Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds, Chief. Go ahead. Keep going.

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

For nehiyaw people, belonging is not based solely on federal categories of administrative law. We have the word “wahkohtowin”, which talks about kinship. The real issues—the real concerns—are related to housing, infrastructure, education, health services, treaty, land entitlement, membership, governance and community.

As my closing comments, pass Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate in the short term, provide immediate funding for first nations, transition to a process that recognizes first nations jurisdiction or citizenship belonging and ensure any reforms respect treaties, treaty rights, indigenous nehiyaw laws and the inherent right of self-determination.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

First up, we have MP Morin for six minutes, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our visitors today for coming to testify.

I want to go to Mr. Lafond first.

I certainly agree that the bigger long-term picture is recognition through section 35 and more definition through that mechanism, but you also referenced the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The current Liberal government has developed legislation to recognize that and to guide them and have said it for a number of years. Article 9 of the declaration says:

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Would you say that the current government is living up to its commitments under UNDRIP or is it being hypocritical in terms of its application of such things?

[Drew Lafond]

I'll take it a step back.

Without labelling one government or one party over another as being hypocritical, I will say that Canada has clear obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That obligation is to align federal laws with indigenous self-determination through consultation and co-operation under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. That's a clear obligation that arises under legislation, and continuing a known discriminatory transmission rule is inconsistent with those obligations.

Implementing a single-parent rule immediately—which is what's contemplated in the current draft Bill S-2—and expressly as an interim non-definitive federal measure, while enacting a consent-based opt-out pathway to first nations' exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship, would honour those duties. I don't see that step being taken currently in the legislation.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, sir.

I'll go to Chief Wapass next.

Chief, are you aware that a number of weeks ago, or a short time ago, the federal government lost its bid for a court extension in the Nicholas ruling, which is a part of Bill S-2?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

Yes, I am.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Current indications are that this has been in development. Bill S-2—and a second generation cut-off in particular—has been going on through consultations since 2023, according to the government's own website. The Nicholas court case was started even before that, and here we are in INAN, with no end in sight when it comes to getting rid of the second generation cut-off and, quite frankly, dealing with the Nicholas ruling itself. The government has given no indication in the last number of weeks since this on what they're going to do next.

Can you speak to how this makes you feel as a chief on the current direction of the government? Do you think there is a path forward? Are they continuing to confuse on what their next steps are?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

Well, this definitely needs to come to an end. It's clear in regard to what we want as first nations. In Thunderchild First Nation, we look at the various legislative regimes that are out there. Also, at the United Nations, the expert forum on the rights of indigenous peoples just told Canada to pass Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate and end the second generation cut-off.

We are of the same opinion. We have the same position. We don't appreciate the fact that, to this day, we are still being “controlled by” and membership is still being “determined by”, as opposed to it being 100% by our nation, despite the fact that we are a section 10 band with our own membership code, our own membership board and the independence that exists.

For us in Thunderchild First Nation, there's no doubt in our minds that we need to move to the next step, which is ending the discrimination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next, we will go to MP Lavack for six minutes, please.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to both witnesses today for their testimony. It's important. There is no doubt that this bill is urgent and that it has a significant impact on everyone. We really have to consider all the advantages and disadvantages.

My first question is for you, Chief Wapass.

We heard during the engagement process that was undertaken that, for some, the bill, as amended by the Senate, doesn't go far enough. Precisely, we do not have jurisdiction over our band membership and, more importantly, over the status of our members.

Wouldn't it be beneficial to go a little further and really have a strike force, a very strong piece of legislation, that gives this self-determination to first nations, rather than taking temporary measures now?

The government could go further and actually develop the necessary legislation.

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

First and foremost, we do have self-determination. We are sovereign. It's not a matter of government giving us something that we already have.

Second, we need to go as far as we need to go. We need government to recognize and get out of that space by acknowledging and respecting the sovereignty and self-governance of our nations.

Any legislation that is discriminatory to our people, that holds us back and that has people deciding for us needs to be eliminated. I would go as far as I had to in order to eliminate discrimination in any legislation and any act affecting our people.

In future years, yes, we need to work towards that, because we need to ensure that we're treated with respect and within the principles of the treaty.

The court says to end discrimination now. If everybody's saying that, why are we not doing it?

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

You have jurisdiction over membership in your band, but not over Indian status as recognized in the Indian Act.

If a new act dealing with the second-generation cut-off went further—for example, by also giving first nations the power to manage the status of their members—that would be a stronger act, wouldn't it?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

Yes, I think that definitely has merit. Right now, we think we have that jurisdiction, but I know that we don't. Regarding membership, they apply to ISC and then they come back to us. We have to figure it out. We never know our exact membership numbers because we have the Thunderchild process and the ISC process. At some point, it has to be reconciled again with the lack of resources, lack of support and lack of coordination.

It makes it extremely challenging. I don't think Canada would appreciate it if the U.S. were determining Canadian citizenship on behalf of Canada. We really need to recognize and acknowledge the sovereignty and the self-government of our communities. There are just more delays.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

I will now turn to Mr. Lafond.

Mr. Lafond, if I understand correctly, you are a member of a committee that is currently reviewing the submissions presented by first nations during the formal engagement process. That process began in 2023. We've heard that, for many first nations, the one-parent rule may be a solution, but only a partial one.

You mentioned in your testimony that we should commit to giving first nations back the power to decide the status of their members. The engagement process is coming to an end. The advisory committee you are part of is currently considering the other solutions that have been proposed, as you mentioned.

Don't you think we have a real opportunity here to create legislation that, once and for all, would address all the challenges in a concrete and short-term manner, since we're dealing with all of these issues right now, rather than taking, as you say, temporary measures that could be changed?

[Drew Lafond]

I agree with your analysis.

To be clear, I serve as a volunteer member of the registration reform and legal solutions committee. I believe the title is legal policy and implementation analysis in the second generation cut-off rule in section 10 voting thresholds.

I'm being mindful of the timeline Parliament is faced with right now to come up with a legislated solution to the problems that were introduced in R v. Nicholas. I know there's a time crunch, and balancing the urgency of the time crunch with the need for genuine engagement with first nations is certainly an obstacle in this case that parliamentarians have to be mindful of. There's a need for consultation.

However, this isn't the first time that Parliament has been faced with the need to come up with an urgent solution to a problem impacting first nations across Canada. I think we can take guidance from previous examples. Perhaps we can use Bill S-3. Interim solutions needed to be introduced immediately in that circumstance. I believe status was opened up. The status rules were relaxed for individuals who were born prior to 1985, while a parallel process was introduced under Bill S-3 that allowed for and directed the minister to engage with first nations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Drew Lafond]

—to come up with a legislated solution. Something of that nature would be useful in this instance as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chief Wapass and Mr. Lafond, for your testimony.

Of course, we hear a lot of things from one committee meeting to the next and from one testimony to another on the issue of identity and genocide, for example.

You provided a very interesting analogy, Chief Wapass, namely that no one would want one nation to be able to take over the identity of another nation, including its language, culture or territory.

A number of members from all political parties have been saying so from the outset. In light of the testimony it has heard or received, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑2. The Liberals say that it's urgent to pass the bill, which is very important. I believe that my Conservative colleagues, too, are saying that this bill must be passed.

Why do you think its passage is taking so long?

Mr. Lafond talked about the Supreme Court's requirement, for example. Why are we waiting so long to pass Bill S‑2?

Are there other issues that need to be resolved before we can move forward with this legislation?

We have been trying, decade after decade, to “put off the genocide”, I would dare say. I say that with big quotation marks, but that's the idea I have. We're always taking a small step forward.

Why aren't we immediately accepting this bill and simply getting to work, or taking action, as a number of witnesses have called for?

I'll start with you, Chief Wapass. I know you didn't have a chance to finish your opening remarks, so you're welcome to finish them now.

Then I'll ask Mr. Lafond to chime in. You have two minutes each. Thank you very much. Tshinashkumitin.

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

It's important. We can't withhold justice now when we could address larger issues in the future.

It seems that the feds want to delay justice for future legislation. They can end discrimination now and bring in proper legislation on first nations jurisdiction later. No first nation wants our people to suffer while we negotiate future changes.

It's important that we acknowledge and we see what's in front of us and deal with it. Nobody can deny the fact that there's existing legislation that discriminates and that the fact it discriminates has been dealt with, has been consulted on, has been talked about. The courts, the United Nations and so on and so forth have all supported that this is what should happen.

We can deal with that immediately and then in the future, as time goes on, with statutory timelines, we could deal with the rest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Go ahead, Drew.

[Drew Lafond]

Without repeating Chief Wapass's comments, I agree entirely. To build on my previous submissions, this isn't the first time there has been legal precedent for this. In the case of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Hold on for a second, Drew, please.

MP Gill, you had your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to tell you that I was waiting for the interpretation to finish before asking Mr. Lafond to respond.

You did so right away, but I wasn't able to hear the end of Chief Wapass's answer. So I just want to tell you that I often listen to the interpretation and that it takes a little longer before I can react.

Thank you very much for taking this into account. The same goes for the witnesses who have to listen to my remarks through the interpretation.