Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

I do feel that the government, on this issue, has been offside of the law and violating all the laws. Now that it's passed UNDRIP and said that UNDRIP is a part of Canadian law, and the Supreme Court of Canada has said UNDRIP is now positive law in Canada, the federal government has an obligation to make sure that all of its laws comply with UNDRIP at a minimum, never mind the other laws. It is outside of UNDRIP on a whole bunch of articles. This only serves to hurt our children and grandchildren.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Are you aware of whether Inuit and Métis have a one-parent rule for recognition of legal status in terms of dealing with the federal government?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

I can't speak to Métis and who is part of Métis. There are different organizations, such as Métis Settlements and Métis Nation, so I can't speak to that. I'm also not Inuit, so I feel as though this is a question that's probably better for Inuit.

I am aware, however, that there are self-government agreements that have determined citizenship codes based on one-parent rules. Of first nations with band membership codes, out of the different types, the majority have one-parent rules. The first nations I work with that are amending their membership codes are moving toward one-parent rules.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

I'll go to Sharon McIvor next.

Thank you for 60-plus years of fighting this fight. I'm looking at some of the things from where I'm from. I'm from Treaty 6 in Alberta, and I'm a status Indian from Enoch Cree Nation, so I live this every day as well.

An article headline from February 9, 2025, reads, “First Nations life expectancy [is] 19 years lower than other Albertans” in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 in Alberta. It's 19 years lower than the Canadian average in Alberta.

You mentioned that it took you 30-plus years to get a court result in terms of having your son recognized as a part of your family. How many more people will perish trying to be a part of their own families in the battle to be recognized under status?

[Sharon Mclvor]

The legislation in 1985 was designed to exterminate us. I pushed the second generation rule back from my son to my grandchildren. My great-grandchildren are not eligible for status. With all the work that I did on this particular case, it was pushed back another generation. The termination doesn't come with my grandchildren; it comes with my great-grandchildren.

What was really important, and why I talked about the time, is that during my case the government adjourned it over and over. Because of the process, we weren't even able to get a court date. My son was 14 when we started. We got a decision in our favour, but he was 44 when he was registered. This has happened all along with the stalling.

When you guys made the legislation, you knew it was still discriminatory and what was going to happen.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Who are “you guys”?

[Sharon Mclvor]

It's you guys who make laws.

I'm talking about.... I represent my nation and all the people who came before me. You guys are in the same position. You're here making laws, and the laws made in 1920 are your responsibility. You have a responsibility, a fiduciary duty to us by virtue of subsection 91(24), and you're not upholding that. You're making us extinct by not recognizing us.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you.

Then for Marjolaine Étienne, Stats Canada says the Indian status population is growing by 4.1%. The number I have for the average Canadian population is 5.5%. This is way lower. I think there is a common theme out there that the indigenous population is growing, but I also recognize that it's the self-identified population that's growing. Status Indian membership is its own technical box, and it's only growing by 4.1%.

I've seen a few different stats in terms of when the status Indian population will peak. Right here on the Stats Canada website, it says that it won't peak before 2041, but there's nothing after that. There's no sentence saying that it will keep growing after 2041, so one can safely assume that it will peak eventually and that things will go down and entire communities will go extinct.

Have you heard fears from Quebec or some of the women you represent that their communities will go extinct in their lifetime?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're out of time right now, MP Morin. I'm sure you can bring this out in more exchanges that will happen.

We have to move on to our next person. Jaime, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking all of you for your advocacy for so many years. It's because of your advocacy that we're at a point in this government's history, in Canadian history, at which we're looking at how to get rid of the second generation cut-off. I think the overall sentiment that we've heard and that we understand is that it's time for us to get rid of these restrictive second generation cut-off rules.

When exploring this, I saw an amazing thing. Not too many pieces of legislation are discussed within our first nations community, but when I was looking at Facebook yesterday, I saw people asking for thoughts on Bill S-2. I was interested, so I was looking through them, and I'd say that about one-third of the people were saying that it's time to go with a one-parent rule. Others were unsure. Still others were saying that it's a first nation community's right to determine its own membership.

This conversation is the crux of the issue. I think we all want to figure out how to move away from the second generation cut-off, and if we look at what article 33 of UNDRIP states, we see that it recognizes the inherent right of indigenous people to determine their own identity and membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.

Pam, we've been working together on this for more than 15 years, going back to when I was the Mi’kmaq citizenship coordinator in Nova Scotia and you were talking to people about what this problem was, flagging why we need to do this for more than a decade, so I guess I'm going to turn it over to you first.

There are those who believe it's not the government's responsibility, that it should be the community's responsibility to determine their own membership, whereas you're advocating a one-parent solution that applies to everyone and every community.

Make the argument for those people at home.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Thank you so much, Jaime. It's been great working with you.

First, I want to make it very clear that there are legal differences between Indian status—which is what we're talking about with Bill S-2—band membership under sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Act, and self-government citizenship.

First nations bands already have the legal option to become a section 10 band, develop their own membership codes in consultation with their communities and manage their own membership. However, the majority of bands have chosen not to, so there are section 11 bands, which means that if someone is registered as an Indian, they're automatically a band member.

The reasoning I have heard for this is that many first nations don't want to assume the legal liability of all the discrimination that continues under Indian status. They want it cleaned up first, and then they will pass their own membership codes, so this isn't a question of membership. If a first nation wants to determine membership, it already can. It's a totally separate issue.

It's the same with self-government. If a first nation engages in the very long process—sometimes 20 years—of negotiating a self-government agreement and not using the Indian Act, it can determine its own citizenship rules. All of these options already exist.

Bill S-2 talks about the federal obligation, the federal responsibility, vis-à-vis Indian status individuals. The federal government doesn't have a legal option not to end the discrimination that's been ongoing.

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

I will continue down that line of thinking. Would it be a situation, if we were to carry Bill S-2, in which there would be status Indians who were recognized by the federal government but not recognized by their communities? How do we balance that?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

This is already the current situation. There are people who are registered and not affiliated with their first nation because, since 1985, first nations have had the ability to adopt their own membership codes, and the codes include a lot of different criteria; however, they're in the minority. For the majority of bands, this wouldn't be an issue.

Then, of the bands that do have their own membership codes, it would be a very small minority, which is already the current situation. Nothing about Bill S-2 changes that. Then bands would have to look at their own membership codes to make sure that they're in compliance with their own traditional laws, human rights laws, constitutional rights and laws and, of course, UNDRIP, but that is a separate question. We're talking about a minority that already exists. Indian Affairs already has a separate list for those that are unaffiliated.

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

I have 45 seconds left.

If there are communities that don't want the one-parent rule—and I'd say that's about 25% to 30% right now, from what I've heard—should we force this on them, or should it be something they opt into?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Definitely, there should be no ability for any first nation to say it is going to opt out of the charter equality rights, constitutional equality rights, UNDRIP equality rights or the Human Rights Act equality rights. Human rights and equality are one-size-fits-all. We all have equality in this country. It's not an option.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses who are with us again today; we met most of them a few weeks ago as part of a study. That study was perhaps broader in scope, but it was similar to the one being conducted today. I must also say that it is an honour for me to speak with Ms. McIvor, among others.

We are here to discuss Bill S‑2, and I notice that, even in the discussions, people forget to mention whether or not the Senate amendments are included. For my part, I would choose to include them. It’s been said that not everyone necessarily agrees. Personally, what I hear is that we are fully prepared to pass this bill with the Senate amendments.

I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but Ms. McIvor said it earlier: The Indian Act is a colonial law. We are legislators, but for my part, I feel a sense of unease—which I have always expressed—about being the spokesperson on indigenous affairs and having to decide the future of a nation. So it is a nation other than the one concerned that decides the future of that nation. I therefore feel uneasy and think that perhaps we should listen to those who want to and are able to make decisions regarding registration rights on behalf of their own nation, just as we would like to end the rule of exclusion after the second generation.

I would like to know if we are actually ready to vote and if, in your opinion, first nations are ready to vote on Bill S‑2 and to include the amendments.

Furthermore, what would it mean for you if the amendments were not included in the bill? Is the bill complete without the amendments?

I now give the floor to Ms. Étienne, Ms. McIvor, and Ms. Palmater. Ladies, if you do not have time to respond, please feel free to submit your response in writing to the committee.

[Marjolaine Étienne]

I will take the time to respond.

It is interesting to see the questions being raised this morning. As I listen to you, these matters resonate in my mind as well, because I believe this study on a bill concerning women, families and children in our communities is important. We must ensure that the bill and the amendments proposed by the Senate are passed as well.

I was clear in my statement. I have always maintained the same position, and I still do. I stand with first nations women, whether at the national level or in Quebec, because there have been inequalities in the past. We are all born equal.

The Indian Act was passed and implemented 150 years ago. More than 40 years have passed since 1985. That is 40 years of absence, 40 years during which things have changed. Indeed, the young people in our communities are also having children. Because of this change, we will indeed see, in the future, an increase in the number of registered children. I strongly hope that the bill will be passed once and for all.

It is clear that indigenous communities have their own governance processes, and these must be respected.

However, I would like to say something regarding consultation timelines. As a representative of the organization Quebec Native Women, I have had the opportunity to listen to indigenous women who are experiencing this issue. I was able to consult with a small group of women whom we came to know through various connections. We do not know all of them; I do not have access to the list of people applying for registration, because it is confidential, and that is as it should be.

That said, consultation does not happen overnight. There are 54 indigenous communities in Quebec. We therefore need a realistic consultation plan, created by and for indigenous women, to better understand their realities. In fact, it is not just registrations that pose a problem, but also the mental and financial health of indigenous women.

Earlier, I spoke about rights in the areas of education and health. These are indeed rights, and that is why I support all of Bill S‑2, which was developed based on General Recommendation No. 39 on the rights of indigenous women and girls. In fact, in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the word “women” appears three times, in articles 21 and 22, I believe.

General Recommendation No. 39 was adopted in November 2022. I worked with indigenous women from around the world to ensure that this recommendation accurately reflects the rights of indigenous women globally.

In this regard, I reiterate that Bill S‑2 must be passed with the amendments proposed in the Senate.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Étienne.

This ties in with what Ms. McIvor said: Failing to pass this bill could lead to extinction, which could happen very quickly. In fact, in some communities in Quebec, we can already see that this has begun.

I know I don’t have much speaking time left, but you’ll have time to finish your response during my next turn to speak. Could you tell us about some of these communities?

[Marjolaine Étienne]

Of course, this has repercussions in Quebec, as well as in all indigenous communities across Canada. This must be taken into account. I am from the Innu Nation of Mashteuiatsh, and I am proud of it, just as other women are and as other children would like to be as well.

I’ll give you an example. The report I submitted to you, which is by no means exhaustive, clearly reflects the fact that there is still exclusion of children in our communities. Children do not deserve this. Children deserve a community space where they are also recognized as first nations children and are part of cultural and community life, even if they do not have status. The repercussions are now affecting communities and children. We must put an end to this once and for all.

I believe that passing this bill will help improve things, and it must. As I told you, we are born equal. What changed our entire way of life, particularly culturally, was the implementation of the Indian Act, as well as the residential schools. Originally, indigenous women had a role to play, and they still do. Today, they wish to reclaim that role, which is the transmission of cultural knowledge, including our mother tongues. There is a decline in this regard, and if our role as women is not recognized and inequalities persist, it is certain that, in the near future, the situation could deteriorate within our nations.

Everything that this represents for women right now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Marjolaine Étienne]

I will conclude with this: Based on my experience as a woman elected in her community and having lived there, women play an important role in our communities. We must continue the work and pass this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

That's the time we have for this question. Now we move to the second round.

MP Morin will have five minutes, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll go back to Dr. Palmater, but first, Sharon McIvor mentioned something. Was it approximately $125,000 that your case cost you?

[Sharon Mclvor]

That's the approximate cost, yes.