Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

Yes. It bureaucratizes families and the relationship dynamics of the family. I don't think the government should have any business in households like that between families and between nations.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thanks, Chief.

I'm going to Zoë next. You mentioned that this is a bigger picture. Whether you want to go further or whether you want to go down into the weeds of the details beyond getting into some of the higher-level discussions we're having....

One point you made that was particularly interesting to me was how you cannot pass down property to your children. Everyday Canadians outside the reserve can pass down property. There's no issue there. For something like this, if the second generation cut-off keeps going on, you cannot pass down your property.

Is that what you mentioned?

[Zoë Craig-Sparrow]

That's right. I can't. I have a home literally right next to my grandma and grandpa's. As it stands, I cannot pass my home on to my children. It leaves me wondering who I leave it to. Do I leave it to my sister? What's going to happen when she passes away?

The really crazy part, to me, is that my fiancé, who will be my husband, can have my house under the real matrimonial property act if we get a divorce, but my children, who were born and raised on the reserve, cannot. This doesn't make any sense to me.

It's a violation of my rights. I worked hard for my home. Should I not be able to leave it to my children?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

This might refer back to a previous question in the previous round about how this affects women even more than it affects men.

[Zoë Craig-Sparrow]

Yes. I want to elaborate on that a bit, if I can.

I work for Justice for Girls. We work with teenage girls in poverty. Indigenous women and girls are already 12 times more likely to go missing or be murdered than any other person in the country. We're talking about already vulnerable teen girls who need status to have access to critical resources, supports and services to keep them safe. They are experiencing violence, homelessness and difficulties with education and the child welfare system. It's critical. We know indigenous women are more likely to be single mothers.

I'm now faced with my non-indigenous husband being able to take my home, but my kids can't have it. God forbid something happens between us. He could take my home, and I'd be left with no-status children, no place on the reserve and no ability for them to access Jordan's principle, health care and education, which were critical in my life.

It's not right. It's discrimination and it's a violation of the equality charter.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

As a young Musqueam person, you broke cycles and your mother broke cycles. You've been pretty successful. You access hardly any non-insured benefits. You've gone through a lot to lift yourself up.

In the future, should this not change, your children will not have the same opportunity. Those cycles may have a higher risk of repeating themselves.

[Zoë Craig-Sparrow]

Of course. Truly, in reflecting on Bill S-2 through APPA at the Senate and here, it occurred to me that I am the first in my family to graduate university. My grandpa couldn't go because if he had gone to university, he would have been enfranchised and lost his status. My mother was focusing on just graduating high school.

I'm the first one in my family who really had a chance to go to university, build a life for myself, break the cycle and create a career, and now my kids don't have status. That's the reward for my grandpa's going to residential school at five years old, suffering incredible atrocities, and working so hard to provide for his children, as well as for my mom's working two jobs to put me through school. This is the reward our family gets: You're not first nations anymore.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Okay.

I'll come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lavack, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their testimony on this very important bill. We are pleased that they are here today.

I would like to begin by addressing the representatives of the Michel Callihoo Nation Society.

When it was drafted, Bill S‑2 was intended to address emancipation. What impact will the measures in Bill S‑2 to address the ongoing consequences of emancipation have on members of your community?

[Troy Chalifoux, Legal Counsel, Michel Callihoo Nation Society]

The impacts that Bill S-2 will have on the Michel Callihoo nation would be profound, because we're not talking about certain sectors of a population or the demographic of a community, but about an entire nation. There are no avenues other than Bill S-2 to address, with basically a stroke of a pen, the inequities this nation has suffered as a result of Canada's efforts to exterminate it.

Since 1985, probably 50% of Michel descendants have perished. Arguably, and sadly, the intentions of colonial extermination policies are being fulfilled through attrition. If this bill is delayed, it will perpetuate the offence, in our view. It's a really difficult position that the Michel nation is in, because, of course, dealing with the second generation cut-off is important and it would impact descendants of Michel, but we're talking about an entire nation. If the bill is delayed, or if enfranchisement of the Michel nation is not addressed, then it's the status quo, and this causes profound harm to a community.

Here's a small anecdote about what it means to be exterminated like that. You've heard other similar testimonies. In the very first meeting I had with them, we gathered with the board that represents them, and I asked if they wanted to proceed with a ceremony. They said, “We don't have any.” Do you have elders? “We have old people.” This just floored me, because they didn't give that up. It was taken away.

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

I would now like to ask a question regarding first nations’ involvement and self-determination in the process.

As we know, the government is often criticized for imposing regulations on first nations, such as the Indian Act.

How important is it that first nations be at the centre of the development of this bill? The bill aims to remove these restrictions, so that first nations are fairly represented and given due prominence, and to restore their dignity.

We want to ensure this. That is one of the reasons, among others, why a collaborative process was launched two years ago. We are not talking about holding indefinite consultations or dragging them out over long periods. The process has begun. How important is it to proceed in this way, so that the legislation passed by the House of Commons is legally and judicially defensible?

[Troy Chalifoux]

The problem with consultation is that, if we're all being honest, even today you have not heard anything new. You have been hearing this since the eighties. You heard it again in 1994 with the royal commission. You heard it again with respect to the Michel nation from the specific claims commission. All of its recommendations were rejected.

Consultation now is, at best, being used as a shield to prevent those difficult decisions from being made. At worst, it's being weaponized to avoid those decisions altogether. Consultation is embracing the status quo, and it provides the illusion of reconciliation, because that's not what is required here.

The issue, based on the questions asked today in the earlier panel and previously, is how a nation feels about Canada getting involved in membership. You already are, and you have been for 150 years. Nations will deal with it. Of course, nations don't want to embrace all of these new people, because of the cost, but all of you honourable members know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Next, we're going to MP Gill for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us.

Mr. Chalifoux’s closing remarks really struck a chord with me. He was referring to the fact that, so far, there’s nothing new under the sun. What we’re hearing today, we’ve heard time and time again. I wasn’t there, but I know there are people in the room who were. I’m thinking of Ms. McIvor’s testimony earlier. I mentioned this earlier, but I want to say it again: It’s always extremely difficult, as legislators, to think that we’re deciding for another nation—we’re deciding whether it’s a nation and setting the conditions for being part of that nation. It’s impossible. One nation cannot decide for another nation. The system as it stands remains colonial.

I would like to hear your opinion. I know Mr. Chalifoux put it well, and I know we’re saying the same thing, but are we ready to pass Bill S‑2 with the Senate’s amendments? Do you believe that holding consultations is simply putting off what could be done now, as Mr. Chalifoux said? It is said that you have been waiting since 1985, but it goes back further than that. You have been waiting forever.

Grand Chief Wilson, Grand Chief Daniels, and Ms. Craig‑Sparrow, I invite you to respond. I think that may be all for the representatives of the Michel Callihoo Nation Society.

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels]

I want to say one thing really quickly. The membership of first nations is already defined and independent of Canada. First nations make their own membership as it stands right now. We're talking about the citizenship recognized by Canada and the way it was structured.

The impact on the nation is not necessarily of its own making. If a first nation decides at some point that it wants to change the structure of its membership, it can change that already. It doesn't need you to change it. We need you to recognize that the current members of our nation, whom we already recognize, are going to continue to have their status. That's the first thing.

The second thing is, when we talk about funding and the impact on funding, poverty and the challenges we face as a first nation are going to be improved by creating better housing, better jobs and advanced manufacturing. Those kinds of things need to happen anyway. I don't think that should be used as an excuse or that those lines of argument should be used as an excuse for delaying the justice that needs to happen.

[Zoë Craig-Sparrow]

I'll add that, yes, it needs to happen now. Yes, we're ready. When you think about it, I'm having kids anyway and I live on a reserve anyway. These children are being born, whether we like it or not, into these communities. Are they going to have access to the same rights that I have?

We are talking about children of current status Indians or to-be status Indians. This is not some big abstract of millions of people. We know about 20,000 people will be entitled once the bill passes and royal assent comes into effect, and then 300,000 over 45 years. This is not millions of people. These are either children who are being born today, little kids, or children who are going to be born anyway.

The reality is about whether they are going to have rights as first nations people.

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

Chief Wilson, would you also like to answer the question?

[Grand Chief Kyra Wilson]

Yes, of course. Thank you so much.

When I think about the impact to community, to first nations, I always think about our children. First and foremost, something I included in my previous presentation is how this has impacted my own family. When I think about the mental health and well-being of our families and our future generations—the current children or grandchildren within our nations—and how they're impacted, whether they're status or non-status.... Right now, my own child is non-status, based on her grandfather, who identifies as Métis. Throughout our history, we've identified that somebody within our family had signed Métis scrip. This is a long history of first nations in terms of the struggles and the barriers we've had to face through this legislation.

I think about my own daughter and the way that she speaks to me about her connection to our community. She always asks me, “Mom, when are you getting my status? When is it going to happen?” There's a disconnect that she feels with the community, even though I always tell her, “You are a part of Long Plain First Nation. You are a part of this family.” There is an impact on her, and there's an impact on all of our children who are currently non-status. Right now, we need to move forward with Bill S-2. The harm it's causing our families and our children is something that we can't ignore. Canada can't ignore those impacts on our children.

In terms of Zoë's comments, we are continually having to worry about who we date and who we marry. This is an unfair thing that Canada has placed on first nations women. We need to move forward with Bill S-2.

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

I will quickly ask my final question to those who have not yet spoken on this topic, namely Ms. Wilson, Ms. Asmann, Mr. Chalifoux, and Ms. Craig-Sparrow.

Grand Chief Daniels spoke of the risk of bureaucratic extinction if the matter of Bill S‑2 is not resolved. Do you all agree with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We have about 10 seconds left, so we may have to get some things in writing for that particular question.

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

Mr. Chair, it won’t take long if everyone answers yes or no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Yes or no?

I think they're all agreeing.

Next we'll go to MP Morin, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to recognize the unique position of the Michel Band. It's good to see the Michel Band again. Of course, my home nation.... They're the closest first nation, so there are ties there as well. It's always great to see people from back home.

I recognize that a previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-38, had a different scope, that things have evolved through prorogation and that complications have been added for a bigger picture—but ultimately what I would think is a better bigger picture. Still, it has come at some anxiety to the Michel Band and its people. This should be recognized.

One thing that's also not talked about a lot in this bill is the term “mentally incompetent Indian”. That is a racist term of the Indian Act, and it's being changed, which is a good thing. The second generation cut-off is talked about a lot, and rightly so, but “mentally incompetent Indian” is also being changed for the better.

Ms. Asmann, are you aware of this and the historical aspects of this? Would you care to elaborate on the effects of changing that wording within the Indian Act?

[Beverly Asmann]

Well, that caught me off guard. However, as some of you may know, when I spoke first in the Senate, I spoke of the “mentally incompetent Indian” portion because that was my grandmother and my aunt. They were removed from the Michel Band list, labelled as mentally incompetent Indians and treated very poorly for the rest of their lives. My aunt is still on the murdered and missing indigenous list to this day. I never met her.

The term itself, of course, tears me up, as you can tell. Changing the terminology.... That's okay. I just hope that nobody ever has to feel the way I felt. My sister is with me today. We've both felt it. I pray that this changes and that this bill passes so that the Michel people.... We're fighting to get our band back. This bill will really help us to generate the list we need to find our people and to bring them home, and maybe we can put some of these harms and these hurts to rest.

Thank you.