Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

The government always says “nation to nation”. They use that a lot, but I don't think they go to the United States, France or any nation they have a relationship with and tell a president or a member of a legislative body that we don't recognize their child, so they're not going to be a country going forward.

If they're saying “nation to nation”, are they living up to it in this regard?

[Hayden Guilderson]

I'm not sure of the exact details of your question in that manner, but there's the key aspect that all of our community members need to be recognized and need to be included in our communities. As I mentioned, Tzeachten has already taken steps to do that, but not having the Canada status, the recognition of that, is an impact and a barrier.

Quite frankly, it's causing a bit of divisiveness in our community, because as a council, we do our best to create equal classification of all members, but at the end of the day, there's always going to be a disconnect between status members and non-status members. That's a difficult thing to deal with.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Absolutely.

Grand Chief Fiddler, the government's latest documents, when they started the second-generation cut-off in this latest round of consultations in 2023, indicated they want to go to 2027. Do you think they're using consultation as a shield to delay this?

[Grand Chief Alvin Filddler]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear that. You mentioned the consultation timeline.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Do you think they're using consultation as a shield? I ask because their latest thing is that they started these consultations in 2023, and they want to go to 2027. Are they using consultation as a delay tactic?

[Grand Chief Alvin Filddler]

I would like to know who they're consulting, first of all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That's all the time we have. Perhaps this will come out through more questions, and you'll be able to answer.

Your time is done, MP Morin.

Welcome to Steven Guilbeault, who is subbing in today.

Next up for questioning is Lori for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. It's important that you share all your experiences with us.

My first question is for Alvin.

You gave more of a personal testimony today, and you said that you'd submit your written testimony. In your personal testimony, do you think that you reflected the views of your nation, or was that more of a personal story that you wanted to share?

[Grand Chief Alvin Filddler]

We have been meeting with our own leadership on this very important issue. We just had our spring assembly in March, where the 49 chiefs of NAN gathered, along with our elders council, youth council and women's council. This is what they talk about. This is important to them.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you so much.

My next questions are for Senator Audette.

Thank you for sharing as well.

It really hadn't connected for me that Minister Gull-Masty was aware of the one-parent rule. Do you think that because of where she's from, she's an expert on that kind of approach when it comes to self-determination?

[Michèle Audette]

I would say she does. I cannot speak for her, but my understanding, with respect, is that she understands, and she mentioned there are some realities that could be improved. That tells me that in any society, we have the duty to improve every day as human beings or as a collective.

As a former president of Quebec Native Women—and I was not talking on behalf of all women, but members of the organization—I know it was clear that the James Bay agreement with the Inuit, the Naskapi and the Cree, with the way they recognize their people and the one-parent rule, was for us a big hope that one day this would also be implemented for first nation women.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

When she suggests, for example, that she is concerned about the one-parent rule being a one-size-fits-all approach, should we not be listening to her?

[Michèle Audette]

I would say this is where I have a personal problem. Right now, the Indian Act is a one-size-fits-all approach, if I may use your example, but if a nation has a modern treaty, it has an opportunity to change.

It's sometimes okay to change the Indian Act for a specific region or community. Also, a chief cannot speak on behalf of all members, just as you have the opposition. Canada has the choice to decide who will be its spokesperson. It's the same for the chief. They do their best with not that much support. If many of us, and also chiefs now, are saying that 40 years ago we weren't ready and 20 years ago we weren't ready, but in 2025 we are ready to make those changes, I think it's time to change them.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you so much.

Having also heard from the Tzeachten First Nation—which has had its issues with the one-parent rule—does it not seem clear that at least some more consultation is needed so that we can avoid scenarios where there's continued discrimination? I understand that we all have the same intent with regard to the Indian Act—that discrimination must end. I think we all agree that the version sent to the Senate did not meet that intent and that you went beyond the scope asked of you, to add amendments for the second-generation rule.

I would like you to share with us on that. Would you agree that the minister has the obligation or duty to consult and thus to make sure there's some more consultation so that even if the second-generation cut-off were added as an amendment, some work is still done to ensure that discrimination truly does end?

[Hayden Guilderson]

Consultation is important.

I can only speak for my community and my membership and say that Ch'íyáqtel is at a point where no more consultation is needed. We are ready to move this forward. We are in a position where I've spoken with our elders, our community and our youth, who, to be quite frank, are sick of not being recognized by Canada anymore. I can't speak for other communities across Canada, and I don't know if the chief has anything else to add on that point with regard to consultation. I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We just ran out of time. There will be no more questions and answers.

Mrs. Gill now has the floor.

Mrs. Gill, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank all the chiefs, the senator and the witnesses who joined us today.

As you know, we have been discussing this for several meetings now. I always get the impression—and I don’t mean to oversimplify—that we have reached the voting stage. In fact, I see that we’re talking about details and consultations. Those consultations have taken place, but what we’re really talking about is discrimination—specifically against women; we’re talking about rights; we’re talking about genocide. We’re asking ourselves whether we should hold consultations to determine if, with regard to genocide, we’re doing everything we can to combat it.

When it comes to discrimination against women, we’re asking whether we shouldn’t wait a bit before ending the discrimination. That greatly surprises me. We’re even using the word “consultation”—and it seems to me that we’re twisting it against indigenous peoples by saying they want to be consulted, but that when we do consult them, they no longer want to be. That fascinates me.

I believe we are at a different point now and that, for Bill S‑2, we should proceed diligently. I think we already know the parties' positions. I would like to hear more from Chief Fiddler, Chief Epp, Mr. Guilderson and Senator Audette, as well as Ms. Edwards.

In my view—correct me if I’m wrong—we do, however, agree that the situation is discriminatory, genocidal, and that some First Nations are being extinguished. That is the case even in my riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. In Kawawachikamach, we know that the Naskapi have the one-parent rule. However, for the Innu—and I’m also thinking of Uashat-Maliotenam—it's similar to what is happening with the Tzeachten first nation. It’s about the same situation. We can see that this is heading towards extinction.

To me, by the end of the parliamentary session, the government should treat this as an emergency. In any case, the court has asked it to act with diligence. Are we ready to vote?

Senator Audette, you were present during the Senate proceedings, and you participated assiduously and with great dedication. We heard Senator McCallum say that the Prime Minister and Minister Gull‑Masty did not want any amendments, that we should not even consider them because they would not pass the bill with amendments. I find that outrageous. As representatives—and I think that is what “consulting” means—you are telling us that you are ready.

Should we then pass the bill diligently and quickly, with the Senate’s amendments—which is indeed what we have before us—without further discussion of the issue of rights, the issue of discrimination, or the issue of genocide—which, in my view, should be resolved by legislators?

In short, we still find ourselves in a system governed by the Indian Act, which is colonial and paternalistic.

Thank you all very much. Please allot the remaining speaking time as you see fit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

There are three minutes to share. I'll keep track for you.

[Michèle Audette]

I can start if you want.

With regard to the duty to consult, I encourage all parliamentarians—senators and MPs alike—to recognize that if we are to invoke it, we must do so in the case of Bill C‑5 and all bills that pass through both chambers. Let's be honest.

Furthermore, this is a matter of discrimination. That is our duty: to ensure we uphold not only the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also what first nations have been asking for since they were officially heard in the Senate within the parliamentary context. Next, the process of dialogue and exchange with first nations should be a parallel process that should continue to support my fellow chiefs who are here.

We therefore need two very distinct things to have a constitutional framework.

[Grand Chief Alvin Filddler]

Very quickly to your point about consultation and to the previous question by MP Morin, consultation can be a good thing and it can work. The problem is that Canada hasn't always been consistent when it comes to talking to first nations people. For example, a year ago, Canada rammed through a piece of legislation, Bill C-5, on major projects. We weren't even in the same room when the bill was being drafted. In fact, I remember coming to Ottawa last year and having to sit in the hallway while parliamentarians were debating and crafting this piece of legislation, which would have a direct impact on the lives of our people. Where was the consultation then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We have one minute.

Go ahead, Chief Epp.

[Chief Derek Epp]

I'd like to acknowledge the speakers before me, who really highlighted some important topics and points. Thank you for allowing me to explain a bit further as well.

It's important to acknowledge that the language presented by Hayden is an opt-in, nation-to-nation opportunity to implement these agreements. Yes, consultation is important. We cannot negate consultation. However, we have a solution in front of us that I think works.

I want to tell a quick story. This is the reason I am not there today.

I was at a ceremony last night in my community for our children aged zero to five to welcome them to our community. We blanketed each of our children, provided them with headbands and brought them back to our community in a very cultural way, which, quite frankly, we fund. Because we're economically self-sufficient, we decide who the children of our community are.

To what the previous speakers have shared with us, there is a fundamental disconnect between that and what the Indian Act currently says. It is discriminatory. It does have language that separates.

Thank you. I just wanted to share that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you for that story.

MP Schmale, go ahead.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for this very important discussion.

Senator, I'll start with you. I have a very quick question that's a point of clarification.

Based on your testimony a few minutes ago to my colleague Mr. Morin, you said that you met with Minister Gull-Masty on this topic. In our last meeting, we had Senator McCallum in front of us. Senator McPhedran was right behind her. Senator McCallum said on record that in conversation with Minister Gull-Masty, the Prime Minister did not want these amendments to go through. Senator McPhedran backed her up on that in that conversation.

Is that something that was relayed to you as well?

[Michèle Audette]

With respect to that exchange, I wouldn't be surprised. I wasn't there, so I cannot say yes or no.

It was clear that the first discussion was open, but soon after, quickly, in another debate, Minister Gull-Masty was honest with me that she, or the government, didn't want any amendments. I mentioned that I could step down as a sponsor if she wanted, because for Bill C-38 and Bill S-2, I cannot say no to an important amendment like the one we have in front of us.