Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2026

[Kathryn Fournier]

Thank you for your question.

I have to say that I don't use the word “émancipation” when I talk about the situation in French. I say “enfranchisement” because the word “emancipation” reminds us of the emancipation of slaves. There may be some similarities, but I don't use that word.

My mother spoke of the “enfranchisement” she experienced when she was younger. She knew who she was. She was the child of two people who belonged to a particular community but had left it to spend several years at a residential school. As a result, she didn't feel a sense of belonging to that community. We've also heard other witnesses speak of that same feeling. It was very significant for her in her life.

In one of the two other families involved in the legal case Mr. Beaton mentioned, there was an enfranchisement process so that the children wouldn't be required to attend residential school, because at one point, it was mandatory for indigenous children. Those people described by the other witnesses experienced the exact same thing: a sense of disconnection and a lack of belonging to their community.

I also think about my children. I've had my status since the steps my mother took in 1985, but my children weren't entitled to it, even though their grandmother is indigenous. Above all, it is about being able to identify as members of their community, and speak openly and proudly of their heritage.

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

Do you think Bill S‑2 needs further modifications in order to settle the “enfranchisement” issue, or is the clause that talks about it sufficient as it is?

[Ryan Beaton]

Both versions of the bill would resolve the issue raised in our litigation. As I mentioned, the plaintiffs asked me to tell the committee that the narrower bill should not be passed on their behalf. There's no reason why Parliament should limit itself to the narrower remedy proposed in the initial version of the bill. Parliament could certainly be allowed to debate and adopt broader remedies.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Our last questions go to MP Gill.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Two witnesses, Ms. Lavell Harvard and Mr. Bentley, didn't have an opportunity to answer my question, so I'll briefly restate it: Are we ready to pass this bill, with the Senate's amendments, without consultation?

I'll give them some time to respond.

[Steven Bentley]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that.

The issues have affected our community in several very stringent ways. The community was one community, and it was severed at the time of treaty, when we were cookie cut into several distinct bands. There was a remnant that was processed under law and removed from the communities and therefore had to try to exist.

Over time, we impacted the registered communities, because we were still related by family and we married into or married out of those communities. As one issue, I have nephews who were born on or into a treaty community, and they experience the same rejection, I guess you would call it, because they don't have the same status. Even though they have Bill S-2 status, it's not enough for them to be fully appreciated by the community as full members.

Other things have happened that dispersed our people quite a bit, so it's been harder for us to keep our community history together, but whenever we come together at any event, our history blooms and comes back. It shows that we still have a vibrant and strong connection although it has been impacted by the enfranchisement rules.

These were very historic, but they impacted a historical Indian community that was extant when Canada showed up, and they chose to have different rules than the imperial Crown. In this way, we were treated in a separate and different way and processed differently than, say, peoples in Ontario or Quebec. There are differences in that way as well.

It has impacted our people in many ways, too, because we have this strong loss of a sense of identity, and even though we were present in the diaspora and we were always recognized as being Indian, we never had any connection to express that. It was very frustrating, because in many ways we experienced the racism from both sides over that time, and it's been difficult to comprehend.

With the passing of Bill S-2, I think that restoration would be complete.

As far as—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

That's all the time we have.

Thank you ever so much for your testimony and sharing your stories. This is very important.

Chi-meegwetch.

We're going to suspend and go to our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Welcome back, everybody.

We're going to start with the testimony online.

From the Council of Yukon First Nations, we have Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini.

You will have five minutes to present, and I'll give you a 30-second warning to wrap it up.

Thank you. You may proceed.

[Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini, Council of Yukon First Nations]

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to speak.

[Witness spoke in Southern Tutchone and provided the following text:]

Danche eyinje Mathieya. luan Mün a keyi kwaché.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hi, my name is Math’ieya; I come from Kluane Lake area.

[English]

I'm zooming in from the traditional territory of Kwanlin Dün and Ta'an Kwäch'än Council in Whitehorse, Yukon.

My name is Math’ieya Alatini. I serve as the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations and as the AFN Yukon regional chief. I'm a citizen and former chief of Kluane First Nation, a self-governing nation and modern treaty holder in southwest Yukon.

I'm speaking today as a representative of Yukon first nations—that is, 11 modern treaty holders and three nations still under the Indian Act. All of those nations carry both the promise and the burden of Canada's laws.

I want to begin by thanking the senators for truly listening to first nations' testimony and understanding that testimony, as well as for having the wisdom and, as my mom says, the gumption to amend Bill S-2 to end the second generation cut-off. I want to state clearly that we support the swift passage of Bill S-2 exactly as amended by the Senate.

I speak to you today as a subsection 6(2) status Indian whose family has survived several generations of Indian Act discrimination. My 97-year-old grandmother lost her status after having children with a non-status first nations man, or an enfranchised first nations man. My mother was enfranchised not because she was any less Dene or Kluane but because of an arbitrary Indian Act clause. The Indian Act turned a family matter into a tool of assimilation. My mother was later reinstated under Bill C-31 as a 6(1), and I am now a 6(2). My children's other parent does not have status, so my line ends with me.

This is not reconciliation; this is legislated extinction. The system divides our families into haves and have-nots, barring kids from programs and services and turning identity into paperwork. In the Yukon, we see this every day in health, education and sport when non-status first nations kids are excluded from activities with their status cousins. They're turned away from tournaments that build connection and pride. In civic life, non-status family members cannot vote or lead in some of their home nations. This erodes identity and community belonging. In public health and safety, in the time of opioid poisonings and violence, anything that disconnects our youth from people within our communities deepens their risk.

“Reconciliation” is a verb, and it requires action once the truth is known. The truth is that the second generation cut-off is a discriminatory extinction policy. This has been known since 1982, before it was even implemented in 1985. If this government truly cares about reconciliation and not merely litigation management, then it must address all the known discriminatory laws now, not later. Later is not neutral. Every day you wait, more children are cut off.

Bill S-2 must move through the committee urgently to make reconciliation real for the kids impacted by this before the House rises for the summer. Don't make these kids wait another 40 years. Now is the time for action, not weaponizing consultation and conflating Indian status with band membership or citizenship to confuse people, and it's certainly not time to conveniently misinterpret the UN declaration to delay justice.

I want to make clear how much support from first nations there is for this change. In December, I witnessed how chiefs from across Canada worked together to draft a strong, collaborative resolution in support of the passing of Bill S-2, as amended, to end the second generation cut-off without delay and to support a federal framework for implementation after it passes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds, Chief.

[Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini]

This resolution was adopted unanimously at the AFN special chiefs assembly with widespread support. The path is clear. Pass Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate to ensure Canada's compliance with international law and our Constitution, which apply equally to male and female persons. Those who are pushed out must be able to pass on status on equal terms. The second generation cut-off discriminates on the basis of race and sex and must be ended to uphold section 15 of the charter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next, from the Feminist Alliance for International Action, we have Shelagh Day, chair of the human rights committee.

You have five minutes, please.

[Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee, Feminist Alliance for International Action]

Thank you very much for this invitation and for allowing me to present to you this morning.

The Feminist Alliance is a member of the Indian Act sex discrimination working group and calls on this committee and the Government of Canada to support Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate and pass it into law without further delay.

Today I want to talk to you about forced assimilation. Since its introduction, the goal of the Indian Act has been to erase first nations people and absorb them into the non-indigenous population. Settler governments have used many different strategies to control and erase first nations peoples in order to acquire their lands and resources through killing, scalping, starvation, residential schools, forced sterilization and sex discrimination in the status registration provisions of the Indian Act.

The devastating role that sex discrimination in the Indian Act has played in diminishing the size and strength of first nations communities is too often overlooked. By denying first nations women and their descendants Indian status, Canada has forced them into the non-indigenous population, reducing the pool of Indians to whom Canada owes a fiduciary duty. This has hurt the women, their descendants and their nations.

Let us be clear: Status is a legal invention of the Government of Canada. It defines which individuals the government recognizes as holders of indigenous rights and title and who is entitled to benefits and access to programs and services designed for first nations. Canada confers status; when Canada takes it away, it is a profound punishment.

Because the effects of pre-1985 sex discrimination are now entangled with the second generation cut-off, the 1985 cut-off and the two-parent rule, women and their descendants remain at a disadvantage with respect to status and transmission of status even in 2026, 150 years later. However, in 1985, when Canada began ever so slowly to discard bits of the sex discrimination, Canada did not stop its program of forced assimilation but broadened it. Canada introduced half status, or 6(2) status, for the first time and barred transmission of status to those with a parent and grandparent who married out, ensuring that it could continue to reduce the pool of Indians.

The Indian Act sex discrimination working group is grateful to Indigenous Services Canada for publishing the data on percentages of 6(2) status holders in every band in the country, as this permits everyone to see that the extinction of status Indians is the inevitable result of the second generation cut-off, as is the elimination of bands and reserves.

There is no question that the second generation cut-off violates article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That article guarantees indigenous people the right not to be forcibly assimilated. Canada officially endorsed the declaration, as Dawn said this morning, and passed legislation in June 2021 that commits Canada to ensuring that domestic laws mirror the rights set out in the declaration.

If this commitment is real, Canada must get rid of the second generation cut-off now. In addition to extinguishing first nations in the near future, the second generation cut-off harms first nations, individuals and families right now. First nations women know too well the harms caused by decades of exclusion, which fractures identity and breaks people and communities in social and psychological ways. The second generation cut-off is now visiting these same harms on young first nations women and men.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds, Shelagh.

[Shelagh Day]

Okay.

In 1967, Pierre Trudeau famously said, “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”, but the state has been in the bedrooms of first nations since 1876 and is still there. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said that a core Canadian value is the freedom for individuals to embrace their identity and love whom they choose. He was speaking about the characters in Heated Rivalry. Unfortunately, the value he expressed seems to apply to gay men but not to first nations.

I'm encouraging you to pass this immediately.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thanks, Shelagh.

Next, we have Mary Eberts online.

Go ahead, Mary. You have five minutes.

[Mary Eberts, Lawyer, Law Office of Mary Eberts]

Thanks very much.

I speak today in support of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill S-2, and I urge its swift passage by the House of Commons.

I am a constitutional lawyer. I taught at the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, and I have held chairs at the law schools of the University of Ottawa and the University of Saskatchewan. I have, for many years, also practised constitutional and charter law, and I appeared as counsel in the McIvor, Descheneaux and Gehl cases. That is the perspective I bring to you today.

This hearing is the latest stage in a long struggle—almost 70 years—for justice for women who lost status, and their children.

I honour one of your other witnesses today, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, who was one of the plaintiffs in a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1974 attacking the marrying-out rules. The Supreme Court ruled against Jeannette Lavell and her co-plaintiff Yvonne Bédard, holding that the marrying-out provision did not violate equality before the law but might well violate equality under the law.

Nationwide efforts were made, successfully, to have a guarantee of equality under the law included in section 15 in order to make a strong guarantee. The case of Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia was the first one decided on section 15, in 1989. Recognizing the contribution of indigenous women to the development of section 15, Justice McIntyre said, in that case, “The worst oppression will result from discriminatory measures having the force of law. It is against this evil that s. 15 provides a guarantee.” That is a Supreme Court judge describing what is going on under the Indian Act now.

The marrying-out rule did not appear in Bill C-31. Paragraph 6(1)(c) restored status to women who lost it upon marriage, but that did not end the matter. As of 1985, the couple headed by a male who had given status to his wife and the couple in which the wife regained status lost upon marriage were not on an equal footing, nor were their children. Challenges to these inequalities in the McIvor and Descheneaux cases produced legislative changes but did not put the maternal and paternal lines of descent on an equal footing.

What kept the descendants of the maternal line in a subordinate position, and still does, was the 1985 cut-off. They had to be born before April 17, 1985, or of a marriage contracted before that date, in order to take advantage of the equality conferred by the amendments to section 6. These provisions assign and confine people, years and years after 1985, to the pre-1985 era, when women were denied equality with men. Descendants of such women are told, now, that you can only have rights under the charter if you are in the same position Jacob Grismer was in, in 1985, all those years ago.

This committee is at a crucial moment. It can accept the Senate amendments and recommend that Parliament end the discrimination now, or it can insist on keeping the present provisions in effect longer, continuing to threaten the very existence of many first nations. What will keep them in effect? Consultations will keep them in effect, as will people despairing of this process and bringing litigation. The provisions will remain in effect as long as the litigation takes.

I urge Parliament to act now instead of abdicating its legislative power in favour of the judiciary. We now know that the 2017 version of the two-parent rule, second generation cut-off and 1985 cut-off violate the charter, just as their predecessors were found to do. We do not need more litigation to establish that.

In the years before this legislation comes into effect, consultations with first nations can proceed not on whether to end the discrimination—there's no option about that, as it must end—but on how to transition into an ordered world without discrimination, which provides opportunity and belonging to children from either the paternal or the maternal line of descent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Littlechild Law and Dr. Wilton Littlechild, international lawyer.

Go ahead, Chief. You have five minutes.

[Wilton Littlechild, International Lawyer, Littlechild Law]

[Witness spoke in Cree]

I bring greetings in my language, Mr. Chairman, to all of you.

I have a brief note that I want to share with you, but first I want to thank the Great Spirit for blessing us with another day of life.

Honourable members, I address you briefly to build on the strength of your work. Before I share a story, allow me to thank you for your ongoing courage to lead our nation during challenging times globally.

Last week, the second global summit for indigenous peacebuilding was held during the 25th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I thank all the delegations from Canada, including some of you here today, for your ongoing contributions to advance reconciliation, peace and justice. Of particular importance were the discussions on Bill S-2, which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll share with you. First, however, let me go back to the work since the introduction of Bill S-2. Our two delegations that presented before you would like to reaffirm the interventions made then and restate our call for a treaty lens through which we must consider ways forward.

Today, I'd like to propose that we consider together a solution with three elements to it. The three elements are similar to the braid of sweetgrass with the three strands. The strands are the UN declaration, with the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action; and the treaty—in our case, Treaty No. 6.

As we look at those three things, I want to tell you the story of how a Cree nation took an approach, which started in 1981 and 1982. After ceremonies for permission, they decided to put into writing a constitution, a treaty-based constitution. On this foundation is a treaty-based government and treaty-based laws. One of those laws is a citizen's law, or a membership law. Implementing the TRC call to action number 43 as a treaty-based government, they incorporated the declaration's articles on treaty enforcement into their constitution.

As it is settled law that treaty rights are human rights, they also follow a declaration that Cree is the official language in their territory. They're currently reviewing their citizen's law, taking into consideration what courts have decided recently, so as to ensure that they respect all four elements of treaty and are in compliance with at least seven articles of the UN declaration, together with the enhancements by the American declaration.

Within this legal framework are the same considerations of Bill S-2, which were the subject of discussions last week at the United Nations. Coincidentally, a 40th year report was tabled last week at the UN, and wouldn't you know it, there's a section on Bill S-2. If I may, I'll quote a couple of sentences from it, Mr. Chairman:

The path forward for Bill S-2 appears uncertain.... As a result, Bill S-2 will likely face debate and proposed amendments in the House of Commons, further delaying justice for First Nations women and their descendants.

There is also a resolution, which was adopted by delegations in New York, that resulted in a letter that has been submitted to the Prime Minister on Bill S-2. Of course, it's calling for the immediate adoption of the Senate bill. Within this legal framework, we would like to submit for your consideration a copy of the letter, which has a lot of signatures, supporting the adoption of Bill S-2 immediately.

With that, I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you so much, Chief. Please submit that letter to our clerk so that we can circulate it.

Next we have the Ontario Native Women's Association, Ingrid Green, director of research and evaluation. You will have five minutes.

[Ingrid Green, Director of Research and Evaluation, Ontario Native Women's Association]

Meegwetch.

Greetings, honourable members of Parliament. I am Ingrid Green, the director of research and evaluation at the Ontario Native Women's Association. Founded in 1971, ONWA is the oldest and largest indigenous women's organization in Canada. We have over 50 years of experience in listening to, supporting and advocating for indigenous women, including first nations women and their descendants. The issue of sex discrimination in the Indian Act was one of the catalysts for the formation of the indigenous women's movement in Canada, including establishing ONWA as an agency.

I am here today urgently calling for your support of the Senate committee's amendments to Bill S-2 without further delay. It is ONWA's position that first nations women have the right to our indigenous identities, culture, community and nations, as well as the right to pass on our identity and culture to our children. While Bill S-2 is the start, the amendments are needed to fully remedy all the remaining and residual discrimination stemming from previous versions of the Indian Act. Without these amendments, we risk further perpetuating the profound and lasting harm to first nations.

I want to speak about this harm, in particular the ongoing impacts of sex discrimination on first nations women and their families. The loss of status and band membership from “marrying out” has over time been linked with the appallingly high rates of gendered colonial violence that indigenous women continue to experience, including human trafficking and the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls crisis. First nations women spoke to this at the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the 1990s. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls also linked sex discrimination in the Indian Act with these high rates of violence against us. The consequences of the legislated discrimination are deadly. The violence against us has been rising at an exponential rate since the national inquiry was launched in 2016. In fact, it has doubled.

In addition to the gendered colonial violence we face, many first nations women experience trauma, poor health, addictions, poverty and homelessness, which lead to further intergenerational harm through colonial systems. These challenges are then greatly compounded by the lack of access to community and cultural supports.

Since 1985 Canada's approach to fixing the two-tiered and convoluted status provisions has displaced first nations women and their children from their families, communities and nations, denying them the right to equal enjoyment of their identities, cultures, languages and lands. Previous attempted remedies have not been able to fully repair what was lost. The establishment of levels of status resulted in social divisions and, too often, lateral violence. First nations women under subsection 6(2) bear the brunt of this colonial violence. The divisions and lateral violence within first nations communities are aggravated by ongoing underfunding from the federal government, which positions new registrants as a threat to first nations already grappling with a scarcity of resources.

Committee members, the rights of first nations women should not be pitted against the collective rights of our communities. It is time not only to listen to first nations women but also to act on our recommendations. With respect to the path forward, we implore this committee to fully, and with urgency, end the sex discrimination in the Indian Act and endorse the amendments to Bill S-2. This includes amendments to remove the second generation cut-off by returning to a one-parent rule for transmission of status. Failure to eliminate the second generation cut-off will allow numbers of registered Indians to decline, eventually leading to the extinction of status Indians and entire communities, as you have heard from several witnesses already. A one-parent rule tackles not only the urgent issue of extinction but also sex discrimination. This rule effectively legislates who first nation peoples can fall in love with. They should not have to choose their partners based on the ability to pass their rights to their children.

I want to close by saying that amending the legislation is just one step. First nations must also be financially supported to welcome those who have been displaced from their community through forced assimilation. This is central to meeting Canada's fiduciary duties.

Honourable members, ONWA calls on each of you to support the amendments to Bill S-2 as endorsed by the Senate and by the United Nations Human Rights Committee just last month in their review of Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is an opportunity for a unified act of reconciliation. Our survival as first nations in Canada and our very lives, safety and well-being as first nations women depend on it.

Meegwetch. Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Chi-meegwetch.

Let's go to questions and answers.

First off, for the Conservatives for six minutes, we have MP Morin, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

This question has been about discrimination. We've heard some legal precedents in terms of not discriminating while you uphold that discrimination.

I want to go to Ms. Shelagh Day. She mentioned a comment by the Prime Minister. I want to allow her to finish her comment, which may have been stopped a little bit early.

Can you finish your last comment that you were making? You were quoting the Prime Minister.

[Shelagh Day]

Thank you for the invitation to finish.

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau famously said in 1967 that there's “no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” The state has been in the bedrooms of first nations since 1876, and it is still there, deciding who can be an Indian.

Another prime minister, Mark Carney, said two months ago, when he celebrated the stars of Heated Rivalry, that a core Canadian value is the freedom for individuals to embrace their identity and love who they choose. Unfortunately, that value seems to apply to gay men but not to first nations. Canada is robbing young indigenous women and men of their identities and forcing them to choose partners based on Indian status—not love.

In 2026, all the victims of the second generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off are being told to wait. They can't wait longer. They should not be asked to wait longer. They should not be put in the terrible position that they are in now.