Minister Gull-Masty doesn’t commit to passing amended S-2 as pressure to end second-generation cutoff mounts

Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty says there is “no consensus” from First Nations that the second-generation cut-off under the Indian Act should be removed as some parliamentarians call for the end of the "assimilationist" provision.

“There are many nations out there that feel that while the one parent may be appropriate for some nations, there is no consensus in the entirety of the country that that is the only pathway forward,” Gull-Masty (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Que.) told MPs in a June 11 Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee meeting. 

Her answer was in response to a question from Conservative MP Billy Morin (Edmonton Northwest, Alta.), a former Cree chief, who asked the minister if she would commit to passing Bill S-2. 

"Do you commit to getting this bill done in this Parliament?" he asked, before giving notice of a motion calling for an end to the study of S-2 and an immediate clause-by-clause consideration by June 16, three days before the House is scheduled to rise for the summer. 

Gull-Masty, a former grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, did not answer the question, but said that citizenship “needs to be determined by First Nations,” and that additional consultation is needed.

Her comments come as the feds are under fire for perceived stalling of Bill S-2, which was swiftly tabled in the Senate at the beginning of Parliament to meet a court-mandated deadline of April 30, but has since stalled in the House after Senators introduced amendments to end the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act.

A British Columbia Supreme Court ordered Ottawa to amend the Indian Act in August 2025, ruling that provisions in the act which deny status to people whose parents or grandparents gave up their status because of enfranchisement infringe on Charter protected rights.

That deadline was later extended to the end of this past May after the feds requested to extend it until to October.

During their study of the bill, Senators amended S-2 to remove the second-generation cutoff—provisions in the Indian Act that revoke status eligibility after two generations if one parent is not a Status Indian. The bill passed the Senate unanimously.

Status under the Indian Act is a legal classification that entitles individuals to specific rights and services from the federal government, including tax, health, and education benefits and programs. 

Since moving to the House, S-2's progress has been slow, with the committee electing to study a private member's bill ahead of the government legislation, and Gull-Masty telling the Assembly of First Nations last December that the Liberals won’t remove the cut-off without broad consultation with leaders. 

Cut-off a 'legislated extinguishment' of rights: Sen. Propser

On the same day as the committee meeting, NDP MP Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, Man.), Canadian Senators Group Senator Paul Prosper (Mi'kma'ki, N.S.), and advocate Zoë Craig-Sparrow held a press conference urging the Liberals to pass the legislation, as amended by the Senate, before the House rises at the end of next week. 

“The second-generation cut-off is an assimilationist policy. It is legislated extinguishment of our inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights,” Prosper, a former chief of the Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation, told reporters. 

He added that a petition calling for the immediate passage of S-2 has garnered over 10,400 signatures, and that over 500 First Nations are in support of the amended legislation.  

“No other order of government requires unanimity before moving forward,” Prosper said.  

Gazan, too, said that the government is pulling out “every delay tactic in the books” to avoid passing the legislation. 

Craig-Sparrow, vice-president of Justice for Girls, told reporters that “she is” the second-generation cut-off, as any children she has with her fiancé will not be granted status. 

“Our children will not have status,” Craig-Sparrow said. “In the eyes of the government, they will not be First Nations. They will not be able to inherit the home that I own, right next to my mother’s, and they will not be able to exercise their Aboriginal right to fish.” 

But there is debate over whether this is the right path forward. Two Indigenous former Senators, Lillian Dyck and Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, recently wrote in The Hill Times that the second-generation cut-off deserves a separate piece of legislation, created and co-developed with First Nations. They argued the S-2 amendments should be rejected as a solution for all communities.

On June 11, Gull-Masty told the committee that though the feds “will address” the second-generation cut-off, they “also have to clarify how we address it.”

The minister read from a letter she said she received from the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations which said that S-2 “has an absence of engagement and consultation” amounting to a “direct violation of Canada's duty to consult.” 

But Morin called the need for consultation an “excuse.”

“I think there’s a double standard here because on Bill C-5, the government didn’t do anything to consult,” he said, “but they passed that in speeds not seen in generations.”

The One Canadian Economy Act was passed last summer before the House rose. It grants Parliament the authority to override environmental protections and treaty rights for projects designated in the national interest, and has sparked concern from First Nations who say they were not properly consulted on the legislation. 

The Conservative MP said that the feds have been consulting for years, and highlighted that S-2 includes a one year period before it is implemented for additional consultation. 

“Timing and consultation is being used as an excuse by this government,” Morin said. 

He added that there has been testimony from thousands of people about how the second-generation cut-off keeps children away from their families and kicks people out of their communities.  

Bill S-2 'falls short,' says Liberal MP Battiste

Liberal MP Jaime Battiste (Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, N.S.) said witnesses have told the committee that S-2 is “necessary for their children.” 

But he also noted that some have said it’s an “incomplete document.” 

Battiste said that, personally, he believes the legislation “falls short” as it narrows indigeneity to ancestry. 

“One of the things I think about, given the responsibility that I have as a Member of Parliament, is reflecting that 40 years ago, in 1985, we had people in Parliament kind of believe that … they knew best for First Nations communities—who and who shouldn’t be a member of their community,” he said. 

“I often reflect, do we repeat the mistakes of the past?”

Bloc Québécois MP Marilène Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, Que.) also asked Gull-Masty in French what the government’s plans for the bill are, and if it will be brought back as a government priority.

She said that chiefs have said that their children may be unable to have access to their identity, community, culture, and language if the second-generation cut-off remains in effect.

But Gull-Masty told the committee the having status is only about benefits.

“I want to clarify that having a status is to receive benefits. It's not for the enhancement of culture and language. That is done with community,” she said in French.

Gill interrupted Gull-Masty, telling her that if witnesses were here, “they would say the contrary.”  

Without status eligibility, Gill said, children are, “from the get-go,” excluded from their communities. 

“This is work that you're doing with children,” she said. “You want communities to take care of them in difficult situations.” 

“This is closely related to culture, language, and identity. It’s a strong thing when you are are excluded from those who belong to you.”

ewand@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times