Hon. Michèle Audette moved second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]She said: Honourable senators, the Anishinaabe people have been welcoming me since 2021. I asked them for permission to work on their land as a senator until I turn 75, if my health permits.
Many cultures coexist on this land, which is full of history, traditions and stories and which has witnessed many outreach efforts. I thank the Anishinaabe people.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
This is the first time that a bill has been introduced to amend the Indian Act. It is being sponsored by a minister from the Cree First Nation and by an Innu senator from Quebec. She and I are writing a page in history, and I hope that we will continue to work together for years to come. I hope that my daughters will hear about this positive development.
I will try to leave you time to ask questions. I apologize in advance if I don’t. I hope you will also understand that I will not have answers to all of your questions. I hope that the ministers, departments and cabinet are listening carefully to our discussions.
Evidently, I stand before you with great determination, because this is more than a mere bill or document. It 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.
I would like to thank Kathryn, who is actually here with us today.
The purpose of this bill is to provide 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.
Those affected by enfranchisement took Canada to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Nicholas civil suit was filed in June 2021, and the plaintiffs, many of whom are descendants of people who were enfranchised by colonial policy, are patiently awaiting justice.
To these people, I say, “I hear you.”
To Kathryn and her entire family, I say, “I hear you. I understand your struggle. I understand.”
To my esteemed colleagues here in what I consider to be an important chamber, I must point out that, in this case, the Attorney General of Canada admitted a few days ago that the impugned law unjustifiably violates section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It’s rare to hear someone say that. Such a concession is exceptional, in my opinion.
The judge is currently examining the possibility of suspending the declaration of invalidity, which would give Parliament time to pass Bill S-2. This means that the court is waiting to see whether we, as lawmakers, will take action.
As you can see, passing this bill is not only symbolic, but also necessary. We must act now. Let’s not miss this opportunity to bring our laws into line with justice, equality and the Charter. Let’s make sure that the law no longer separates families or deprives them of their rightful identity. Let’s show those who have waited so long that their patience and perseverance have been worthwhile.
Bill S-2 is also an opportunity to correct the painful injustice brought to light by Nicholas.
Who is this bill for, and why is it being introduced now?
Let me explain why the bill should be passed. It includes a part about enfranchisement, which is very important to feminists. For my Innu mother, all of that was very painful, and the consequences are still being felt.
The part about enfranchisement would guarantee that people with a family history of enfranchisement are treated the same as people with no such history under the Indian Act.
The part about individual deregistration by request would allow people who want their name removed from the Indian Register to apply for deregistration.
What does that mean? We have to fight to register or re-register. If I fall in love with a member of the Navajo people in the United States, I can’t become a citizen in the eyes of his government because “dual membership” is not allowed, to use the jargon of the Indian Act.
As things stand, I can’t deregister from the Indian Act and apply to move down south with my family. This bill could allow that kind of deregistration and recognition in another nation. If we separate in the event of death or for some other reason and I move back to my own land, I would be re-registered automatically.
As for the part about losing membership in one’s natal band, it is a very paternalistic law. I am going to continue using jargon from the Indian Act. A woman who married an Indian from another band, reserve or community automatically had her status changed without her consent. She would be registered in her husband’s band. Today, that means this is also the case for all her children and descendants. Even in the event of death, divorce or separation, she still had to remain in that band.
Finally, this provision could allow women, children and descendants to return to their natal band, if they so choose.
Of course, there is another part about removing outdated and offensive language such as “mentally incompetent Indians.”
Obviously, I can’t stay silent.
I cannot say this is the perfect bill. I would like to say that to myself, first of all, but also to my mother and many people who I walk beside.
For too long, Indigenous women, First Nations women, fought. They went to court and challenged the court but with no money and no support. They even had to fight against their own brothers, fathers or people from their own nation. The sad part is when the Court Challenges Program was ended, it was very tough, very hard. I live with that frustration all the time.
We always have to wait for a court decision to make changes within the Indian Act. Why?
I’d like to talk to you about a section that Justice Masse included in her conclusion in Descheneaux v. Canada. This is from paragraph 235:
It does not, however, exempt Parliament from taking the appropriate measures to identify and settle all other discriminatory situations that may arise from the issue identified, whether they are based on sex or another prohibited ground, in accordance with its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws respect the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter.
That decision is from 2015, not 1860.
I come from an age-old nomadic Innu people. At one time, the roles of men and women were clear in our protocols, our laws, our rules, our codes and our ways of being. Our relationship with the land, our protocols and our laws were sacred. Then, overnight, a law was imposed on us without informed consent. Nobody asked me or my great-grandmother for our opinions. That law was the Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes of 1857. We are big believers in tradition in this place. This act was harmful in terms of perpetuating a colonial tradition. Nothing was hidden, as we can see from the title of the act.
Later on, the objective of assimilation was quite overt. I have a quote from Duncan Campbell Scott, a senior Indian Affairs official, who, in 1920, clearly stated:
Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.
As you can see, we are dealing with a colonial past that lives on in our policies and laws.
Bill S-2 builds on the work started by many people through Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-2.
For those of us who remember the repatriation of the Constitution, that Constitution became an important tool for the women known as “Indian women” back then, because the Charter mentioned the right to equality. This is what prompted the federal government to introduce Bill C-31, which allowed my mother and thousands of other women to regain the Indian status they had lost when they married a Quebecer, a native of Thunder Bay or a “non-status Indian.”
Up until 1985, Canadian and Quebec women were also taken in and given Indian status. Once this act was passed, they weren’t told, “Sorry, you have to go.” Instead, it was considered an acquired right. It is still happening in 2025. It creates a complicated way of seeing things, but we understand it because we live with this reality, since a two-tiered system of status still exists because of sections 6(1) and 6(2), which stem from Bill C-31 from 1985.
It wasn’t there before 1985. Plus, before 1985, if I was giving birth, I wasn’t asked who the father of my children was. But since 1985, I am asked to say who the father is. What if it is a rape or incest, or the father died, or I’m in a violence situation, or I just don’t want to give the name? Well, Ottawa will presume that the dad is a non-status Indian. Then again, if I fall under section 6(2) — the cut-off generation — my baby will not be recognized.
You know I’m from Schefferville, up north — train, plane. The community will be allowed to refuse services to my children. But what if a woman here comes to the hospital, and the person who welcomes the woman says, “By the way, before I give you services, I need to know who the father of your children is”?
I don’t think that would be tolerated, but for us it is still happening.
We have to bear stories, injuries and scars like that every day. We also bear them because at the time, the federal government negotiated behind closed doors with the chiefs, most of whom were men, and said, “We have no choice, we have to re-register those women and their children, but we’ll give you the opportunity to create your own membership code,” in the hope that it would be restrictive, of course. “But it’s the department that will approve all this.” This created another form of discrimination: “Who is Indian and who is not? We’ll give you some power, but each person is limited to one band, or they’ll be added to the register in Ottawa.”
This is what spurred Sharon McIvor, a First Nations woman from British Columbia, into action. She challenged certain provisions of the Indian Act, contrasting the treatment of Indigenous women and Indigenous men. In 2007, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled in her favour, finding that there was discrimination on the basis of sex.
In 1985, we had been told that the matter was settled. However, another party in that case decided to challenge the ruling, so she wound up before the Court of Appeal in 2009. As a little aside, I already had five children at the time. Getting back to the case before the courts, the Court of Appeal handed down a narrower decision, treating the discrimination as if it had begun in 1951, which was not the case at all. Later, in 2011, Bill C-3 was introduced as Canada’s response to the decision. Debates on Bill C-3 followed and, fortunately, this legislation was eventually passed.
Some of you know a bit about my personality and know that I was a little more militant back in my younger days. After reading the press release, I called Ottawa and asked a question.
“May I speak to my father in trust for all Indians?”
Then I called Canada’s Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which used to be called the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The person said, “Who?”
I said, “I’m status Indian. May I speak to my father in trust for all Indians?”
I wanted them to understand that there had been a court ruling that was important to hundreds of women, girls and children like me, and I wanted to know what changes it would bring about for us. I had a long list of questions because a lot of women were part of the debate. However, the answer was too simple: “No, no, this won’t fix that. No, not section 6(2).” The answer to most of my questions was no. I said, “Okay, I’m coming over. I’m going to put on my walking shoes and march to Ottawa to speak out against the Indian Act.”
On May 4, 2010, I left Wendake with other women. We marched to go listen to the debates on this bill in the other place in June. There was a lot of pressure both inside and outside Parliament. I would actually like to thank the Honourable Chuck Strahl, who was the minister back than and is now undoubtedly surrounded by his ancestors and loved ones. It wasn’t easy. He answered our calls every day and addressed our demands during our great march. Fortunately, the bill was passed, but again, it did too little despite the opportunity to make big changes.
Bill S-3 was introduced in 2019. We all remember how hard our colleague, the Honourable Lillian Eva Dyck, worked to advocate for this bill and push it as far as possible. This bill was also too restrained. At the same time, in 2025, the judge in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General) also found that sections of the Indian Act were unconstitutional. They violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter, maintained sexist distinctions between the descendants of men and women who had lost their status, and perpetuated discrimination based on family lineage. Thank you, Mr. Descheneaux, Mr. Dubé and Ms. Yantha, for taking this case to the courts. It should never have come to that.
Then, in 2020, the Final Report to Parliament on the Review of S-3 recognized that inequities remained in the Indian Act. I thank my colleagues on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee who also presented, in this report, findings about how there are still inequities when it comes to registration and about how these inequities continue to harm First Nations women and their descendants.
In June 2025, 160 years later, I stand here before you in the hope that something will finally be done to resolve this long-standing discrimination against us. We are often told that we are equal, but in reality, our mothers, our sisters and their children continue to be treated differently. For me, that is not the definition of equality, but the definition of sex-based discrimination. Just because I am an Innu woman, the law, or section 6(1), will say that I am an Indian woman, but I continue to experience discrimination. All of us Indian women do.
The act has a direct impact on our status, but the first big shock came when we were cut off from our culture, our cultural identity, our relationship with the land, our ability to hear or speak our language, such as Innu-aimun. However, we were also prevented from participating in the democratic life of our nation, our community. I do not have that right. We do not have that right. Every time the government learns of a decision, it deals with it on a case-by-case basis. I have been hearing that for 30 years.
Well, you know, there are many cases, so we’ll wait. We’ll see.
As a result, with all of the legal tools in place, we could really change things. I come from a culture where words are truth and stories have the force of law. For me, storytelling is important here too.
This bill also influenced the story of Kathryn Fournier, who is with us today. Her grandfather, Maurice Sanderson, also attended a residential school. The provisions of the Indian Act prevented him from purchasing land or a house and denied him the right to vote. These things would have required him to be enfranchised. In 1922, after suffering mistreatment and abuse in the residential schools, her grandfather came to an unusual and difficult decision. He chose to enfranchise his wife and children. I don’t know whether he had their consent or not. These are the kinds of stories we hear.
With the introduction of Bill C-85, Kathryn and her mother tried to re-register. They found out that injustice was not a thing of the past. Her mother Edith, who is now in the spirit world, became a plaintiff in the constitutional challenge that led to the Nicholas decision. Today, her daughter is keeping up the fight, motivated to carry on and not lose hope, not only for herself, but also for her children and grandchildren. I would do it for my mother too. To be able to say who I am, and for my children to be able to say they are proud of that, is important to my identity. This amendment will not just allow me to register with my band or regain the right to register. It will allow me to reconnect with my heritage, my history, my language, my culture and my identity.
That story is similar to that of another plaintiff, Nadia S’Ahn N’Ahn Guu’as, from British Columbia, and her younger brother, who were repeatedly denied registration without fully understanding why. However, just recently, the Haida Nation passed a law recognizing Nadia and her daughter. Even the village of Old Massett, which is subject to the Indian Act, recognizes Nadia. Why can’t this be done under the Indian Act? Bill S-2 could allow Nadia and her children to be recognized, rather than receiving a letter from the government saying that her application has been denied, that she can’t be recognized, that she’s not Indigenous and so on. Imagine the impact this situation has had on her and on others in the communities who tell us that they have been denied status again. It is troubling, but it is happening.
I hope this bill will be studied, debated in committee and eventually passed, so that we can restore dignity to all these people. I can’t stand idly by. The situation is urgent. A case is currently pending in British Columbia. They are waiting to hear our position.
I commit to the following, as I always have done and will continue to do: Notwithstanding this bill, my promise to my children, and as a former commissioner, is to continue working towards self-determination so that our nations can decide who is a member with rights and responsibilities. I marched for my son in 2010 so that he would have the choice to register. I would say to him, “Amun, if we ever sign a self-government agreement, you’ll be out of here. You won’t be considered.” Perhaps now you understand why it is important for many families to be registered. They have a right to be registered. This is one more step on a path that other women, men and two-spirit people walked long before me. I must continue to honour that. I hope you will walk with us.
The path has been and continues to be painful. It came about through resistance, but also through kindness, and through all the love we feel from our families. All we want is equality, no more, no less. We are entitled to that. This bill will correct injustices that should never have existed. This bill is a form of redress.
I came here when I was 27. I told myself that I would return one day, when I was old. I wanted to be a senator so I could change that law.
It is the first time that we will have a First Nation minister, Mandy Gull-Masty — she is Cree — who is sponsoring this bill and an Innu senator who is trying to sponsor this bill. And, yes, I think we know what we’re talking about. And, yes, we know it doesn’t go far enough, but, yes, we know it’s urgent; we know that.
Two women with two different stories but with the same willingness of equity, equality and, of course, giving back what was taken away from us.
So we need courage to stand. I have that. Sometimes I don’t, but I’m human. But I hope that we will do this change together. The debate is important and we need to hear the concerns, but I do support the bill the way it is. If we can make it better, of course, I’ll be happy, but it’s going to be a conversation that needs to happen.