Terry, it's nice to see you.
[Witness spoke in Ojibwa and provided the following translation:]
Hello. I'm very honoured to be with you and glad you are all able to attend this event today.
[English]
I'm here with Chief Norman from Wagmatcook First Nation and many other chiefs here on the east coast. I asked him to sit with me today because this is affecting his nation and his territory.
Chi-meegwetch for being here.
My name is Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. I'm the national chief. I would like to acknowledge that I'm enjoying you today from beautiful Mi'kmaq territory here in Nova Scotia. There are many chiefs from this region in the room with me, as they would all be affected by this bill.
I want to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today as it studies Bill S-2.
The Assembly of First Nations has reviewed the advisory process final recommendations and feedback report. We gathered and considered input from first nations communities and carefully examined the potential impacts of different approaches to the second-generation cut-off rule. During our December special chiefs assembly, leadership engaged in considerable dialogue on this topic and adopted AFN resolution number 54/2025. Among other things, this policy reaffirms first nations' rights to identify our citizens. It informs my remarks today.
It is widely accepted that the objective of the Indian Act's second-generation cut-off rule is to reduce Canada's obligation by steadily decreasing the number of people entitled to Indian status. It reduces us on paper even as our people continue to exist.
The second-generation cut-off rule has serious implications for first nations identity and membership. It is discriminatory and increasingly restrictive over generations. It is a blood quantum rule rooted in colonial thinking.
Status depends on how much Indian ancestry Canada believes we have. The rule treats first nations identity as something that can be diluted and eventually erased. It does not reflect first nations' understandings of belonging. It places the power to decide who is “Indian enough” with the federal government.
Over time, this has caused real harm. It teaches families to measure themselves and each other using Canada's rules. It has created divisions and intergenerational harm within communities, while also reducing access to services. It has caused many of our people to question their own legitimacy, identity and culture.
To those listening, I personally know this is difficult, but we lift you up in a good way. We want you to know it is you we are fighting for here today.
The second-generation cut-off rule raises serious human rights concerns. The United Nations declaration affirms first nations' rights to determine our own identity and membership, to maintain our cultural, institutional and kinship systems, and to be free from forced assimilation. Canada has endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and passed legislation committing to its implementation, yet the second-generation cut-off rule remains. Canada still decides who we are and are not.
The United Nations declaration requires free, prior and informed consent, which requires first nations to be meaningfully involved in decisions that affect our rights, identities and futures. Changes to the second-generation cut-off rule directly affect identity, citizenship, community membership and future generations. Free, prior and informed consent is essential, not optional. Addressing the second-generation cut-off rule is therefore not only a policy issue but also a human rights obligation.
The harshest impacts of the status quo fall, of course, on our women, our descendants as women and those already made vulnerable by colonial practices and policies. Despite previous amendments to the Indian Act, the second-generation cut-off rule continues to perpetuate sex- and gender-based discrimination. The result is an erosion of first nations identity, sovereignty and self-determination, as well as a systemic reduction of our status population. This truth has legal and governance consequences for our people, and it impacts funding, land entitlement and political participation.
That is why we are calling for a co-developed national implementation framework once Bill S-2 passes as amended. To be effective, this framework should be led by rights holders in order to determine how best to implement first nations jurisdiction over membership and citizenship.
In addition to timelines, dispute resolution mechanisms and accountability measures, the framework must include the elephant in the room—funding—because there is no getting around the fact that Canada must do the right thing and commit to targeted and ongoing investment. Stable funding to meet new demands for housing, health, education, social services, infrastructure and other essential supports must be part of the discussion.
The truth is that political will and leadership are required to honour the Crown. While the path forward seems complex, it will be much clearer if government leaders stick to the principled path of co-development and free, prior and informed consent.
Chi-meegwetch.