Evidence of meeting #29 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Mclvor  As an Individual
Pamela Palmater  Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual
Étienne  President, Quebec Native Women Inc.
Craig-Sparrow  Vice-President, Justice for Girls
Asmann  Director, Michel Callihoo Nation Society
Chief Jerry Daniels  Southern Chiefs' Organization Inc.
Chief Kyra Wilson  Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs
Chalifoux  Legal Counsel, Michel Callihoo Nation Society

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 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 peoples.

Pursuant to the order of the House, the committee is commencing its study of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act, new registration entitlements.

A budget for the study has been prepared and circulated. Is it the will of the committee that we adopt a budget of $89,350 for the study of this bill?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

I'd like to welcome the witnesses on our first panel. Before I do that, this is a reminder to leave your earpiece in your ear. If you decide not to leave it in your ear, please place it away from your mic and make sure that your mic is off so that the interpreters do not get any kind of feedback.

Thank you very much to the interpreters for continuing to do great work.

For our first panel, we have, as an individual, Sharon McIvor. We also have Dr. Pamela Palmater, chair in indigenous governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, by video conference. We have, from Quebec Native Women Inc., Marjolaine Étienne, president.

Welcome to you all.

You'll each have five minutes for a presentation, and then there will be a number of questions and comments throughout the first panel.

Thank you very much.

Let's begin with Sharon.

Sharon Mclvor As an Individual

Good morning. My name is Sharon McIvor, and I'm Nlaka'pamux from south central British Columbia. I was born, I live and I work on the land I belong to, like my ancestors as far back as we know, and like my children, my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. Bill S-2 is something that we've been working on for a long time.

I'm going to let you know who I am. I was born on my home territory, and when I was born, the legal definition of a “person” in the Indian Act was anyone “other than an Indian”. When I was born, I wasn't considered a person.

I have been doing activism for a long time. I first started my activism in July 1968, so next July I will have been doing this for 60 years. Some of you probably haven't been around for 60 years, but I've been doing activism for 60 years.

I was the plaintiff in the McIvor case. It was the first case that took Bill C-31 to court, and about 125,000 people benefited from that case—that is, the ones we can count.

When I first applied for status for myself and my son, in August 1985, my son was 14 years old. We got through the system, and I was given status but my son was not. By the time we got it through the internal system and I was ready to go to court, it was July 1989, and my son had just turned 18.

It took from July 1989 to January 2006 to get into court, to get a court date set. The Government of Canada prevented me from doing this for all sorts of reasons, and it tried stalling tactics. In January 2006 we finally got a court date. The court date was in 2006. We got a decision in June 2007. It went through the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, and the legislation finally got through. The legislation on the McIvor amendment got through in 2011. Because of the process, my son finally got his status in 2015. We started when he was 14, and it took 30 years for him to get his status.

All I'm saying is that I've been through every amendment to the Indian Act after 1985. I've done this, and so I'm not telling you about the legislation. I'm telling you about the process.

What about this bill? It's really important because there is the extermination. This legislation, if you don't change it, would exterminate all of us who are entitled to status.

The other thing I want to talk about is that the first status member was elected to Parliament in 1968, and this was my good friend Len Marchand. I was doing my activist work, and he was trying to get into Parliament so that, maybe, he could make a change. He was in until 1979, and we would meet on a regular basis. I was in the same situation as his sister. His sister was being discriminated against in the same way, and he was not able to make any difference. He was also the first status Indian who was on the executive.

I'm saying that our process is that we have indigenous people in Parliament now, but Len couldn't even get it talked about.

Now we're getting it talked about, but we also have indigenous people who do not think that we should make these changes. Those of us who have been fighting for so long are quite disappointed in that.

The second-last thing I'm going to say is that several things went on legislatively over the years that prevented us from bringing this. When they introduced the human rights legislation, section 67 wouldn't allow us as Indians to use it to challenge the discrimination that we had been suffering over the years.

In 1920, Duncan Campbell Scott, the deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs, said this: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question”. We're still there today. Are we going to get Duncan Campbell Scott's goal achieved, or are we going to act now and put an end to all of this? For us it's existence or extinction.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you, Sharon. There will be plenty of time for you to make more comments during the question-and-answer period.

8:25 a.m.

As an Individual

Sharon Mclvor

What was that?

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much, Sharon. There will be plenty of time for you to say some more things during the question and answer period. We're going to the next speaker because we're a little over time.

8:25 a.m.

As an Individual

Sharon Mclvor

I've been here before many times.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you, Sharon, very much.

Next we'll go to Pamela, who is online, for five minutes, please.

Dr. Pamela Palmater Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual

Thank you so much.

Kwe, hello, bonjour. My name is Pamela Palmater. I'm from the Eel River Bar First Nation, which is part of the larger Mi'kmaq nation, and I have been working on this issue for 40 years.

Thank you for inviting me to appear. By way of background, I've been a lawyer in good standing for 26 years.

Lori Idlout Liberal Nunavut, NU

I have a point of order.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Hold on a second, please.

Go ahead, Lori.

Lori Idlout Liberal Nunavut, NU

There's a lot of echo, and I wonder if that can be fixed. I don't know if she hears her echo.

8:25 a.m.

As an Individual

Sharon Mclvor

I can hear a huge echo as well.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

We're hearing echoes online. The technician will take a look at that. We'll suspend for just a few seconds please.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Pamela, proceed, please.

8:25 a.m.

Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual

Dr. Pamela Palmater

I don't hear an echo now, so it looks like we're good. Do I just restart the clock? Do I restart my five minutes?

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Right from the beginning, please.

8:25 a.m.

Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual

Dr. Pamela Palmater

Thank you so much.

I still hear a huge echo. I think it's from the room. What you're hearing is bouncing back to MP Idlout and me.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

I'm turning my mic on, and I'm going to turn it off.

8:25 a.m.

Chair in Indigenous Governance, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual

Dr. Pamela Palmater

I don't hear an echo right now, so I'm just going to start my five minutes.

Kwe, ni'n teluisi Pam Palmater. I'm from the sovereign Mi'kmaq nation, and I'm a member of the Eel River Bar First Nation. I have been working on this issue for 40 years. By way of background, I've been a lawyer in good standing for 26 years, 10 of which I did at the Department of Justice Canada advising what was then Indian Affairs.

I want to quickly say thank you to Sharon. She is the grandmother to thousands of us. If she hadn't put in 60 years of advocacy, I wouldn't be here talking to you about this issue. I'm here because my grandbabies are currently excluded and they need to be a part of my first nation.

I'm asking this committee to pass Bill S-2 exactly as amended by the Senate with no more amendments. The House should pass this legislation without further delay. The litigants in the Nicholas case deserve justice, as do the many children and grandchildren like mine, those of first nations families who would be registered but for the long-standing sex- and race-based discrimination in Indian registration. With historic levels of consensus, first nations women, first nations advocacy organizations, first nations communities, and constitutional and human rights experts all testified before the Senate that the second generation cut-off must be removed immediately and that registration must be returned to a one-parent rule for Indian status.

There was also a historic, unanimous vote at the Senate to support Bill S-2 and the proposed amendments, which the Senate didn't dream up. These were amendments that first nations and first nations women brought forward, saying, “This is what we want.”

Since then, the majority of first nations and first nations organizations who made written submissions to ISC about how to address the ongoing discrimination in the second generation cut-off rule suggested a one-parent rule, as is in Bill S-2 and its amendments. More than 77% of the hundreds of individuals who submitted feedback to ISC on the feedback form said that we must go back to a one-parent rule. We have a birthright.

The official petition sponsored by MP Lori Idlout got 14,298 signatures in favour of passing Bill S-2 as amended. All of this would be consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution, which requires absolute equality between male and female people. It would also be consistent with the equality rights in section 15 of the charter, which absolutely prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race or ethnic origin. The non-discrimination laws in the Canadian Human Rights Act also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, race or ethnic origin.

Furthermore, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide condemns any actions by states that attempt to destroy in whole or part a racial or ethnic group. Of course, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples absolutely guarantees the right of individuals to be part of their indigenous nations and absolute equality between male and female people, and it condemns any form of racism.

There are more Supreme Court of Canada cases than I can cite in five minutes, but all of them are consistent. The court has stated that the federal government has no legal option, authority, jurisdiction or legal ability to continue discrimination. It has said that financial considerations cannot justify an infringement of charter equality rights. Neither administrative inconvenience nor the need to change internal policies and processes can justify an ongoing charter violation. It has also said that you cannot act incrementally, that groups who have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human rights—or else equality rights are just an illusion. It goes on and on.

At the end of the day, the government has no legal authority to discriminate on the basis of sex, race or ethnic origin, and it certainly cannot promote the legislative extinction of first nations in any form.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

Next we will go to Marjolaine Étienne, the president of Quebec Native Women Inc.

You have five minutes, please.

Marjolaine Étienne President, Quebec Native Women Inc.

Kwe. Good morning.

My name is Marjolaine Étienne, and I represent Quebec Native Women, an organization founded in 1974 that represents and advocates for the rights of first nations women in Quebec, whether they live in urban areas or in communities. For more than fifty years, Quebec Native Women has been working to denounce and correct the discrimination embedded in the Indian Act, a colonial law that has profoundly impacted our way of life, our customs, and our values.

The imposition of the Indian Act has had lasting effects that continue to have a profound impact on our communities, particularly on women and their children. For more than fifty years, indigenous women have been speaking out against the inequalities created by this law and have been actively involved in various reform processes. These efforts have led to several significant legislative changes, notably in 1985, 2010, 2017 and now with Bill S‑2. Experience has shown, however, that when reforms are partial or incomplete, they often serve to perpetuate discrimination rather than eliminate it.

Bill S‑2 therefore represents a significant, and above all decisive, opportunity to bring about a lasting remedy to a situation that has persisted for far too long. Today, Quebec Native Women reaffirms its support for Bill S‑2, as amended by the Senate last November, amendments which, incidentally, were proposed and supported by Quebec Native Women in its presentation to the Senate and in its submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples on October 6, 2025. This support is based on a key conviction: Bill S‑2 can only achieve its objective if it enables inequalities to be corrected in a meaningful and lasting way.

In practical terms, these inequalities stem from the current rules governing the transmission of status, and more specifically from the rule of exclusion after the second generation. This rule limits the ability to pass on status from one generation to the next and disproportionately affects indigenous women. Even when they have regained their status, many indigenous women cannot pass it on to their children or grandchildren in the same way that is permitted for indigenous men married to non-indigenous women. This situation perpetuates gender-based discrimination, which successive reforms have failed to eliminate.

To better understand the concrete effects of this provision, Quebec Native Women conducted interviews with women from different nations and generations directly affected by the second-generation exclusion rule. This initiative aimed to document the actual impacts of the law based on the lived experiences of the women affected. The findings are clear. The women reported instances of exclusion from services and community spaces, which manifest as a loss of access to housing, health care and education; attacks on their identity and sense of belonging; disruptions in cultural and family transmission; the loss of traditional roles; as well as a climate of fear, stigmatization and tension within communities. These effects are not isolated. They accumulate and intensify from one generation to the next, weakening families and threatening the continuity of nations.

Passing Bill S‑2 without abolishing the exclusion rule after the second generation would amount to maintaining discrimination and inequalities whose impacts are now well known and documented. The central recommendation of Quebec Native Women is unequivocal. It is essential to repeal this provision to ensure true equality between indigenous women and men in the transmission of status.

This adoption must be accompanied by a concrete, tailored implementation plan that provides the necessary funding for first nations decision-making bodies to avoid unnecessary tensions and preserve community cohesion.

In conclusion, Bill S‑2 offers a real opportunity to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Its adoption, along with the Senate’s amendments and the recommendations of Quebec Native Women, would represent a concrete step toward equity, justice and dignity.

It is also necessary to recognize that the Indian Act, since its adoption 150 years ago, has caused and continues to cause profound and lasting harm, the effects of which are disproportionately borne by women and their children. Furthermore, our proposal is based on the Quebec Native Women Charter for Equality between First Nations Women and Men, as well as on international instruments for the protection of indigenous women’s rights, notably the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, General Recommendation No. 39 (2022) on the Rights of Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The question we face today is simple: are we going to wait another 40 years to address the root causes of inequality between indigenous men and women and resolve them once and for all?

Indigenous women have waited long enough. Their children and grandchildren are still waiting today. Now is the time to adopt comprehensive, responsible and enforceable reform.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the members for questions. First, we have MP Billy Morin.

You have six minutes.

8:35 a.m.

Conservative

Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB

I'll go to Dr. Palmater first.

Thank you for testifying again today.

Is there hypocrisy in the government's saying that it upholds UNDRIP when it still doesn't want to take Bill S-2 to its full passing?