Bill S-3 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 24, 2016
- Debated in principleNov. 16, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 31, 2017
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2017
- Became lawDec. 11, 2017
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 25 October 2016, the Hon. Peter Harder introduced Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-3 amends the Indian Act to provide new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) that was rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec on August 3, 2015, and to provide that the persons who become so entitled also have the right to have their name entered in a Band List maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,293 words introduced, 4,739 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core response to the Descheneaux decision by expanding registration entitlements but added new categories, unknown-parent rules, repeals and renumbering of paragraphs, plus mandatory ministerial consultations and parliamentary reports. Over 60 percent of the introduced text was removed or replaced while fresh provisions broadened the scope beyond the original court-driven fixes.
- New rules were added for cases of unknown or unstated parentage on birth certificates.
After: “If a parent, grandparent or other ancestor of a person in respect of whom an application is made is unknown — or is unstated on a birth certificate that, if the parent, grandparent or other ancestor were named on it, would help to establish the person's entitlement to be registered — the Registrar shall, without being required to establish the identity of that parent, grandparent or other ancestor, determine, after considering all of the relevant evidence, whether that parent, grandparent or other ancestor is, was or would have been entitled to be registered.”
- Additional registration paragraphs and later repeals expanded then reorganized the list of eligible persons.
Before: “(c) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951, under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv), paragraph 12(1)(b) or subsection 12(2) or under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(2), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;”
After: “(c.02) that person meets the following conditions: (i) the name of one of their parents was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register on or after September 4, 1951 under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv) or subsection 12(2), as each provision read immediately before April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject matter as either of those provisions,”
- Transitional provisions tied to the court declaration were dropped and replaced by ongoing review requirements.
Before: “Definition of declaration 3 (1) In sections 4 to 7 and 9 , declaration means the declaration made on August 3, 2015 by the Superior Court of Quebec in Descheneaux c.”
After: “This enactment requires the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to initiate consultations on issues related to registration and band membership and to conduct reviews on sex-based inequities under the Indian Act , and to report to Parliament on those activities.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets out registration entitlements through long lists of fixed dates and chained parental conditions that leave little room for argument once facts are known. A few phrases still require officials to weigh evidence or decide whether inequities persist.
Open to argument
“after considering all of the relevant evidence”
leaves the Registrar to decide what counts as relevant without an objective checklist.“any credible evidence”
introduces a subjective filter on what evidence may be used.“if he or she determines that any sex-based inequities still exist”
makes the Minister's conclusion the trigger for further action rather than an objective test.
Clear-cut
“they were born before April 17, 1985, whether or not their parents were married to each other at the time of the birth, or they were born after April 16, 1985 and their parents were married to each other at any time before April 17, 1985”
uses exact calendar dates and a binary marriage fact.“the name of one of their parents was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register on or after September 4, 1951 under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv) or subsection 12(2)”
ties eligibility to a specific statutory provision and date.
Discretion. The Minister must start consultations and later decide whether sex-based inequities remain and what changes to recommend, with no statutory criteria governing that decision.
Challenging the law itself. the detailed date-and-parent rules reduce vagueness claims, but the evidence-weighing and inequity-determination language could still be attacked under Charter s. 15 or the vagueness doctrine.
Disputing a charge under it. once an applicant's birth date, parental status and historical Register entries are established, the entitlement paragraphs leave almost no interpretive room.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
effective
The statutory review mandated by Bill S-3 concluded that sex-based inequities in Indian Act registration provisions were eliminated, with over 10,000 new registrations and category amendments benefiting 57,000 others by 2020. Implementation challenges such as processing delays and lower-than-expected application volumes were noted in official reports but did not undermine the core legislative objective.
- Final Report to Parliament on the Review of S-3reviewSex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act have been eliminated.
- Auditor General of Canada Report 1—Registration Under the Indian Act (2025)auditJust over 58,000 of 140,000 registration decisions from 2019-2024 related to Bill S-3 amendments, with average processing times of nearly 15-16 months exceeding the 6-month standard.
- Indigenous Services Canada: Bill S-3 pagereviewBill S-3 fully in force since 2019; third and final report to Parliament tabled December 2020 confirming implementation of sex-based equity changes.
- Indigenous Gender-Based Analysis of Bill S-3 (NWAC, 2022)studyBill S-3 removed known sex-based discrimination but left unresolved issues such as second-generation cut-off and other distinctions.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.