The federal government is expected to apply for an extension to a rapidly approaching court-imposed deadline to make changes to the Indian Act to restore status to those who had descendants that were enfranchised, iPolitics has learned.

The move would give the government more time to pass Bill S-2, which would make those reforms, but was amended in the Senate to also end the second-generation cutoff, a rule that denies Indian status to people who had a non-First Nation parent and grandparent.

A court decision known as the Nicholas ruling gave Ottawa until the end of April 2026 to make changes to restore status to the descendants of enfranchised First Nations peoples.

The lawyer representing the Indigenous plaintiffs in the case said lawyers for the government gave notice that they expect to apply for an extension of the deadline.

Ryan Beaton, a partner at Juristes Power Law, told iPolitics that a court hearing has been set for April 21 for the government’s application for an extension, but there’s no confirmation that it would proceed. If it does go ahead, he expected the government to request an additional year to comply with the order.

Beaton called the request “completely unnecessary,” as the ruling wouldn’t upended registration rules and only have the effect of giving status to people descended from enfranchised people.

He said the government is against having the ruling go into effect without legislation because it would apply unequally across the country. This is because the ruling comes from a B.C. court and would only apply within its borders. But Beaton said the government already conceded the rules are unconstitutional and the Indian Act registrar wouldn’t comply with laws that are not compliant with the Charter.

“It is a little outrageous to say that you want the court order to be suspended for a longer period time, meaning peoples whose Charter’s rights are being violated have to go on for a longer period of time,” Beaton said, arguing that nothing in the ruling would limit Parliament’s work on the legislation.

The Liberals seem unlikely to meet the original deadline, with the House only sitting three more weeks before the end of April. Bill S-2 hasn’t even started its committee study, and the government seems unsupportive of Senate changes to the second-generation cutoff.

In a statement to iPolitics, a spokesperson for Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty refused to comment on the court case, but said the second-generation cutoff is a “critical and deeply personal issue that must be addressed in the right way.”

The statement noted the minister formed an advisory committee earlier this year to “determine the legal feasibility of the proposed solutions” to the cutoff, with this work expected to be completed by the end of the month. Once that’s done, the federal government will “launch formal consultations with rightsholders” on the issue.

Amendments to the Indian Act made in 1985 ended the practice of enfranchisement, whereby First Nations people who wanted to own land, vote or enjoy other rights had to give up their status. But it didn’t allow people whose ancestors were enfranchised to obtain status or pass it down to their descendants.

The Liberals introduced legislation in 2022 to repeal this rule but it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025.

Then last summer, the B.C. Supreme Court struck down the existing rules for violating the Charter and ordered the government to restore status to descendants of those had been enfranchised.

The Liberals responded by introducing legislation to do just that in the Senate last year. Bill S-2 was virtually identical to the previous legislation brought in by the Trudeau government — at least at first.

But senators amended the bill to end the second-generation cutoff, and allow status to be passed on to a child if at least one of their parents were recognized as having status.

That revamped version of S-2 has crawled through the House since it was passed by the Senate in December.

It was only moved to second reading last month, despite the looming court-imposed deadline, and it’s not even next in line for study at the relevant committee.

Critics have accused the Liberals of deliberately delaying movement on the bill to create a time crunch for Parliamentarians, hoping the Senate would blink and accept the government removing their changes to the second-generation cutoff to comply with the Nicholas ruling.

An extension could also allow the Liberals to avoid needing a partner in the House to pass a stripped down version of the bill, with the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all voicing support for S-2 as it stands.

If the Liberals win at least two of the three byelections on April 13, they will have a majority in the House. Two of those ridings are Liberal strongholds, while the party won Quebec’s Terrebonne by a single vote in last spring’s election.

That result was invalidated by the Supreme Court because of a mailing error, prompting the byelection. If the Liberals win all three votes, they wouldn’t need to rely on the speaker to break ties and could change the composition of parliamentary committees to ensure they have a majority of seats.

Instead of bringing the bill to study, the House Indigenous and Northern affairs committee began work on a separate study on issues related to Indian Act registration.

Gull-Masty office’s said that it had no power to set the agenda for the committees, and bills are “generally studied in the order they are received.”

That’s why the committee is currently studying Bill S-228 on ending forced sterilization, which was referred to it by the House on Feb. 26. Bill S-2 was referred the following day.

S-228 is a Senate public bill and is roughly equivalent to a House private member’s bill in that the legislation was introduced by the government. These bills usually move much slower through Parliament — S-228 was passed in October and didn’t see second reading in the House until February. It’s unclear why S-2, a government bill, wasn’t more quickly moved through the House and waited some three months after its passage to be referred to committee.

The Liberals haven’t signalled if they will support the Senate changes and repeatedly said more time is needed to consult with First Nations rights-holders.

When asked last month by iPolitics, Gull-Masty said the Senate introduced “a very complex and intricate dialogue” by making changes to the cutoff.

She said it was important for the government to move ahead with consultations with First Nations on the issue but refused to disclose if the Liberals would remove the Senate amendments now that Bill S-2 has been sent to the House.

“We need to hear from First Nations. I hope that they will come and participate to witness at the committee study,” she said in response to a question from iPolitics.

“It is a really important bill. There’s going to be big decisions to be made.”

Gull-Masty said the court deadline was the main driver in tabling S-2 and the government’s goal remains to “ensure that we’re supporting that community and those members to be able to receive their status.”

She said it will be up to the House Indigenous committee to determine the fate of the bill.

“What the outcome is and what the vote of that bill is going to be, I’m looking forward to seeing it.”

One of Canada’s largest Indigenous groups has already pulled out of consultations on the second-generation cutoff, accusing the government of working to delay ending the contentious law.

In an email sent last month and shared with iPolitics, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs called the justification for further consultation “extremely unclear” and expressed concerns about the “further politics of delay, which only serves to enrich Canada financially.”

But Gull-Masty said the consultations are needed because there are “varied” perspectives on the rule amongst First Nations.

Some First Nations supported the Senate changes to bring in a one-parent rule, while others were in opposition “because they want to do the important work of identifying their membership list,” she said.

However, many First Nations that appeared before the Senate in the fall voiced support for the changes, and they were backed during a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations in December.

During the Senate hearings, former star Montreal Canadiens goaltender Carey Price wrote that he found he couldn’t register his children for Indian status because of the second-generation cutoff.

He urged Senators in an email to “please review this matter and address the inequality and discrimination in this legislation,” saying that it “needs to be corrected to line up with the laws of Canada.”

Price’s mother, Lynda, wrote to the committee also arguing that the existing rule is unconstitutional.

His full letter can be found here, or just below.