Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 11th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That's all the time we have.

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

I think zero for everybody is the goal.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It should be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're moving to the next speaker.

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

On or off reserve, it should be zero.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It should be. Why are you exceptionally having—

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

Your target is 0.09%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I need the mics turned off.

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

It's downward of .09%.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What do you expect of your constituents: that it's zero?

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

Yes, I do.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, let's take it down a notch. Let's think about the interpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

With that, Jaime, you have five minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

Happy Indigenous History Month.

We've had a lot of good conversations around getting rid of the second generation cut-off. Bill S-2 has been a great spark for the conversation around that. We've had compelling witnesses come in and talk about how it's necessary for their children. We've had other witnesses come in and say that it's an incomplete document because it's not thorough enough.

Where Bill S-2 falls short, I feel, is that it narrows indigeneity and the question of who is an Indian person to being about only ancestry.

One of the things I reflect on, given the responsibility I have as a member of Parliament, is that 40 years ago, in 1985, there were people in Parliament who believed they knew best for first nations communities who should and who shouldn't be a member of their community and who should be a status member of their community. I often reflect on whether we repeat the mistakes of the past or whether we enable, through legislation, first nations to decide for themselves who is a status Indian in their community.

I have an overall question about our approach. I know you've said that you're committed to this. I want to ask you on the record how confident you are that our government will be the one that tables legislation removing the second generation cut-off. Can you outline your approach to this?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you for the question, MP Battiste.

I first want to address something that I want to be absolutely clear, on the record. The second generation cut-off is not only something that we need to address and that we will address; we also have to clarify how we address it.

As much as I've heard the testimony, the attestation before the committee about many communities wishing to pursue a one-parent rule, I've also had engagements from nations that want to ensure that their voice, their solution for citizenship, is one that is determined by them.

Even though a number of valid presentations have been brought forward, there are still a number of nations that have stated that this is a nation-to-nation agreement and that we have to respect their rights and ensure our duty to consult.

In fact, I want to quote from the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations a letter that I received from them on Bill S-2, stating, “The current Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act, has an absence of engagement and consultation...concerning the direct violation of Canada's duty to consult with S-2 impacts on nations and First Nations members.” It also says in this letter that there are national IOs, but they are not the representation of that community, so they have the right to ensure that they're consulted appropriately. Moreover, “the chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the federal government to engage in adequate consultation with first nations to ensure that their input priorities are reflected in the amendments in the Indian Act Bill S-2.”

They also want to ensure that they have direct implication in the conversation of determining membership and citizenship.

There are many who wish to pursue a one-parent rule, which I accept; if that's what they feel fits their nation, then this is the path they should pursue. There are others out there, such as the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations, who've been very clear in writing this letter to me that they should be involved in the conversation, that they should determine for themselves what that criterion is. I think this is really important.

I'm also going to respect that as a minister because, at the end of the day, when we speak to a second generation cut-off, the only point that is critical in that conversation is that we as a government do not predetermine for them and then consult. We should actually engage them and ask them, “What is the right solution for your nation? What is the solution that you wish to validate, to engage your community members in? What kind of feedback are you looking for? What kind of alternative solution do you wish to propose?”

This means that we respect the differences of over 640 nations in Canada, providing them the opportunity to decide for themselves, because they know who their members are. Engagement at the community level in framing that is important, critical work. This is why we have the collaborative consultation process. This is one of the first decisions that I made, that I expedited.

Consultation means providing a proposal, asking the question and giving the opportunity for discussion and feedback. As much as I want to respect the amendments that were put forward in Bill S-2, as a minister, I would not be responding appropriately to those nations that have come to me—and there are many, and not just from Treaty No. 6. A number have come to me and asked me to create space for them to take the time to speak to their members.

It's not just the leadership that is sitting now. We have to ensure that we do the engagement of speaking to first nations youth, who are going to live with the impacts of the decisions we make. It is my position that we have to do the work of second generation....

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

We have to do it with community, and I have full faith in their—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

—having the capacity to determine for themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Next we have MP Gill for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I might add, Minister, that indigenous peoples are already living with government decisions and are already experiencing the impacts of those decisions. Even if Bill S‑2 were rejected, that's already the case.

I'd like to address another topic regarding children.

Last week, I was joined by Manawan's chief, Sipi Flamand, whom you know, and representatives from Amnesty International. They came to talk about childhood, among other things. Having access to housing and being able to live in dignity is a human rights issue. They pointed out things from a study they'd done. I know you're aware of this, because it's nothing new. I've already talked to Mr. Miller, for example, about this. The fact is that, for children, housing is also a matter of safety, health and education. It also has an impact on violence, a topic we discussed earlier. In short, children, in particular, are feeling the consequences of the lack of housing.

My colleague Gabriel Ste‑Marie said that, obviously, amounts are included in budgets, but at the end of the year, in the corresponding column, we see the money hasn't been spent, even though needs are urgent. In Quebec alone, there's a shortage of 10,000 housing units, 8,000 housing units need renovations and 4,000 housing units need serious work to be sanitary.

What are your thoughts on that? Should that be a priority as well? We don't hear as much about this. There shouldn't be money left on the table at the end of the year when there are people who don't have a place to live or who live 17 to a house.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I want to start by recognizing the incredible work of Chief Sipi Flamand. I had the opportunity to meet him through his advocacy on a number of issues, which he's raised not just federally, but also provincially. I want to highlight all the work he's done for his nation. When Chief Flamand was here on the Hill, I had the opportunity to talk to him and look at the issues affecting his community. We talked about housing, infrastructure and road access. I know what getting around in communities is like. The roads are similar in the nation I'm from.

In response to your question, there's something I want to point out. In my first six months as minister, we've invested $830,000 to support on reserve housing, but we've also worked on 422 housing projects. That's 451 new housing units and 1,573 renovated units.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

You can submit the rest of the numbers in writing to the committee for its consideration, as well. We just ran out of time.

Now we have MP Morin.

You have five minutes, please.