Evidence of meeting #34 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.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
I'm going to take notes. I'm off this afternoon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Yes, he wants to borrow a question. Perhaps it will come out later.
MP Hanley, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
We sure left that one hanging, but I'd be happy to provide you with some questions, Mr. Schmale, if you'd like.
Conservative
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I would like to go back....
I too am struck by what you said during your testimony, Chief Peters. We should be the ones who define who we are. At the same time, in your last back-and-forth with Mr. Battiste, you talked about many issues and concerns. It's so hard to address them all. Surely, the context of being the ones who define who we are should be the pathway to having better capacity to address the many concerns that are hitting you all at once.
In this study, the option being presented before us is the one that has come through the Senate amendments. It is a universal single-parent rule, but it's still administered through the Indian Act. I'm somewhat troubled by the process, even though I think we all share the same goal. I know the minister shares the same goal as well. She gave pretty powerful testimony at the Senate committee. She said, “I understand the unfairness of second generation. In my own family, I have members who face this. I want you to know that this is very personal to me. This is something very important to me.”
She is the first indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services. We have a minister who is committed to seeing us through this, getting this done and getting to a more just place. I feel pretty confident about that, but I'm more concerned about how we get there and how we get there in the right way. To me, the gold standard is co-developed legislation. That's how I think we should be developing legislation, such as we have with Bill C-10, the modern treaty commissioner bill, and with the previous clean water act in the last Parliament that we didn't get to carry through. I hope we will reintroduce it soon as co-developed legislation.
That's the context I'd like you to reflect on, Chief Peters. It's this importance of being the ones who define who we are, which could apply to both citizenship and status. Could there be another solution that could transfer control over citizenship and status out of the Indian Act and into the jurisdiction of the Mi'kmaq or other first nations around the country? I would like you to reflect on that.
Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs
One of the things we should recognize is that the Mi'kmaq, as you mentioned, choose the reality of who we are, but government relations with us define who has status. This is the only way to ensure that our kids get the access they deserve. That's what we have right now.
Government policies are the reason our kids don't have the connections we need to bring them home. I understand that when the Senate went to a vote, 533 first nations out of 634 supported the Senate. That's a pretty substantial number. Only a few of us get to present. I think the federal government needs to take that number into consideration when it's voting on this.
The other thing I want to talk a bit about is.... I'm not 100% sure what the numbers are for immigration into our communities. In one sense, we're getting rid of a nation, but we're bringing in other nations within Canada. If we do such a comparison on those numbers, because I know there was always an issue about dollars and cents..... As I mentioned, we're concerned about the dollars and cents as well. That's a big issue. A much bigger issue within some of the communities is how we're going to support everybody. Like Jaime said, it's not just about support and whatever, but about a nation and identifying who you truly are. Having another nation determine who you are...that's the difficulty.
I think there needs to be more consultation prior to making these decisions. Having said that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much, Chief. That's all the time we have.
Thank you.
MP Gill, you have two and a half minutes, and that will be the last of the question and answer time.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to take up the question that was put earlier to Deputy Chief Forbes, which he didn't have time to answer.
If you had one question for the government, what would it be?
Personally, I know exactly what I would ask. I would ask the government why we aren't taking a vote right away if everyone agrees, as my colleague Mr. Hanley said, and if the minister agrees.
I'll let you ask your question, which we can maybe take up later. Of course, I have the same question for Chief Peters.
Meegwetch, Deputy Chief Forbes.
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Meegwetch.
How long do I have to answer this?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
You have one minute and 30 seconds here, but in the House, you have a minute.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Alternatively, you can send us the answers in writing, Mr. Forbes.
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
I'd like to reconvene with my chief to send that in to our MP in writing.
I am speaking from my heart. What is the federal government going to do with yet another generation of children who have been systematically taken away from their communities, from their culture, from their traditions and from their languages? It is coming. It's here now, and you're going to see the effects in the next few years. It's the same circle that has been there since the residential schools. That's from my heart.
I'll allow my chief to send something in to our MP.
Meegwetch.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Chi-meegwetch.
Thank you, MP Gill, for that.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for sharing your testimony, but also your families' testimony, with us today.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Don't I still have a minute left, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
I would like to tell Chief Peters that he can, of course, respond in writing to the two questions asked. Unfortunately, time is running out too quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you for joining us today.
We're going to suspend so that we can get our next panel ready for this important discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
I call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses, who are both online.
I would like to note that I'll recognize you by name before you speak.
When you want to speak, make sure that you click the microphone on. When you're done speaking, click it off.
At the bottom of your screen, for those on Zoom, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I'd like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions.
As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.
I would like to welcome our witnesses.
As an individual, we have Drew Lafond, who is a lawyer. He is on video conference. From Thunderchild First Nation, we have Chief Delbert Wapass, also joining us by video conference.
Let's begin with Drew. You will have five minutes. I'll let you know when you have about 30 seconds left so you can wrap up your thoughts if you need to.
Thank you very much, Drew. Go ahead.
Drew Lafond Lawyer, As an Individual
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm here before you today to present a clear and urgent message. The federal Indian status and Indian register system must be replaced by a legislative mechanism that enables first nations to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship and belonging. What I wish to convey in my remarks today is that continuing to allow Canada to define who does and doesn't belong to a first nation is not merely a policy failure. It's constitutional deficiency, a human rights liability and a sustained act of colonial control over indigenous identity.
The current registration regime, under the Indian Act, places decision-making authority over identity and belonging with the federal government rather than with first nations themselves. This regime has entrenched sex-based and intergenerational discrimination, disproportionately harming the descendants of first nations women, who are historically excluded under earlier provisions of the Indian Act.
The consequences of this have been profound. Families have been taught to measure themselves using Canada's rules. Divisions have deepened between status and non-status people. Women and their descendants have experienced a loss of identity and culture, as well as increased vulnerability. Many individuals have been made to question their own legitimacy and belonging. These impacts have not only fractured communities but also contributed to the conditions that place first nations women, girls and two-spirited people at greater risk of violence.
I respectfully submit that while immediate remedial measures, such as eliminating the second-generation cut-off rule through a single-parent rule, are legally compelling and urgently needed, they are not a complete and durable solution if they operate as a permanent federal definition of belonging. Without mechanisms that enable first nations to assume jurisdiction over citizenship and membership, any reform risks entrenching a new unilateral federal identity regime rather than advancing first nations' self-determination. Even well-intentioned federal reforms may amount to what the Indigenous Bar Association has described as a lateral infringement, in which Canada remains the final decision-maker on first nation identity, without any ability of first nations to assume jurisdiction on citizenship.
My concern is grounded in constitutional law. Canada's continued unilateral control over Indian Act status constitutes a prima facie infringement of section 35 of the constitution, as it interferes with indigenous authority over belonging and displaces indigenous legal orders. Such an infringement is difficult to justify when indigenous-led citizenship governance is a viable and less rights-impairing alternative.
My legal analysis is unequivocal: A legally viable solution must satisfy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as given domestic legal effect through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Taken together, these instruments require that any legislated solution avoid arbitrary federal limits on status transmission; eliminate ongoing sex-based and lineage-based discrimination; recognize and operationalize indigenous authority, not merely consult on revised federal rules, and avoid permanent federal control over citizenship; respect self-determination and free, prior and informed consent, as any solution imposed without consent replicates assimilationist practices; protect first nations' jurisdiction over membership, subject to sex-equality guarantees, without recolonizing governance; and reduce systematic discrimination without forcing first nations citizenship disputes into colonial human rights forums.
Transfer of control is strongly aligned with section 35 principles because it removes Canada from the role of defining “Indian” and relocates authority over citizenship and belonging to first nations themselves. It's also the strongest and most direct alignment with UNDRIP, because the decision to assume jurisdiction rests with indigenous nations themselves.
Finally, I wish to emphasize the critical importance of sequencing. I acknowledge the tension between the urgency of immediate relief for individuals currently excluded by the second generation cut-off and the time required to design and implement comprehensive jurisdictional transfer. However, the experience following Bill S-3 demonstrates the risk of delaying relief while consultation and policy development unfold.
My recommendation is to implement a single-parent rule immediately, as a transitional measure, paired with a statutory commitment and a defined timeline to introduce an opt-out first nation citizenship framework.
Legislative frameworks such as Bill C-92 provide a useful operational analog under which indigenous governing bodies give formal notice of their intention to exercise jurisdiction, to engage in coordination processes and to bring their laws into force, with the force of federal law.
In closing, I'd like to say that colonial control over identity must be replaced by first nation governance grounded in fair procedures, adequate resources and clear transition rules that protect both individuals and communities. The legal analysis, the constitutional imperatives and the human cost of inaction all point in one direction. The time has come for Canada to enact legislation that recognizes first nations' inherent jurisdiction over citizenship, provides the institutional and fiscal support necessary to make that jurisdiction real and begins the long overdue process of returning to first nations what was never Canada's to take: the authority to determine who belongs.
Those are my submissions for today. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much, Drew.
We will now go to Chief Wapass. You have five minutes, please.
Chief Delbert Wapass Thunderchild First Nation
Tansi and good morning, honourable members.
My name is Delbert Wapass, and I am the elected chief of the Thunderchild First Nation. This means I have the responsibility to speak on behalf of my nation on issues affecting us. Bill S-2 is one of those. It would impact my people, my nation and future generations to come.
The Cree peoples have lived in our territory since time immemorial. As sovereign peoples, we have the jurisdiction, authority and responsibility to govern our lands and peoples according to our own laws and traditions. Thunderchild First Nation entered into treaty in 1878 at Sounding Lake in what is now called Alberta. The very act of negotiating a treaty was a recognition by the Crown of our status as a sovereign nation. We have never surrendered that sovereignty or our right to govern.
Our nation today has more than 3,100 registered members. Like many treaty nations, we continue to live with the devastating impacts of colonial laws and policies designed to get rid of the “Indian problem”. The Indian Act, through its “disappearing Indian formula”, was and is Canada's primary tool. It is obvious, from federal statements in the past, that legislating us to extinction is your way of trying to get out of your treaty, fiduciary and constitutional obligations to the first nations. We will not allow that to happen.
Our families and nations have been divided by historical and ongoing Indian Act rules that determine who is an Indian and that discriminate on the basis of sex, race, ethnic origin, family status, marital status and various intersectional combinations of these prohibited grounds. The Indian Act was created by Canada, not first nations, and it was done in violation of our right to be self-determining and as a subversive way to undermine the treaties. However, the federal government no longer has any excuses for this discrimination. Its own constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Supreme Court of Canada cases have said that the discrimination must end.
The second generation cut-off and the complex registration categories under subsection 6(1) and subsection 6(2) are products of federal legislation designed to control and, ultimately, reduce the number of first nations people recognized by the Crown. Some have called this legislation an extinction or a genocide. Bill S-2 as originally introduced would not have addressed the ongoing exclusion of our women, children and grandchildren. The Senate heard the voices of first nations and amended the bill to end the second generation cut-off and ensure that there would no longer be an extinction date for every first nation.
As I stated in my letter, we support Bill S-2 as amended to end discrimination in Indian status, which has been found to be a root cause of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. This is a critical step in the short term. However, in the long term, Canada must get out of the business of deciding who our people are. Only we have the sovereign jurisdiction and authority to do that. Some first nations, like Thunderchild, currently determine their own membership. The majority do not. This is Canada's discrimination. Not only must it address Indian status, but it must compensate our peoples and the first nations that have been impacted. Once Canada fixes its mess, we can transition to a system in which first nations have the exclusive authority to determine our own citizenship rules without the worry of inheriting Canada's liability.
The current consultation process misses the mark again. We have consulted on the issue of Indian status for 40 years and have repeated our concerns about the second generation cut-off and ongoing sex- and race-based discrimination, but to no avail. Each time Canada amends the Indian Act, it knowingly leaves in this discrimination, but it asks us what we think, over and over. It's an endless process. This is not what the duty to consult requires. It requires that you act on the voices of first nations.
The current consultation process misses the mark again. We have consulted on the issue of Indian status for 40 years and have repeated our concerns about the second generation cut-off and ongoing sex- and race-based discrimination to no avail. Each time Canada amends the Indian Act, it knowingly leaves in this discrimination, but it asks us what we think, over and over. It's an endless process. This is not what the duty to consult requires. It requires that you act on the voices of first nations. Canada cannot use consultation as a weapon and ignore our voices. It also cannot maintain the discrimination in Indian status.
