Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[Stuart Hooft]

Fundamentally, I would say we want a solution that will stand the test of time and that doesn't repeat the same mistakes as the past. This is so that any solution that is brought forward can respect the rights of both individuals and collectives at the same time so that we're not here 40 years from now, grappling with the same questions.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

I want to talk more about Bill S‑2, which was introduced in the Senate.

It was really about first nations empowerment. However, the amendments that were made attempt to address the second-generation cut-off. That may have been done without going through the consultation process you're looking to set up. In other words, it was somewhat expedited. In light of the testimony given to the Senate, people were sure they were on the right track.

You mentioned that the collaborative process was launched quite some time ago in November 2023. I believe my colleagues have already asked questions about that process and what comes next. You mentioned a guide that will be used as the basis for a series of consultations this spring and that will highlight potential proposed solutions in order to draw conclusions and get people's opinions.

Could you explain that next step in more detail?

How do you see it unfolding?

How extensive will those consultations be?

[Lori Doran]

A consultation guide will be developed to help the first nations organize consultations on this issue so that feedback that comes back is organized in a way that allows us to make comparisons and to pull out key themes and key points of consistency. We are working, as I mentioned, with a small group of legal experts to help us build this guide, to set it up so it will be useful for communities in seeking feedback from members and other rights holders. We are going to provide funding to organizations to consult with their groups. The intention is to receive solutions and priorities that will help us inform legislation going forward.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Chair, do I have time for another question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 20 seconds.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

I'm done, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for giving us their time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Ms. Lavack.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask one last question.

Earlier, you mentioned a key date, albeit a theoretical one: 2066. I believe Mr. Hooft mentioned it, too. People don't want to wait 40 years. How will this delay affect communities?

Obviously, consultations have to be held. I'm not judging what needs to be done, but there will be impacts on communities.

[Lori Doran]

I'll turn to my colleague on that one.

[Sacha Senécal]

We're talking about the impact in the projections up to 2066. The further you go into the future, the more uncertain the projections. I often say that population projections are a bit like weather forecasts. If you look at the weather forecast for tomorrow, it's pretty accurate. On the other hand, if you look at the forecasts for 14 days from now, you can end up with something completely different.

Let's look at the length of time.

One of the solutions discussed was removing the second-generation cut-off. All the generations since 1985 have not been entitled to registration. Since that wasn't on the table initially, the work that was done at the outset really focused on the future and what it could look like.

However, as I was saying, we also have to look at how many people have been denied registration since 1985. Some people may have been eligible, but they didn't bother to apply for registration because they weren't eligible at the time. We're working on that with Statistics Canada. I know that—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. I find this very interesting, but I only have two minutes.

What are the impacts?

I would really like you to talk about the impact on communities. It is true that some people weren't eligible to register, but what does that mean now, and what might it mean for the future?

I think you know where I'm going with this. I hope that something gets done quickly, because time is a factor.

[Sacha Senécal]

As I was saying earlier, the impacts are felt mainly outside the communities and reserves. That said, about 10% of the impacts affect the communities, but it's not necessarily proportional from one community to another. Obviously, things are different for each community. Those closer to urban centres are probably more affected than very remote communities, because fewer people are likely to want to return to the community.

I wouldn't want to speak for my colleagues, but I would say that's part of the reason why we want to do in-depth consultations and not have a one-size-fits-all solution. The goal is to identify the specific challenges facing communities in every province, as well as those facing more remote communities as opposed to those that are closer to major centres.

In our work on projections, we see that the impacts differ from province to province. We don't see the same impacts from one province to another. We don't make projections for communities, because the smaller they are, the harder it is to produce a clear projection. Basically, the impact varies.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think my time is up.

Do you already have data, Mr. Senécal?

If you can send us some data, that would be appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gill.

Now we have MP Morin for five minutes.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

We talked of a constant theme of consultation. We talked about the Mikisew and the duty to consult on legislative processes. We're also talking about—thank you to my colleague from Quebec—the urgency aspects of this.

I have heard through APPA and other studies and throughout the historic process that there is an urgency to this. Many people go unrecognized, and families have been torn apart for the better part of 100 years, particularly after 1985 with that legislation that came in.

Subsequently, there have been fixes along the way. There is perceived to be a start of a consultation process going on right now through the collaboration process. The government has done other legislation when it came to affecting aboriginal and treaty rights. Particularly, Bill C-5 is one that first nations have been pushing back on for close to a year.

Why does the consultation process on this one need to take the time that it is versus something like Bill C-5 when it comes to land? That's something first nations see as forever in terms of their treaty rights. Why is there a discrepancy about when to consult and when not to?

[Lori Doran]

I can only speak to the process under way for the second-generation cut-off.

As my colleague mentioned, under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is a requirement to consult on matters that impact them and their rights.

A solution to the second-generation cut-off will have significant impacts. We have the minister's special representative's report from 2018 that calls on Indigenous Services Canada to consult on this issue, because there's no one solution. The one-parent rule is one, but there are others out there, and we are already hearing from groups that there is a range of perspectives on this.

We understand that people are frustrated with the time it's taking, which is in part why the consultation on second-generation cut-off was launched at around the same time as the former Bill C-38, now S-2. We wanted to compress the timelines by doing the two in parallel so that, after a short period of time, we were ready to come forward with a stand-alone legislative solution on the second-generation cut-off that would have benefited from the consultation to ensure that it's the right solution and doesn't have unintended consequences.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

We've heard about urgency. Forgive me if I'm asking the same question twice, but what's your reaction to those members who have been waiting for a very long time and who have said that they don't trust the government in this process? It's given no end date on this process. It said it would work on it. It has been working on it since 2023 in a consultation or collaborative process. It's been studied at APPA and a few other places. Is the distrust of the government to get something done in this regard understandable in your eyes?

[Lori Doran]

We understand the frustration, and we know that this impacts real people today, families and communities. We understand the urgency. We are moving forward. It is enshrined in the action plan of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It's holding Canada to account for this. Action plan measure 2.8 commits Canada to do this work and introduce a legislative solution. Again, it's not whether to do this; it's how to do it. I really want to underscore that this isn't about whether to take action; it's about what action to take.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Regarding Bill S-2 in its current form, there is a timeline of about a year to prepare and transition into the implementation of it.

What would the department need if S-2 were to pass? What would the buildup be for the department? How would you get ready based on the lessons learned from S-3 and previous alterations to the Indian Act registry? What would you need to implement this one, and would the supports in the priority be from the department?

[Lori Doran]

Any solution to the second-generation cut-off will require careful consideration of impacts and implementation considerations. Any solution will require us to take time to understand what those impacts and implementation considerations are, because there could be a large increase in new members for some nations. There could be demands for programs and services. There could be a whole range of different impacts, and those impacts will be felt differently by nations across the country, for example, in more urban nations versus more rural or remote, etc.

We really need to understand those considerations. The consultation that's under way is seeking from groups those considerations so that we are prepared to implement and fully understand the different variables that need to be considered for a solution to the second-generation cut-off to be a success.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

MP Hanley, you have five minutes, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, officials, for being here.

I want to continue on the theme of that balance between consultation and urgency.

When reflecting on the introduction of Bill S-2 and, of course, the amendments to the second-generation cut-off, and given that you recognized the urgency in your opening remarks, what do you see as the effect of the introduction of Bill S-2 and the amendments on the urgency of completing the consultation but at the same time feeling, rightly, the duty to complete the consultation in a good way?

[Lori Doran]

There were many witnesses at the Senate, and I was really taken—we all were—by the personal stories and the clear articulation of the harms of there not being a solution to the second-generation cut-off.

We certainly heard through testimony the impacts, and it has really galvanized us to move quickly and efficiently in this process, making sure, though, that we do our due diligence and ensure that a broad group of people have a chance to make their voices heard.

We're moving quickly through these stages. We are not only considering the impacts at a collective level through nations that have come forward with testimony, but we are seeking the feedback of individuals as well, because there very much needs to be a balanced solution that considers the collective and the individual perspectives on this issue.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Can you talk about how you are incorporating territorial-level consultation or a plan to do so, particularly with regard to modern treaty holders and how perhaps what you're hearing might be different from what you're hearing from Indian Act members?

[Lori Doran]

We do want to consult with self-governing groups. We want to engage with groups that have taken over membership under section 10 and those that remain under section 11, where the department and the registrar maintain the list. We want to talk to more urban nations and more rural nations. We are looking, through these first nations-led consultation events, to really cast the net quite broadly to make sure we capture those perspectives.