What We Heard: Indigenous Advisory Process Final Recommendations and Feedback

Prepared by Indigenous Services Canada and the Indigenous Advisory Process in February 2024

Table of contents

Introduction

This document provides an overview of the collective findings and recommendations heard from the Indigenous Advisory Process (IAP), forming part of the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds (herein referred to as "the Collaborative Process"). The IAP consists of 17 Indigenous representative organizations with whom Indigenous Services Canada (herein referred to as "ISC" or the "Department") worked closely with over the course of one year. A total of 22 organizations were invited to participate in the IAP, of which 17 accepted. These members were invited to advise ISC on how to design an inclusive, collaborative, consultation process to address the issues of the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds. The members did not propose solutions to the issues during this phase, but rather, provided advice on the form and function of the consultation phase of this Collaborative Process.

The IAP aims to represent the unique needs of First Nations and impacted individuals as solutions are considered to the key issues, while seeking to fulfill the corresponding measures outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UN Declaration Act) Action Plan. A co-developed Consultation Plan has been prepared reflecting the shared goals, values, and principles of IAP members and the Department, guiding consultation events and activities. All of the IAP member's findings have been collected and summarized in this What We Heard Report to honour the work done and to ensure transparency of the design process leading to the Consultation Plan.

Background

The Minister's Special Representative (MSR) for the 2018-19 Collaborative Process on Indian Registration, Band Membership and First Nation Citizenship, reported that: "unquestionably, the inequity of greatest concern that was raised throughout the [2018-19] collaborative process was the second-generation cut-off, [and that] this issue will impact all First Nation communities at various times and in varying degrees to the point that some communities will not have any children eligible for registration within the next generation."Footnote 1

With this urgent risk in mind, the MSR made a clear call to action, "First Nations, in collaboration with the government, must urgently raise awareness of this issue and its impact on First Nation communities."Footnote 2

In November of 2023, the Minister of Indigenous Services launched the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-Off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds in response to the concerns shared by First Nations. Building on the lessons learned from the 2018-19 Collaborative Process, the Minister invited Indigenous organizations to co-develop the design and delivery of a consultation phase through the Indigenous Advisory Process. Beginning in the Spring of 2024, 11 of the 17 participating organizations submitted final feedback and recommendations to the Department, guided by optional questions to support their reports. The Department organized their suggestions into themes, which are summarized in this What We Heard Report.

Executive summary

Through this process, ISC worked in partnership with IAP members to ensure that Indigenous voices, priorities, and lived experiences would guide consultation planning and decision-making. IAP members contributed invaluable perspectives and expertise, offering guidance on how the consultation process could best meet the unique needs of First Nations while aligning with the principles and goals of domestic and international human rights frameworks. Six key themes emerged highlighting the collective priorities, including the importance of addressing historical inequities, promoting gender equity, recognizing legal and human rights obligations, ensuring financial and resource equity, improving accessibility, and adopting flexible timelines to support meaningful engagement.

Honouring Indigenous experiences and moving forward underscores the importance of fostering a relationship of trust, respect and cooperation with First Nations, while ensuring that self-determination remains a central goal throughout the process. The Department must acknowledge and take necessary steps to address and rectify historical harms inflicted upon all Indigenous peoples. Equally, transparency in decision-making must be prioritized to ensure no further harm is perpetuated.

Sex-based discrimination remains an ongoing issue, perpetuated by discriminatory provisions within the Indian Act. Indigenous women, 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, and their descendants continue to experience the long-lasting effects of these inequities. Therefore, the Department must pay particular attention to addressing these challenges and ensure that women are meaningfully included in the consultation processes.

The Department has clear legal and human rights obligations in this collaborative process, grounded in national, international, and Indigenous human rights frameworks. Upholding these obligations requires adhering to human rights standards and the duty to consult, while prioritizing the goals and self-determination of First Nations. Furthermore, the Department must engage in shared planning, execution, and evaluation with First Nations to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes.

Equitable resourcing and financial support are crucial for First Nations to conduct consultation events that meet the diverse and unique needs of the community members they represent. The methods for distributing funding must be re-examined and shared transparently to ensure that increases in membership do not strain already limited resources or hinder sound decision-making.

The principles of inclusivity and accessibility highlight the importance of ensuring that all individuals - regardless of preferences, access to technology, or experiences of marginalization - can fully participate in the consultation process. This includes collaborating with women's and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations that have established or re-established relationships with off-reserve or marginalized individuals, employing multi-modal consultation approaches, and ensuring the necessary support systems are in place to enable participation.

It was further emphasized that First Nations must lead the decision-making on timelines to ensure the consultation process is neither rushed nor restrictive of individual contributions. A flexible, First Nations-led approach would allow communities to self-assess and self-declare their readiness to engage in consultations. This approach would ensure that consultations begin only when First Nations are fully prepared to participate meaningfully, without unnecessary delays that might hinder the timely development and proposal of solutions.

Honouring Indigenous experiences and moving forward

Co-development

In their final reports, Indigenous Advisory Process partners call upon Canada to uphold its commitments to reconciliation, consultation, and collaboration, as outlined in the UN Declaration Act.Footnote 3 The Collaborative Process should be approached with respect, humility, and seek to foster meaningful partnerships. This includes partnering with First Nations and Indigenous representative organizations to participate in the design of materials, hosting consultation sessions, and developing the options for solutions to address the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds.

The Ontario Native Women's Association (ONWA) and the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group (IASDWG) favour the independent oversight mechanism of an MSR, as used in the 2018-19 Collaborative Process, and recommend its inclusion in the current process.Footnote 4 This is to ensure that proposed legislative changes accurately reflect what was shared during the consultation process and to provide recommendations for future reforms.Footnote 5 ONWA and IASDWG suggest that consultations should include a three-phased approach,Footnote 6 with other IAP partners emphasizing the importance of clearly communicated timelines.Footnote 7

These phases recommended by IAP partners would be led by Indigenous organizations and First Nations, with support from ISC to: (1) ensure there is a sufficient information-sharing period, inclusive of the historical, present, and future impacts of the second-generation cut-off (such as the perpetuation of sex discrimination, violence against First Nations women, and individual and collective human rights violations); (2) refine and assess options through a collaborative process; and (3), a decision-making phase where rights-holders are informed of the criteria and have an opportunity for input.Footnote 8

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) expressed support for the initially proposed two-phased approach to the Collaborative Process, comprised of a co-development and information sharing phase, followed by a consultation and activities phase.Footnote 9

However, CAP noted that "the engagement process should remain open and not defined by issues surrounding [the] second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds. Community members will be providing input on other issues involving the Indian Act and there will need to be a predetermined process to incorporate this knowledge into this process and future collaborations."Footnote 10 Partners have advocated for clear and continuous communication throughout the Collaborative Process, including the design, delivery, and implementation stages.

Several partners recommend that consultation events and activities be First Nation and representative organization-led, with the support of Indigenous Services Canada as needed.Footnote 11 The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN) have stressed that "ISC should include a clear framework for accountability and use of Rights-Holders' contributions."Footnote 12 They stress that "facilitators and follow-up materials… closely capture feedback and…[that feedback is] made widely available to participants" through a What We Heard Report following the consultation period.Footnote 13 Furthermore, sufficient accountability measures need to be in place to ensure that First Nations are not only included in the development of solutions but also given the opportunity to provide consideration and feedback prior to implementation.Footnote 14

The Indigenous Bar Association (IBA) calls for the inclusion of knowledge-sharing designed for "Canadians to learn their own history and critique the public perception of Indigenous peoples as race-based peoples."Footnote 15 The IBA states that "kinship and belonging within different Indigenous legal and societal orders are essential as a foundation for understanding how entitlement to registration under the Indian Act can interact with Indigenous citizenship laws in the future in a way that supports self-determination."Footnote 16

They further emphasize that the Collaborative Process and the associated solutions "must be guided by the goal of supporting Indigenous peoples to restore and rearticulate civic models of citizenship and governance based on their own Indigenous legal orders."Footnote 17 A co-developed framework provides the opportunity to conduct a consultation process that reforms policy in a way that meaningfully acknowledges and centers Indigenous models of knowing and belonging.

Transparency

A common theme raised by IAP partners is the need for increased transparency surrounding the design, decision-making, and any external factors that may impact the Collaborative Process. Both the Quebec Native Women (QNW) and CAP argue that the Department should disclose how a federal election or change in government might impact the Collaborative Process and its plan to mitigate any potential barriers or delays that may arise as a result.Footnote 18

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) highlights that an agreement should be established with ISC to improve the accessibility of information for AFN, in turn supporting First Nations during the Collaborative Process.Footnote 19 UBCIC and BCAFN note that information should include "demographic data related to birth and death rates, out-parentage rates, rates of children impacted by [unknown and] unstated paternity, and membership affiliations for new registrations of status Indian children, and the worst-case projected legislative ‘extinction' dates for First Nations individuals and Indian bands/First Nations."Footnote 20

AFN emphasizes that should the second-generation cut-off continue, it "may have legal implications in relation to reserve land status and the potential loss of one's political rights as either band members or status Indians."Footnote 21 UBCIC and BCAFN call for consultation materials to include "estimates of extinction of status Indians and Bands under the current Indian Act for First Nations by region," and stress the need for demographic data and other materials to be provided in advance of consultation events.Footnote 22

Broader support for self-determination

Beyond the Collaborative Process, support should be given to First Nations to work towards self-determination. This includes programs that would build capacity and allow Indigenous peoples "to determine who belongs, why, and how."Footnote 23

AFN, QNW, Anishinabek Nation, and the Assembly of First Nations Manitoba (AFN Manitoba) call for support for First Nations-led genealogical research to support self-determination.Footnote 24 The findings of this research should be accessible to all First Nations, say Anishinabek Nation and AFN Manitoba.Footnote 25 AFN Manitoba also calls for the creation of an office for archival and adoption records, enabling individuals to trace how they lost status.Footnote 26 Anishinabek Nation points out that "family trees can help trace lineage, understand the impacts of the second-generation cut-off, and support individuals in reconnecting with their heritage."Footnote 27 AFN Manitoba further calls for an external body – the establishment of a Commission on First Nation Tribal citizenship Renewal which would conduct research on how people lost status.Footnote 28

IBA advocates for the creation of an Indigenous Citizenship and Human Rights Advisory Body composed of Indigenous subject-matter experts, particularly First Nations women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. This body would assess requests for lowered membership thresholds, ensuring alignment with Indigenous legal orders and community needs.Footnote 29 They stress that "the joint trajectory should be aimed at moving away from discriminatory legal systems and pledging to uphold the inherent Indigenous and certain universal human rights within Indigenous Nations. Embracing principles of fairness and inclusivity enables Indigenous Nations to chart a course towards self-determination that respects their distinct legal orders, cultural traditions, and values."Footnote 30

ONWA underscores that First Nations women and their descendants, whose status has been restored or improved through changes to the Indian Act, have an inherent entitlement to belong to their First Nations and communities. This right to membership, they argue, should be automatic and not contingent on applications or the First Nations' consent. ONWA adds that Canada must "recognize First Nations' inherent jurisdiction to determine their citizenship in a way that respects First Nations women's equality; the right to their Nation, culture, and identity; and the right to pass their culture on to their children."Footnote 31

Moreover, CAP emphasizes that self-determination necessitates decolonizing approaches that resist and undo colonization's impacts. They state that "decolonization requires all of us to address the barriers that stand in the way of reclaiming and restoring the rights of Off-Reserve and Non-Status Indians, Métis, and Southern Inuit Indigenous People."Footnote 32

Finally, IASDWG points to the obligations under international frameworks like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which mandate the removal of discriminatory provisions such as the second-generation cut-off. They argue that these protections should be guaranteed equally to Indigenous women and men, affirming the rights of individuals not to be forcibly assimilated and to access redress and remedies.Footnote 33

Partners emphasize the critical need to center diverse Indigenous perspectives, avoiding a "pan-Indigenous approach," and uphold the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and reconciliation in any measures supporting self-determination. By addressing historical injustices, respecting Indigenous legal orders, and fostering the capacity for communities to define their own membership and identity, Canada can take meaningful steps toward supporting Indigenous self-determination and fulfilling its commitments under UNDRIP.

Sex-based discrimination

In their reports, several IAP partners argue that despite progress made with Bill S-3, sex discrimination continues to have an impact on First Nations women and their descendants.Footnote 34 For women whose status was taken away upon marriage, they have been excluded from their communities and experienced disconnection from their culture, as they and their children lost status rights.Footnote 35 These impacts are not only felt at the individual level, but carry throughout generations.Footnote 36

IBA describes the impact of the loss of status on women, including a loss of culture, the right to own and inherit property on reserve, poverty due to being cut off from community supports and resources that come with status entitlement, and the exclusion of their descendants from the community. Footnote 37 IASDWG explains that by "legal definition, Canada has forced First Nations women and their descendants out of their communities, and into the non-Indigenous population, robbing them of rights, recognition, political voice, culture, language, family and community ties, and safety and security."Footnote 38

IBA adds that registration categories divide communities, and a lack of status can impact one's "right to belong," including access to heritage and traditions.Footnote 39 ONWA expresses this division as follows: "overall, women comprise the vast majority of individuals who had their Indian status removed and restored. The sexist and paternalistic values and intent of Canada's policies subjects the majority of those who have had their status restored, namely First Nations women under section 6(2) to bear the brunt of this colonial violence… What is especially hurtful about the Indian Act is that while we did not make it, nor have we ever consented to it, it has served to divide our peoples."Footnote 40

ONWA calls attention to the connection between discrimination in the Indian Act and violence against women, citing the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) and the 1999 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.Footnote 41 ONWA continues, stating that, "for too long our communities have been divided because of discrimination built into the Indian Act. Indigenous women have been and continue to lead the way in dismantling the discrimination within the Act to ensure our grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren can enjoy the right to their culture, community, and identity for generations to come."Footnote 42

Ultimately, ONWA and IBA identify the Indian Act as part of the system that perpetuates violence against Indigenous women and advocate for the discriminatory provisions of the Act to be dismantled.Footnote 43

IBA adds that 2SLGBTQQIA+ people have also been negatively impacted by the registration provisions in the Indian Act.Footnote 44 In particular, they point to the section 6(1) and 6(2) registration categories that define family structure according to "Eurocentric and heteronormative" ideas.Footnote 45 IBA notes that Indigenous people, especially women, feel pressure to have the ability to pass on entitlement to their children, and for 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, these pressures and challenges are amplified for several reasons, including that they may have fewer options for romantic or parenting partners in their communities.Footnote 46 Additionally, IBA outlines the challenges by expressing the following: "historically, Two-Spirit people were accepted, included, and often held special roles and leadership positions within Indigenous societies. However, the Indian Act has imposed a framework in which there was and is no acknowledgment of same-sex relationships and Two-Spirit people are forced to be classified as either male or female."Footnote 47

With the passage of Bill S-3 coming fully into force in 2019, it is the Department's position that all known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act have been addressed.Footnote 48IBA and ONWA hold the position that Bill S-3 did not go far enough in addressing all sex-based inequities, and that sex-based discrimination is ongoing and experienced through the second-generation cut-off.Footnote 49

IASDWG and IBA point to the findings of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).Footnote 50 CEDAW adopted the view in 2022 that Canada is in violation of articles 1, 2, and 3 of CEDAW, stating the second-generation cut-off discriminates on the basis of gender by adversely impacting the descendants of enfranchised women.Footnote 51 IBA says that, as Canada is a member state, its federal legislation must comply with CEDAW,Footnote 52 and that Canada has disregarded its international legal commitments.Footnote 53

ONWA say that reforms are needed to remove all discriminatory practices,Footnote 54 and IASDWG adds that the scope of former Bill C-38 was far too narrow, as is Canada's approach to reform.Footnote 55 ONWA states that, "Canada's piecemeal and litigation driven approach to legislative changes has resulted in residual inequities that continue to negatively impact First Nations women and their families."Footnote 56 IBA adds that, "While previous legislative amendments have been undertaken with the aim of striking a balance between these concerns, they have fallen short of effectively addressing the underlying issues."Footnote 57 They continue that, "it is highly unlikely that incremental amendments will totally remove sex and gender discrimination from the Indian Act as long as the second-generation cut-off rules remains in force."Footnote 58

When considering the implementation of legislative amendments, IASDWG, ONWA, IBA, UBCIC, and BCAFN assert in their reports that Canada must remove the ‘no liability clause' that bars compensation for discrimination under the Indian Act.Footnote 59 UBCIC and BCAFN express that "Canada has failed to meaningfully acknowledge the loss and harm to First Nations women and generations of descendants by barring access to reparations or compensation through the enactment of a non-liability clause."Footnote 60

Additionally, several IAP partners call for Canada to openly acknowledge its discrimination in the Indian Act's registration and membership provisions and speak to its history of colonization.Footnote 61 The Anishinabek Nation adds that this history shapes the context for consultations, and sincere acknowledgement "is essential to build trust and facilitate genuine dialogue" in the Collaborative Process.Footnote 62 UBCIC and BCAFN contend that there needs to be a truthful account of the Indian Act's discriminatory history, its ongoing effects, and how it is "used to divide communities and promote lateral violence."Footnote 63

Reflections on the impact of sex-based discrimination in registration is a common theme across reports from IAP partners. They discussed the loss of culture and disconnection that women have experienced, highlight the barriers faced by 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, point to the evidence presented by CEDAW, and call for Canada to directly acknowledge the harm caused by discrimination.

Legal and human rights obligations

There is a clear consensus among IAP partners, urging the federal government to uphold its international and domestic human rights obligations throughout the Collaborative Process. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognizes the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples worldwide, and was adopted in Canadian law in June of 2021 under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UN Declaration Act).Footnote 64 The UN Declaration Act requires Canada to take measures to ensure that federal laws are consistent with UNDRIP, and report annually on its progress.

The UN Declaration Act Action Plan prescribes ISC under Chapter 2, First Nations Priorities, Measure 2.8 to: "co-develop a collaborative consultation process on a suite of broader reforms relating to registration and band membership issues, prior to any transition away from the Indian Act. This includes to consult, cooperate and effectively engage with First Nations women to eliminate remaining gender-based issues. Canada recognizes that the Indian Act is a colonial-era law designed to exert control over the affairs of First Nations, and as such, the Act will never be fully aligned with the [UNDRIP]. For Canada's laws to fulfill the [UNDRIP], the Indian Act must be repealed. The government is seeking to make the Act's registration and band membership provisions more consistent with the [UNDRIP], until a clear consensus on a way forward on comprehensive change or the Act's repeal is possible."Footnote 65

The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC), ONWA, QNW, CAP, IASDWG, Anishinabek Nation, AFN, IBA, UBCIC, and BCAFN call for the rights enshrined in UNDRIP to be upheld and respected.Footnote 66 Partners point to Articles 8.1, 9, and 18, arguing that Canada is in violation of these articles, with particular attention to the registration provisions of the Indian Act.Footnote 67 The UNDRIP articles cited by IAP partners are as follows:

IBA, IASDWG, ONWA, QNW, UBCIC and BCAFN characterize the second-generation cut-off as assimilation, resulting in future generations losing status should they parent with someone who is not entitled under the Indian Act.Footnote 71 Furthermore, they call for Canada to respect First Nations' right to self-determination in recognizing their own citizens without the need for Departmental interference.Footnote 72 IBA highlights that CEDAW found Canada to be in violation of Articles 8 and 9 of UNDRIP.Footnote 73 Additionally, CAP has emphasized that "the Government should ensure that consultation with off-reserve Indigenous people occurs through their chosen representatives in accordance with Article 18 of UNDRIP, not through the structures historically and arbitrarily imposed by the Indian Act (i.e., Indian Act Bands, which now refer to themselves as ‘First Nations' despite having limited or no jurisdiction off-reserve)."Footnote 74

ONWA references UNDRIP Article 22 as prevention from sex-discrimination, as it obligates states to pay particular attention to the rights and distinct needs of a number of groups, including women.Footnote 75 Article 22 states that:

Furthermore, NWAC states that, "the Indian Act is diametrically opposed to many of the rights and principles [found in] UNDRIP and advocates for the Act's eventual repeal and replacement."Footnote 77 IBA, and NWAC agree that the Indian Act must be repealed with AFN Manitoba further suggesting the dismantling of the current Indian Registrar Office.Footnote 78 ONWA states that Section 6(2) of the Indian Act must be repealed.Footnote 79

Canada has a legal duty to consult with Rights-Holders, as noted by IASDWG, AFN, UBCIC, and BCAFN for any matters that may impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights.Footnote 80 However, FAFIA notes that fulfilling legal and human rights obligations "cannot justify more delay[s] in providing full remedies for discrimination. Consultation under UNDRIP and the [UN Declaration Act] is intended to facilitate the implementation of human rights, not postpone it."Footnote 81

IBA emphasizes that First Nations should be given autonomy to determine their members, but acknowledge that some First Nations have adopted membership codes that perpetuate discrimination.Footnote 82 They also state that "consultation processes and materials must accommodate the intake of distinct perspectives of individual and collective Rights-Holders."Footnote 83 To separate the "structures of Indigenous citizenship from membership under the Indian Act," IBA suggests that Indigenous legal experts "facilitate conversation[s] around understanding the history and adaptation of distinct legal orders, and how they can be articulated and revitalized in modern society."Footnote 84 AFN, IBA, and NWAC agree that diverse traditional Indigenous legal orders should inform changes to the entitlement and membership provisions of the Indian Act.Footnote 85 NWAC further suggests that "each community's customs, traditions, rules and legal systems should further inform remedies specific to each Indigenous nation and community, in alignment with their unique governance systems."Footnote 86

In conclusion, all partners call on Canada to uphold its international and domestic human rights obligations regarding registration under the Indian Act. This includes Articles 8.1, 9, and 18 of UNDRIP, the duty to consult and accommodate, and Canada's UN Declaration Act Action Plan commitments. 

Equitable resourcing and financial support

Feedback from IAP partners consistently emphasize that sufficient funding is an integral component for First Nations and impacted individuals to fully and meaningfully participate in consultations. IAP partners call for financial resources to be distributed equitably amongst involved parties, with resources offered to support provincial and territorial organizations, including Indigenous women's organizations to ensure diverse representation from across regions.

CAP noted that the 2018-19 Collaborative Process "did not provide adequate resourcing and many of our organizations were left out."Footnote 87 They continue, the "organizations that did receive support in the [2018-19 Collaborative Process] felt they were under resourced which led to limited and inadequate engagement with the community."Footnote 88 CAP and NWAC - both national organizations with affiliated provincial and territorial chapters, call on ISC to ensure that adequate funding is available for regional representatives interested in consultation so they can conduct province-wide engagement.Footnote 89

In addition, ONWA emphasizes that Indigenous women's organizations need adequate funding to educate Rights-Holders about the registration provisions of the Indian Act to: (1) lead engagement with First Nations women and families; (2) assist in the refinement and assessment of legislative options; and (3) participate in decision-making processes.Footnote 90 Financial resources are necessary to ensure that organizations can support consultation activities and help Rights-Holders meaningfully participate in engagement sessions.Footnote 91 ONWA and NWAC assert that honoraria or similar compensation should be provided to Elders and women, girls, Two-Spirit, transgender, and gender-diverse (WG2STGD+) participants,Footnote 92 so that "they are not expected to donate their time, wisdom, insights and perspectives for free."Footnote 93

Recognizing the potential impacts of legislative changes, QNW, IBA, and IASDWG stress that Canada must clearly commit to providing increased funding for First Nations to support the integration of new members alongside any legislative solution that addresses the second-generation cut-off.Footnote 94

IASDWG underscores the importance of addressing key concerns, asking, "can the Bands and communities support new members, how will they support new members, and what resources are available for them to do it?"Footnote 95 IBA acknowledges that increased membership "will place additional pressure on [First Nations'] already strained finances, infrastructure, land, programs and services."Footnote 96 Finally, QNW argues that Canada "must make it clear that these needs will be met so that the increase in membership will not have a negative impact on the community."Footnote 97

Discussions within First Nation communities about solutions to the second-generation cut-off must be approached with the understanding that Canada has an obligation to increase baseline funding for First Nations to address the impacts of legislative changes that bring additional members. IASDWG, QNW, IBA, ONWA, UBCIC, and BCAFN emphasize the need for Canada to commit to this funding before community discussions take place, ensuring that communities can explore potential solutions with the confidence that such changes will not strain their resources.Footnote 98 As IBA asserts, "no Nation should be forced to turn away a person who belongs to them because of fiscal constraints."Footnote 99

All partners stress the importance for comprehensive funding to enable meaningful, inclusive, and widespread participation in consultation events as part of the Collaborative Process. Beyond these consultations, IAP partners insist that Canada must clearly commit to providing increased funding for First Nations to accompany any solution addressing the second-generation cut-off.

Inclusivity and accessibility

Inclusivity

All IAP members highlight the importance of inclusivity in shaping legislative reform. There is a strong consensus that consultations must actively engage diverse groups including women, girls, 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, youth, off-reserve members, and those impacted by the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds.

The importance of conducting broad and inclusive consultations, reaching beyond First Nations governments, has been emphasized by QNW, IBA, CAP, ONWA, IASDWG, UBCIC, BCAFN and Anishinabek Nation.Footnote 100 QNW, IBA, NWAC, ONWA, IBA and IASDWG highlight the importance of involving women and families affected by gender-based discrimination in the consultation process, particularly those registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act.Footnote 101

QNW asserts that Canada must consult these groups on the subjects that directly concerns them.Footnote 102 Similarly, IBA adds that consultations must include "the lived experiences of those most affected by the status and membership regime under the Indian Act," noting that their perspectives "are invaluable in shaping policies and initiatives aimed at addressing the systemic challenges faced by these Rights-Holders."Footnote 103

CAP and ONWA advocate for a broader consultation process that extends beyond First Nations' leadership, urging the implementation of mechanisms to ensure Chiefs and Council engage with all community members to prevent perpetuating forms of discrimination.Footnote 104

UBCIC and BCAFN stress the importance of recognizing the complexity and diversity of those affected by the Indian Act. They highlight that "there are Band members living off reserve, status holders who are not Band members, Band members who are not status holders, individuals who are waiting for status, and those who have been refused membership by their Band or who would have status were it not for sex discrimination. It is crucial that all of these individuals be included in the consultation process on amendments to the status provisions in the Indian Act."Footnote 105

CAP underscores the need for an inclusive and intersectional approach, stating, "Indigenous people have diverse and differing identities, experiences, and histories" and that this approach involves "respectful relationships, safe environments, celebrating one another, and honouring all Indigenous people's unique gifts and strengths."Footnote 106

IBA advocates for the creation of an Indigenous Citizenship and Human Rights Advisory Body composed of Indigenous subject-matter experts - particularly First Nations women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals - "as a starting place for consultation.Footnote 107 This collective call for inclusivity reflects the necessity of addressing systemic challenges by ensuring that all voices are heard and considered in shaping legislative amendments to the Indian Act.

Another common point was that a strong effort must be made to reach off-reserve members in consultations for the Collaborative Process.Footnote 108 ONWA cautions that "ISC must not assume that First Nations bands will reach out to and include their urban members,"Footnote 109 but rather, "targeted efforts must be made to reach First Nations women and their families living off-reserve, many of whom have little if any contact with their First Nation leadership."Footnote 110 QNW, Anishinabek Nation, ONWA, and NWAC suggest engaging these individuals through Friendship Centers, Indigenous women's organizations, social media, and news campaigns.Footnote 111 NWAC and CAP advocate for leveraging their affiliated provincial and territorial organizations to reach off-reserve individuals.Footnote 112

Given that participants in consultations will be sharing stories of generational trauma, NWAC, Anishinabek Nation, UBCIC, BCAFN, CAP, and ONWA advocate for culturally sensitive and trauma-informed approaches, including the involvement of knowledge keepers and Elders.Footnote 113 NWAC asserts that all dialogue be grounded in Indigenous ways of knowing; this can mean applying the Seven Grandfather Teachings and having Indigenous language materials be available during consultations.Footnote 114 Additionally, culturally competent facilitation is seen as vital to creating an inclusive environment that encourages full participation from community members.Footnote 115

QNW, IASDWG, UBCIC, BCAFN, and ONWA call on Canada to implement the "Principles for Change"Footnote 116 set out in the National Inquiry into MMIWG in this Collaborative Process.Footnote 117 These include: a focus on substantive equality and Indigenous and human rights; a decolonizing approach; inclusion of families and survivors; self-determined and Indigenous-led solutions and services; recognizing distinctions; cultural safety; and trauma-informed approaches.Footnote 118 IBA recommends "adopting a trauma-informed approach similar to that employed in the National Inquiry. This approach included creating culturally safe spaces where victims, their families, and community members can openly share their experiences. Given many of the First Nations women, 2SLGBTQQIA + individuals, and their families impacted by the Indian Act regime feel disconnected to their communities, this approach should place equal value on Western and Indigenous approaches and provide access to both."Footnote 119

NWAC, Anishinabek Nation, IBA, UBCIC, BCAFN, and ONWA express that the involvement of Elders and Knowledge Keepers is vital.Footnote 120 NWAC states that Elders and Knowledge Keepers should be adequately compensated [for their time, travel, accommodations, and meals] to support "Right-Holders through challenging discussions and consultations" because "their insights as community leaders are valuable contributions" that must be prioritized.Footnote 121

Accessibility

IAP partners urge ISC to adopt accessibility measures into the consultation process. These measures, as identified by partners, can include the use of plain language materials, offering consultations in several formats, accommodating participants' needs, and accepting a variety of feedback submissions.

NWAC, ONWA, UBCIC, BCAFN, AFN Manitoba, QNW, AFN, and Anishinabek Nation underscore the need for using plain language in materials to ensure accessibility for individuals with varying literacy levels, as government materials tend to be complex.Footnote 122 ONWA highlights explicitly that the Rights-Holders Information Kit,Footnote 123 forming part of the information-sharing period of the Collaborative Process, while "helpful in part for First Nations and other Indigenous organizations, its technical language may be inaccessible to many individuals."Footnote 124 QNW also suggest using a range of communication methods, including visual formats such as photos, videos, social and news media, and television to support understanding.Footnote 125

Consultation materials used within the Collaborative Process must be available in plain, accessible language to ensure participants have a clear understanding of the subject matter.

To enhance accessibility, Anishinabek Nation, CAP, and NWAC call for a wide range of consultation events, such as in-person meetings, virtual sessions, and online submissions, to accommodate participants' diverse needs and preferences.Footnote 126 To further enhance accessibility for in-person consultations, NWAC, Anishinabek Nation, UBCIC, and BCAFN propose practical accommodations, such as childcare, eldercare, and transportation, to ensure that all individuals can fully participate.Footnote 127

IAP partners also suggest simplifying the feedback submission process. ONWA stresses that "consultations must not rely on Western research methodologies."Footnote 128 Rather, ONWA says, "culturally safe consultations must be led by First Nations peoples and Indigenous organizations based on our ways of engaging with community. Each region and territory has their own cultural teachings, practices, and protocols, so it is important to defer to the Indigenous organizations and their Elders and Knowledge Keepers to guide the process of culturally safe and trauma informed engagement."Footnote 129

Anishinabek Nation suggests that participants can provide general written recommendations, instead of responding to comprehensive surveys.Footnote 130 UBCIC and BCAFN add that verbal feedback submissions should be accepted.Footnote 131 UBCIC, BCAFN and Anishinabek Nation and QNW state that by simplifying the submission process, more perspectives could be heard and included.Footnote 132

In conclusion, both inclusivity and accessibility are key recommendations for the consultation phase of the Collaborative Process. Participation from women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals is key, as is the involvement of Elders and Knowledge Keepers to facilitate discussions that are culturally sensitive and trauma-informed. IAP partners have advocated for the use of plain language materials, offering a variety of consultation events, and accepting various forms of feedback submissions to reduce barriers and encourage participation from a wide range of voices.

Timelines

The Collaborative Process must establish clear and balanced timelines for consultations, ensuring that objectives are met in a manner that respects the varying needs of First Nations. Many IAP partners emphasized the importance of providing sufficient time for First Nations and Indigenous organizations to engage with consultation materials, organize events, and plan effectively.

Transparent communication of timelines is critical to foster meaningful participation. Organizations such as NWAC, QNW, UBCIC, BCAFN, CAP, and ONWA underscore the need for ISC to accommodate and approve extension requests when necessary, highlighting that additional preparation time would "allow for a deeper understanding of issues, leading to more informed discussions."Footnote 133

At the same time, several partners, including QNW, AFN, IASDWG, IBA, UBCIC, BCAFN, and ONWA, caution against excessive delays. They stressed the urgency of addressing the impacts of the second-generation cut-off, warning that prolonged timelines could further impede the rights of those most impacted.Footnote 134 UBCIC and BCAFN argue that the obligation to ensure robust consultations under the UN Declaration Act "must not be used to delay First Nations and entitled individuals from accessing their rights, further perpetuating discrimination."Footnote 135

ONWA, IASDWG, QNW, and NWAC also stressed the importance of balancing meaningful engagement with timely implementation. Timelines must be flexible to allow First Nations enough time to meaningfully engage with consultation materials while ensuring the process does not hinder progress towards solutions. CAP echoed this sentiment, stating, "we do not support a rushed timeframe directed by political ambitions. Consultation should only begin when the community is ready to do so."Footnote 136 Further, ONWA, UBCIC, BCAFN, QNW and NWAC support a self-assessment approach to determine readiness.Footnote 137 ONWA expresses that First Nations should assess their own readiness for consultation events, "rather than have the Department dictate the timeline."Footnote 138

A key recommendation from most IAP reports is to establish clear, flexible timelines that allow First Nations and organizations to engage effectively with their communities. Partners underscored the need for sufficient time for meaningful engagement, ISC to grant extensions as needed, and ensuring the process does not delay impacted individuals from accessing the rights, benefits, and services they may be entitled to.

Conclusion

The purpose of this What We Heard Report is intended to promote transparency for Rights-Holders, impacted individuals, and the broader public by outlining the recommendations that shaped the design and delivery of the Consultation Plan for the Collaborative Process.

It offers a comprehensive overview of the collective findings and recommendations from IAP partners, reflecting the collaborative work undertaken during the year-long co-development phase. The reports provide the Department with thoughtful and practical guidance on planning and conducting meaningful consultations that honour Indigenous perspectives.

While the consultation plan reflects a co-developed approach between the Department and the IAP, this What We Heard Report highlights many of the key themes identified across the partners' submissions. Although not every recommendation has been incorporated into the Consultation Plan, the report ensures that all perspectives are acknowledged and that the findings remain accessible for public review and accountability.

The collective findings from IAP partners highlight several key themes that are critical to the success of the Collaborative Process.

In Honouring Indigenous Experiences and Moving Forward, IAP partners emphasized the importance of reconciliation and trust-building. They called on ISC to acknowledge the historic and ongoing effects of colonialism, as well as the profound impact of the Indian Act, which continues to shape the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

Partners stressed that meaningful engagement requires ISC to act with trust, respect, and transparency while adhering to the standards of consultation and collaboration outlined in the UN Declaration Act. Furthermore, they urged ISC to view this Collaborative Process not as an endpoint, but as a step toward broader support for self-determination and long-term relationship-building with First Nations and impacted individuals.

The impacts of Sex-Based Discrimination under the Indian Act emerged as a significant theme, with partners highlighting the exclusion and cultural loss experienced by women and their descendants who lost status. Additionally, partners identify the unique challenges faced by 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals in navigating the registration process, underscoring the need for equitable solutions that address these longstanding inequities.

Partners also reminded Canada of its duty to uphold domestic and international Legal and Human Rights Obligations, particularly under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Declaration Act, and the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

There was a strong consensus that ISC must provide Equitable Resourcing and Financial Support to ensure that First Nations and Indigenous organizations have the necessary resources to host consultation events with Rights-Holders and impacted individuals, allowing for broad participation and the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Consultation events must be designed to promote Inclusivity and Accessibility, so that all can meaningfully participate, and the voices of individuals most impacted by inequities of the Indian Act - namely, women, 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, and families with a history of enfranchisement - are heard. Accessible consultations involve offering both in-person and virtual options to ensure participation by as many individuals as possible.

Finally, there was a resounding call for ISC to establish sufficient Timelines for each stage of the Collaborative Process. It was emphasized that ISC should align with the timeframes identified by First Nations, while ensuring that administrative delays do not impede progress in addressing the second-generation cut-off.

Indigenous Services Canada extends gratitude to the Indigenous Advisory Process members for their dedication in co-designing the consultation plan. We recognize that the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds are sensitive topics, shaped by historical harm and are a source of intergenerational trauma. We thank Indigenous organizations and their staff for generously sharing their knowledge, expertise, and commitment to solutions that honour Indigenous perspectives and lived experiences.

To stay informed on the progress of the Collaborative Process, visit Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds.

Bibliography

Anishinabek Nation, Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Thunder Bay: 2024) [Anishinabek Nation IAP Report].

Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Ottawa: 2024), [AFN IAP Report].

Assembly of First Nations Manitoba (AFN Manitoba), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Winnipeg: 2024) [AFN Manitoba IAP Report].

Canada, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), SC 2017, c 25.

Canada, An important step in upholding the human rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2023), online.

Canada, Minister's Special Representative final report on the Collaborative Process on Indian Registration, Band Membership and First Nation Citizenship (Ottawa: Indigenous Services Canada, 2019), online.

Canada, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Volume 1b. (Ottawa: Privy Council Office of Canada, 2019), online.

Canada, Rights-Holders Information Kit: The Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds. (Ottawa: Indigenous Services Canada, 2024), online.

Canada, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14.

Canada, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2023), online [UNDA Action Plan].

Congress of Aboriginal People (CAP), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Ottawa: 2024) [CAP IAP Report].

Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group (IASDWG), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Ottawa: 2024) [IASDWG IAP Report].

Indigenous Bar Association (IBA), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Ottawa: 2024) [IBA IAP Report].

Indigenous Bar Association, Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) Report (Ottawa: 2017) [IBA Bill S-3 Report].

Isabelle Brideau, The Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples (Ottawa: Parliament of Canada), online.

Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Ottawa: 2024) [NWAC IAP Report].

Ontario Native Women's Association (ONWA), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Thunder Bay: 2024) [ONWA IAP Report].

Quebec Native Women (QNW), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (Quebec: 2024) [QNW IAP Report].

Union of British Columbian Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) / British Columbia Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN), Indigenous Advisory Process Recommendation Report (British Columbia: 2024) [UBCIC/BCAFN IAP Report].

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Views adopted by the Committee under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol. No. 68/2014, (2022), UN Doc C/81/D/68/2014, online.

United Nations, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), online.

Appendix A: Indigenous advisory process members biographies

Anishinabek Nation

The Anishinabek Nation, founded in 1949, is a political organization representing 39 First Nations across Ontario, with a combined population of approximately 65,000 individuals, making up one-third of Ontario's First Nation population. These First Nations are spread across the province, from Golden Lake in the east, Sarnia in the south, and Thunder Bay and Lake Nipigon in the north. The Nation's operations are divided into four strategic regions: Southwest, Southeast, Lake Huron, and Northern Superior, each with a Regional Chief representing their area. The Anishinabek Nation's mandate is to advocate for the collective and individual rights of its member First Nations, addressing regional and national issues through political advocacy, collaboration, and governance.  The Anishinabek Nation delivers a variety of programs and services, including health, social development, education, economic development, lands and resources, governance, legal support, and strategic initiatives.

Assembly of First Nations

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), established in 1982, operates across Canada and advocates for the inherent and treaty rights of First Nations communities. Guided by values of respect for human rights, justice, diversity, and the sovereignty of each rights-holding First Nation, the AFN engages in policy development, public education, and legislative co-development to build capacity and improve the lives of First Nations peoples. AFN emphasizes inclusion and accessibility through councils representing 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, youth, women, and Knowledge Keepers. With a history of advocating for First Nations rights dating back to the National Indian Brotherhood's formation in 1970, the AFN continues to champion equity, reconciliation, and self-determination for First Nations across the country.

Assembly of First Nations Manitoba

The Assembly of First Nations Manitoba (AFN Manitoba) serves as a regional body of the Assembly of First Nations representing First Nations communities in Manitoba, focusing on advocacy, policy reform, and advancing First Nations' rights and well-being. AFN Manitoba addresses critical issues for Indigenous communities, such as education, health, housing, and environmental protection. AFN Manitoba's recent focus includes reinforcing community partnerships and supporting leadership on issues such as family welfare and children's services. AFN Manitoba leverages their regional role to advocate for Indigenous rights and sustainable community development in Manitoba and across Canada.

British Columbia Assembly of First Nations

The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN) serves as a regional body of the Assembly of First Nations representing 204 First Nations across British Columbia. BCAFN advocates for First Nations' inherent title rights and jurisdiction, and supports self-determination, the recognition of traditional governance, and the protection of cultural identities. Its membership includes First Nations engaged in modern and historic treaties, as well as those outside treaty negotiations. Guided by women, 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals, youth representatives, and Knowledge Keepers, BCAFN addresses critical areas such as climate change, economic development, housing, and justice, while supporting nation-building and collective action.

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), founded in 1971, is a national Indigenous organization representing off-reserve status and non-status individuals. CAP advocates for the constitutional, Aboriginal, and treaty rights of its members, and holds consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, enabling its participation in international discussions on Indigenous issues. Through 11 affiliated Provincial and Territorial Organizations (PTOs), CAP works to improve the socio-economic conditions of its constituents, both in urban and rural areas. These PTOs provide services in housing, education, employment, mental health, and language preservation, while advocating for the rights of their members. CAP remains dedicated to legal advocacy, political action, and international engagement to protect and advance the rights of its diverse communities.

Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group (on behalf of the Feminist Alliance for International Action)

The Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) established in 1995, is a national feminist non-profit organization, representing women across Canada with a focus on gender equality and marginalized groups. Its mandate is to leverage international human rights law to ensure governments are held accountable for their commitments to gender equality. FAFIA conducts research, policy analysis, and advocacy while monitoring Canada's compliance with international human rights treaties. The organization works on social and economic rights like housing, income security, and health while collaborating on initiatives such as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry and systemic gender discrimination.

Indigenous Bar Association

The Indigenous Bar Association (IBA) is a national organization, founded in 1973, that represents Indigenous legal professionals, including lawyers, judges, legal scholars, and law students. Founded to advance legal and social justice for Indigenous Peoples, the IBA promotes policy reform, public awareness, and the integration of Indigenous legal traditions within Canadian society. It is committed to preserving Indigenous laws, cultures, and customs, fostering a just and prosperous future for all generations. The IBA also supports mental well-being among its members and encourages innovation in Indigenous legal theory and practice.

Native Women's Association of Canada

The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) is a national Indigenous organization established in 1974, representing Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit, transgender, and gender-diverse individuals, those on-and-off-reserve, and status and non-status individuals. Its mandate is to support equity and advocate for the social, economic, and political well-being of Indigenous individuals and communities. Often described as a "Grandmother's Lodge," NWAC fosters unity by upholding ancestral laws, spiritual beliefs, and traditions. Guided by principles of respect, inclusivity, and cultural preservation, NWAC engages in national and international advocacy to advance legislative and policy reforms promoting equality and justice. Its initiatives encompass diverse issues such as employment, violence prevention, health, childcare, justice, and environmental protection. Through advocacy, research, and program delivery, NWAC amplifies Indigenous perspectives while preserving cultural heritage.

Ontario Native Women's Association

The Ontario Native Women's Association (ONWA), established in 1971, is Canada's oldest and largest Indigenous women's organization, committed to empowering and supporting Indigenous women and their families across Ontario. Central to ONWA's work is the Indigenous Gender-Based Analysis (IGBA), a framework designed to ensure policies and programs reflect the unique realities of Indigenous women's lives. ONWA provides advocacy, research, culturally-grounded programs, and direct services, addressing the intersectional challenges Indigenous women face due to colonization, sexism, and racism. ONWA is also an organization that represents over 30 Indigenous women's organizations and groups in Ontario. ONWA operates through a holistic approach that recognizes Indigenous women's leadership, rights, and the importance of cultural preservation. Across 66 programs in Ontario, ONWA offers services that focus on housing, education, employment, mental health, language preservation, and more. ONWA's work emphasizes community-led solutions, empowering Indigenous women as the experts on their issues. Through its advocacy and services, ONWA is dedicated to restoring Indigenous women's leadership, identity, safety, and cultural well-being for present and future generations.

Quebec Native Women

Quebec Native Women Inc. (QNW), founded in 1974, is a prominent advocacy organization supporting Indigenous women across Quebec. QNW represents members of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, as well as Indigenous women living in rural and urban areas. The organization's mandate is to improve the living conditions of Indigenous women by promoting non-violence, justice, health, equality, and cultural preservation. QNW works to empower women to take on leadership roles in their communities and advocates for equal rights at legislative and constitutional levels. The organization leads initiatives related to violence prevention, legal reform, education, economic development, and ensuring Indigenous women's full participation in self-government processes. QNW has become a cornerstone for advocacy, research, and cultural preservation, striving to ensure equity, dignity, and resilience for Indigenous women and their communities

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), founded in 1969, is a political advocacy organization, advancing and protecting the inherent title rights, treaty rights, and self-determination of First Nations in British Columbia. Representing a unified voice for Indigenous sovereignty, UBCIC collaborates with First Nations to address systemic discrimination, advocate for legislative reform, and promote the recognition of Indigenous laws and jurisdiction. Guided by the principles of unity, respect, and knowledge-sharing, UBCIC works to strengthen intertribal relationships, hold the federal government accountable to its fiduciary obligations, and support Indigenous Peoples in regional, national, and international forums. Its advocacy aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), affirming the rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination and the protection of lands, waters, and resources. UBCIC has a long-standing commitment to eliminating gender and race-based discrimination, particularly in the Indian Act. Through these efforts, UBCIC remains dedicated to justice, equity, and the healing and decolonization of First Nations communities.

Related links

Footnotes

Did you find what you were looking for?

What was wrong?

You will not receive a reply. Don't include personal information (telephone, email, SIN, financial, medical, or work details).
Maximum 300 characters

Thank you for your feedback

Date modified: