Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Jo-Anne Green, Private Investigator, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

Kwey and good afternoon.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee and contribute to the discussion of Bill S-2. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on unceded Algonquin territory, which is my own as well.

For a bit of background, I am of Algonquin and Nipissing descent, with an unbroken line stemming back to three grand chiefs. My ancestors travelled from Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec, and rooted themselves at Baptiste Lake, Ontario. That's another name for us: Baptiste.

This connection to my family and history has helped shaped my path. I advocate for fairness and justice, with a strong commitment to addressing the complexities of defining citizenship among first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

The realities of the Indian Act registration system, including the second-generation cut-off, are not abstract issues for my family. My mother, who is now 90 years old, applied for status over 40 years ago. I applied over 25 years ago. We were denied multiple times. It was only in 2023 that we were both finally granted status cards.

That process involved years of frustration and reflects how difficult it has been to be formally recognized and connected within our own first nation of Pikwakanagan.

Through my work experience, I began to see how the second-generation cut-off continued to affect our people. In my role as the employment development officer with an indigenous organization, I worked directly with first nations individuals seeking funding for training, employment and education. One of my primary responsibilities was to verify the individual's Indian status. I consider this to be the first barrier our people encounter, because many individuals were denied, not because they lacked the connection, but because they did not meet the requirements under the second-generation cut-off rule.

This leads to the second barrier. Many of our people are not familiar with the application process outside the first nations system. The funding is often allocated within the first few months, and due to the high volume of applicants, they don't get the chance to get the funding that they would have under the first nations system.

While collaborating with urban aboriginal organizations, I learned that access is often based on connection to community, without the same generational restrictions. In contrast, the rigid restriction under the Indian Act continues to exclude individuals, based on lineage rules rooted in past sex-based discrimination.

In my opinion, the second-generation cut-off is not just a policy. It is an obstacle that continues to exclude individuals who have clear connections to their communities, limiting their access to opportunities and creating inequities that extend across generations.

In closing, after what many first nations families have gone through to be recognized under the Indian Act, the second-generation cut-off results in the exclusion of future generations, diminishing the progress that has been achieved throughout decades of effort. Further, the denial of access to first nations programs and services because of these restrictions creates layered barriers that impact the ability of first nations individuals to support themselves and their families.

I respectfully ask that Bill S-2 be passed and amended as is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Jo-Anne.

Now we go online to Lynda Price.

You have five minutes, Lynda.

[Lynda Price, Independent Consultant, Ulkatcho First Nation Member, As an Individual]

Good morning, respected members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Thank you for hearing our submissions as you deliberate proposed amendments to the Indian Act under Bill S-2.

My name is Lynda Price. I am the great-granddaughter of late chief Domas Squinas from Ulkatcho First Nation, whose ancestral lands are located in the interior of B.C. I'm a former elected chief of my community, located in Anahim Lake as well, and a former elected member of the executive of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. I'm also a former board member of the BC Assembly of First Nations. These are all positions I would not have been able to attain but for the amendments to the Indian Act under Bill C-31 in 1985.

The issue I will address is the unequal provisions under the Indian Act, in particular paragraphs 6(1)(a.3)(i) and (ii), the second-generation cut-off, which was referred to in the letter from Mr. John Gordon, the Indian registrar, to my son, Carey, who's with me today. This legislation does not permit the Indian registrar to equitably issue certificates of Indian status to siblings and their grandchildren within the same family unit, even when they have identical genealogy.

I hope you all have in front of you a copy of the chart entitled “Price Family Grandchildren”. I did a comparator group analysis. The chart demonstrates that the Indian Act legislation discriminated against my grandchildren, Liv, Millie and Lincoln, when they applied for their certificates of Indian status. Although my grandchildren have the identical family genealogy, they were not treated the same as their cousins, Zoe and Abegail. This breach of my grandchildren's section 15 charter rights was triggered when Mr. Gordon, the Indian registrar, wrote his letter and denied my grandchildren their status.

I will walk you through the Price family grandchildren chart to explain how this happened. You can see for yourselves how this discrimination and breach took place.

On the left side you will see, under “grandparents”, the name Theresa. Theresa was enfranchised when she married her non-status husband. She was reinstated under Bill C-31 in 1985. Theresa, who is my mother and Carey's grandmother, will be 99 this year. She was without her status card for about four decades.

Under “first generation”, you will see that Theresa had two children, Mike and Lynda. Mike was born in 1949 and I was born in 1959. Both children were reinstated under Bill C-31 in 1985. Both children married non-status spouses. Mike married before 1985 and I married after April 17, 1985.

Under “second generation”, you will see that Mike had a daughter, Rebecca, who was born before April 17, 1985. I had a son, Carey, born after April 17, 1985. They both received their certificates of Indian status under Bill C-3 in 2011. The dates are significant, because that is when Bill C-31 was enacted.

Under “third generation”, you will see that Mike's grandchildren, Zoe and Abegail, received their certificates of Indian status and were registered subsection 6(2). However, for my grandchildren, Liv, Millie and Lincoln, their certificates of Indian status applications were denied. The letter from Mr. John Gordon, the Indian registrar, stated that it was due to the “second-generation cut-off rule”.

We're here today to respectfully ask the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to support the correction of this inequality. The staff at the Indian registrar's office told me that if I had married my husband prior to 1985 instead of 1986, my grandchildren would have their status. That is not acceptable. Certainly, the courts would find no justification for the infringement of my grandchildren's rights in that reply when they compare my brother's grandchildren's genealogy and mine, which are identical in every respect.

I'd also like to bring to your attention the B.C. Assembly of First Nations resolution 26/2025. It states that “The BCAFN Chiefs-in-Assembly call on Canada to end all legislative and sex-based discrimination, reinstate all women and descendants affected by enfranchisement...eliminate 6(2) status and the second generation cut-off...”.

Thank you so much for hearing my submission.

Chanalya.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Meegwetch.

Next we have Carey Price.

You have five minutes, Carey.

[Carey Price, Professional Hockey Player, Ulkatcho First Nation Member, As an Individual]

Good morning, everyone. I just wanted to thank you all for hearing my submission as you review the Bill S-2 proposed amendments to the Indian Act.

My name is Carey Price. I'm a member of Ulkatcho First Nation. I'm here today to address the inequality and discrimination that my family faced under the Indian Act legislation. This happened when I attended the Indigenous Services office in Gatineau, Quebec, with my mom, to obtain my children's certificates of Indian status.

I thought it would be a straightforward process, because my cousin Rebecca obtained her children's status cards, and she has an identical family genealogy, as you can see in the chart that my mom showed you.

However, when I got home, I received letters on behalf of my children from John Gordon, Indian registrar, who stated in his letter, the following:

You are subject to the second-generation cut-off rule as you have one parent entitled under 6(2) and your other parent is not entitled to be registered under the provisions of the Indian Act. I regret to inform you that I am not able to determine that you are entitled to registration under the provisions of the Indian Act.

I agree with my mom. I think this is definitely a case of inequality and discrimination. I thought it should be pretty straightforward, being that my cousin's children are of the exact same heritage and bloodline as my own. I think this should be a pretty straightforward process.

I request that the respected members of the standing committee please review this matter and address the inequality and discrimination in this legislation. It must be corrected within the laws of Canada.

Chanalya.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you so much for sharing your family with us today. Chi-meegwetch.

Now we're going to go to Carol and Lorrie. I think Lorrie is doing the whole five minutes.

Go ahead, Lorrie.

[Lorrie Stedel, Member, Tsilhqot’in Nation (Esdilagh), As an Individual]

I'm going to do the whole five minutes.

I'm super nervous. I'm not a speaker.

My name is Lorrie Stedel. I'm here to speak about my family's experience with losing status and the 80-year struggle to get that recognition.

Under Bill C-31, my family—my mother and my siblings—was reinstated to Esdilagh, which is part of the Tsilhqot’in Nation in B.C. My family descends from John Baptiste, who resided in Williams Lake and the Alexandria area in B.C. Our heritage was never in question. However, despite this connection, our legal recognition under the Indian Act has been shaped by these government policies of our ancestral legacy.

My grandfather and great-grandfather, Jimmy and John Baptiste, were enfranchised in 1945. Records from Library and Archives clearly show the Indian agent stated we were no doubt indigenous, but they still recommended enfranchisement. This proves it was never about our identity, but a government assimilation policy. Sadly, this ignores our culture, our heritage, our language and our customs.

My family was also devastated by the Indian residential schools. This led to my grandfather Jimmy's decision to enfranchise. It was not a choice. It was a desperate act of love at the time. He watched his daughter, Hilda, my aunt, who we never got to know, get sent home from the St. Joseph’s Mission. She died in a tent outside their house.

My mother, who was born in 1929, lost her status when she was 16. However, this restoration was only half justice. She and my siblings were classified under section 6(2), even though both of her parents were indigenous. Because she didn't have status when she married in 1958, Bill C-31 didn't fully recognize our indigenous bloodline or restore our true family lineage. My siblings and I were also classified under section 6(2) as the second-generation cut-off, which meant that no future generations were eligible under my mom's line. The government handed her back with an expiration date. Our family has been in this grey area for 80 years because of the enfranchisement when she was a child, before she was even married. None of the bills have fixed it.

The classification has also created a revolving door of erasure. My mother's brothers, like some of the others have said, are my first cousins. Because they were the male line, they got status. My sister here, Carol, has been fighting for the status of her children and grandchildren since the nineties. My nieces and nephews are all directly impacted by how it created two classes of people in the same family.

I respectfully urge the committee to support the Senate and the amendments to Bill S-2 as is, and eliminate the second-generation cut-off for all. The changes are necessary to stop this ongoing impact of forced enfranchisement that other bills didn't fix to ensure that families like mine are fully recognized.

My family has lived with these impacts for over 80 years. We are not asking for something new. We're asking government to stop the erasure of our families and others like ours.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you so much, Lorrie, for sharing that.

Now we have Dave, the president of the Metis Settlements General Council.

You will have five minutes, Dave.

[Dave Lamouche, President, Metis Settlements General Council]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members around the table.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I'd just like to thank God for being here today, seeing another good day and being alive.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the Métis settlements in Alberta to support Bill S-2, particularly the deregistration provision, which directly affects the thousands of settlement members across our 1.25 million acres of constitutionally protected land in our eight settlements and communities.

I'd like to acknowledge being here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation.

Right now, there is a fundamental problem in the Indian Act that impacts our people. Many Métis individuals are registered as status Indians without their informed choice. Sometimes, this happens at birth without parental involvement.

Under the Alberta Metis Settlements Act—the MSA, our governing legislation—status Indians are generally not eligible for Métis settlement membership. The result is deeply problematic. People with strong, lifelong ties to the settlements are legally excluded from their own communities all because of the status they themselves did not choose.

This issue is not theoretical. It is happening in our communities today. Individuals with first nations status must rely on a bylaw vote process at the settlement level to try to gain membership. This process is onerous, inconsistent and often divisive. In short, it creates community tension, family division and barriers to belonging.

At a broader level, government funding programs result in friction between indigenous peoples, pitting people against one another in fighting for funding, diminishing one another's rights and creating further divisions, membership imbalances and false rationale for choosing membership that is rooted in benefits rather than belonging.

Although MSGC and the eight Alberta Métis settlements take no position as to the broadening of Indian status contemplated by Bill S-2, each time Parliament broadens eligibility for Indian status, it in turn directly affects the Métis settlements by causing more Métis settlement members to be eligible for Indian status. Ultimately, we recognize that personal choice is paramount, and in that regard, we believe strongly in the deregistration provision in Bill S-2.

Critically, there is currently no mechanism to opt out of Indian status, and this leaves people trapped in a decision they didn't make and that punishes them unfairly. Therefore, the proposed subsection 5(8) deregistration provision is a practical and necessary solution. It would allow individuals to choose their identity, align their legal status with their lived reality, remove a long-standing structural barrier, bring clarity to membership rules, reduce conflict, strengthen governance and, most importantly, support individual choice.

Again, why is this so critical to us? The courts in Canada have been clear. The Supreme Court confirmed in the Cunningham case that the MSA is a unique legislative scheme designed “to enhance Métis identity, culture, and self-governance by creating a land base for Métis.” Any allowance for individuals to hold two statuses in any government undermines that objective. It warned that this risks diluting the unique and constitutionally recognized Métis identity, which has historically emphasized distinctions from Indian identity.

Furthermore, UNDRIP affirms the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own identity and membership.

This amendment supports both individual autonomy and collective self-government. MSGC supports the inclusion of the deregistration provision in Bill S-2. This is not about limiting rights; it's about enabling choice. MSGC is of the view that the addition of proposed subsection 5(8) to the Indian Act under Bill S-2 and its consequential effect on subsection 75(3) of the MSA would assist in drawing the necessary lines as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cunningham.

We look forward to continuing to work with Canada and this committee. I welcome questions.

Kinanaskomitinawaw.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to questions with six minutes for the Conservatives.

MP Zimmer, please go ahead.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be for Carey Price.

Good day, Carey. As a fellow British Columbian, let me say we're proud of your achievements and what you've done over your lifetime already. It's good to talk to you today.

The Minister of Indigenous Services, appearing before the Senate committee on Bill S-2, said, “I am committed to finding proper solutions for First Nations, but it must be done in collaboration to address the second‑generation cut-off”.

The second-generation cut off refers to First Nations who were never given legal status, because two generations – their parents and grandparents – intermarried with people without legal status.

It ends legal status — the official recognition of a person as a First Nation rights holder, who has access to community rights and treaty rights such as hunting [and] fishing....

Carey, do you still hunt?

[Carey Price]

Absolutely. It's a big part of my life, especially now that I'm free in the fall.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

What does hunting mean to you, your family and your heritage?

[Carey Price]

It's definitely a generational activity. My grandfather was a guide in our area growing up, and sustenance hunting has been a part of our community for generations.

It's a big part of my life and what I look forward to every fall. It's something that I definitely wish to pass on to my children—the understanding of the seasonal round and the connection to nature and the outdoors that I love so much.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

You've been very outspoken against the government's gun confiscation program. As it potentially infringes on indigenous rights as well, could you comment on your feelings about the current government's and Mark Carney's gun confiscation program?

[Carey Price]

I don't think it's fair to a lot of people. I'm a law-abiding citizen. I care for my country. I care for my neighbours and I think that we should all have the ability and the right to be able to protect our families, our homes and our loved ones and not have that taken away from us.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

This is the last question from me.

If targeting gun crime and criminals and dealing with the violence on the streets is the goal like the government is saying, what can the government do better to target criminals who are getting their hands on illegal guns instead of targeting law-abiding firearms owners like yourself?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Sorry, but I wanted to clarify the relevance of the questioning to the committee's topic of discussion today. We're talking about Bill S-2—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It's about indigenous rights, and that's what's—

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

It's about the gun buyback program, Mr. Zimmer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Yes, let's get back on track and ask the questions.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I just asked the question.

Carey, if you don't mind answering the question, that'd be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Carey, keep it related to the study and the children. I think that will make it relevant.

[Carey Price]

Like I said, the outdoors is definitely a big part of our history. My children have faced discrimination, and as we were talking about, it seems pretty straightforward. I have the same genealogy as my cousins and my children's cousins have the exact same genealogy, so it should be pretty cut and dried.

I want to leave it at that for now. There's a lot of political debate about a lot of different things that can be covered at the appropriate times, but that's not right now, because this is about my children.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thanks, Carey.

I'll pass on the rest of my time to my colleague Billy Morin.