement in Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s injustice in its finest form.
I will note, before my social media blows up, that there are legitimate status Indians in the Qalipu First Nation, but many are not. I provide this information to serve as a backdrop to lessons learned and what must change moving forward under the Indian Act.
We must ensure that future registration is community-led, that the community itself defines a connection to the community and that the community determines who its members are.
Any future registration must have clear, reliable and transparent rules. It must include Elders and knowledge holders. It must respect lived identity, not paperwork. And it has to have fair appeals that restore dignity, not deny it.
Bill S-2 responds to the pressing issue of enfranchisement, a historic practice that continues to have devastating effects on Indigenous communities. As we have already heard, enfranchisement was the policy by which First Nations people could denounce their status to obtain certain benefits, including the right to vote. Some people underwent this process willingly, others did not.
At present, the Indian Act does not enumerate those affected by enfranchisement as persons entitled to be registered. This bill would create a new clause that offers entitlement to register for persons who were denied or lost status due to enfranchisement.
Enfranchisement ended around the 1960s, but its consequences have been inherited across generations. Those who were enfranchised, and their descendants, remain excluded from status. This bill offers a pathway to restore what was wrongly taken from them.
Witness testimony reinforced why this work cannot wait. Kathryn Fournier described enfranchisement as “genocidal in its scope.” Our doctor lawyer Indian Chief Wilton Littlechild identified inconsistencies between the Indian Act and Canada’s obligations under UNDRIP, particularly articles 6, 7, 8 and 9, which protect Indigenous identity and prohibit forced assimilation.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Nicholas case confirmed that sections of the Indian Act violate the equality rights of the affected families under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gave Canada until April 2026 to fix this violation. Bill S-2 is that fix. Passing this bill is not optional. It is a moral obligation and a Charter obligation.
It is also important to recognize the remaining registration issues that are not addressed in the scope of Bill S-2. At committee, many witnesses identified the specific priority area of the second-generation cut-off under section 6(2) of the Indian Act. We heard extensive testimony, as you’ve heard from our colleagues previously, about the harms of section 6(2). There is no doubt that this is an urgent issue that is causing harm and must be addressed.
It was so difficult at committee. There were so many tears shed, and not just from the witnesses, but from us as committee members. We are all affected by this, every status Indian here in the gallery and in the chamber. The minister herself is affected.
I commend the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I see the work you are doing and trying to do, but registration is a complex process that requires its own development process.
On several occasions, the Minister of Indigenous Services has iterated her commitment to working with Indigenous communities to seek a solution that is co-developed, nation-to-nation and that stems from communities themselves.
We must not hinder this work by adding amendments to Bill S-2. It is so important that we get it right. We must offer the minister time to continue seeking solutions and listening to communities before acting on section 6(2).
Passing this bill without amendment does not put an end to our work on amending the Indian Act. It does not mean that we are ignoring the urgency of other membership issues and other discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act.
Rather, it means that we are taking a step towards justice. We will and we must continue this work in the spirit of reconciliation, co-development, and in compliance with our obligations under both the Charter and UNDRIP.
Two-Eyed Seeing teaches us to do things both responsibly and respectfully. These are not simple amendments that are asked for; it requires deep nation-to-nation dialogue and community-led solutions.
With clear-eyed honesty, we must acknowledge that if we rush amendments into this bill, we risk delaying justice for enfranchised families who have already waited decades.
Colleagues, for the first time in Canada’s history, an Indigenous woman is serving as Minister of Indigenous Services, a former Grand Chief in our traditional systems; that means something. Her leadership matters. Too often, Indigenous women in positions of power are expected to carry the weight of perfection, to justify their presence, to be everything to everyone. Today, I reject that expectation. I rise in support, not to critique or challenge but to uplift.
To the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, I lift you up. Thank you for your leadership.
To Senator Audette, sponsor of the bill, you are phenomenal. You tackle every issue bit by bit. I am proud of the work you do. I am honoured to sit in this august chamber with you.
To Minister Gull-Masty, you are making history, but more importantly, you are making change. You are creating a new memory in the minds of our children. You are showing generations of Indigenous youth — especially girls — that we not only belong in these spaces, but we are essential to them.
Let this moment mark a shift, not just in representation, but in respect; not just in words, but in actions; not just in politics, but in the heart of this country’s journey toward true reconciliation.
A former Grand Chief — I have to say it again — is serving as Minister of Indigenous Services. I never thought I would see the day. She is leading this work, carrying the responsibility of restoring trust and advancing justice for our people. She is breaking barriers that stood for centuries.
She has been very clear. She cannot accept amendments at this time. While I hear the call to do more — and I absolutely agree that more must be done — I cannot support amendments that would jeopardize progress today. Instead, I choose to support this Indigenous minister in her historic role, and I commit to working with her to ensure that the next chapter of this process lives up to the standards our people deserve.
At this moment, with both Two-Eyed Seeing and clear-eyed honesty, I have to support this minister. Adopting Bill S-2 is both a moral imperative and a legal obligation. While adopting this bill will not resolve every remaining discriminatory provision of the Indian Act, it nevertheless represents a historic step forward, a step towards justice for Indigenous families, men and women, who have already waited too long.
Let us pass this bill without amendments, not because it’s perfect, but because justice delayed is still injustice. We will keep pushing. We will keep correcting. We will not stop until Indigenous communities and Indigenous nations fully define their own identity, their own citizenship and their own future.
We need to pass this bill, not because it’s the final answer, but because it’s the beginning — a beginning that some of our people, like Beverly Asmann and the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, have been waiting for far too long.
Wela’ lin. Thank you.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.