An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)

Summary#

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), would amend the Indian Act; it would not create a separate law or agency. Its stated goal is to provide new registration entitlements in response to a Charter challenge in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General). These are proposed changes: the supplied material does not establish whether the bill has passed or is in force.

• It would change who is entitled to registration, including some people affected by specified historical removals and some of their descendants. It would also repeal existing registration provisions and preserve certain existing entitlements during the change.
• It would add Band List entitlements for some people connected to those historical removals. For certain provisions of the Indian Act, “Indian” would also include people on a Band List who are entitled to be listed.
• A person could ask in writing to be removed from the Indian Register; the Registrar would then have to remove their name from the Register and from a Band List maintained by the Department.
• It would replace the definition “mentally incompetent Indian” with “dependent person,” based on a finding under provincial law that an Indian cannot manage their estate because of an illness or impairment affecting cognitive capacity.
• The Minister would have exclusive authority over a dependent person’s estate, with powers to appoint an administrator and make orders about the person’s property and estate.
• Some registration-related changes would start 12 months after royal assent. The supplied text does not specify when the other provisions would start.

What it means for you#

• People seeking registration and their descendants: Some people whose names were omitted or removed under specified historical provisions, and some direct descendants, could become entitled to registration if they meet the bill’s rules. Some people already entitled under the current subsection 6(2) would be treated as entitled under the revised rules.
• People seeking a Band List entry: The bill would add entitlements for some people who lost band membership under an older provision, and some descendants. Other new Band List entitlements depend on a parent’s entitlement. The changes refer to Band Lists maintained in the Department; the text does not establish the same rules for every Band List.
• People choosing to leave the Register: A person could apply in writing to the Registrar for removal. The Registrar would have to remove that person from the Indian Register and the Department-maintained Band List. The bill says that removing a person’s name does not end their own or their relatives’ registration entitlements.
• Indians found unable to manage their estates: The Minister would have exclusive authority over their estates. The Minister may appoint an administrator, order property sold, leased, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with for listed purposes, and give directions for estate management. For property off reserve, the Minister may order that it be dealt with under provincial law.
• People whose registration or services may be affected: Registration and Band List rules would change, but the bill does not specify particular services or benefits that would follow. The supplied material does not include the existing Indian Act, so current eligibility rules and the full extent of the changes could not be verified against current law.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill sets no cost estimate, funding amount, fee or specific benefit payment in the supplied text.
• The Registrar would have duties under the bill, but staffing needs and administrative costs are not stated.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not set out application steps, decision timelines, appeal rights or reporting rules for registration and Band List decisions.
• “Direct descendant” is not defined in the supplied text.
• It is unclear how the new entitlements would interact with Band Lists not maintained by the Department.
• The bill gives the Minister broad estate powers but does not set out a process for using them, or safeguards or review rights in the supplied provisions.
• The text delays certain registration changes until 12 months after royal assent but does not state when the other provisions would start.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address registration rules challenged under the Charter by recognizing new entitlements for people affected by specified historical removals and some descendants.
• Extending Band List entitlements alongside registration could give some people a route to both forms of recognition.
• Allowing a person to request removal gives that person a choice about their own registration.
• The estate provisions would place authority with the Minister to arrange management of a dependent person’s property for debts, expenses and future maintenance.

Case against#

• The revised eligibility rules are complex. Without clear definitions and decision procedures, it may be difficult to know who qualifies or how a decision can be challenged.
• The bill does not explain how Department-maintained Band List rules would relate to other Band Lists.
• The Minister’s exclusive authority over dependent persons’ estates includes powers to order property sold, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with. The supplied text does not explain what safeguards or review would apply.
• The bill creates Registrar duties but gives no estimate of the cost or staff needed to carry them out.