Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Jaime for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one question, and after that I would like to table a motion. I've given it beforehand, on September 22, and I've given it to the clerk, so if they could distribute that while I ask the question, that would be great for discussion.

You mentioned that there was a large number of unspent dollars federally that could have gone into this fund. In your research, are the funds that weren't spent flexible in terms of the federal government's ability to put these out to these communities, or were they contingent on provincial governments matching that? I understand that in large areas, 52% of this has to be funded by the federal government, which means 48% has to be funded by the provincial governments. I'm wondering if the unspent money is largely due to inflexibility, or is it because we didn't have matching contributions from provinces?

[Andrew Hayes]

When you have the department in front of you, I'm sure they will point to the fact that the department looks to the provinces and territories as being ready to provide their 48% of the funds before being able to move forward.

One of our recommendations was about considering what revisions can be put in place to allow for solutions to disburse federal funds that are available when provinces and territories are unable to secure their share of funding.

Our report is there on the horizon with other pieces of information, such as the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 2024 and the Quebec court of appeal before that, which talks about the honour of the Crown and engaging in good faith with indigenous, first nations and Inuit communities. From our perspective, there isn't a legal impediment.

Maybe it's the way it happens that the department looks for the provinces to be ready to partner, but at the end of the day, these are federal amounts that are intended to improve policing in first nations. In our view, solutions should be considered to get those amounts equitably out to those communities.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, with that, I would like to move a motion that I sent out in both official languages on September 22, 2025.

I think there have been discussions with all parties that there is an interest in looking at a study around the impacts of Indian Act membership, subsections 6(1) and 6(2), also known as the second-generation cut-off. The study will examine the impacts of the non-stated paternity policy and the gradual decrease of status Indians in some first nations bands—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, there's no interpretation. It might be useful to give the interpreters a copy of the motion, so they can read it. We have copies in both languages.

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

I apologize.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You didn't do anything wrong, Mr. Battiste.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Can you do that over again?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It's just giving time for the translators to get the motion.

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

Don't you have it in front of you?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, but it's for them.

It's for the Canadian citizens passionately watching this meeting who would like to understand the motion in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Okay. We're back at it.

Jaime, please take it from the top.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that.

There's been some discussion among the parties, and I would like to table a motion for a study. The study will look at the impacts of Indian Act membership codes, specifically subsections 6(1) and 6(2), also known as the second-generation cut-off. The study will examine the impacts of the non-stated paternity policy and the gradual decrease of status Indians in some first nations bands and look for possible solutions and amendments to the Indian Act.

I want to talk a little bit about why this is necessary. I think subsections 6(1) and 6(2) came about in 1985. Over the last 40 years, we've seen that there's an appetite to amend the Indian Act or to remove these subsections. We've heard from first nations leaders. We've heard from government officials. I think there is a genuine appetite to remove the second-generation cut-off clauses and the non-stated paternity policy.

However, the question now becomes this: What do we replace them with? I think that's the difficult question that we have with this study in saying that we all know that the second-generation cut-off and the non-stated paternity policy are no longer working for first nations communities. I think we all know that it should be the first nations communities themselves that decide who is or isn't a member of their community, not the Indian Act subsections from 40 years ago.

I think the question is this: How do you do this in a way that ensures that there's full, free, prior and informed consent of first nations communities if we change anything in the Indian Act; that ensures that it's optional; and that ensures that it's something that's not coming from Parliament, the Senate or the Prime Minister's Office? It should come from first nations communities themselves.

I have had some really great conversations with folks around this. I've had some really great conversations with the national chief and many first nations leaders. I think we should be looking at a study at some time in the future. At that point, I'm hoping that the AFN will have passed a resolution that tells us what the majority of the first nations leaders believe is the way forward on this.

I know this is a difficult conversation. As someone who was the Mi'kmaq citizenship coordinator for the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs for four years, I know how difficult the conversation can be about who is included, who is excluded and the criteria around that. However, I think it's time for us to have the conversation around that. I think the conversation needs to be directed towards what we amend in the Indian Act, how we replace this and what the will is of the first nations communities across Canada in order to see how we can hear from the best minds on this and move forward in a way that can be seen as first nations communities leading this charge.

With that, I am moving the motion. I think there's been some prior conversation that it's acceptable to all parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We will open it up for any possible questions or conversation.

MP Schmale.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm fine with receiving it and working on it later, after we figure out the next study or whatever legislation. However, I do have one question.

With Bill S-2 working its way through the Senate, do you see this as a prestudy? Do you see this as something simultaneously going on? Do you see this as a way to supplement potential legislation getting to the House eventually?

Could I just get your thoughts on how you see this playing out if we were to go ahead with it?

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

Bill S-2 is really about enfranchisement with the historic wrongs, when enfranchisement was sometimes forced upon people and communities. In some situations, status Indians voluntarily gave up their Indian status, and they called this enfranchisement. This is part of citizenship and membership.

Since it was opened up in the Senate, people have spoken out and said, yes, they believe this needs to happen on Bill S-2 to take care of the legal remedies required under enfranchisement, but they've also started talking about all of the other problems within the membership. That's what this study—and, I think, another piece of legislation—could move forward on.

I don't know if it's appropriate to lump every problem within citizenship and membership under the enfranchisement bill. I think this study would allow first nations communities to have direct input on what the amendments to the Indian Act are going to be, in such a way that they're not scared of any kind of amendment that might come from the Senate that they weren't consulted on.

It gives us the ability down the line to not only.... I know this study probably won't happen until spring or February at the earliest, but it gives the Assembly of First Nations and community members a chance to put resolutions forward at the AFN in December, or at a special meeting, so that we can look at what they're recommending to replace the harmful portions of subsections 6(1) and 6(2) on our communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Before I go to Mr. Lemire, I want to ask for consensus to keep the conversation going. We have a couple of minutes left. It's 5:30. I think we can allow for this after the technical difficulties. Everyone is nodding.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like the parliamentary secretary to tell us how many items or bills the committee can expect. Bill C‑10 is on the agenda, and so is Bill S‑2, and others will probably be added soon. There are rumours going around. All members of a committee should have relatively equal opportunity when it comes to study topics and the meeting time allotted to discuss them; I think that's important. There are a lot of government topics on the committee's legislative agenda at the moment. Is this the right time to move a motion for a study that would involve eight meetings?

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

In terms of the legislation that's in front of us, we have Bill C-10 in the House on the modern treaty commissioner and Bill S-2 on the enfranchisement legislation. There are certain rules that prohibit me from speaking about what's next and anything that's been tabled at this point.

By introducing this study now, I want to give first nations communities a large number of weeks, possibly months, to consider the impacts and the amendments that are going to come in the future. It's important for us to have this conversation now, knowing full well that in two months, the first nations leaders will be meeting in Ottawa at their special chiefs assembly with resolutions. I want to give them the chance to really think this out before we make changes to the Indian Act.

This motion intends to give first nations communities the chance to really think about this and put resolutions forward, so that by the time we study it, it will have been really thought out and hopefully we'll have some consensus on what we replace this portion of the Indian Act with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Right now, we have this motion. I think the subcommittee can figure out a schedule at another date. We're following the same procedure of taking turns on our studies. We'll schedule that later, at a different time.

Is everyone okay with that?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'd like to see the agenda again.

Why have the witnesses left, Mr. Chair?

The meeting started at 4:30. There was still an hour left in the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We were done with all of the rounds. We did the first round and the second round. Jaime was the last person to ask a question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The committee agreed to a one-hour meeting. I'll check the Notice of Meeting. Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but I'm surprised to see the meeting end after one hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Yes, it was a one-hour meeting, so that's why I asked to continue this discussion on the motion.