Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2026

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Day.

You were talking about waiting and time.

I want to go to Grand Chief Alatini.

Our previous witness said that she was doing court actions in the 1960s and 1970s. We've had subsequent court actions since 1985, step by step. We've heard from several witnesses that it seems as though the government's using consultation as a shield. When my colleagues from the government say that we need to get this right, I think that the testimony we've heard from across the country is that they've been telling us what the answer is since 1985 and even prior.

Even in the government's own documents, it says it's going out on this consultation phase, but its latest document also says that in November 2023, “The Minister of Indigenous Services Canada launched the Collaborative Process on the Second-Generation Cut-off and Section 10 Voting Thresholds as well as the Indigenous Advisory Process.” It started these consultation processes in 2023.

The last thing on its latest document says that in the fall of 2026 or the winter of 2027, “Memorandum to Cabinet with proposed solution(s) [will] be introduced.”

Is it using consultation as a shield? From those statements, do you have any faith that it will deal with the second generation cut-off in this current Parliament?

[Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini]

My hope is that the House—this committee—will recommend accepting the bill as it has been amended by the Senate. I honestly think that the Senate really listened to the testimony that was received and did what was required. This is extremely impactful in all of our communities.

Consultation is a shield for what we're seeing right now.

I encourage the committee members to end the second generation cut-off. We've heard it. You have so many experts telling you that this is the right step. Delaying is discrimination.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chief.

I'll go to Chief Littlechild.

Chief, you're a champion of sports. We've heard a few testimonies today, right down to families themselves, about how kids have been excluded from sport. We've seen that sport builds bridges between first nations indigenous communities and non-indigenous communities.

Have you witnessed how the second generation cut-off has torn people apart, even in sport, when it comes to the youth or indigenous people in general?

[Wilton Littlechild]

Thank you for that important observation.

Let me begin by thanking all of you. Yesterday I was notified that the sports allocation in the economic statement was enhanced quite substantially. For lots of years, we've been saying that more investment in sport reduces health care costs. There's a ratio that one dollar for sports equals $26 of health care costs. I hope this balance will sort itself out in the future.

To go to your question, it's a really serious issue, currently. As a new incoming chair for Hockey Canada on indigenous participation, I heard stories last week, and the weekend before we had our provincial championships in Alberta, both native championships and treaty championships. There were stories about exclusion, as you heard about this morning. There are more stories about negative impacts that are racial.

There's one arena, for example, I'm told, in which adults form a line in football. I forget what it's called. You have a line, and everybody tackles you, hits you or bumps you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds left, Chief.

[Wilton Littlechild]

The adults are doing that to young children in hockey arenas. It's overflowing with racial discrimination and even hatred in some cases.

Sport has the power to advance reconciliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Wilton Littlechild]

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

There will be more opportunities for questions and answers.

Jaime, you're next for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

My first question goes to Mary Eberts. I believe the second generation cut-off is discriminatory in its restrictiveness towards first nations' passing on their descent. It's been mentioned that it's also discriminatory towards women. I haven't seen a gender analysis or a court case recently that looks at subsections 6(1) and 6(2) and says that is discriminatory either for gender or for race purposes.

You are someone who used to research this, who published on it and who was the Mi'kmaq citizenship coordinator for many years. As such, do you know if there has been a recent precedent that has stated that this specific portion of the Indian Act is discriminatory in gender or race?

[Mary Eberts]

I think we have to look at the cases that have already taken place, which are the McIvor case and the Descheneaux case. There certainly are lots of statements in there about the gender and sex discrimination of the second generation cut-off.

I take your point that there has not yet been a case analyzing sex discrimination in the requirement of two parents, but I have analyzed that myself, and it is serious. Some people have spoken about that this morning. It is very easy to tell who is a mother. It is not as easy to tell who has donated sperm for the creation of a child. The other thing about this is that women face not knowing the father of the child in situations of rape or gang rape. They also face intimidation in situations of incest for not being able to put the name of a known father on the certificate.

The two-parent rule is absolutely ripe for successful section 15 challenges.

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

If you could do a gender analysis sometime, and send me an email, that would be great. I'd love to read the analysis. We don't have time for that now.

I really wanted to get to Wilton.

We spoke at the United Nations about this. I'm happy to have you here.

Are status and membership things that are only being discussed in Canada? How do our neighbours to the south in America handle this status and membership question?

[Wilton Littlechild]

They approach it quite differently, in the sense that they have a blood quantum rule that they use. The blood quantum approach is starting to spill into our area through customs, through the border and the border issues. Our people are now being asked to show their blood quantum before they're allowed into the United States. The U.S. approach is very different in that way. We don't use that approach here.

The interesting discussion that's currently being held, and that we've gone through already, is their boarding school experience and the impact of boarding schools on the Indian tribes in the United States, because with that, too, there's a path similar to what we've experienced in Canada. They both are culminating in the same question: How do we go forward in a good way?

Although they use that blood quantum approach and we don't, there's still good news in the sense that there's a solution for a way forward, but that solution has to include a treaty lens. That's our main concern, because treaty membership is being impacted as well. There are some estimations that there will no longer be any treaty Indians pretty soon and thus no treaties, so the American approach may be necessary as well.

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

Thank you, Wilton.

I know that I have only about one minute left, but I wanted to be sure of something. We've had conversations about this committee's continued involvement with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. There have been some discussions, Mr. Chair, and I think it's okay for me to read into the record what we had agreed to in December when we tabled a notice of motion:

That the committee undertake a review of key findings, recommendations, and themes originating from the Permanent Forum Session Report of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and that the committee allocate at least one meeting to this topic each calendar year, following the tabling of the official report from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).

I think there's unanimous consent to get this done. I wanted to make it official, because I know that we might be the first country to make time as a Parliament to get an overview of what the UN permanent forum talked about that year. I think it's historic, and I want to thank you for your advocacy on this in making sure that this is a reality.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Jaime. I saw nodding heads.

(Motion agreed to)

It's been read into the record and duly noted. Thank you very much. It carries.

Now we'll go online to MP Gill, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank the witnesses joining us today.

Obviously, I'm pleased that we can study UN reports, for example. This is necessary, but I also hope that concrete action will be taken. Regarding Bill S‑2, even today, some witnesses raised the consultation issue. In my view, based on the witnesses I've heard, we're ready to vote on Bill S‑2, as well as on the amendments, of course, which are important to just about all the witnesses we've heard from. I can't speak for those who have not yet appeared.

Since I have five minutes left and there are five of you, I suggest that each of you speak for one minute to add your comments. I'd also like you to tell us whether you believe Parliament is ready to vote on the bill, so that this doesn't drag on any longer and, of course, so that the genocide stops. I know that some have already done so, such as Ms. Alatini, in her opening remarks.

Let's start with Ms. Eberts, since she's the first one I see on the screen.

Once again, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Go ahead. You have one minute each. I'll try to keep time for you.

[Mary Eberts]

At the conclusion of my introductory remarks, I said that Parliament's passing Bill S-2 will not preclude consultation. Consultation is very important, but my view is that it should be consultation about how to move on from here, rather than looking at what we can possibly do about past discrimination.

Moving on from here involves questions like these: Do first nations have enough resources? What are we going to do about the damage that has already been done? Do we need legislation to repair the situation of families, for example, in which the children are all in different situations and some may not have status?

Consultation is extremely important. This is acknowledged in UNDRIP, but so are the abolition of assimilation and the repairs for assimilation. The consultation can very nicely be about the repairs for the past assimilation and measures that were included in section 6 in 1985.

I'm not saying no to consultation. I am saying that we can pass the act first and then consult on how best to create a better world for those who have been harmed by what Justice McIntyre called the “evil” of discrimination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

There are two minutes left for any takers.

Shelagh has her hand up.

Go ahead.

[Shelagh Day]

I agree with what Mary Eberts has just said. I'd like to add that over this long period when we've been trying to deal with sex discrimination in the Indian Act, consultation has never led to a change to the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Those changes have come about only through litigation and through Senate amendments to litigation that were introduced for a narrow reason.

We need to look at what the history of consultation is with respect to getting rid of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. There is no record that it works.

I agree with Mary. We need to pass this legislation as quickly as possible and pivot to the future and how we're going to repair the harms that have been done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

There is one more minute left. Do we have some hands up?

Go ahead.

[Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini]

Thank you.

I'll add that I absolutely agree that passing the bill as it appears right now is the right thing to do. I absolutely agree with consultation on the remedies to the discriminatory impacts of the Indian Act.

I'll take it a step further with regard to modern treaty holders. There needs to be discussion about the reconciliation between modern treaty citizenship lists or membership lists versus Indian Act band lists, as well as the reconciling of programs and services that modern treaty holders deliver to their communities through those registry lists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next on the list we have Eric for five minutes, please.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I want to thank all of those who have joined us for this important discussion.

When we look at all that we've discussed today and through other meetings, we see that there are different layers of conversation, if I could phrase it that way. There's the discussion of the second generation cut-off itself as a whole. There's a discussion of this legislation and a discussion of the amendments. We've heard loud and clear, from witnesses today and at other meetings, about the desire to see this pass with the amendments that have been made in the Senate.

I want to come to you, Chief Littlechild—if I can start with you—and lean on your expertise to speak to what the substantive effect would be if those amendments were to be removed. It's a hypothetical situation so that those of us around this table, as well as Canadians and those who might be watching, can understand what that effect would be.

[Wilton Littlechild]

For one interesting positive outcome, we could look at the lead from the Supreme Court of Canada, if I may use that example. In their decision on the Bill C-92 case from Quebec, they looked at the approach that I was advocating, in which you have the three elements—the UN declaration, treaty and the TRC calls to action—as a cluster. Maybe we can take that cluster and create a new legal space for a path forward. We could have the example I gave you of a treaty-based government as a solution to the challenge we have collectively on discrimination, racism and so on, relying on traditional laws, incorporating this into their own constitution and merging it with Canadian law.

I think we need to recognize there are possible ways forward. Sometimes we have to create a new legal space of recognition. The example I'm using works. It's working for that nation through their constitution, through their own law, and incorporating traditional practices to create a way forward for their own nation that deals with the discriminatory challenges we're talking about through Bill S-2.