Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Dave Lamouche]

In terms of status, yes, but there's two-parent and one-parent.

There's no cut-off. You can keep allowing people in, but for regular members, no. If you marry, say, a Caucasian, you can keep marrying Caucasians down the line and still be a Métis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

Next, we have MP Greaves for five minutes.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate their testimony this afternoon and that of the previous witnesses. I think it really underscores the layers of complexity that surround questions of indigenous rights, status and identity in Canada. We have these layers of constitutional, political and judicial structures that seem fairly abstract in many ways. Then we hear personal stories about how these 50,000-foot concepts have affected people's lives in very fundamental ways.

One of our previous witnesses made reference to the Garden River First Nation in northern Ontario, which is a place my family has connections with. My grandmother, who was non-indigenous, had two sisters who both married first nations men. They gained status for themselves and their children as a result of that. We can see how, within a single family tree, you can have non-indigenous people, status Indians and non-status indigenous people. It's within all that complexity that we need to try to make good decisions in order to address the injustices and discrimination of the past.

This leads me to my question. I'll direct this first to Mrs. Price.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

In previous testimony to the Senate, you emphasized that “any amendments to the Indian Act [must be] consistent with the indigenous and human rights affirmed by the UN Declaration and meet the requirement of Free, Prior and Informed Consent.”

I'm wondering if we could explore that a bit—the contradiction that enters in because of the fact that the Indian Act was not, of course, a piece of legislation indigenous peoples consented to. It was imposed on them and affected their family structures and rights in such fundamental ways.

How can we reconcile this different set of principles—needing to address the discrimination that still exists in the Indian Act, and the gender-based discrimination against women from first nations families in particular, while meeting the UN declaration's standard of free, prior and informed consent for any changes to the act that would affect the rights of indigenous peoples?

[Lynda Price]

I was the chief when the Province of B.C. and the federal government introduced legislation. They called it the Declaration Act. Basically, it was a piece of legislation at the provincial and federal levels to address issues arising from...and also to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think government did its best to try to address some of those issues within that legal framework.

Our communities are also looking at ways and means as they move into.... In British Columbia, there have been a number of treaties signed. Across Canada, there are treaties that have been signed, but a lot of communities don't have those. I was elected to the executive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, so I had to address many of the discrimination issues that arise by having legislation put in place, or consultation processes put in place, without even our consent. I think free, prior and informed consent is an important part of the UN declaration to ensure that, no matter what, we're all part of coming up with solutions. There's nothing worse than having something put in place over you, whether it be status legislation, gun legislation or any type of legislation...without consulting with the communities.

However, this amendment coming with Bill S-2 has been in the works for several decades. It's been an issue since Bill C-31 was introduced. It was almost as if the people accepted Bill C-31 under duress because it gave status back to some of us, at least—like my mom, who'd been without status for four decades, and like me, who'd been without status for two decades. That was good.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

If I could jump in on that on that point, Mrs. Price, please, just to narrow in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I'm sorry, MP Greaves, we're right at the five-minute mark now.

Thank you very much.

MP Gill, you are the last spot for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that people are trying to pit the issue of consultations with the first nations against their right to be themselves, to have their own identity and to be able to pass this identity on to their children. I would like to see the government hold consultations in other situations, such as for Bill C‑5, which was passed last June, or for all current major projects. The consultation must always take place.

Ms. Price, as you said, the consultation was carried out. I'll simply give you the floor, since I had to interrupt you earlier. To wrap up our conversation with this panel of witnesses, could you tell us what we should keep in mind? We're talking about consultations, but you spoke about Bill C‑31. I think that we should act now. A countdown has begun for a number of communities and grandchildren.

[Lynda Price]

Thank you for the opportunity to answer that very important question.

I believe that the Assembly of First Nations made it very clear in its resolution number 54/2025 that if we don't amend the Indian Act to address the second-generation cut-off, it's going to affect the future members of our communities.

My mother, for instance, is the granddaughter of Chief Domas Squinas. He is my great-grandfather. When your grandparents leave you land, it's passed down to the next generation. However, the Indian Act discriminates and basically all of our wills have to be approved by Indian Affairs. If our grandchildren don't have their status cards, we can't pass that down to our grandchildren.

It's very important for us to work together to resolve this issue because not only is it breaking the laws of Canada and breaching the Charter of Rights for our grandchildren, but it's also creating division.

I always respect our elders and our leaders in our community for recognizing the fact that in order for us to be successful, we have to work together and we have to resolve this issue.

We've been consulted, consulted and consulted. This has been going on for decades. This has to be corrected. It can't be left undone.

I truly pray and hope that you would follow the lead of the Senate and accept those amendments moving forward. Honestly, we'll all be better for it. Our communities will be healthier and we, as members and status card holders, will be able to participate fully in leadership. Without that, I would never have been able to serve in my community as an elected leader.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank so much for that answer.

On that, we will conclude the meeting. I would like to thank all the witnesses here today for sharing their story and their families' stories.

Chi-meegwetch. I wish everyone the best.

I'm asking the committee to adjourn.

Go, Habs, go!

The meeting is adjourned.