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

[Kiara LaBobe, Co-Chair, Assembly of First Nations National Youth Council]

Wela'lioq.

Before I speak about legislation, I want to speak about a little girl: my daughter. She is five years old, and she knows her Mi'kmaq language. She attends cultural events. She knows the songs. She knows the teachings, and she knows who she is. When you ask her, she proudly says, “I am Mi'kmaq”, but on paper, according to Canada, she is not. This is not because of anything our people did, because of our Mi'kmaq laws or because of our Mi'kmaq culture. It's because of the Indian Act. That's why I'm here today.

Good morning, committee members.

Bill S-2 does not address the need for transformative change in the full recognition of first nations' authority over status. First nations have voiced that there was inadequate consultation on the proposed amendments to the Indian Act through Bill S-2.

Currently, only women who were reinstated after being enfranchised for marrying non-status men can transmit status to their direct descendants to the same extent as those who were never enfranchised. This must be changed if legislative assimilation is to be addressed because, right now, Canada is still deciding who belongs to our nations, not us.

The impact of that decision is not theoretical. It shows up at kitchen tables when parents have to explain to their children why their siblings are status and they are not. It shows up when families fill out forms and realize the government has divided their bloodline into categories. It shows up when children begin to wonder if they are less indigenous than their cousins.

There has not been movement or ambition from Canada to further this work, despite commitments from the UNDRIP action plan and the ministers of ISC and CIRNA. My grandparents were forced into residential schools, and my father was sent to Indian day school. Government policies stripped them of their language and culture. Now, generations later, government policy is once again determining belonging by excluding my daughter from status recognition. Decades of inaction have resulted in harm that persists across generations. Canada's failure to address these issues contravenes commitments to first nations peoples and gender equality.

Full reparative measures and policy reforms are essential to repair past harms and prevent future discrimination under the Indian Act. The Indian Act and Canadian policies perpetuate sexist and paternalistic values that continue the violence against indigenous women and girls, and two-spirit and gender-diverse first nations people. Subsection 6(1) and subsection 6(2) registration categories define family structure according to Eurocentric and heteronormative ideals, and these are not our ways. Before the Indian Act, our nations did not measure belonging through patriarchal formulas; two-spirit people were respected, women were leaders and kinship was not questioned. The Indian Act did not just change our governance. It changed how we were forced to see our own families.

Amendments to date have not gone far enough to eliminate sex-based inequities. Sex-based discrimination continues through second-generation cut-off. Parents do not have equal rights to pass their status on to their children. The quiet violence of that is devastating because it forces mothers and fathers to sit with the reality that the government has more authority over their child's identity than they do. This is not our law. This is Canada's law still shaping our families today.

First nations must reclaim our authority to define our own people, separate from colonial systems, because, for us, belonging is about kinship, community ties and cultural continuity, not outdated federal rules. The concept of “status Indian” didn't exist when our treaties were signed, yet, today, treaty beneficiaries are determined by Indian Act status and formulas. The second-generation cut-off is driving widespread disenfranchisement and a steady erosion of our population on paper. Our nations are expanding in spirit, culture and community but shrinking in the registry, and the harshness of this unfolds quietly. To you, it looks like declining numbers in reports. It looks like funding formulas. To us, in reality, it looks like children being told they do not belong to their own people.

Funding for essential first nations services is based on the Indian Act status numbers, so when Canada erases our people on paper, it erases our access to housing, health and education in practice. Without the Indian Act, first nations could determine who belongs and support our people directly, ensuring that no one is left behind. Criteria could be based on culture, kinship and our traditional laws. We must assert our own jurisdiction and move beyond the Indian Act. We are self-determining nations with the authority to decide who our people are.

When my daughter says that she is Mi'kmaq, I believe her, my community believes her and our ancestors would have believed her. Why doesn't Canada? That is what needs to change.

Wela'lioq.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

I'm going now to the six-minute round.

First off, we have MP Morin for six minutes.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the testimony of our guests today.

I will go to our youth leadership first.

Thank you for being vulnerable with both your stories—a very personal touch there.

When I left being chief a number of years ago, one of the stats that alarmed me—I have it right up to now, reported as recently as last year—was that first nations' life expectancy was 19 years lower than it was for other Albertans. That one hit me in the face.

I listened to you yesterday. We heard that there could be bands erased as soon as 2066, which is basically in your lifetime. You know that you're the next generation of first nations leadership. What does it feel like to possibly see peoples get erased in your lifetime?

[Isaiah Bernard]

Thank you, Chief.

That hits hard because, when I was growing up, I never thought of these issues. My brother is a 6(2), and I'm a 6(1). I didn't think it would hit so close until you asked me that question. This is what needs to be changed. When Bill C-31 was entered without consultation, it created so many barriers, and we have been trying to fix this for going on 40 years. This has to be fixed right now.

We need the community to buy in as well. What works for the Mi'kmaq might not work for the Mohawks and might not work for the Crees, so we need to let the first nations decide, if possible.

[Kiara LaBobe]

I think it's a scary thing, definitely .

I'm a 6(2). My dad's a 6(1) and my daughter is considered 6(3). The direction that we're moving in today and the possible assimilation of our first nations is greatly impacted because the children are the future. We are the next generation. Yes, we are the next leaders as well, but so are our children. They will be the leaders after us. If they're not considered indigenous in the eyes of the government, then we're not going to have leaders for the future. I think that is what really needs to change.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you.

I want to go to Dr. Palmater next.

You cited some of the numbers. We heard it from Counsel Lafond in the previous round of testimony. As a fiscal conservative, I also had to take a step back and look at the numbers. If you look at the implementation of things that come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and from StatsCan, there are about 7,500 on average over the next 30 to 40 years.

Basic costs would be your basic NHIB costs. Most of those people live in urban reserves. For approximate costs, we heard numbers as close as $50 million for full implementation in the first year out of the $25-billion budget of ISC. Quite frankly, that seems minuscule.

Another thing we just found out in correlation to this today is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report early this morning forecasting that Canada will spend $1 billion a year on the interim federal health program for roughly 600,000 asylum seekers and refugees before provincial health insurance kicks in.

How do you feel about the fears that up to 300,000 first nations people could be affected by a second-generation cut-off to be eligible to gain status because it would be too expensive, but they would spend on these types of costs?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

These are really important questions. The fearmongering, historically—and even now by people at Indian Affairs, aboriginal affairs and ISC over the years—has always been around floodgates. “We're going to be overwhelmed with new members.” Somehow, they're all just going to race to the reserve—I don't know where they're going to live—and it's going to just bankrupt bands because it's going to take so much money.

However, they weren't being truthful, because they knew that wasn't the case. We know that the vast majority are just going to live off reserve. The cost to Indian Affairs will be if they use these services. They are looking at the maximum. They're not looking at the number of people who work in urban areas and have private health benefits and all of these other things, or the people who are well beyond the education age. They always overinflate the numbers.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that those are the numbers. The number of first nations that would be added every year—this 7,500 number—pales in comparison to the number of new Canadian citizens born—because Canadians have a birthright—and the number of people who become Canadian citizens. There are well over a million people.

We're upset about 7,500 people compared to well over a million people and the money that's spent on them. You were right to point out that it's a fraction of what's spent in the total overall budget. This isn't impacting first nations, by the way. This is the federal government. There is no massive increase in spending.

Even if there was a tiny increase in spending, for every dollar we invest in first nations children—because we're talking about kids and grandkids, and my grandkids are excluded—we save $7 down the line on social programs. Why wouldn't we invest these minuscule amounts in our kids and grandkids who have been cut off by the second-generation cut-off? It just doesn't even make financial sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Jaime for six minutes please.

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

I want to start off by saying wela'lioq to the youth and to Pam. I didn't stack this as a Mi'kmaq thing, but it ended up that way.

I want to say that this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Assembly of First Nations national youth council has ever had an opportunity to be witnesses in a parliamentary study, and I have to say to both of you that you did an amazing job. As a former AFN national youth council member, I will say that you've made us very proud. You spoke with heart and really showed us the human level of what this means.

Isaiah, I want to start with you. I know that you're a councillor in your community as well. There are community members who are born without status. How does the community of Potlotek handle it when kids are born without status but they're still in the community? Does your community continue to support them? Can you talk a bit about that?

[Isaiah Bernard]

Yes. Our community recognizes that the second-generation cut-off rule is bogus. We, as Potlotek Mi'kmaq, decide that we accept these ones as our Mi'kmaq members.

Even though we don't get the funding for them, it is the right thing to do to help out our people. This is not just about the Indian Act. It's about whether one child and thousands like them will be recognized for who they truly are. We need to fix this issue now before it becomes a broader and bigger issue.

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

Your community uses its own-source revenue to make up for the fact that the federal government doesn't provide that because they don't recognize that child. Thank you for putting that on the record.

Kiara, you talked a little about the federal government's imposed solutions. Does that mean that you think first nations communities themselves should be the guiding factor in who is and who isn't part of their community, as opposed to Parliament's legislation telling them who is and who isn't?

[Kiara LaBobe]

I absolutely think that it should be up to the first nations to decide who their people are, because they are the ones who see them every day. They're the ones who know them. It all comes back to belonging and who belongs within the community. If I were to tell you that your child isn't considered a part of your culture, and you were to sit down and tell them at the dinner table that “hey, you're not the same as I am, you're not as equal, you're less than”, it would have a huge impact on that child.

We see that on a day-to-day basis, not just with my own daughter and with my nephews, but with the families that I communicate with on a day-to-day basis. We work on a beneficiaries process in P.E.I. I lead that process right now. It's called Ni'n aq No'kmaq. That goes beyond the Indian Act in including in our families who is Mi'kmaq and who belongs.

When we talk about the heirs of the Peace and Friendship Treaties, who is that? We talk about it on a day-to-day basis when we hear from families and how they're impacted greatly by the second-generation cut-off. I absolutely do think that it should be up to the first nations to decide that, because those are their people.

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

Thank you, Kiara.

Dr. Palmater, thank you for joining us. We've worked together on this for more than 20 years.

You've written the book in Canada that demonstrates the urgency of this. In your book, you talk about many communities within the next 20 years not having any status children born into their communities. Can you talk a bit about the urgency that some communities are facing if we don't address this immediately?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Well, therein lies the financial burden or hardship on first nations when they have a growing population. We know that there are some first nations that are 40%, 50% and 60% subsection 6(2) Indians. All of their kids and grandkids are excluded.

Who pays for it? We know the feds aren't going to pay for that. They try to pay for as little as possible. It's why we have all of these court cases on kids in foster care and Jordan's principle.

We have all of these excluded kids. Who has to pay? A chief and council are accountable to their members. They feel like they have no choice. There are a lot of first nations that don't have own-source revenue and certainly not enough to pay for everything on reserve. I remember a time when I was living on reserve back when I didn't have status. I couldn't ride the reserve school bus to school. It literally gets down to that.

You're having a system of division that's created, maintained and fostered in first nations, and it's absolutely unacceptable. There is no law in Canada that allows federal legislation to do this. The federal government can't do it. First nations can't do it. That's why you see so many first nations saying, “Change this now.”

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

You spoke about the one-parent rule that's coming forward, and I can be in support of that. My concern is that the first nations community might see this as a unilateral process imposed on them. Whatever the government decides to do in terms of replacing the second-generation cut-off, do you think that community should have the right to opt in or opt out?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

First nations right now have the right under the Indian Act to decide their own membership and who belongs to the communities. That's been there since 1985. The majority of first nations have chosen not to enact membership codes in part because they want the feds to clean up their mess and deal with Indian status and all the discrimination so that they don't assume the liability.

There are lots of section 10 bans that have membership codes. The majority go with a one-parent rule. We already have a situation where there are status Indians who are not members. We have members who are not status Indians. That was a decision made in 1985.

Changing Indian status, which is an individual, direct relationship with the federal government under subsection 91(24) jurisdiction, is separate from the conversation on membership in first nations. The federal government doesn't have an option. It has to get rid of this second-generation cut-off and have a one-parent rule, because section 15 applies to federal legislation. They don't have an option under the law to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Madame Gill for six minutes.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're hearing a lot of very strong terms today. This morning, we're talking about cultural genocide, identity, colonialism and paternalism. In short, we aren't out of the woods yet.

We're conducting a study that goes beyond Bill S‑2. I think we're saying that even Bill S‑2 isn't going to solve everything. I will emphasize the word “urgency”, but I will also insist that you say it, if you agree with it. Even if you have already mentioned it, you can repeat it to us. It's important for the work to be done in parallel. Something is being done, but we can't wait for decades more. We can't stand idly by. Everything has to be done more quickly. That's one thing.

I would like to hear more of what you have to say, particularly about young people, because they're the ones who live with the consequences. I know that this also affects parents. Earlier, I said that I wouldn't accept someone else deciding who I am, but I wouldn't want someone deciding who my children are either. That's like preventing them from being who they are. I talked about cultural genocide, when children are prevented from having their own identity, their own culture and, ultimately, their own language because of money and everything that comes with it.

I would like to hear your comments on this urgent matter so that the committee takes note of them. Of course, we'll be working on Bill S‑2. I mentioned the committee, but the House of Commons also needs to take note of the fact that it's important to act quickly. We're talking about 150 years, but even before Confederation, there were colonialist, paternalistic and culturally genocidal policies.

This is a question for Dr. Palmater, as well as Mr. Bernard and Ms. LaBobe.

I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Isaiah Bernard]

Wela'lin.

I was there when the Senate talks went down on Bill S-2. It was passed by unanimous and historic consent, and I witnessed a 6(2) woman in tears. Bill S‑2 is not one shoe fits all, but it's a step in the right direction. It's a step to fixing decades of government telling us who we are and who we are not.

At the end of the day, when we're all gone, I know if my kids and grandkids are 6(2)s or 6(3)s, their headstones will say, “Mi'kmaq person”. Bill S-2 is a step in the right direction.

Yes, we need to find the way to let the nation decide.

I don't know if that answers the question.

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

You're the one who decides the answer.

[Kiara LaBobe]

For me, on a personal note, growing up as a 6(2) and being around friends who were all 6(1)s, you get that, specifically, the second-generation cut-off is discriminatory, and then you see from your own peers that, “You're less than me because you're only a 6(2).” There's no difference, though. Isaiah and I are the same. We're equals. I don't see him as any different, and I'd hope he doesn't see me as any different.

That's a reality. That's what I have to face. I'm not friends with these people anymore. I hold nothing bad against them, but I shouldn't be viewed as less than by some people who I personally love. It's same for my daughter and her being cut off. She's only five, but she's going to get to that age where she's going to wonder, and it's a struggle for me, too. She doesn't get the same benefits or the same resources as I do, so I have to pay in, which I don't mind, but at the same time, she's just as indigenous as I am.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Here's what I see as the current issue. We know this is part of Canada's overall laws, policies and practices that have been found to be historic and ongoing genocide. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which the federal government doesn't even mention anymore, specifically said you need to get rid of this discrimination—so did the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and so did the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry.

There's resistance, but here's the thing: the feds are saying either you pass Bill S-2 as amended, and we just don't deal with these other issues, or you do this never-ending consultation process, which has been going on now for four or five decades, but you can have both. Bill S-2 as amended eliminates federal discrimination in terms of sex and race for Indian status for the vast majority of cases.

You can, at the same time, continue the consultations on what we need to do to support you on band membership. Do you want to enter self-government negotiations to talk about citizenship so that we can do a transition? How about funding, housing and infrastructure? How can we support you? How can we support the newly entitled? How do we support them and give them information?

Yes, consultation is important in where we're moving to the future, and first nations will decide for themselves whether they take up band membership codes or they have citizenship codes—they already have that ability—but when it comes to Indian status, there are no options. The Supreme Court of Canada has said over and over again you cannot delay the removal of discrimination, especially since it's known. Canada created this in 1985. It's done no fewer than six consultations. It knows second gen effectively results in our legislative extinction. It does not have authority in the law to guarantee any formula that results in our extinction. The only way forward that ensures we're not legislatively extinct as Indians is getting rid of second gen and entering a one-parent rule...membership and citizenship separate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to MP Schmale for five minutes, please.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses, including our youth members. You're amazing speakers. Hopefully, one day, I can speak as well as you in Parliament. One day. I'm a long way off, says the red team. I thought we were in a collaborative environment here, but that's okay.

Doctor, maybe I'll quickly start with you. First, I found your comments very interesting when you mentioned how the government wants different paths. The government can probably deal with this through legislation instead of more consultations. It seems like it's not just political parties, because this has been going on for decades or hundreds of years, if you want to even include that.

I find the lack of desire or motivation on behalf of the departments...I know there are lots of hard-working people in the departments, but it just seems that.... When we had the parliamentary budget officer, I believe a couple of parliaments ago, they said the departments are very good at doing the same thing over and over again. They get into a routine, but you create something new and it throws them right in a tizzy.

Again, we have lots of good, hard-working people, but it matches.... That's what came to my mind when you said those words. The department can move if it wants to. It's the same thing with the modern treaty commissioner in Bill C-10 that we're dealing with. The department can live up to the word of its treaty obligations, modern or otherwise, but it doesn't seem to want to.

I'm just making these links. I don't know if you have a comment on that.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

That's literally the theme here.

I have been working on this since I was a child. I have eight sisters and four brothers, most of whom have been working on this issue. I dedicated my doctorate in law to this issue, and I show up at every House committee, every Senate committee, every consultation, all of it. We keep talking about the exact same things. I don't even have to write new submissions anymore. It's just cut, paste, cut, paste.

The issue really comes down to this: They refuse to give up on this idea that Indians, under the Indian Act, are going to exist forever, which is what the treaties envisioned. They had hoped, when they separated Indian status and band membership, that the bands would make sure there were no members. However, the majority of these membership codes, of all of the different types, deal with a one-parent rule. Nobody wants to be extinct in the future; only Canada wants that, and we know why. There are two reasons.

One is that it removes us. If we don't exist politically, legally, then we don't get to have section 35 rights. We don't get to resist what's happening on our territories. We don't have a say in what's going on in Canada.

The other thing is that it always comes down to money. For every day that they delay this, for every decade, they're saving money. Every time they make an amendment, they insulate themselves from liability, saying, “Oh, you first nations women and kids, you don't get to sue us. We're making billions of dollars in settlements on residential schools, the sixties scoop, Inuit sled dogs, first nations...”—you name it, across the board—“but we refuse to compensate first nations women and kids, and we refuse to allow them and their descendants to exist in the future.” That's what it is.

They can say anything they want to, but it's an easy solution. Do Bill S-2 as amended—we've already gone through this process—and do your consultations on membership and citizenship and whether there's going to be a transition in the future on contribution agreements and funding. They could do it if they wanted to, yet they're hiding behind consultation.

“We have a legal duty to consult.” How many times have we heard the minister say that? Then we think, “Well, wait a second. Wasn't it the federal government that went to the Mikisew Cree First Nation and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to prove that the government doesn't have a legal duty to consult on legislation?”

I think that's wrongly decided, but they use it for the majority of legislation, such as Bill C-5. Now here we are.

No, despite the fact that we have the majority of first nations saying, “Let's do Bill S-2 and consultations. Here are all of the amendments,” the government says, “Oh, no, we're not going to listen to your voices.” That's literally the opposite of consultation. Why would they do that? It's to delay funding and to try to manufacture dissent through fearmongering. I'm saying that with respect, because I worked at Indian Affairs and at Justice Canada. I've been part of every single one of these processes. I hear officials time and time again saying, “Oh, you're going to go bankrupt. It's going to be overrun. You're going to be flooded. Certainly you don't want one-size-fits-all.” Well, actually, charter equality is one-size-fits-all. Non-discrimination is one-size-fits-all.