Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

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

You're talking about the non-stated paternity section, which this doesn't deal with. In my previous study, I hoped to take that on. This is not included within the amendments here—the non-stated paternity issue that we were trying to resolve in the previous study. How is it applicable to the current legislation?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

There are a whole bunch of issues here.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already settled text into law that looks sex-neutral and looks equal, but it has disproportionate impacts and is still discriminatory.

One specific example is that the vast majority of single-parent families are headed by first nations women. If their kids don't have Indian status, they can't access all the supports they need. However, a single man gets to have Indian status for his children, which is easily provable, so they don't suffer the same rates.

There are a whole bunch of different examples of how it impacts first nations women separately now, post 1985. We can put them in a submission to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much. We look forward to that submission as well.

We really appreciate the testimony today, and thank you for starting this very important study. Thank you to all our presenters.

We're going to suspend while we get our next panel ready.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I'd like to welcome everyone back.

We're going to the next round of questions. I'll ask everyone to take a seat, please.

In the next round of questions, we have, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Grand Chief Kyra Wilson, who is appearing online.

From Justice for Girls, we have Zoë Craig-Sparrow, vice-president.

From the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, we have Troy Chalifoux.

From the Southern Chiefs' Organization Inc., we have Grand Chief Jerry Daniels and Sandra Hodzic, chief adviser.

We're going to start in the room, and we're going to start with Zoë.

Thank you very much, Zoë. You have five minutes.

[Zoë Craig-Sparrow, Vice-President, Justice for Girls]

ʔəy̓ sweyəl. antha Zoë Craig-Sparrow. təliʔ cən ʔə ƛ̓ xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

Good day. My name is Zoë Craig-Sparrow. I am from the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓-speaking Musqueam peoples. I was born and raised on our Reserve No. 2 in Vancouver, British Columbia. Thank you for having me speak today, here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

I want to be very clear. I am in strong support of Bill S-2 exactly as amended by the Senate, and I urge that it be passed through this committee with the priority and urgency that it calls for.

You've heard a lot about the second generation cut-off. I am the cut-off. My mother has full 6(1) status, but my father was not status, so I was granted 6(2) status, half status. My father passed away when I was nine years old, and I grew up on the reserve with my mother, next door to my grandma, my aunt and my grandpa, Ed Sparrow, who raised me fishing on the Fraser River.

I met my now fiancé on Musqueam. He's not a status Indian, but he also grew up on the reserve. We're getting married in October and we plan to have kids shortly thereafter.

Our children will not have status. In the eyes of the government, they will not be first nations. They will not inherit the home that I own, right next to my mother's, and they will not be able to exercise their aboriginal right to fish, a right so important not only to my Sparrow family, as it was secured through the Sparrow decision, but also to the Musqueam people as a whole.

In contrast, if my parents were both status Indians, my children would have status. If my fiancé were a status Indian, they would have status. If I were a man who had children before 1985, they would have status. This is not just a violation of my rights to equality and to passing on my culture and identity; it means I cannot pass down the home that I worked hard to purchase. It means I cannot pass on the teachings of our family business, fishing, which was taught to me and my siblings by my mother and grandfather, who learned it from his father, who learned it from his, and so on. My babies won't even be allowed to be on the boat with me while I fish.

When we say this will lead to the legal extinction of first nations in three to four generations, we mean an extinction of entire nations and peoples. This is happening right now, with real implications for people and for families like mine. I'm the first generation of my family who, after the intergenerational trauma of residential school, can raise my children in a stable home in our community, free from violence and addiction. My mother broke the cycle, and I am the first to start fresh.

My grandpa fought so hard to survive residential school and see his “little family”, as he calls us, succeed. He's so proud of me, especially for being here today, but isn't that what reconciliation is—giving us a chance to rebuild our lives, culture and family, and the rights that were stolen from us?

I'm the first in my family to go to university, and I'm the first in my family whose children will not have status. I wouldn't have been able to go to university without the ISC funding.

I want to make a note about funding and costs, as I know that's a hang-up for a lot of people.

Will passing Bill S-2 as amended lead to more status Indians? Absolutely, it will. That is the point. It will ensure that we do not go legally extinct, and it will prevent assimilation and genocide. However, the number is far lower than some people fear. The Stats Canada estimate, as Pam shared, is about 320,000 newly entitled status Indians over the next 45 years. That's about 7,000 a year. This pales in comparison to the number of new citizens who are Canadian by birth, because Canadians have a birthright, and the hundreds and thousands of new Canadians we welcome every year.

We see all these people as a good thing. We are asking for legislation that would see 300,000 new Indians over 45 years and prevent our extinction. I don't understand how these costs can be seen as a bad thing.

While yes, these newly entitled status Indians may lead to increased government costs and funding, in the long run it's a cost-saving measure. I think about myself, for example; I am someone who would not have been able to access and graduate from post-secondary education without the funding and support of the federal government. Did this cost the government money initially? Yes, but it also allowed me to get good grades in my undergraduate degree, which set me up for scholarships for my master's and doctoral programs. It allowed me to get a job with health care benefits so that I didn't have to rely on government-funded, non-insured health benefits, and this health care will now extend to my children. It has set me up for a life in which, fortunately, I don't have to rely on social welfare funding. Without the investment in me and my future when I was a child, who knows where I would have ended up or how much more money my children and I would be costing the federal government?

Respectfully, it's about how you look at the situation. If all you want to see is an initial increase in the bottom line of the budget, that's all you're going to see, but if you look more closely, you'll see this as a low-barrier investment that protects the rule of law and equality in this country and prevents the extinction of first nations peoples. It seems like a win-win to me.

I'll conclude with this: The second generation cut-off is not a new issue. It has been studied, litigated, consulted on, reported on and condemned for more than 40 years by courts, parliamentary committees, UN treaty bodies and indigenous leaders and women. We do not need more consultation.

Even so, you cannot consult on gender and race discrimination, and you cannot consult on genocide. You cannot legally use consultations as a weapon to delay equality that my family and I need now, today. People's rights are being violated now. Every day that passes while we allow extinction documents to be a part of the legal backbone of our country is a day too many.

I implore you to follow the lead of the Senate and act swiftly and decisively in passing Bill S-2 as amended. You have a historic opportunity to stop this pattern of piecemeal amendments and delayed equality. Please don't make me fight my whole life, as Sharon McIvor has, just to see justice delayed time and time again.

hay ce:p qə. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

The Michel Callihoo Nation Society will have five minutes, and I believe that Bev will be reading on behalf of someone who was not able to attend today.

Go ahead, Bev.

[Beverly Asmann, Director, Michel Callihoo Nation Society]

Thank you, everyone. I'm a little frazzled because I wasn't supposed to be speaking today. My colleague Rosalind was supposed to be here. This is her story that she's asked me to read, so I'll do my very best to honour her words.

I will start by acknowledging that we're on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Good morning, honourable delegate members and dignitaries. My name is Beverly Asmann. I am a member of the Michel Callihoo Nation Society. I was honoured to testify at the Senate on behalf of this bill back in October. I'm now going to read Rosalind's story.

She says, “I am the great-great-granddaughter of Michel Callihoo, who signed Treaty 6 by way of an adhesion in 1878.

“I am here as a director of the Michel Callihoo Nation Society, the representative group that has been in exploratory discussions with Canada since 2022. For my part, I have spent the last 44 years advocating justice for Michel descendants, first visiting Ottawa in 1982 to research our story in the archives. Some of our other directors have similarly spent decades seeking reconciliation for the Michel Band descendants.

“Joining me today at the witness table is Troy Chalifoux of Maurice Law legal team. In attendance with me is Linda Buffalo.”

We're missing another member who's supposed to be here as well.

Rosalind's text says, “Before I continue, I wish to acknowledge and thank directors Brandy Callihoo and Beverly Asmann, who testified before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples in October. Their voices helped carry the Michel story forward, and I am honoured to continue that advocacy here today before the House of Commons.

“Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony before you. I am here on behalf of all the descendants of the former Michel Band number 472 to share our common story and to impress upon this committee the urgent need for Bill S-2 to pass without further delay.

“First and foremost, we are signatories to Treaty 6, a sacred covenant that was to last as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.

“Until 1958, we were known as Michel Band 472, with Indian Reserve 132, and we were a recognized band under the Indian Act. Today, our descendants represent the largest group who would become eligible for status with the passage of Bill S-2. Indigenous Services Canada has estimated that approximately 3,500 individuals would be newly eligible for registration under this bill overall, and the Michel descendants represent the largest group among them. This bill represents another vital step by Canada to address the long-standing inequities caused by enfranchisement.

“I have been advised by our legal counsel that this point is critically important, so please allow me to explain it plainly: The Michel descendants cannot rely on the Nicholas court decision to have our status reinstated. The Nicholas decision, which comes into effect on April 30, specifically excludes individuals who were members of a band that was enfranchised under section 112 of the Indian Act, and that is us. We are the only band in Canadian history to be collectively enfranchised under that provision. While other victims of enfranchisement may find their remedy through the Nicholas case, we will not. Bill S-2 is our only hope.

“To understand why we find ourselves in this position, you need to know a little about our history.

“The Michel Band members are the largest group in Canada to have suffered the discriminatory consequences of enfranchisement. Every member of the Michel Band, with the exception of four women who were deemed ‘mentally incompetent’ under the law of that time, lost their status as a result of enfranchisement, either as individuals in 1928 or as a whole band in 1958.

“Prior to the 1958 band enfranchisement, section 111 of the Indian Act required a majority vote for voluntary enfranchisement. When this proved unattainable, the government created section 112 to accommodate the forced enfranchisement of our band as a whole. We were the test case, and it worked so devastatingly well that no other band was ever subjected to this provision.

“The Michel Band story is one of continued atrocities and has been hidden in the darkness of Canadian history for far too long. While there is not enough time to share the full story today, I have provided a brief history along with my testimony, but let me share with you the roots of our people so you understand what was taken from us.

“Our ancestors—the Cree and the Iroquois—have deep roots in this land. Since time immemorial, the Cree lived in the northern territory around what is now Edmonton. The Iroquois came west with the fur trade, and both communities became the ancestors of the Michel Band.

“My paternal ancestors were Iroquois who intermarried with the Cree. While my great-great-great grandfather Louis settled in Jasper, his son Michel, along with his followers, signed the treaty in 1878.

“Michel chose Indian Reserve 132 on the banks of the Sturgeon River, and according to the DIA surveyor, it was one of the best pieces of land in western Canada. This is perhaps the reason European settlers began a letter campaign in the early 1900s seeking to buy the land—and provoked the subsequent illegal land surrenders that stripped us of half our reserve.

“What happened next was a systematic dismantling of our community, piece by piece.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Excuse me, Bev. That's all the time we have, but if you could submit all that paperwork, our analysts do an excellent job and will incorporate that.

[Beverly Asmann]

Okay. I'll hand it over to Troy Chalifoux in case there are any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Yes, exactly, and then we will have some questions. Thank you very much for stepping in and sharing that story.

Next we will hear from the Southern Chiefs' Organization Inc. for five minutes.

Grand Chief, please go ahead.

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, Southern Chiefs' Organization Inc.]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

Good morning. I thank our Creator for a beautiful day.

I want to thank the chair and members of the committee for their time today.

My name is Jerry Daniels. I'm the Grand Chief for the Southern Chiefs' Organization, representing 33 Anishinabe and Dakota nations that have more than 92,000 citizens across southern Manitoba. I'm honoured to be here today, and I want to be direct with you.

The Indian Act turns 150 years old this year. For 150 years, the federal government has controlled who is recognized as status. It has decided who belongs, who doesn't and who will eventually disappear. Parliament now has a responsibility, not just an opportunity, to correct what has been built into this law, and that responsibility sits with this committee today.

Since 1876, the Indian Act has imposed on our people who we are allowed to be. It dictated who's recognized as an Indian. It created a system called enfranchisement, a process by which first nations were stripped of their status, often involuntarily, in exchange for the most basic rights of Canadian citizenship—the right to vote, to own land, to become a doctor or a lawyer. These provisions fractured families, erased identities and imposed gender-based discrimination that has travelled across generations into the present day.

Bill S-2 addresses this history directly. It seeks to restore status to the thousands of people who lost it through these unjust enfranchisement provisions. It addresses inequalities faced by women who were forced to transfer to their husbands' first nations rather than retain their own identities. Through the amendments added in the Senate, it takes aim at the most urgent, ongoing justice of all, which is the second generation cut-off.

In 1985, the Indian Act created two categories of status: subsection 6(1) and subsection 6(2). A person with 6(1) status can pass their status to their children, regardless of who the other parent is. If they have 6(2) status, they can't pass it on unless their partner also holds status. After two generations of parenting with a non-status person, the second generation receives nothing. They are cut off from their legal identity, their rights, their recognition as first nations people under Canadian law.

Let me be precise about that. Between 100,000 to 250,000 people have already lost their status as a result of this provision. Nationally, within one generation, one in four children born on reserve is expected to lack registered entitlement entirely. One senator described this as a “bureaucratic extinction formula”. I cannot think of a more accurate description. No other group in Canada faces a legislative pathway to extinction of their identity. No other group in Canada is told by law that their grandchildren will not be recognized as who they are.

Councillor Rachel Ferreira of Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation reminds us of the traditional ways. If you are 1% Anishinabe, you are one of us, yet her grandchildren risk having their status not recognized legally in Canada, because their father is Portuguese.

Chief Donny Smoke of Dakota Plains Wahpeton Nation shared that this rule affects his own family. His grandchildren are proud Dakota people. They know who they are, but being without status makes them feel like outsiders in their own nation.

I know a mother with three children. All three have the same non-indigenous father, yet the oldest has status and her two younger children do not because of the year they were born and the changes in law. They have the same mother, the same father and the same home, but they have different rights. One child can access dental care, vision care and post-secondary education funding, but the other two cannot. The mother cannot explain to her children why the Government of Canada sees them differently from their siblings.

I also think about a young woman, an accomplished health care professional, who found herself calculating whether the man she loved had status, because she could not bear the thought of her own children being cut off from who they were. This law turns love into arithmetic. It turns family planning into a legal calculation. It is a psychological weight that this provision places on first nations people every day.

Indian status is not symbolic. It carries real, constitutionally protected rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with the right to hunt, fish, trap and gather plants and medicines. These are rights that apply regardless of band membership. Treaty rights go further still. They protect the deep, enduring connection to land and water, which is essential to the identity, culture and continuity of treaty first nations. When a child is denied status, they are not simply denied a card or a number; they are denied access to health care, education, funding and housing support, and they are denied legal recognition of connection to their nation and their territory.

Denying status to first nation children is a denial of their rights and their identity. The Senate amended Bill S-2 to introduce a one-parent rule, which allowed status to pass to children as long as the parent holds status in perpetuity. The Senate voted 10 to one in favour. Organizations representing first nations across Canada supported it. The testimony was described by senators themselves as a reflection of the near unanimous consensus among rights holders, indigenous women organizations, legal experts, elders and communities.

Canada has acknowledged in its own words that the Indian Act “was a tool for the wholesale erasure of languages, cultures and beliefs” that “robbed First Nations Peoples of their identity”. The second generation cut-off is that erasure continuing, updated, bureaucratized and still in force in the 150th year of this legislation. Our nation knows who our people are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

Now we'll go online to Grand Chief Kyra Wilson, and I hope we have a good connection. I know we were working on that.

Go ahead, Grand Chief Wilson.

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Good morning. How's my audio?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Keep talking; say a few things. I'm looking at the interpreters.

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson]

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to a very important matter. This is the second time I've been able to speak to Bill S-2, and I want to thank the previous speakers.

My name is Kyra Wilson. I'm the grand chief for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and I want to say once again, good morning. In regard to the work we do at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we represent 63 first nations within Manitoba.

Through subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act, Canada continues to legislate our nations out of existence and the position of AMC is and has been very clear that Bill S-2 must be passed in the House of Commons with the Senate amendments intact, including eliminating the second generation cut-off and restoring the one-parent rule. What we are seeing right now is legislated extinction.

Prior to all the amendments that have been discussed and worked on for decades, Canada has addressed discrimination in the Indian Act only after being compelled to do so through litigation. To AMC, it is clear that Bill S-2 must be passed with the Senate amendments intact to break the long-standing pattern of reforms that have always been reactive to litigation. The harms of subsection 6(2) are not new. They've been studied, consulted on and clearly identified, including through Canada's own processes and the testimony heard by the Senate.

The Senate has heard unanimous calls to eliminate the second generation cut-off, and now the amendment is before Canada. The question is no longer whether this provision is harmful, because that is something we already know at this point, with all the testimony we've heard. The question is whether Canada will act.

What is different in this moment is Canada's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and its action plan measures. This commitment was not intended to slow reform. It was intended to ensure that Canada works in partnership with first nations to eliminate discrimination while advancing first nations' jurisdiction over their own citizens. These obligations must proceed together.

Under the action plan, this includes both engagement processes and the development of pathways beyond the Indian Act, including first nations control over their own citizenship. This reflects the consistent direction of first nations leadership.

Engagement has been confined to consultation on the Indian Act amendments under action plan measure 2.8, without advancing at the same time the transition to first nations control over citizenship under action plan measure 2.9.

This maintains a model whereby Canada determines outcomes for individuals while delaying and diminishing the collective authority of first nations to define their own citizenship. UNDRIP does not support the use of consultation to delay change or to maintain discriminatory laws. It requires partnership, respect for first nations authority and meaningful progress. When consultation is used to delay necessary reform, it becomes a tool for sustaining rather than dismantling colonial harm.

Indian status as determined by Canada is not first nations citizenship. Canada does not define first nations citizenship; we do. If left unchanged, these provisions will continue to reduce the number of first nations people recognized by Canada. Without status, first nations citizens are no longer recognized by Canada as treaty beneficiaries and are cut off from various services, such as housing, education, the protections tied to that recognition and, in some cases, even from burial in their own first nation. Canada's second generation cut-off damages the social fabric of our nations and creates political and social tensions with families and communities. This impacts people's mental health and sense of belonging.

Looking at the impacts on Manitoba first nations, across many of our member first nations in Manitoba, there's a growing imbalance between those registered under subsection 6(1) and those registered under subsection 6(2). We have an increasing number of children who are at risk of being excluded entirely under the second generation cut-off.

This is not simply a matter of individual status. It directly affects the future composition of our nations. This creates real governance challenges that affect who is recognized for the purposes of housing, programs and community planning.

This law—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief. We're going to questions. There will be an opportunity to get some more information out.

We're going to start with MP Morin for six minutes.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll go to Grand Chief Daniels first. The government sometimes says we have to consult. In this case, that's what it says. Yesterday, there was an announcement when it came to one assessment in Manitoba. Were you consulted on this?

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

No.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Why do you think you're being consulted on the extinction of first nations people, but you're not being consulted on one assessment?

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

Because the government picks and chooses what it wants to consult on. It doesn't have a standard for how exactly to consult.

When you're talking nation to nation, you should probably consult on a lot of things. Every piece of legislation that goes through should have the approval of first nations, if we really want to talk about nation to nation.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

How do the inconsistencies in consultation applications reflect the trust between first nations and the government?

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

They don't build trust, that's for sure. I think anybody who understands diplomacy and creating relationships and genuine partnerships knows you have to have consistency to have trust.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Does it feel fake sometimes?

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

I think that's where the government likes to operate: in the grey area and the vagueness of what consultation means.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Can you reiterate one of the examples you mentioned? Because of an arbitrary date in Bill C-31, there's a family that has three children, all with the same mother and father, but one child is a status Indian and the other two are not. They cannot access the same rights as their family within their community.