Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples (APPA) - Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) (November 5, 2025)

A1. Bill S-2 proposes amendments to the Indian Act.

If passed, Bill S-2 would:

• Allow individuals with a family history of enfranchisement to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as those without a family history of enfranchisement
• Support the autonomy of individuals by ensuring they can have their names removed from the Indian Register
• Support the acquired rights of all individuals to their natal band membership
• Eliminate outdated and offensive language related to dependent persons

A2. If all individual and collective enfranchisement issues are addressed, it has been projected that approximately 3,500 individuals over the first five years could be newly entitled to registration. This includes 1,100 individuals impacted by the collective enfranchisement of the former Michel Callihoo Nation (see question 4 for additional context).

A3. The Department has implemented a specialized processing queue for individuals impacted by the proposed enfranchisement provisions.

Impacted individuals can apply already, and will receive a letter from the Department informing them that their applications are on hold and will be processed depending on the outcome of Bill S-2. This process reduces the number of applicants needing to reapply by ensuring that their applications are held in the processing queue, rather than denied. As of September 2025, more than 1,700 individuals and their descendants have already applied and are waiting for the legislation to pass.

A4. Involuntary or compulsory enfranchisement occurred when:

• Individuals earned a degree, became a doctor, lawyer, clergyman or "professional;" and/or,
• They resided outside of Canada for more than five years without the permission of the Department.

Enfranchisement by application occurred when:

• Individuals sought enfranchisement and were assessed as having met the social and/or economic requirements.
• An individual wanted to access the rights or benefits associated with Canadian citizenship, or to protect their children from being forced to attend residential schools.

Collective enfranchisement occurred when:

• An entire band applied for enfranchisement, such as the case of the former Michel Callihoo Nation in 1958, where all remaining members were enfranchised and the band ceased to exist. These individuals did not have their entitlement restored with the amendments in 1985.

A5. The proposed amendments will ensure that people with a family history of enfranchisement are treated equally to with those without. If passed, Bill S-2 would:

• Repeal sections 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(e) of the Indian Act, and restore entitlement to individuals who enfranchised, including those who were enfranchised as part of a collective, under section 6(1)(a.1), eliminating the differential treatment of persons impacted by enfranchisement.
• Eliminate the inequities faced by those who are not currently entitled to registration under the Indian Act because an ancestor was enfranchised by application, involuntarily or as part of a band prior to 1985.

A6. The proposed amendments would address individual (involuntary and by application), and collective (the Michel Band) enfranchisement.

Women who were enfranchised because of their marriage to a non-entitled person, and other sex-based inequities in registration, were already remedied with the coming into force of Bill S-3 in 2019.

A7. No, if the person is already registered under the Indian Act, they do not need to reapply. Their registration category will automatically be amended.

A8. Yes, if they were previously denied entitlement to registration but believe they are now entitled under the legislative amendments of Bill S-2, they need to reapply. They can apply at any time and their application will be held pending the passage of Bill S-2.

A9. Yes. Any newly registered individuals would have access to federally-issued benefits, services, and programs associated with registration, including non-insured health benefits, tax exemptions, and treaty annuities and settlement benefits, if applicable.

A10. Bill S-2 proposes a legal mechanism for individuals who wish to have their names removed from the Indian Register to apply to do so. Once a person's name is removed, they are no longer registered under the Indian Act, and no longer have access to the services and programs associated with registration. However, they will retain the right to seek re-registration at any time.

When a person applies for deregistration, their name would also be removed from any departmentally-maintained band list (under section 11 of the Indian Act). However, for people who are members of a First Nation who administer and maintain their own band lists (under section 10 of the Indian Act or self-governing agreements), their names may or may not be removed from their First Nation's band list. In these cases, First Nations would determine the impact of deregistration on the individuals' right to their First Nation's affiliation and/or membership.

Individuals who deregister retain their entitlement to re-register in the future, if they wish to do so, and their decision to deregister has no impact on their descendants' entitlement to registration.

A11. Some individuals who at one point consented to registration, may simply wish to retract that consent at a later time. In some cases, individuals were registered as children by their parents, and, as adults, they now wish to exercise their own informed consent concerning whether or not they wish to be registered.

In other cases, individuals may be entitled to membership in more than one Indigenous group, and as such, they may wish to become registered with a different group. Some groups, like Métis organizations, do not allow individuals to be registered under the Indian Act if they wish to be recognized as Métis.

A12. Enfranchisement was a racist policy of assimilation that eliminated individuals' rights as First Nations people in exchange for the basic rights of Canadian citizenship. An individual who enfranchised (by application or involuntarily) lost their entitlement and the ability to transmit entitlement to their descendants.

Deregistration is an amendment that offers individuals an opportunity to apply to have their names removed from the Indian Register if they wish to do so. This amendment secures the individual's right to informed consent. Importantly, individuals who deregister will retain their entitlement to registration under the Indian Act and are able to seek re-registration at any time in the future if they wish to do so. Individuals who elect to deregister will not impact descendants' entitlement to registration.

A13. The proposed amendments regarding natal band membership would:

• Amend the Indian Act to grant membership rights under section 11 for women whose marriage before April 17, 1985, to an entitled man of another First Nation, caused an automatic loss of membership in their natal band, as well as membership rights for their descendants.
• In instances where an individual is entitled to registration under the Indian Act, but has yet to be registered, and applies for membership in a section 11 natal band, the Department must affiliate the individual to that section 11 band.
• In instances where an individual is entitled to registration under the Indian Act and wishes to be added to the membership list of their section 10 natal band, the individual must apply for membership directly with that band. First Nations that maintain their own membership lists maintain the right to limit their membership in accordance with their membership criteria.

Individuals who are already registered with a different First Nation can request a transfer through the existing process, that includes admitting First Nation consent under section 12 of the Indian Act.

A14. The proposed amendments to remove outdated and offensive language would:

• replace the term "mentally incompetent Indian" with the updated language of "dependent person" to align the Indian Act with developments in capacity and guardianship law over the last 50 years.

For the purposes of the Indian Act, dependent persons refer to adult persons who, under an Act of the province in which they reside, has been found to be unable to manage their estate by reason of an illness or impairment affecting their cognitive capacity.

A15. For legal purposes, the Indian Act includes a definition to refer to adult persons who receive support in decision-making. The term "dependent person" is more respectful and aligns with provincial and territorial laws.

A16. Despite having negative connotations, being outdated and insensitive, the term "Indian" is used when its precise legal meaning is required itself.

A17. The term direct descendant has not been precisely defined in the Indian Act.

The term was first included in the registration provisions of the Indian Act by the Senate's addition of section 6(1)(a.3) in Bill S-3 (2017). Subsection 6(1)(a.3) and its related provisions replaced many former subsections under 6(1)(c).

Here is how it reads today:

• (a.3) that person is a direct descendant of a person who is, was or would have been entitled to be registered under paragraph (a.1) or (a.2) and
  • (roman numeral 1i) they were born before April 17, 1985, whether or not their parents were married to each other at the time of the birth, or
  • (roman numeral 2ii) they were born after April 16, 1985 and their parents were married to each other at any time before April 17, 1985;

The registration provisions have been applied using a policy definition of direct descendant, referring to an individual who can demonstrate a linear family relationship with the same parentage as someone recognized as 'Indian' for the purposes of registration under the Indian Act, typically referring to parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, and so on.

A18. Yes. These proposed amendments were discussed during the Collaborative Process on Indian Registration, Band Membership and First Nation Citizenship in 2018/2019 as well as prior engagements. During this process, clear solutions to the issues addressed by Bill S-2's proposed amendments were recommended by First Nations partners and reflected in the findings of the Minister's Special Representative.

A19. The proposed amendments have been communicated through the departmental webpage, social media, web content, information sessions, distribution of information through a third-party partner, Indigenous Link, and direct distribution of updates to a list of over 1,000 individuals who have opted in to receive them.

An engagement period occurred between August 2022 and December 2022 on these issues and proposed amendments with over 500 participants, including:

• 50 sessions for groups/individuals;
• 40 internal sessions;
• 95 sessions with organizations; and
• 55 sessions with First Nations communities.

Information sessions resumed in January 2023 and continue on an as-requested basis. Updates are also provided through information sessions and events related to the Collaborative Process.

A20. The Government of Canada includes no liability clauses to protect both Canada and First Nations from being held accountable for the period of time an individual was not entitled.

Numerous witnesses have raised concerns about this clause and how it further contributes to feelings of injustice around the Indian Act. The principle of 'no liability' applies whether the clause is included or not. Flexibility on this clause in Bill S-2 being considered.

A21.The Sarrazin case is authorized by the Quebec Superior Court as a class action on behalf of all persons in Canada who, prior to the coming into force of 2011 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3), had been denied entitlement to registration and consequently also the benefits, rights, programs and services that would have been available to them as registered persons since 1985. The action alleged that the doctrine of Crown immunity or section 9 of Bill C-3 does not protect the Crown from being ordered to compensate the damages sustained due to the discriminatory registration provisions of section 6 of the 1985 Indian Act (Bill C-31). Sarrazin was chosen to lead a series of almost identical claims filed in different jurisdictions across Canada.

The Femmes Autochtones du Québec Inc. - Paillé (FAQ-Paillé) case is authorized by the Quebec Superior Court as a class action on behalf of all persons in Canada who, prior to the coming into force of the 2017/2019 An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec's decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) (Bill S-3), had been denied entitlement to registration and consequently also the benefits, rights, programs and services that would have been available to them as registered persons since 1985. As with Sarrazin, the purpose of this class action is to obtain compensation (moral, pecuniary, and punitive damages).

Both files were previously suspended while awaiting a decision related to the Court's consideration of the absolute Crown immunity defence that was being tried in the Power case. On July 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in the Power case, rejecting Canada's argument that the Crown had absolute immunity from suit in damages for the adoption of a law declared unconstitutional. It did, however, confirm that a qualified immunity already recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mackin case continues to apply in certain circumstances and that the government could only be liable in damages where the enactment of the law amounted to conduct that was clearly unconstitutional, in bad faith, or an abuse of power.

On January 17, 2025, the Sarrazin plaintiffs filed an amended claim based on the Power decision. On February 14, 2025, Canada filed an amended defence. A hearing on the issue of Crown immunity is pending.

The FAQ-Paillé plaintiffs plan to intervene in the Sarrazin hearing given the similar issues raised.

A new proposed class action (Wesley) was filed in Federal Court August 5, 2025, on behalf of all persons who were deprived of the benefits of Indian status to which they would have been entitled if not for their family history of enfranchisement. The plaintiffs seek an order condemning Canada to pay an amount to each member of the subclasses as compensation for damages. Next steps for the file are being determined.

A22. No. The Government of Canada acknowledges that eliminating sex-based inequities relating to registration under the Indian Act does not erase the impacts on persons who lost or were denied entitlement to registration for generations.

A23. No, if a woman gained entitlement to registration upon marriage prior to April 17, 1985, and has no entitlement through her own ancestry, her entitlement would not be restored. This was written into the Indian Act in 1985 as Bill C-31 aimed to eliminate the gaining or losing of entitlement on marriage, as outlined in section 7(1)(a) of the Indian Act.

A24. No, if a woman gained entitlement to registration upon marriage prior to April 17, 1985, and has no entitlement through her own ancestry, she would not be able to extend entitlement to her descendants, as outlined in section 7(1)(b) of the Indian Act.

A25. If a woman lost entitlement to registration on marriage, they are now entitled to be registered, as are their descendants. This was remedied through S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) which fully came into force on August 15, 2019. Bill S-2 does not address the circumstances that gained entitlement to registration upon marriage prior to April 17, 1985.

1. Nicholas v. AGC: The case was stayed in the British Columbia Supreme Court in 2022 to allow the former Bill C-38 to resolve the issue. In 2025, these individuals are still waiting. The current Bill S-2 replaces the former Bill C-38.
2. The case is pending before a judge in British Columbia who will determine whether the government's request for a 12-month extension will be approved. According to what officials explained the other day, if it is not approved, there could be two systems in place: B.C. and the rest of Canada.

A26. Bill S-2 is considered urgent due to both legal imperatives and the need to address long-standing injustices under the Indian Act.

Legally, urgency stems from the Nicholas v. Attorney General of Canada case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which challenges the constitutionality of the Indian Act's registration provisions. Canada has acknowledged that the provisions at issue result in a violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis of race.

The matter returned to court on June 3, 2025. Canada was granted a 10-month extension until April 30, 2026, to allow Parliament time to enact Bill S-2. Should Bill S-2 not pass prior to this date, the remedy will only apply in British Columbia, creating two parallel registration streams - one in British Columbia and one in the rest of Canada. This outcome would create complexity and inconsistency across Canada

The plaintiffs in the Nicholas litigation have been granted an exemption from the suspension, and they are being registered.

A27. In 1985, Bill C-31 introduced amendments that created two general categories of registration: sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. People registered under these categories hold different capacities to transmit entitlement to their descendants.

Where individuals registered under 6(1) can transmit entitlement regardless of who they parent with, individuals entitled under 6(2) can only transmit entitlement to their descendants if they parent with a person who is entitled to registration.

The second-generation cut-off occurs after two consecutive generations of 'out-parenting'. This means that after two consecutive generations of parenting with a person who is not entitled to registration under the Indian Act, the third generation is no longer entitled to registration.

A28. During the 2018/19 Collaborative Process, the second-generation cut-off was raised as a remaining inequity of greatest concern to First Nations partners. The effect of the second-generation cut-off is felt within entire communities, and among families where some family members are entitled and others are not. This cut-off affects every First Nation regardless of gender, ancestry, place of residence, family, or marital status.

The second-generation cut-off is applied without consideration for individual or family circumstances and the different categorization between 6(1) and 6(2) can cause issues for registered individuals and their non-entitled children – often individuals with band membership and community connection are subjected to the cut-off and may sometimes be disconnected from their communities as a result.

Additionally, as this practice continues, it is expected that the second-generation cut-off will result in a decrease of the number of entitled individuals over time. It has more negative impacts in communities with a small population base in which there are more instances of 'out-parenting'. If left unaddressed, the second-generation cut-off could lead to the gradual elimination of individuals entitled to registration and a decrease in population of registered First Nations persons.

A29. In her Final Report on the findings of the Collaborative Process, tabled in Parliament in June 2019, the Minister's Special Representative (MSR) highlighted First Nations' recommendations regarding the inequities in registration provisions in the Indian Act, particularly relating to enfranchisement and deregistration. The MSR recommended "a separate and more in-depth consultation begin to develop solutions to address… and remove the second-generation cut-off."

There remains a legal duty to consult on this issue, and to co-develop a consultation process with First Nations, Indigenous organizations who represent non-registered First Nations, and other interested/impacted individuals. Canada has committed to this in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Action Plan #2.8 submissions are being received from over 60 groups by mid December , 2025, that will lay the groundwork for the consideration of options and further consultation with rights holder and other groups.

A30. Canada is to uphold its duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

To date, no consultation process has been undertaken by ISC specifically to address this issue, and introducing amendments through Bill S-2 without consultation could expose Canada to litigation risk for failing to uphold this duty to consult.

The second-generation cut-off has been a topic of discussion since its introduction in 1985, but there has been no clear solution presented.

Consultation is underway in accordance with United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Action Plan #2.8

By introducing an amendment through Bill S-2 without prior consultation would repeat outdated processes that unilaterally impose a legislative solution without consulting with First Nations on the path forward.

A31. During the 2018-2019 Collaborative Process, the focus of the consultation did not cover how to best to address the second-generation cut-off, but several potential solutions were shared by First Nations during the wide ranging discussions. These included the shift to a one-parent rule, the use of blood quantum or DNA, the removal of registration categories, and the transfer of control to First Nations to determine who their citizens are.

In November 2023, the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds was publicly launched, beginning with an Indigenous Advisory Process, which is comprised of 17 Indigenous national, regional, women's and youth organizations that provided recommendations and guidance on the design of the consultation phase.

In their final reports, some Indigenous Advisory Process members offered their perspectives on potential solutions to the second-generation cut-off. These proposed solutions include the one-parent rule, changes to the Indian Act's registration categories, and the transfer of control to First Nations to recognize self-determination.

Although submissions of witnesses have expressed interest in proceeding now, there are also many who have argued for allowing First Nations to define their own membership and for Canada to recognize and support this, consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The consultation process is an important step to ensuring we get this right.

A32. The removal of the second-generation cut-off would result in an increase in the registered population year over year. However, approximately 90% of the new registrations would impact the off-reserve population.

As of December 2024, 327,000 individuals (out of 1,116,323 registered) are registered under section 6(2), representing approximately 29% of the total registered population.

• Based on analysis from Statistics Canada from this group, approximately 22,620 descendants would become immediately entitled if the second-generation cut-off were removed.

A33. For generations, the Government of Canada has imposed the Indian Act, and registration rules, which have determined who is a member and how communities were governed. To address the wrongs of the past, we need to work with First Nation communities directly and individuals impacted by these rules.

In so doing, respecting the United Nations Declaration Action Plan and Canada's obligation to consult and avoid making the same mistakes of the past, again.

Canada must meet the highest threshold for consultation and cooperation when making changes to the Indian Act because of the direct impacts each of those changes will have on the Indigenous Peoples it impacts. Canada wants the solution to come from First Nations and be legally sound, so that it can stand the test of time.

A34. The Indigenous Advisory Process (IAP) was launched in November 2023 to provide advice and recommendations to Indigenous Services Canada to help ensure that Indigenous perspectives are considered in the design and delivery of the collaborative process.

The Indigenous Advisory Process membership consisted of 1-2 appointed representatives from 17 national, regional, youth and women's Indigenous organizations that represent individuals or communities across Canada affected by the second-generation cut-off. The work of the IAP was integrated into a consultation plan that was published January of 2025.

Information sessions have been delivered and will continue to prepare rights-holders for consultation events, anticipated to begin in 2026, to determine the solution(s) that will go forward.

A35. The following organizations responded positively to the Minister's invitation in June 2023:

Indigenous Organizations Table:

A mix of 11 national and regional representative organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, Native Women's Association of Canada and the Indigenous Bar Association.

A36. Consultation events supporting the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds have not started; however, an Indigenous Advisory Process and a Call for Proposals: Indigenous-led options for solutions has occurred.

Beginning in April 2024, Indigenous Services Canada received 11 final reports from 17 Indigenous Advisory Process members, outlining their findings and recommendations on the consultation phase.

From these final reports, a consultation plan was co-developed, implementing the perspectives of the Indigenous Advisory Process in the design of consultation events and activities. The drafted consultation plan was provided to Indigenous Advisory Process members for final review, to ensure that recommendations have been accurately reflected in the plan. The consultation plan was published online in February 2025.

The second phase of the Collaborative Process launched in December 2024 with a Call for Proposals: Indigenous-led Options for Solutions. This call for proposals is a funded opportunity for First Nation communities and Indigenous organizations to lead the developments of options for solutions to address the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds. 90 Proposals have been accepted by the department.

The Call for Proposals: Indigenous-led Options for Solutions was placed on hold when Parliament dissolved in March 2025 due to the federal election, and updated deadlines for final submissions are to be determined.

A38. Bill C-31 did not address the collective enfranchisement of the former Michel Band. Some individuals may have been able to establish entitlement to registration through ancestral connections unrelated to their familial connections to the former Michel Band. The Michel Nation is currently not recognized as an Indian Act band.

Bill C-31 only restored entitlement to individuals who enfranchised by application (under 6(1)(d) and individuals who were involuntarily enfranchised (under 6(1)(e)). There were no amendments that restored entitlement to those who were collectively enfranchised.

Bill S-2 addresses issues related to collective enfranchisement for the first time. Enfranchisement as a policy ceased to be part of the Indian Act with the passage of Bill C-31 in 1985. Bill S-2 seeks to resolve legacy impacts of enfranchisement. As a result of Bill S-2, approximately 1,100 individuals impacted by the collective enfranchisement of the former Michel Nation would be entitled to registration under the Indian Act.

The Department has been engaging with descendant groups of the Michel Nation to move towards band recognition. While the Department acknowledges that Bill S-2 will allow enfranchised members to regain entitlement to registration, it would not result in the official recognition of the former Michel Band. It would, however, enable them to pursue formal recognition under s.17 of the Indian Act as a collective who are now registered, thus reducing obstacles on the pathway to band recognition.

A39. Collectives can be recognized as an Indian Act band under two sections of the Indian Act today: section 17 and section 2(1). Neither section is being amended by Bill S-2.

Under section 17 of the Indian Act, the Minister of Indigenous Services has the authority to constitute new bands. The types of band recognition requests that fall under section 17 are as follows: to divide two or more groups; amalgamate two or more groups; or to seek new recognition (a group or individuals who are registered or are entitled to be registered and wish to form a new band).

By addressing the issue of collective enfranchisement through Bill S-2, 1,100 former members and descendants would be entitled to registration and as a collective of registered persons can therefore pursue recognition under section 17 of the Indian Act.

Under section 2(1) of the Indian Act, the Governor in Council has the authority to recognize a new Indian Act band by passing an Order in Council declaring a formerly unrecognized collective as a Band.

Types of requests that could fall under section 2(1) are wrongful amalgamations or band declaration (communities who claim a historic collective identity but have never been recognized as a band). The only recent example of a section 2(1) band is the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A40. Bill S-2 seeks to address this inequity by supporting women to reaffiliate with their natal band. Prior to 1985, women were automatically transferred to their husband's band upon marriage to a First Nations man from a different Nation. It is hard to predict the number of band transfers that could occur under this provision. For Dakota Lakota, their concern is the potential transfer out of members.

A41. Bill S-2 would not complicate the current process for individuals looking to be registered under the Indian Act and seeking membership.

Registration refers to legal entitlement as a person registered under the Indian Act, known commonly as 'Indian status'. Upon registration, an individual is affiliated to a First Nation in the Indian Register, which is different than being a member.

Membership means that an individual is included on a First Nations' membership list, maintained by the Department under section 11 of the Indian Act, or maintained by the First Nation under section 10 of the Indian Act or a self-government agreement.

Those impacted by the enfranchisement provision of Bill S-2 who would become a registered individual should the Bill pass, but would not be guaranteed membership in their requested section 10 First Nation or self-governing nation as the decision would remain with that specific First Nation.

A42.

A43. Bill S-2 is similar to Bill S-3 in that it proposes to remedy the differential transmission of entitlement of someone who had a loss of entitlement before Bill C-31 in 1985.

The amendments in Bill S-2 propose to renumber the enfranchisement provisions to match the provisions of those who were remedied in Bill S-3, so that individuals who were enfranchised by application have the same ability extend entitlement to their descendants as those who lost entitlement by virtue of their marriage to a non-entitled man, in the same manner to those who didn't experience a loss at all.

In December 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services submitted the Final Report to Parliament on the Review of S-3 and found that while sex-based inequities were removed from the section 6 registration provisions of the Indian Act, residual and other inequities remained. These include the second-generation cut-off, enfranchisement, scrip and membership concerns. Bill S-2 follows through on those next steps outlined in the Report to Parliament by the former Minister of Indigenous Services based on Bill S-3.

Bill S-2 also follows through on some of the outcomes from the consultation done through Bill S-3, notably the Collaborative Process on Indian Registration, Band Membership and First Nation Citizenship (2018-19) led by Ministerial Special Representative, Claudette Dumont-Smith.

A44. There is no link to be made between the former Bill C-53, which dealt with recognition of collective rights of Métis groups by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, with Bill S-2, which deals with the recognition of individual rights of First Nations people.

A45. Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Act define who is entitled and who is not entitled to be registered.

Since the introduction of the Indian Act, the Government has defined who is a registered person based on many factors including:

• familial connections to an entitled ancestor identified and verified through genealogical research or through statutory declaration by guarantor, allowing for a decision to be made at the discretion of the Indian Registrar considering all information;
• family history of enfranchisement, both voluntary and involuntary; and
• the provisions under which family members are or have been entitled.

Prior to Bill C-31, in the event of a marriage between a man and a woman, only the man's entitlement was transmissible and altogether affected the entitlement of their children and wife. During this time period, women and children of an entitled man would gain entitlement to registration.

A47.

A48. The provisions to address unknown and unstated parentage under section 5(6) and 5(7) of the Indian Act require that any credible evidence is considered and every reasonable inference is drawn in favour of the applicant when entitlement to registration is asserted through unknown or unstated parentage.

As a result of the inherent flexibility of these provisions, and the enhanced policy developed in response, Indigenous Services Canada is not aware of any remaining legislative inequities in relation to Unknown or unstated parentage.

However, there may be remaining challenges in implementation. For example, Indigenous Services Canada recognizes that some individuals may not assert entitlement through unknown or unstated parentage because they are not aware of the legislative changes in 2017 from Bill S-3 in response to the Ontario Court of Appeal's Gehl decision, or for other personal reasons.

As part of the application process, individuals asserting unknown and unstated parentage are provided with several examples of evidence types, such as a court order declaring parentage or a statutory declaration, and additional time to gather any evidence before rendering an entitlement decision on their application.

As the Department continues to raise awareness on changes to the registration process, it will also continue to provide support based on the unique needs of different applicants, while seeking further opportunities to strengthen implementation efforts.

Indigenous Services Canada acknowledges Sharon McIvor's personal commitment as a member of the Sex Discrimination Working Group through the Feminist Alliance for International Action on bringing awareness to these issues as recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); however the concerns are not specific to the former Bill C-38 or Bill S-2.

A49. The Indian Register, maintained at ISC, is the official record of persons registered under section 6 of the Indian Act. Registered persons have certain benefits, rights, programs and services, for example:

• education
• tax exemptions, in specific situations
• non-insured health services

Registration is a right of recognition that Canada grants to First Nations members. Métis and Inuit do not have the same recognition, rights, and benefits.

Being registered under the Indian Act is not the same as being a member or citizen of a First Nation.

If a First Nation's list is maintained at ISC, the individual's name will be automatically added to the membership list of the First Nation with which the parents are affiliated once the individual is registered.

If a First Nation decides for itself who belongs to its membership, the individual must apply directly to become a member or citizen.

A band can assume control of its band membership in two ways:

• by developing its own membership rules following the process set out in section 10 of the Indian Act;
• by negotiating a broader set of self-government legislation.

Under the process set out in section 10 of the Indian Act:

1. the band must notify its electors of its intention to assume control of its membership;
2. the band must develop membership rules that protect any person's right to membership acquired when the band list was maintained by ISC
3. a majority of the majority of the band members must approve the intent to assume control of its membership , meaning that a majority of the band's electors of the band must vote and a majority of those must be in favour of the intent;
4. the band must notify the Minister of Indigenous Services in writing that it is assuming control of its own membership and provide a copy of its membership rules to the Minister and the Office of the Indian Registrar.

If the Minister is satisfied that the conditions of section 10 of the Indian Act have been met, the band will receive notice that their has control of its own membership.

In self-government negotiations, the process is similar to that set out in section 10 of the Indian Act; however, the Parliament of Canada will normally approve the membership rules when they are part of self-government legislation. If the band is governed by section 10 of the Indian Act, it works alone with its own legal counsel to develop membership rules (code). Regional offices have no direct role in the development of band membership rules.

If the band is governed by section 11 of the Indian Act, its membership list is maintained at ISC by the Indian Registrar.

As of August 2025, 230 bands have assumed control of their band lists under section 10 of the Indian Act, while 40 bands determine membership through self-government legislation independent of the Indian Act. There are 350 bands that continue to be managed by Indigenous Services Canada.

Consultation on the process of taking control of the band list is one aspect of the current consultation process underway to help improve legislative and programmatic aspects.

The former Bill C-53, which dealt with the recognition of the collective rights of Métis groups by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations based on their own membership criteria, did not receive Royal Assent before the end of the previous parliamentary session.

A50. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) conducted a performance audit of registration in response to recommendation 3 of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous People's June 2022 report titled, "Make it stop! Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration".

The OAG conducts several audits every year on various government programs and activities. In response to the Senate's recommendation, Indigenous Services Canada welcomed the performance audit and is working diligently to address the OAG's recommendations. Work is underway, thanks to the Digital Application Services, which has significantly reduced application wait times by streamlining the process for applicants — cutting appointment durations while providing a better client service. Currently, entitled children 15 years or younger whose proof of birth document lists both parents, will be able to complete their registration application digitally during in-person visits at service locations across the country. Over time, this tool will be made available for a broader range of persons to apply for registration and it is an addition to the digital application process for the secure status card, which is already successfully implemented across the country

Since 2022, over 106,000 secure status card and renewal requests have been submitted digitally through Digital Application Services.

Other digital initiatives include the SCIS Photo App, launched in 2019, allowing cost-free digital passport-style photo uploads for secure status cards, and online booking tools available at select Indigenous Services Canada service locations, to improve appointment access and reduce wait times.

A.51. The audit sought to determine whether Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada effectively and efficiently managed the registration process under the Indian Act between the timeframe of March 2019 to March 2024, following the implementation of legislative amendments in 2017 and 2019 under Bill S-3. The audit determined that registration services were poorly managed.

A.52. Yes. Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) agrees with all recommendations and views the audit as a constructive opportunity to strengthen processes related to registration services.

A53. Several measures are already underway, including updated training and certification for registration officers, improvements in quality assurance, and transitioning from paper-based to digital applications to reduce delays, errors and improve services to First Nations people.

A54. ISC implemented updated training and certification protocols in 2024. All officers making decisions on behalf of the Indian Registrar are now certified, with recertification required every three years. The Department will monitor implementation closely.

A55. ISC will publish its service standards by the end of 2025 and report annually on performance through its public report on registration and status card issuance.

A56. The OAG used a six-month benchmark. ISC clearly communicates publicly that application processing times can range from 6 months to 2 years or more, depending on volume and complexity of the application (e.g., completeness of the information sent to the Department, closest registered ancestor).

A57. ISC routinely reviews procedures to identify efficiencies and will conduct additional analysis to reduce processing times and address the large inventory of applications. However, since applications can be submitted at any time and entitlement criteria are evolving, the volume is non-static.

The Department also has digital initiatives, such as the Digital Applications Systems, the SCIS Photo App and an online booking tool available at select Indigenous Services Canada service locations, to improve the applications process and reduce wait times.

A58. Yes. ISC will establish and publish service standards for processing protests by the end of September 2025, report on these annually and publish results on its website.

A59. Going forward, ISC will evaluate the effectiveness of its communications tools and methods, identify gaps and adjust outreach to better meet the diverse needs of First Nations communities.

A60. Yes. ISC agrees that the Registration Administrator funding model needs review and has developed a discussion paper for consideration by decision makers, but no new funding is currently available to increase compensation at this time.

A61. ISC supports sustainable and predictable funding for Trusted Source organizations. A business case is being developed to explore viable models, though a dedicated funding source will be required.

A62. Despite concerns raised by the Auditor General about the volume of applications with the Department and the amount of time it takes to render a decision, the accuracy of decisions is very high. The Department is committed to maintaining its quality assurance and monitoring and compliance activities in support of the program.

A63. ISC is transitioning from paper to digital application processing, which will significantly improve speed, reduce errors, and support better tracking and service delivery.

A64. The inventory of applications is dynamic and affected by legislative changes, such as amendments that broaden entitlement. Depending on family history and documents available to the applicant, some applications are more straightforward to determine entitlement than others. ISC is working to increase transparency around wait times and communication with applicants, while also streamlining internal procedures. The application processing times can range from 6 months (or sooner) to 2 years or more.

A65. Yes. Regarding funding issues and communications, ISC will engage with First Nations Registration Administrators and Trusted Source partners to support implementation efforts. It is important to note that there is no source of funds at the moment.

A66. The audit aligns with the broader goals of reconciliation and moving beyond the Indian Act by recommending that ISC provides training and funding to Registration Administrators and Trusted Source organizations to support the delivery of the registration program. ISC's agreement with the recommendations of the audit reflect the Department's commitment to more equitable, transparent, and effective registration services, which are foundational to First Nations individuals' access to a range of services and programs across Canada.

A67. There is no direct recommendation on this issue. The OAG recognized that there had been considerable improvements to the Indian Act over time, and noted that the engagement and policy development efforts assessed during their audit were well conducted. This included the period prior to and following the introduction of the former Bill C-38, the substance of which has since been incorporated into the current Bill S-2.

A68. Priority files are processed before regular workload.

Generally, applications for First Nations status are dealt with by a "first in, first out" system, however the Department recognizes that a priority processing queue is required due to unique circumstances. The program will pull these applications out of the queue to be processed quickly.

Applications for Registration will be determined priority on a case-by-case basis by the Registrar, Director of Operations at Headquarters, or Regional Office Managers based on the information flagged in the application.

Reasons why an application may be determined a priority include but are not limited to:

• for medical reasons, including travel for medical reasons
• age of applicant (65 years or older)
• employment;
• education funding requirements (with a post-secondary letter of acceptance); and
• per capita one-time payment to the band.

A69. Wait times for priority requests have improved year over year. For example, so far in 2025, the wait time for priority processing for medical reasons is on average 1.2 months.

A70. Individuals do not need to be registered under the Indian Act to receive medical care. Individuals flagged to have their application priority processed for medical reasons are seeking access to Non-Insured Health Benefits that provides a range of medically necessary goods and services that are not covered by provincial and territorial health systems.

In Canada, a medical emergency response is provided to all individuals in need, whether they be citizens of, or visitors to, Canada. Canada's publicly funded health care system ensures that an individual can access necessary medical services whether they be registered under the Indian Act or recognized by an Inuit land claim organization, or not. In simple terms, whether an individual is registered under Indian Act is not a necessary condition to receiving the care they need within Canada's Universal healthcare system.

Registration grants an individual (and their dependents under the age of two) access to Non-Insured Health Benefits

A71. A First Nations child under the age of majority in their province or territory of residence can access Jordan's Principle, if they permanently reside in Canada and if the child meets one of the following criteria:

• is registered or entitled to be registered under the Indian Act
• has one parent or guardian who is registered or entitled to be registered under the Indian Act
• is recognized by their Nation for the purposes of Jordan's Principle
• is ordinarily a resident on reserve

A72. Only those registered under the Indian Act are eligible to live in and receive housing on a reserve. The First Nation, with federal funds allocates housing based on need, availability and policies. Most importantly, registration under the Indian Act does not guarantee housing on reserve.

When you are registered and a member of the First Nation, you can apply for housing programs. Your First Nation Band and Council is responsible for managing on-reserve housing benefits.

Steps Linking Registration to Housing Access

1. Register: Apply for registration under the Indian Act.
2. Become a Member of Your First Nation: Many reserves require band membership (which may be linked but is separate from registration).
3. Apply for On-Reserve Housing: Submit a housing application to your band or tribal council.
4. Receive Support: Your First Nation, with federal funds, allocates housing based on need, availability, and policies.

A73. Applying for registration involves a careful, multi-step process including confirming identity, reviewing documents, determining entitlement under the Indian Act, and applying quality assurance to ensure accurate decisions.

Processing times vary because some applications require additional steps such as obtaining missing documents, verifying adoption or unknown parentage, conducting multi-generational historical research, or clarifying links to entitled ancestors or First Nations (e.g. in situations where parents or grandparents are not already registered).

Registration under the Indian Act is a legislative determination of entitlement, while the status card confirms an individual is registered under the Act and serves as a secure federal identity document issued after registration process is complete. The Passport Program applications requires certain documents and information to confirm an applicant's identity and that they are a Canadian citizen entitled to a Canadian passport.

A74. A Trusted Source is a registration administrator, organization or provincial, territorial or federal department that has been designated to help you register under the Indian Act and get, renew or replace a status card. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, of the 60,019 mail-in applications received for secure status card applications, 37,123 were submitted by Trusted Sources (including Registration Administrators). In addition to this, 2,205 secure status card applications were tagged as submitted in-person in Trusted Source locations.

A75. Canada does not fight against individuals seeking recognition through their entitlement.

However, Canada defends the Indian Act provisions when they are challenged before the court as it was done in notable court cases such as the decisions in McIvor, Descheneaux, Gehl and Nicholas, which have resulted in changes to the registration provisions.

Beyond court imposed changes to the Indian Act, Canada is actively working in partnership with First Nations through the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds to proactively address the ongoing legacy the Indian Act continues to have on First Nations and their communities.

Canada defends the Registrar's protest decisions when they are appealed under section 14.2 of the Indian Act.