Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Patty, for joining us.
Minister, we heard from Joanna Bernard, regional chief in New Brunswick. There are a lot of complexities involved in indigenous identity. She mentioned the challenges around the second-generation cut-off where, if you have children outside of people registered under the Indian Act for two successive generations, you lose your status as an Indian. There's a definite cut-off point for first nations or status Indians in Canada.
However, when we're talking about Inuit and Métis, there isn't that definition in place that we can look to. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Daniels case that there was no consensus definition for what it is to be Métis, nor need there be.
During the study of Bill C-53, we heard that there were a lot of people who believe that, if you have indigenous and European ancestry, you're a Métis, but we know that's not the recognized definition from the Métis National Council.
When we look at this, at indigenous identity and the overall job of government to try to figure out who should be eligible and who shouldn't be eligible, do we have help from any organizations that can help guide government? It's pretty clear in UNDRIP, which is law, under article 33 that nations want the ability to determine who their own citizens are. That's part of why we're working with the AFN on the second-generation cut-off.
I'm wondering if you can speak to, first, the kind of outside help we are getting from indigenous organizations to help clarify these very muddy waters when it comes to people thinking they might be indigenous because they have some mixed ancestry somewhere in their family lineage. How do we educate Canadians as to what the definitions are of the different first nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada?