Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

I would like to welcome everyone to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on December 1, 2025, the committee is continuing its study of issues related to the Indian Act registration.

Before I begin, I just want to share condolences with Bob Zimmer, who is a member of the standing committee and who is in his community right now. I sent him a note yesterday, and he sent one back. It's just unimaginable to have that happen. I know he's doing a stellar job pulling his community together. The children, the teachers, the whole school community and the community writ large have been affected.

Thank you, Bob. Reach out to any of us if we can assist any manner whatsoever. We're all there for you.

Thank you to the first responders there as well. Truly, that was an amazing job you did under such circumstances. Chi-meegwetch.

We also had some other terrible news from Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg of the Algonquin about two little ones, two souls lost. I heard the chief speak. You could hear the heart break.Chi-meegwetch

Without further ado, we have Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, National Grand Chief from the Assembly of First Nations, and Drew Lafond, legal adviser. We have Grand Chief Kyra Wilson from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, by video conference. We have added Chief Kelly Wolfe from Muskeg Lake Cree Nation.

Thank you very much. As one of the members said, we have a star-studded panel here today. Thank you very much for joining us. We look forward to your testimony. You will have five minutes each. Please keep it tight.

Please, National Chief, go ahead.

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, Assembly of First Nations]

Chair, as is custom amongst first nations people, I hope we can start with a prayer this morning and maybe even a moment of silence. It was a rough day for our country yesterday with gun violence. As the Assembly of First Nations, our hearts go out to Tumbler Ridge as well as to Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg nation.

Could Chief Kelly Wolfe guide us on that, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Yes.

Thank you very much.

[Chief Kelly Wolfe, Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

With the families in mind who recently lost loved ones, I'd like to start off with the serenity prayer. It was a prayer used by a former chief who has passed on now in our Treaty 6 territory, and I utilize it when I can.

Creator, grant us the serenity to accept the things that we cannot change. Creator, we ask you to provide us the courage to change the things that we can as well as the wisdom to know the difference. Amen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you for your words and putting us on a good way.

We will do a moment of silence for 30 seconds or however long you need to take. Thank you.

[A moment of silence observed]

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Meegwetch. Thank you so very much for that beautiful prayer this morning. Thank you for the acknowledgement to our fellow Canadians and fellow first nations people who are having a devastating day.

I want to get into my remarks.

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin]

[English]

Thank you so very much for being here this morning.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. I'm the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. I'd also like to acknowledge that we are here in the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear today as you study the Indian registration system within the Indian Act.

The Assembly of First Nations has reviewed the indigenous advisory process final recommendations and feedback report, gathered and considered input from first nations communities and, finally, carefully examined the potential impacts of different approaches to the second-generation cut-off rule.

During our recent special chiefs assembly in December, when our chiefs gathered here, leadership engaged in considerable dialogue as they adopted AFN resolution number 54/2025, which will inform my remarks this morning.

It is widely accepted and it is the AFN's position that the objective of the Indian Act's second-generation cut-off rule is to reduce Canada's obligations by steadily decreasing the number of people entitled to Indian status. It reduces us on paper, even as our people continue to exist. The second-generation cut-off rule has serious implications for first nations' identity and membership. It is discriminatory and increasingly restrictive over generations.

The second-generation cut-off rule is a blood quantum rule rooted in colonial thinking. Status transmission depends on how much Indian ancestry Canada believes someone has. The rule treats first nations' identity as something that can be diluted and eventually erased. It does not reflect first nations' understandings of belonging. It places the power to decide who is “Indian enough” with the federal government.

Over time, this has caused real harm, including teaching families to measure themselves and each other using Canada's rules, creating divisions within communities and causing people to question their own legitimacy and identity.

The second-generation cut-off rule raises serious human rights concerns, engages the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and directly affects first nations' jurisdiction over citizenship and belonging. The United Nations declaration affirms indigenous peoples' right to determine their own identity and membership, maintain their cultures, institutions and kinship systems, and be free from forced assimilation.

Canada has endorsed the United Nations declaration and passed legislation committing to its implementation, yet the second-generation cut-off remains and allows Canada, not first nations, to decide who is recognized as status. I must say, no other group of people in this country is determined like this by Canada.

The United Nations declaration also affirms free, prior and informed consent, which requires first nations to be meaningfully involved in decisions that affect their rights, identities and futures. Changes to the second-generation cut-off directly affect identity, citizenship, community membership and future generations. Free, prior and informed consent is therefore essential, not optional.

The second-generation cut-off rule also undermines the right to belong and to pass identity to future generations—a right that is recognized in international human rights standards. The harshest impacts fall, of course, on our women, our descendants as women, and those already made vulnerable by colonial practices and policies.

Despite previous amendments to the Indian Act, the second-generation cut-off rule continues to perpetuate sex and gender-based discrimination, which particularly affects the descendants of first nations women. Addressing the second-generation cut-off is therefore not only a policy issue, but a human rights obligation that must be done in a manner consistent with the United Nations declaration and free, prior and informed consent.

The impacts of the second-generation cut-off rule are considerable. It entrenches gender-based discrimination, which disproportionately affects the descendants of first nations women and continues to entrench sex and gender-based discrimination across generations. It causes harm to women and their descendants, including loss of culture, identity and increased vulnerability. It also creates divisions between status and non-status people, leading to exclusion, reduced access to services and intergenerational harm. Moreover, it erodes first nations' identity, sovereignty, and self-determination, while systemically reducing the status population. Finally, it has legal and governance consequences, including impacts on funding, land entitlements and political participation.

As for the path forward, while there is no simple or easy solution to the second-generation cut-off rule, any path forward will be complex and must be co-developed with first nations in line with free, prior and informed consent.

The issues and principles I've shared with this committee today, particularly the ongoing sex and gender-based discrimination embedded in the Indian Act, formed the foundation of resolution number 54/2025, adopted by the chiefs in assembly this past December.

Resolution number 54/2025 calls on "Canada to immediately and without delay end any and all sex- and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act to prevent the legislative extinction of Status Indians and First Nations, and take steps to recognize and facilitate the exercise of First Nations' inherent jurisdiction over citizenship and membership."

We will include a copy of this resolution in our formal submission to the committee for your consideration.

Chi-meegwetch. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Chi-meegwetch, National Chief.

Next, we have Grand Chief Kyra Wilson of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs by video conference.

Welcome.

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you, National Chief, for your words.

Thank you, Chief Wolfe, for opening us up in a prayer, and for the condolences that we've heard this morning.

I want to say thank you to the chair and to the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Kyra Wilson. I'm the grand chief for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We represent 63 first nations in Manitoba. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs operates through a mandate from our chiefs in assembly to advance our treaty rights, inherent rights and self-determination.

Today I'm here to speak in support of Bill S-2 and to specifically urge the committee and the House of Commons to pass the bill with the Senate amendments intact, including the amendment that repeals the second-generation cut-off by restoring the one-parent rule, or the Indian Act registration.

Under the direction of the AMC chiefs in assembly and guided by the chiefs committee on citizenship, AMC continues to advance nation-determined citizenship laws and registries alongside, but not dependent on, the federal registration reforms.

The Indian Act registration rules, particularly subsections 6(1) and 6(2) on the second-generation cut-off and the policy of unstated paternity, have caused profound and ongoing harm to first nations individuals, families and nations. These registration rules are not abstract policy problems, but they actually have real impacts on our first nations families every day—including my own.

I'll talk about a little bit of my own story. My own child is not eligible under this policy, this legislation, in regard to registration. Look at our journey. I've been a chief for my nation and am currently a grand chief for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Currently, my own child is not entitled to be registered as a status Indian under the Indian Act, so I am in support of Bill S-2.

When we look at the Indian Act, as it stands this regime disregards first nations laws regarding the governing of citizenship and belonging. It replaces first nations legal orders with federal administrative rules and advances what many have rightly described as legislative extinction by administrative design.

Following the Senate's consideration of Bill S-2, the AMC chiefs committee on citizenship recommended that AMC continue advancing nation-determined citizenship laws and registries in parallel, and not be contingent upon federal registration reforms. That direction reflects what was made clear, throughout the Senate hearings, that while registration reforms may correct discrete injustices, they cannot resolve the systemic exclusion created by the Indian Act or restore first nations jurisdiction over citizenship.

AMC has consistently viewed the Indian Act amendments such as Bill S-2 as transitional measures that may proceed, but they cannot substitute for the recognition of first nations' inherent jurisdiction over citizenship.

The AMC position has been consistent and very clear that we support the repeal of the second-generation cut-off, but we do not support the continued reliance on the Indian Act as the framework for defining first nations' citizenship. We have passed multiple resolutions affirming that first nations have never ceded jurisdiction over citizenship. Indian Act status is a federal administrative category, not citizenship, identity or nationhood. Reforms to registration must be paired with a transition toward first nations-determined citizenship laws.

In closing, Bill S-2 represents an important but incomplete step. The Senate has done its job. It's listened to first nations voices. It responded to the evidence. It removed a discriminatory rule that has caused decades of harm.

The House of Commons must do the same, and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs urges members of Parliament to support Bill S-2 with the Senate amendments intact, including the repeal of the second-generation cut-off, and to do so without any delays.

At the same time, Canada must commit to a funded transition towards first nations control over citizenship, consistent with treaties, inherent rights and UNDRIP. We know that this work is not new. It is a continuation of a long-standing chiefs in assembly direction to restore first nations' jurisdiction over our citizens, our laws and our future generations. Our nations have always known who our people are, and it is time for Canadian law to recognize and respect this.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Chi-meegwetch, Grand Chief.

Next, we have Chief Kelly Wolfe from the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation.

Go ahead, Chief.

[Chief Kelly Wolfe, Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

I would just like to share our first-hand experience in engaging our members on our citizenship law.

As Muskeg Lake Cree Nation continues to restore our inherent right to self-determination and moves away from under the Indian Act, we've always understood through oral history and teachings that our Creator gave us sovereignty to govern ourselves. Muskeg Lake Cree Nation currently has a seat at the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination table. That was announced in June 2023 with a letter of intent. This sets up the road map that will help guide us as treaty partners to implement our inherent right to self-government.

Citizenship was and continues to be a primary focus down the self-government path. With approximately 2,500 members, with over 85% of our members living outside of the community and with 900 of those members labelled 6(2) under Canada's lens, we knew that consultation sessions were going to be very challenging.

We utilized our urban committees in the cities most populated by our members to help with engagement sessions. We had 10 sessions over a four-month period. We had nearly 500 of our members participate. In addition to that, we've had questionnaires and surveys, utilizing our app and utilizing our members' portal inside our website. It was very important that we engaged all our people by using every avenue we could. This ensures that every member has a pathway to participate.

The engagement themes included our nation's authority over citizenship law, the impacts of the second-generation cut-off, recognition of adoption and kinship, and long-term nation sustainability. A clear majority of our members responded and expressed that Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, not Canada, should determine who our citizens are. Our members also emphasized aligning citizenship with our values, our tradition, our culture and our teachings. Responses consistently framed citizenship as an inherent right and not a delegated authority. Our members also emphasized aligning citizenship reform with housing, program capacity and fiscal planning.

Muskeg Lake Cree Nation is not expanding membership indiscriminately. The nation is defining citizenship as a foundation of governance, treaty continuity and long-term sustainability.

Moving forward, we understand that when citizens participate, trust grows and that when trust grows, government strengthens. The answers must not come from leadership alone; they must come from the collective voice of our nation. Belonging is not just about eligibility. It is about kinship. It is about responsibility. It is about our future and ensuring that our laws reflect who we are as Muskeg Lake Cree Nation people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're going to go to our first round of questioning. Each party will have six minutes.

We will start with MP Billy Morin, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the acknowledgement of the two national tragedies yesterday.

Thank you, Chief, for the opening prayer as well.

Thank you for the testimony today from all of the chiefs.

I want to go to Grand Chief Kyra Wilson first.

Chief, thank you for your vulnerability in sharing your personal story about your own child. You mentioned that you support getting rid of the second-generation cut-off without delay. We've had every indication that the government intends to delay this—right from the minister to bureaucrats yesterday refusing to give a date on the current consultation process.

Can you expand on how frustrating that is or what you see the risks are in delaying the second-generation cut-off and upholding what the Senate has challenged the government to do?

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson]

Yes, there is definitely a frustration there as I hear the words that you shared and that there will be continued delays. The approach needs to be urgent. We have children and families who are negatively impacted by this every single day, including my own family. As I had mentioned, I do have a child who continually talks about her connection to, or disconnection from, her community. I'm registered with our nation, but my daughter is not, so there is this sense of disconnection. It's very damaging to our families and to our children who are impacted by this second-generation cut-off.

The government needs to take that seriously, because there will be further harm to our families if this isn't rectified immediately, and I would imagine that there would be some consequence and liability for the government in that regard.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

I don't know how government can justify being about reconciliation but deny a chief's child the chance to be an Indian at the end of the day. That doesn't make any sense to me. Thank you for sharing.

National Chief, you spoke at the Senate APPA committee earlier this year, when you said:

...the government selects the most minimal, restrictive legislative steps possible and no more to address the human rights violations being raised. It simply waits for the next piece of successful litigation respecting the discrimination that the Crown knows it has not reached. This is what happened in 1985, and this is the repeated pattern of litigation and piecemeal amendments from 1985 to today.

The second-generation cut-off went beyond Bill C-38. Can you talk about the opportunity to take a different approach to reconciliation, instead of just waiting for litigation and court cases, which first nations seem to always have to do? Talk a little bit about the opportunity here to take a different step and redefine what the next step in reconciliation is like. Do we have to keep going to court, or can we try something new?

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

I have a lawyer with me, so Drew, would you like to take that one?

[Drew Lafond, Partner, MLT Aikins]

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you for the invitation here, members of the committee.

My name is Drew Lafond. I'm a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation. I've had the good privilege of having the opportunity to represent as a legal counsel the Assembly of First Nations, but also, in one of those rare circumstances, my home community the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation.

The Muskeg Lake Cree Nation chief spoke very well and very candidly about the challenges we're facing as a community back home with respect to the second-generation cut-off rule.

To go back to your question there, Chief, or former chief.... Well, in our culture, it's once a chief always a chief, so Chief Morin, thank you for the question.

When we're talking about reconciliation, to peel back some of the layers and all of the rhetoric, in my former capacity as the president of the Indigenous Bar Association, I was working on the file of Indian status, whether it's discrimination or whether it's the self-determination of indigenous peoples to determine their own citizens since at least 2016. We're going on 10 years now since the Descheneaux decision was handed down by the courts. Back then the standing Senate committee was considering, with the guidance of the late Murray Sinclair, this very question about what it means to be a status Indian and what it means to be self-determining.

I thought optimistically back then that we were going to have an opportunity to clean up once and for all the discrimination within section 6 of the Indian Act. We aren't there because of what you just said, Chief, about the incremental approach that was adopted at that time.

I'll remind members of the committee here that, if you look back at the records, there was a popular phrase that was circulating back then in 2016, “6(1)(a) all the way”, which essentially would have allowed any descendant of a status Indian to be eligible to obtain status. It was a one-parent rule and it was something that was being advocated for by a number of people who made their way before the Senate at that time.

Of course, we didn't make it that far. We made it to a formula that was a lot more driven by caution and not as justified and not as in touch with the concerns of indigenous peoples. That caution was about money, candidly. There was a lot of fearmongering at that time—which wasn't data driven—about how many more status Indians would be introduced under the Indian Register if we went with a “6(1)(a) all the way” approach. I think there were figures ranging between the hundreds of thousands to the millions without any information, facts or data to support that. Those were the numbers that were being circulated to parliamentarians at that time to evoke some sort of, I guess you can call it, sentiment that we needed to be worried about the budgetary concerns and to be worried about the impact on our bottom line that this was going to have. Unfortunately, it was that motivation that drove section 6 of the Indian Act that was drafted back in 2017 and ultimately adopted. We're stuck with that.

Now here I am 10 years later and we're having the same conversation about the same subject matter. It's because of that reluctance to take that real step, to have a conversation with indigenous nations, specifically the first nations impacted by section 6 and what they thought a solution or an interim solution to this problem of discrimination would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

There will be time to continue on, we're just a little over the time so we have to go to the next questioner. Thank you, Chief. Meegwetch.

For the Liberal six minutes, we have Jaime.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, National Chief and Grand Chief, for joining us today, and the chiefs and legal experts you have brought forward today.

We brought this study forward. In my background, I spent five years working for the Mi'kmaq to determine a Mi'kmaq beneficiary code, to go out to all of the Mi'kmaq communities to try to figure out who was a Mi'kmaq person and who wasn't. Along the conversation, I think everyone could agree that the second-generation cut-off was overly restrictive. Everyone would agree that we needed to get rid of 6(1)s and 6(2)s and turn that over to communities. However, the conversation began to be about what was important about being Mi'kmaq in terms of ancestry, but there was also a fear that if it were too expansive, there would be a strain on resources and that people with very loose connections to the communities would be brought in. There was very much a sentiment that this should be a community-by-community approach.

National Chief, I'll start with you. We have a resolution from the AFN that you said was widely accepted. I think it was framed in terms of getting rid of the second-generation cut-off, which I think many can agree with.

Did they figure out what we should replace it with? Was it a consistent approval that we should just go with the one-parent rule, or was that mentioned at all in the resolution?

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

I'm going to have Drew answer that.

[Drew Lafond]

In conversations with the assembly at the time—this was December when the resolution was passed, and it was right around the time that the Senate was considering draft Bill S-2, just after they had received the report from its committee—the question, the very one you asked, resonated with a lot of first nations, but you won't find any solution or you won't find any concrete step forward set out in the resolution that was passed by the chiefs in assembly back in December.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you.

Grand Chief Wilson, do you think we should have a solution that comes from the grassroots first nations communities in terms of how we replace subsections 6(1) and 6(2) with something that's created by the first nations themselves? Do you feel that would be an important process that we could undertake, or do you believe we should apply the Senate's solution to every single community, whether they like it or not?

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson]

Thank you, Jaime.

I would definitely say that each community needs to have input in consultation on this process. We have been talking about this for years. We've talked about solutions and what that engagement would look like.

We understand our membership currently. Different nations have different membership lists. I believe it's section 10 or section 11 that speaks to the different membership lists that communities have.

We also have a process right now. Even when I was chief, if a community member wanted to transfer into our nation, they had to go through a process that did include approval from chief and council. There are already processes in place that would allow for this work to happen and to continue.

Obviously, Bill S-2 is a first step. This is not the end. There is a process that we need to undertake as first nations people to ensure that our laws and our rights are being recognized within legislation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you for bringing up section 10 and section 11, because I brought that up with Indigenous Services Canada, when I asked why we don't, as a federal government, just accept it when a community goes through the process of creating a membership guideline and their own custom lists. It's within their jurisdiction to do so under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 3, so why don't we just accept that?

As a first and guiding step, do you think an option should be that if a community accepts community members as part of their section code, our federal government should recognize them as status?

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson]

I do, absolutely.

We have a right as first nations to provide whatever lists of our membership we see fit, and the government needs to recognize that and respect it.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

National Chief, I'll come back to you.

One of my concerns is that as much as I respect the processes of Parliament and the Senate, I do not feel that any parliamentary committee or Senate committee should be able to bind communities to changes to the Indian Act without their approval.

Do you feel that whatever we determine on this in terms of the solution for second generation should be optional for communities, or do you believe that Parliament has the ability to make a one-size-fits-all approach?