Bill S-2 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)
Government bill, sponsored by Marc Gold (Senator). Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedMay 28, 2025
- Debated in principleJune 25, 2025
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 4, 2025
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
- Marc GoldSenator
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
On 29 May 2025, Sen. Marc Gold introduced Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-2 amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a Band List maintained in the Department of Indigenous Services.
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
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact paragraph references and numbered lists to repeal old registration bars and add new entitlements, creating clear black-and-white rules for most applicants. However, the replacement estate provisions retain subjective ministerial language and tie key terms to varying provincial findings.
Open to argument
“make such orders and give such directions as the Minister considers necessary to secure the satisfactory management of the estate of a dependent person”
Uses the Minister's personal view of necessity and an undefined standard of satisfactoriness rather than fixed criteria.“dependent person means an Indian 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”
Definition incorporates external provincial tests that are not reproduced or standardized in the federal text.
Clear-cut
“Paragraph 6(1)(a.1) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a.1) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a Band List before September 4, 1951, under (i) subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iii) or (iv), paragraph 12(1)(b) 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 any of those provisions,”
Lists every historical provision and date with precision, leaving no interpretive gap on which old bars are removed.“A reference to an Indian in any of the following provisions shall be deemed to include a reference to any person whose name is entered in a Band List and who is entitled to have it entered therein: the definitions band , Indian moneys and in section 2, subsections 4(2) and (3) and 18(2), sections 20 and 22 to 25, subsections 31(1) and (3) and 35(4), sections 51, 52, 52.2 and 52.3, subsections 58(3) and 61(1), sections 63 and 65, subsections 66(2) and 70(1) and (4), section 71, paragraphs 73(g) and (h), subsection 74(4), section 84, paragraph 87(1)(a), section 88, subsection 89(1) and paragraph 107(b).”
Enumerates every affected section by number so coverage is settled without argument.
Discretion. Section 51 continues to vest broad authority in the Minister to appoint administrators and issue any orders the Minister considers necessary for satisfactory estate management, with no statutory limits or review criteria supplied.
Challenging the law itself. The retained subjective powers over dependent persons' estates could be challenged under section 7 Charter liberty and security interests or section 15 equality rights on grounds of vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Most operative rules consist of exhaustive lists of repealed paragraphs and fixed historical dates, so disputes over who qualifies turn on verifiable records rather than open-ended judgment.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.