Evidence of meeting #32 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Michèle Audette  Senator, Quebec (De Salaberry), PSG
Edwards  As an Individual
Chief Alvin Fiddler  Nishnawbe Aski Nation
Derek Epp  Tzeachten First Nation
Guilderson  Councillor, Tzeachten First Nation
Lapierre  As an Individual
Marsha Smoke  Southeast Regional Chief, Anishinabek Nation
Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak  Assembly of First Nations
Huneault  Civil Engineering, Regroupement citoyen : Les enfants d'Aataentsic
David  In-House Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations

Chief Marsha Smoke Southeast Regional Chief, Anishinabek Nation

Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following translation:]

Hello. My name is Marsha Smoke, Anishinaabe-Kwe and Bear Clan from the Alderville First Nation.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I want to begin by acknowledging my ancestors, who are here with me today. I also want to reflect upon the long history of colonial policies that sought to dispossess and assimilate first nations from our lands, our resources, our cultures and our identities. In fact, for 186 consecutive years and 361 days, your lineage of predecessors has been legislating our people, our lands and our resources under the guise of protecting us, from the earliest days of Upper Canada, in through Confederation and still to this day.

In January, Prime Minister Carney made a very significant speech in Davos, and very much described our relationship with settler hegemony with this country. We are still living with the impacts of those colonial policies—the structural disposition, cultural assimilation, erasure and incorporation. That is why I'm here before you today.

From the earliest days of colonial Canada, a shift from the royal proclamation, the Treaty of Niagara and the military alliance during the 18th and 19th centuries occurred. Active assimilation and state control over lands, resources and identity started. These hegemonic actions laid the foundation of the Indian Act in 1876, a piece of legislation legitimizing hegemony. The Indian Act itself was designed to control and assimilate our nations. Enfranchisement laws stripped our people of status and disconnected families from their lands and their nations.

These are historical facts. The legacy of these policies remains at the forefront today, manifested through systemic discrimination, broken treaties, broken promises, broken families and ongoing marginalization. Those discriminatory impacts continue to remain embedded within the Indian Act itself. That is why Bill S-2 matters.

The Anishinabek Nation supports the immediate passage of Bill S-2, including the Senate amendments and the one-parent rule to eliminate the second-generation cut-off. The second-generation cut-off continues to discriminate against first nation families by limiting the ability to pass on legal status across generations. Over time, it removed our people from our nations through federal law.

Some have described this as legislative extinction. We are the only people in this country subjected to legislation designed to exterminate our legal status over generations. The federal government has acknowledged this discrimination, but acknowledgement without action is not justice. Consultation and implementation discussions are important, but they cannot be used to delay equality or postpone the correction of known discrimination.

In short, there ought to be no weaponization of the duty to consult. Instead, perhaps governments should look within and ask themselves this: How do we atone for these injustices after almost two centuries? How do we ensure that first nations have an appropriate amount of land and resources to welcome their citizens back and to teach them about their language, culture and traditions?

Canada must stop treating our nations as a financial burden or exercise, because that is what this delay is really about—the cost of doing the right thing. There is a clear distinction that must be recognized. Canada is responsible for fixing discriminatory federal legislation. First nations are responsible for determining how implementation occurs within their own nations. We can work on implementation together, but equality cannot wait.

The Anishinabek Nation is already doing this work through E'Dbendaagzijig, our citizenship laws. Our chiefs and communities are advancing citizenship discussions grounded in our own laws, teachings and principles of belonging. We are not absent from this process. We are at the table. We are helping shape the path forward.

We have heard exaggerated projections suggesting hundreds of thousands of people could immediately become entitled to registration. Historical experience does not support those claims.

We must recognize that enfranchisement was not only about identity. It also resulted in the loss of first nations lands. Restoring rights must therefore include discussions around land, housing, infrastructure and additions to reserve reforms so that our nations can grow and support future generations.

The Senate amendments provide a clear and practical solution. The work has been done. The courts have spoken. First nations have consistently pushed for these changes. From an Anishinabek Nation perspective, we are guided by a simple teaching: We do not leave anyone behind.

Parliament is not being asked to develop a solution. The solution is already before you with the Senate amendments.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

You have 30 seconds.

Marsha Smoke

Pass the bill, adopt the amendments and finish the work.

Meegwetch.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Chi-meegwetch.

Next we have National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak.

National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak Assembly of First Nations

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.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Chi-meegwetch, National Chief. It's good to see you as well.

Next we have Mario Huneault.

You have up to five minutes, Mario.

Mario Huneault Civil Engineering, Regroupement citoyen : Les enfants d'Aataentsic

[Witness spoke in indigenous language]

[Translation]

My name is Mario Huneault. I'm from the wolf clan. I'm Wendat. I wish I didn't have to stand before you today, but the honour of my ancestors has guided me here to you. The duty to speak for those who live in silence and in the shadows has given me the courage to come and share our stories with you—the stories of those who resist, of those who refuse to die. I thank you for this opportunity.

Today, I represent the Wendat group Les Enfants d'Aataentsic, which brings together hundreds of Wendat parents and grandparents affected by exclusion after the second generation—the very people whose future you will decide within these walls.

We laid ourselves bare in the Senate last fall through the courageous actions of my sister Mélanie Savard, and now our ordeal of suffering leads us once again to defend our dignity before you.

I also stand here today in my own name, as a humble Wendat hunter-gatherer. What I am as a Wendat, I owe solely to my weary hands, the sweat I have poured, and to my ancestors. Despite my short stature, I have built a resilient and thriving Wendat family outside the community, with two beautiful children.

However, the story of my lineage now ends here. My grandchildren, present or future, will never be able to live from our territory—the Onyionhwentsiio—as I have, or join me there for our community activities. Lacking status, they will be denied access.

How am I supposed to explain to them that they deserve less than I do to live on this territory, which is at the very heart of our Wendat identity? My heart, my emotions, everything I have built to protect myself is falling apart.

It's urgent that we take action: Our children are currently erased and not even registered; they don't exist. They are “ghosts” within our community. Although they are alive, they suffer in silence while you study their future and conduct further consultations.

Currently, dozens of parents in our group are enduring injustices and humiliation within their own families.

How do you tell your child that they can't attend elementary school because they don't live at the right address? That they live in Wendake, but can't receive medical care there like the others?

How do you explain to your daughter that she can't play in the community hockey tournament with her friends, even though she practises with them every week?

How do you explain to them that they will likely never have access to many community activities? How do you also explain to them that their future as Wendat will be decided without them, without their being able to share their lived experiences and bear witness to a sense of belonging for which they are already shedding tears?

Parents and grandparents, for their part, feel helpless and suffer just as much from a loss of meaning. No one is listening to them, because why pay attention to their children who have been assimilated and “whitened” by your system? They aren't even worthy of inheriting our family heritage. Our children, along with their parents and grandparents, are experiencing a tragic loss of identity and belonging; they're vulnerable and deeply wounded, yet they're still being told that consultations are needed. Enough is enough!

Members of Parliament, you've gone around in circles long enough. We've been humiliated enough. We ask you today to pass Bill S‑2 and the amendments proposed by the Senate to put an end to our families' suffering. I myself have sacrificed enough. A setback will send the signal that the government condones the programmed extinction of our people within about 70 years. The Indian Act will then have triumphed.

Do not make the mistake of conflating Indian status with belonging in order to justify your desire for even more consultations.

Isn't it time to give reconciliation and reparations a real chance through Canada's commitment to putting an end to our programmed extinction? Let us rebuild our community.

Io.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Chi-meegwetch.

Now we're going to questions.

First off, we have MP Morin for six minutes.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of our guests for coming today.

National Chief, it's déjà vu, because you were speaking on this topic two months ago exactly. Thank you for coming again.

I'm going to ask you a question. Why do you think it is that the Prime Minister said we're going to move “at speeds not seen in generations” on things like Bill C-5, but they want to keep consulting on things like sex discrimination in the Indian Act over years? Why do you think there's a double standard coming from this government at this time?

Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak

Thank you for the question. It's nice to see you again, Chief. You're always chief to me, no matter what. We hold you up in high regard.

I know that it's a new government. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll do the right thing. I also want to remind Parliament that you can't deal with other groups and give them full ways to deal with themselves, yet leave some of these issues on the shelf and not deal with them in an expedited way.

I call on all parliamentarians to come to the table. Let's work this out. Let's work some of the issues out and get to a good place where we're not talking about this for the next 20 years. Those are my thoughts on that. If you want to change the country, well, one of the most important things we should be working on first and foremost is protecting first nations families from the erosion of our rights.

I have Marsha in the room. If she wants to, she can add something further to that. Regional Chief Marsha is so well versed on this that we lift her up in a good way.

Those are my thoughts today.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB

Thank you for that, National Chief.

I'm going to build on something you said about the current government and what they're pushing. We heard today that the James Bay Cree, where the minister is from, has a one-parent rule. We've heard that other nations that have modern treaties have a one-parent rule.

The government is currently pushing the Manitoba Métis Federation bill-treaty through, and it is my understanding that they have a one-parent rule, but the government is delaying this. Again, what does it say about the government when they want to delay this but allow others to go through?

Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak

Right now, first nations and the Crown are at a crossroads in their relationship. In their relationship with first nations, and even ourselves as first nations.... I want to have a good relationship with the Government of Canada, and so do, I'm sure, many in our leadership. They know the answers from within their communities. If we can get this right, that's a good step in the right direction.

We've been studying this issue to death. It's time to make some movement to make sure that people are no longer being discriminated against and that the authority of the membership rests with first nations. Let's move towards that.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB

I believe Mr. David is legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations. I have a legal question, through you, National Chief, to your in-house legal.

Can you speak to the discrimination and charter aspects of this? If a challenge to the charter aspects of the second generation came through, what would be the implications? Would it be successful in the long run, in your legal opinion?

William David In-House Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations

It's hard to comment without knowing what the facts of such a challenge would be. There's a very good chance that the second-generation cut-off, in my view at least, would be held as not consistent with the charter. In looking at cases here, but also other cases that involve descendancy and interactions with the charter, that's particularly true for section 6. I'm less clear about whether that would hold for section 11, noting that the order, in this case, does not actually include section 11.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB

Thank you, sir.

Maybe I'll go to Mario or Cynthia.

As a member of Parliament, I take great pride in being from this country and being first nation. I take great pride in being a Canadian. As a bit of a political nerd, for lack of a better word, and as a Canadian, I watched the CBC documentary Canada: A People's History. The first story in there, out of everything in Canada's history, is the extinction of the Beothuk in Newfoundland—the very first episode.

You mentioned that 80% of the Wendat under the age of 39 are subsection 6(2)s. You can see the end. You can see the extinction of your people. How does that reflect? Do you see one day when Canada is going talk about the extinction of the Wendat as well?

9:40 a.m.

As an Individual

Cynthia Lapierre

I'll jump in.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you for your question, MP Morin.

I'm here representing myself. I'm not here to speak on behalf of my nation—the Wendat nation.

We see it every day, because 87% of registered Wendat aged zero to 39 are subsection 6(2) and can't transmit.

We see it in real time, as Mario mentioned. We have kids who are non-status and are disappearing into a system. They don't have access to the same rights. They can play hockey at school, but they can't play hockey in the tournament. Try telling that to those kids and making them understand when they're in grade 2.

We're seeing it. Projections that we've worked on suggest that in the next 50 to 70 years, my voice might be among one of the last of the Wendat people. We're facing that extinction head-on.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

Next we have MP Greaves for six minutes, please.

Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC

Good morning, colleagues, and good morning to our witnesses. Thank you all for being with us today.

This issue is so challenging for the committee. We've heard testimony from witnesses—first nations leaders, chiefs and members of different nations, including today, of course—who are very clear and very strong in their support for the amendments contained in Bill S-2. They insist that the discrimination contained in the Indian Act has to end. It's incompatible with Canadian values, and it's an infringement upon the rights and dignity of first nations and indigenous people, particularly women.

We've also heard from representatives and leaders of other first nations and indigenous communities who say that while the discrimination in the Indian Act must end, they do not support these specific amendments because they view the idea that the government would change the Indian Act in a way that creates new members of those nations without the consent of those nations as an infringement on the Crown's duty to consult.

The work of this committee and the government is to find the best way forward between these two critical imperatives and these two principles, each of which is fundamental, but in this case, they are actually in some tension. There's the question around ending discrimination, and there's the question around the Crown's obligation to consult with indigenous peoples precisely in the way that it has not done historically and obviously did not do in the case of the Indian Act.

In that context, my first question is for the national chief.

Thank you for being with us today, Chief. You have advocated frequently for the need for first nations to have control over their own membership and their own citizenship. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on why self-government and control over membership are so fundamental to first nations, in your view.

Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak

First of all, the longer we wait, the more our people will be impacted, so we must move forward without hesitation. First nations have been consulted on this question of status and citizenship since at least 1985. We're in this position because Indian status has been a reality in first nations communities since at least 1850. It is the federal government that legislated indigenous identity in the first place, and the federal government must take responsibility for discrimination under the legislation. First nations are ready to move forward in a good way and find a good path together, so there is no excuse for further delays.

First nations also agree that the second-generation cut-off should be removed. Solutions to this must be adequately co-developed with first nations rights holders. Some have voiced that the one-parent rule could be a potential option.

The AFN also urges Canada to prioritize first nations' perspectives and solutions on the second-generation cut-off. While the current indigenous advisory process led by ISC is an important step, the real solution will come from Canada creating multiple options and pathways for first nations rights holders to assert their laws and jurisdictions.

A solution to implement the changes to the Indian Act to remove the second-generation cut-off rule is long overdue. There will be an adjustment period in terms of the impact on first nations communities, but delaying that process and furthering discrimination within the Indian Act isn't doing any good.

The lack of resources within communities is a serious concern, but it cannot be used as an excuse to just pass the buck. Expanding entitlement without ensuring predictable, sustainable funding risks worsening critical gaps in housing, health and infrastructure, so recognition must be matched by these resources.

Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC

Thank you for that answer, Chief.

Both in that response and in your opening statement, you made mention of co-development and the need for first nations and the federal government to co-develop policies that will affect first nations and indigenous peoples going forward. In that context, I will turn to Chief Smoke.

Thank you for being with us today, Chief. I understand that you have had experiences in your role in working with the federal government on these consultative processes. Could you speak to that experience? From your perspective, what have the outcomes of that been for you and for your nation?

Marsha Smoke

Good morning.

The Anishinabek Nation has been involved in the question of citizenship for many years. Our commissioner is Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, who was the original plaintiff for the paragraph 12(1)(b) case back in the 1970s.

From that time on, the Anishinabek Nation has always been involved in citizenship. More recently, we have participated in the collaborative process, because we felt it was important to make sure that our voices were there. We've done a lot of research. We've done a lot of work in communities on the other work that needs to be done by communities.

This is not something new for us. It's always been our responsibility to take care of our families and to take care of our children—our future generations. When it comes to any kind of legislation that's coming forward, implementation is our responsibility. It's up to our communities to do that.

We have been working alongside our communities for many years in looking at how membership would work in each nation. When we looked at the work that's going forward in the collaborative process, we made sure that we were there, that our voices were heard, because the work we have been doing has been ongoing for so long, and there's a history that we bring to the table.

One example was that I recently attended a meeting with—

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much. We're over time.

You can send stuff in writing as well. If you want to give that example in writing to the clerk, we will have it. Thank you.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe the national chief can't hear the French interpretation.

Is it possible to check, Mr. Chair?

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

She's nodding yes.

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

I'd like to thank each of the witnesses for being here today to testify about Bill S‑2.

I was struck by what Chief Smoke said earlier. On the one hand, a number of people have talked about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government has made commitments. The words “discrimination”, “sexism” and “racism” were mentioned a number of times, as well as the word “colonialism” and the word “genocide”. All of this leads me to wonder why it takes so long to pass a bill. What are the reasons for that?

We're talking about discrimination and genocide. I don't think any argument could counter such harsh and powerful words.

Why is it taking so long to adopt BillS‑2?

Chief Smoke could go first, but I would obviously like all the witnesses to answer my question.