THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 28, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:05 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Margo Greenwood (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, all.
Before we begin, I will ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I am nehiyaw from Treaty 6 territory, and I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I remind my honourable colleagues that at our first public meeting on September 24, Senator Michèle Audette, elected chair of this committee and sponsor of Bill S-2, recused herself from her role as chair for the duration of this study in order to preserve its neutrality. It is now my honour and privilege to chair this very important meeting today.
In addition, it is important to note that today is the deadline for submitting briefs related to the study of Bill S-2. You have until 5 p.m. to send your written submissions to our clerk.
I now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Prosper: Senator Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, senator from Nunavut.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba, which is the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation and also Treaty 1 territory.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum. Welcome. It’s good to meet you. Thank you for all the work you have done. I’m a Manitoba Cree from the Barren Lands First Nation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today, we will continue our study of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). This bill amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a band list maintained in the Department of Indigenous Services.
I will now introduce our first panel of witnesses today. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Ontario Native Women’s Association, or ONWA, Cora McGuire-Cyrette, Chief Executive Officer; and in the room with us today, as an individual, Jeremy Matson. Thank you both for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Ms. McGuire-Cyrette to give her opening remarks.
Cora McGuire-Cyrette, Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Native Women’s Association: Greetings, honourable senators.
Founded in 1971, ONWA is the oldest and largest Indigenous women’s organization in Canada. We have over 50 years of experience supporting and advocating for Indigenous women, including First Nations women and their descendants.
The issue of sex discrimination in the Indian Act was one of the catalysts for the formation of the Indigenous women’s movement here in Canada, including establishing ONWA as an agency.
It is ONWA’s position that First Nations women have a right to their identity, culture and community, as well as the right to pass on their identity and culture to their children.
We appreciate that you, standing committee members, are studying and engaging First Nations women on Bill S-2. While this bill is a start, additional amendments are needed to fully remedy all the remaining and residual discrimination stemming from previous versions of the Indian Act.
Today, I wish to speak to the ongoing impacts of sex discrimination in the Indian Act on First Nations women and their families. I will then propose four amendments to Bill S-2, which we believe will finally fully remedy the discrimination against women stemming from the Indian Act.
Having worked with Indigenous women and their families for decades, ONWA is acutely aware of the impacts of the legislative discrimination that First Nations women experienced under the Indian Act.
ONWA sees the social impacts of discrimination against First Nations women daily. We are discriminated against both for being First Nations and for being women.
Loss of status and band membership from marrying out has, over time, been linked to the appallingly high rates of violence that Indigenous women continue to experience, including human trafficking and the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls crisis.
First Nations women spoke to this in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP, in the 1990s, and the national inquiry linked sex discrimination in the Indian Act with these high rates of violence against us.
The consequences of the legislative discrimination are deadly. In addition to the violence we face, many First Nations women experience trauma, poor health, addiction, poverty and homelessness. These challenges are then greatly compounded by the lack of access to community and cultural supports.
Since 1985, Canada’s approach to fixing the two-tiered, convoluted and inaccessible status provisions have displaced First Nations women and their children from their communities and denied them the right to equal enjoyment of their identities, cultures and lands.
Previous attempts at remedies have not been able to fully repair what was lost. The establishment of levels of status — 6(1)s and 6(2)s — unfortunately resulted in social divisions and, far too often, lateral violence. First Nations women under subsection 6(2) bear the brunt of this colonial violence.
The divisions and lateral violence within First Nations communities are aggravated by ongoing underfunding from the federal government, which positions new registrants as a threat to First Nations already grappling with the scarcity of resources.
Senators, the rights of First Nations women should not be pitted against the collective rights of our communities.
With respect to the path forward, it is ONWA’s position that to fully remedy the residual sex discrimination in the Indian Act, amendments to the existing bill are necessary. This is an opportunity for an act of reconciliation.
ONWA calls for four amendments.
The first amendment would remove the second-generation cut‑off by returning to a one-parent rule for transmission of status. By denying status to generations of First Nations women and their children, the second-generation cut-off has deprived women access to participating in band governance, services and opportunities.
Continuing the second-generation cut-off will result in the numbers of registered Indians declining over time, eventually leading to the extinction of status Indians and entire communities. A one-parent rule not only tackles the urgent issue of extinction but also sex discrimination.
The second amendment would remove the 1985 cut-off. The pre- and post-1985 birth and marriage distinction carries forward the discrimination of the past and perpetuates the differential treatment of descendants of First Nations women as it limits their ability to transmit status to their children in comparison to descendants of men.
Families with a status Indian father are still privileged over those with a status Indian mother.
The third amendment would clarify that women who have been transferred automatically to their husband’s band have an unrestricted right to return to their natal band when and if they choose, regardless of whether their bands are under section 10 or 11.
Amending the legislation is just one step. First Nations must also be financially supported to welcome home those who have been displaced from their communities through forced assimilation. This is central to meeting Canada’s fiduciary responsibilities and prevents the risk of bands discriminating against First Nations women based on a lack of resources.
The fourth amendment would remove the legal bars to compensation within Bill S-2 and all previous bills for First Nations women and their descendants for the harms caused by sex discrimination in the Indian Act. This is our right under UNDRIP.
Honourable senators, ONWA calls on each of you to support these amendments to Bill S-2. Our survival as distinct people in Canada and our very lives, safety and well-being as First Nations women depend on it.
Meegwetch. Thank you for your time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. McGuire-Cyrette.
I now invite Mr. Matson to give his opening remarks.
Jeremy Matson, as an individual: [Indigenous language spoken]. That means, “Good day, you great people.”
I raise my hands to you. When I do, as I was taught, my ancestors are here with me today, filling every empty chair and space in this room. I am never alone.
This is my son August Matson. His bloodline is extinct at his generation, as he is a subsection 6(2) person under the Indian Act of Canada.
I am a Squamish Nation member. I have direct ancestral connections to the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other Coast Salish communities.
I am also a registered person under the Indian Act of Canada.
I would like to thank this committee for inviting me back to talk about these important human rights issues.
I am the successful litigant in UN communication no. 68/2014 from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, UN communication AL CAN 3/2023 and UN communication AL CAN 1/2025. These cases dealt with and addressed issues of sex-based or gender-based discrimination, enfranchisement, subsection 6(2) second-generation cut-off, 1985 cut-off, compensation, reparations and access to justice.
I was born with my human rights, and so were my children and their future descendants. We had to wait — and still are waiting — for other people to allow us to have our human rights and birthrights. The Supreme Court of Canada in Matson and Andrews noted at paragraph 2 that all the complaints arise from the lingering effects of enfranchisement. At paragraph 7, the court highlighted the impacts of subsection 6(2).
Oh Canada, my glorious Canada, it’s time for you to wake up out of your racist, sexist and assimilative slumber.
Under the Species at Risk Act — or SARA — there are fish, crustaceans, birds and grasses that have more legal protections than my descendants and I do as people under the Indian Act of Canada. It’s time for policy-makers to take action.
Canada deprived and continues to deprive Indigenous Peoples access to justice under the Canadian Human Rights Act for various scenarios, despite the repeal of section 67 and the recommendations and findings of this committee’s report entitled Respected and Protected from December 2024.
As acknowledged in this committee’s report entitled Make It Stop! from June 2022, we are talking about individual Indigenous human rights under section 6 of the Indian Act, not a collective approach. Without individuals, there is no collective.
On June 21, 2021, Canada passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDA. UNDA is an alive law of this land, and Canada stated this about UNDA on June 21, 2021. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act received Royal Assent and immediately came into force.
Article 1 of UNDA states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment . . . as individuals, of all human rights and . . . international human rights law.
Article 1 of UNDA brings in all international law reports and legal commitments of Canada about section 6 of the Indian Act and the elimination of all other forms of discriminatory practice.
Article 1 of UNDA also includes the adherence to my three UN cases and Sharon McIvor’s UN case.
Article 8 of UNDA also ensures our individual rights meet equality and our bloodlines must not be assimilated under section 6 of the Indian Act. Also, Canada must ensure we have a mechanism to resolve these issues.
Article 8 of UNDA allows us to legally time travel to address our individual human rights and redress past, present and future violations.
Canada, with the passage of UNDA, moves from a dualist approach to a monist approach regarding my individual Indigenous human rights, my children’s Indigenous human rights and those of their future descendants.
Individual human rights are listed throughout UNDA and ensure our women and children have the legal right to identity, equality, education funding, zero discrimination and no form of assimilation.
In closing, the Bill S-2 legislative summary, dated September 8, 2025, highlights my UN CEDAW case on page 10 and in footnote 43, but nothing in Bill S-2 reflects the CEDAW decision. Why is that?
Your committee has respected and protected my rights, my children’s rights and their future descendants’ rights.
I ask your committee to “make it stop.” Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matson.
We will now proceed with questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have five minutes for your interventions, including the question and the answer, to ensure everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to both our witnesses. I would like to begin with a question to you, Mr. Matson. I welcome your son, as well.
Regarding the nature of the international human rights cases you have brought year after year in multiple venues, how would you summarize the significance of those international decisions in a Canadian context? What more could you tell us about what Bill S-2 should look like in the context of those decisions?
Mr. Matson: International law brings in the minimum standards of any state that is a member of the United Nations or the Organization of American States. That’s the minimum. We are not at the minimum yet. My cases bring the standards up to the minimum, which is like the foundation and footings of a house. Everything is built up from there. That’s up to the state and its policy-makers and departments.
To summarize, my cases said to not assimilate, fix the sex‑based discrimination, remove the cut-off dates and remove the 6(2) second-generation cut-off. Canada was found in violation of Article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in my case. There is zero tolerance for assimilation in any country. We are so far behind in Canada with respect to assimilating Indigenous People. We are the only country in the world that assimilates. It is illegal.
When it comes to the enfranchisement provisions — as I said, I brought my domestic case to the Supreme Court of Canada. They acknowledged that my case, the Matson case, was about enfranchisement. Why are my cases not reflected in Bill S-2?
I support Bill S-2. My grand-uncle — his name was Capilano or George Johnston — falls under the Nicholas category of enfranchisement, and that is a branch of my immediate family in my nation.
Returning to the sex-based discrimination, it’s all in my cases. I have provided that to the committee and will provide it in a brief. I was given permission to provide my brief by the end of this working week. Hopefully, that answers your questions.
Senator McPhedran: Actually, I would like a clarification. It sounded like you stated that you unequivocally support Bill S-2. Are you saying Bill S-2 is fine the way it is?
Mr. Matson: No, Bill S-2 is not fine the way it is. It needs amendments to — as ONWA also said — remove the cut-offs. There have to be amendments.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: As I have said to you, it is very difficult for me to find new questions to ask. However, one thing that has come up is that there must be an interim plan to leave out of Bill S-2 the second-generation cut-off and trust government to deal with it through more consultation. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Matson: There have been consultations since the 1980s. You heard this from other witnesses and the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group. No more consultations are needed. Claudette Dumont-Smith and others have done thorough workups on their consultations on behalf of the Government of Canada, and consultations have happened prior. No more consultations are needed in order to fix assimilation, dead stop.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, witnesses. I want to focus my comments on the second-generation cut-off.
More specifically, Ms. McGuire-Cyrette, you mentioned that for women, certainly — but I would imagine, by extension, any person who is Indigenous, particularly regarding the second-generation cut-off — there exists a right to identity, culture and community.
Hello, Mr. Matson. It’s good to see your son here today.
I wonder if both of you could comment on the statement about the links between status and notions of identity, culture and community. Mr. Matson, maybe we can begin with you, and then we’ll go to Ms. McGuire-Cyrette.
Mr. Matson: Being a status person, depending upon which community you stem from, allows you to be a community member. The majority of section 10 Indian bands use section 6 to define their membership code. The losses in the near future with the second-generation cut-off and Indian status — I have all the data from the individual affairs from Indigenous Services Canada about each provision of the Indian Act. We have to deal with these subjects — not today, but maybe tomorrow would be a great start.
But when it comes to paragraphs 6(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e), those regard older generations like mine. When we pass away — and there are approximately 446,069 people registered under those provisions — our overall national population immediately nosedives. Then we’re left with paragraph 6(1)(f) and subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act, which is the two-parent rule. So with 6(1)(f), there are approximately 356,145 people registered under that provision, and approximately 322,566 people under subsection 6(2). So when all the first provisions people — (a) to (e) — die, then we are only left with those two following provisions, because no person will meet paragraphs 6(1)(a) to (e) because the legal provisions will not allow anybody to be legally registered under those provisions. So we are only left with two provisions under the Indian Act for people being registered: subsection 6(2), which is cauterized to the next generation, passing it on to transmit Indian status, and paragraph 6(1)(f), the two-parent rule, which is very focused. A lot of people in the modern country of Canada, we have not procreated with other section 6 people, so our descendants go into subsection 6(2), and then it’s cauterized at 6(2).
Certain communities will go extinct in the near future, within the next generation. Multiple generations will go extinct. Regarding the connection to culture — when we are assimilated, there is no culture; we’re into the greater society of Canada as First Peoples, and then that’s it. Game over.
Senator Prosper: Ms. McGuire-Cyrette, do you have any comments?
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: Thank you for the question, and thank you for the work here today.
This issue is complex because you have this legislative framework that, unfortunately, because of colonization, is ingrained within our communities. It is now, unfortunately, connected to our identity. We can see this happening in our communities, the question of whether you are or are not status. It regards whether you are able to be connected to your community. When you break it down in terms of why Indigenous women experience so much violence, discrimination and everything else we are all well aware of, it is because of the lack of community and culture and the normalization of violence against us. One of the root causes for it regards the fact that we, as mothers, are the key to passing on our knowledge to our children and grandchildren. We’re the Storytellers and the Knowledge Keepers; we pass on our culture and our community. That leadership was directly targeted under the Indian Act.
We can’t consult on what an acceptable amount of discrimination is — full stop. We’ve already been consulted, and we need to make the changes. We also can’t consult on whether to make First Nations legislatively extinct — whether to assimilate.
As senators, you have an opportunity here for your legacy to be making a generational impact and righting the wrongs of many generations before us. I’ve been on the front line for a very long time. I remember my grandparents, and I remember Bill C-31 in 1985. I’m sitting here listening to everything Mr. Matson has said and seeing his son. It reminds me of being pulled out of school and being put on a protest line as a child. I was trying to figure out what was going on, and I tried to go back to school and explain to my teacher and friends what was happening. Back then, we were declared “half-breeds.”
I understand that Indigenous identity is so complex because of all of these removals. When my grandmother married my grandfather, because he was a Métis man and she was a First Nations woman, she was kicked out of her community. Perhaps I shouldn’t say this on the record, but I will: We had to hunt and fish at night in order to survive. My grandparents had 16 children, and we had no way to support our livelihood, so we had to practice our ceremonies at night.
I wanted to acknowledge my ancestors and those of others, who have been arguing this and fighting on this path for so many generations. If we can’t correct this now, then it will be our children and grandchildren who are going to be here. It will be that young man, sitting with you all today, who will be testifying to another Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples in 20 years, arguing once again that consultations are not necessary and that we have had, from the 1990s, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP. We have had the national inquiry. We have had consultations.
If we want to consult, maybe we need to look at how we consult to bring women back into the community. How do we restore Indigenous women’s leadership back into community? RCAP spoke about how self-government will not succeed until we heal our communities. That was the first recommendation in RCAP. We cannot proceed with self-government until we have, as communities, come together to heal from all the colonial practices and assimilation that have and which continue to occur. To decide in legislation whom women can fall in love with and have children with, that is a choice that no mother should have to take on. The future generations of your community and your future grandchildren’s grandchildren are going to depend upon whom you decide to love and marry, as well as whom you decide to put on a birth certificate. That is not something that is acceptable in any community.
We support Bill S-2 with the amendments that we have proposed here today. Meegwetch.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here and for your ongoing work. It is often thankless work, but I want you to know how much we appreciate it.
Like Senator McCallum, I’m hard-pressed to find new questions to ask. I think you went there, Ms. McGuire-Cyrette, with what you just concluded with, but I would like to provide an opportunity for both of you to elaborate upon what it would mean if Bill S-2 passes without amendments; what would it mean to you, your communities and your families? Perhaps Ms. McGuire-Cyrette first and then Mr. Matson.
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: That is a great question.
I also want to acknowledge all of you for doing this critical work.
It will mean that, once again, we need to continue and that we failed to remedy all of the sex discrimination in the Indian Act once again. It is going to be a continuing battle.
The lack of resources in community — we’re pulling away from our work and community to prepare, present and to be here to participate in addressing the legislative discriminatory piece, which we all know shouldn’t be there. There has been so much engagement and so many studies already. Women have told us very clearly what needs to happen.
ONWA, as an agency, currently represents 39 Indigenous women’s agencies across Ontario. These are grassroots women’s collectives, and there are also Indigenous women’s agencies doing work in communities. We engaged in five communities with over 130 Indigenous women. Additionally, over 2,000 people participated in our livestream event.
What’s going to happen is that we will have failed to bring forward their voices to make the changes they have asked us to. We engaged with communities and over 2,000 people. We asked them the questions that the federal government wanted us to, and we are bringing forward their recommendations on what needs to change and happen.
They have been very clear that a one-parent rule is what’s needed and that we have to remove the 1985 cut-off. Those components have come directly from First Nations women. We need to make those amendments. We need to listen to them if we’re going to move Canada forward. This can’t pass without the amendments; otherwise, we’re back here again, and it’s going to be Mr. Matson’s son here with his own children. I have a picture here of one of my two grandsons, and it might be them coming here to continue to do this work. We have an opportunity now to make this change, and I really hope I have been able to compel you with all my heart and spirit that this is the right thing to do.
I never would have thought, being on the front lines back in 1985, that I would be here, now, at this time in my career, doing the same work my grandparents were doing. I’m really quite shocked and amazed that the same thing they were fighting for back in 1985, I’m fighting for now — and our children might be fighting for it, too. Meegwetch.
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question.
I came here in 2022 and 2023 regarding various studies. What good is the Make It Stop! report? Why would this committee make a report about the same subjects we talked about years ago and then not resort to making amendments and doing exactly what this committee said it would? That would be an insult to me and to the United Nations, which came here before with the CEDAW. I think that was one of the first times the United Nations appeared before a committee in this country.
Bars to compensation for people who have been assimilated compare to other wrongs this country has done to Indigenous Peoples. This committee has already done the bulk of the work. Now you need to put your Make It Stop! report in.
If you send us away without amendments to Bill S-2 — I have used the Canadian Human Rights Act to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. As I said, years passed. They removed the Canadian Human Rights Act for Indians. I’m an Indian because I am defined as an Indian under the Indian Act.
For us to not have any access to justice or avenues to keep going — I have three cases from the United Nations. Why would I keep going? I already have two backup plans involving two international bodies, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Commonwealth Secretariat. I’ve had my legal backup plans from the get-go. I’m prepared to keep going, but it wouldn’t be fair for me to keep going because this committee has already done that work for us. You’ve helped me, so thank you.
With the Respected and Protected report about access to justice, I have talked to the Justice Department, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC. No one is working on your Respected and Protected report about access to justice, especially regarding the Canadian Human Rights Act, the United Nations Calls to Action and the findings.
The United Nations in my case found the Charter of Rights and Freedoms an illusory option. Where do we go if we have no amendments to this bill? Do we go to war? No, we can’t do that.
Please provide amendments. Please provide compensation. It’s been 100 years since Canada has come down into my family and generations of my bloodline and insulted generation after generation, and he doesn’t deserve it because there’s been findings for him, his sister and everybody else in that situation. To have the right to self-determination and continue on with a one-parent rule is a human right.
There are very few human rights I have to pass on my identity here in Canada. General Recommendation No. 39 from the UN CEDAW, they used my case for that, in how they defined it. I’ll put this in my brief — identity is something we can pass on and something we cannot stop.
My Indigenous bloodline is unbroken; it is the same for my children and their future descendants. Now it’s time for your committee to continue the good work. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have been thinking about implementation. Both of you have made recommendations this morning for changes you would like to see. How would we implement those? If we got the changes you recommended, what would that look like in our communities and for government? Do you have thoughts on that?
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: Thank you. That is a great question. This is where we can do engagement around implementation, working with First Nations on what they need in order to welcome the women and their children back home to their communities.
This is an opportunity for us to heal together, looking all the way back to RCAP. We haven’t had opportunities to collectively heal together as communities, as Indigenous People, going forward.
Being able to ensure that the women are not looked at as taking away resources — are not looked at with that fear mentality that is there. We are talking about our women, our children and our future.
This is an opportunity for us to look at how we walk together moving forward. What do communities need in order to welcome back the women and the children and ensure those resources are there on the table for the communities to welcome them back? I’m thinking about welcome home ceremonies. This could be an opportunity for us as a collective community to come together to, once again, restore community, identity and Indigenous women’s leadership to our communities.
This is a path forward where we will be setting up our grandchildren’s grandchildren with a legacy we can be proud of. You have to remember that the work we are doing here today, myself and all of you — everybody on this call — we’re not going to see the impacts of it. Our children and grandchildren are going to see the impacts. For me, that’s a place of beautiful purpose, recognizing we’re creating safer communities for our women, children and grandchildren’s grandchildren as we go forward.
We’re honouring those voices. We are making the legislative change now. We are walking the path of reconciliation together in doing this. That way, with the legacies we can leave behind here, we’ll have no regrets. This is an opportunity to make a generational impact in a positive way.
We’ve seen the generational impact of what happens when we don’t listen to community and Indigenous women. We see the generational impact that happened from 1985 and previously, all the way through to today with the increased rates of violence and everything else.
Here is an opportunity for us to say, “No, we’re going to do this differently.” Meegwetch.
Mr. Matson: I don’t have much to add. That was beautifully said. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: We had an MP table a motion to study amending the Indian Act while we are doing this, which is another situation we have here. He wants to see more Indigenous leadership.
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette partially answered this: Who is best suited to address Bill S-2 when we look at leadership, women and community, realizing many of our people have been colonized? That colonization within the community is a big problem. I’ve seen it. Ms. McGuire-Cyrette said we need to work and heal together. I wish to look at the loopholes and close them.
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: We need to engage with those who are most impacted by what we’re discussing here. Good public policy comes from everyone being engaged.
What we may be referring to is the nation-to-nation-only approach. I will put that in quotation marks, “only approach,” where only national Indigenous organizations are considered leadership in public policy at a national level.
What we promote is a nation-to-nation-plus approach, which includes Indigenous women in the community, individuals like Mr. Matson and all of us in public policy. We can’t separate the individual from the collective.
Once again, when we’re looking at leadership, I see Indigenous women leading every day in their communities. I see them leading and continuing to take up their responsibilities in the face of violence 365 days a year and in every system they encounter. They are continuing to raise their children, heal, reclaim their leadership and address legislative discrimination like we’re talking about here today.
When we asked Indigenous women what leadership means to them, the answer was not just elected officials. We have a different definition of leadership as Indigenous People. It’s about supporting our community and leading for those generations that are not here today — that have yet to be born. The work we do today is never for ourselves. The work we’re talking about here today, I’m not doing it at an individual level for myself; I’m doing this for my grandchildren’s grandchildren. We’re doing this for the collective responsibility we carry in community.
Once again, it is a colonial tactic for us to be able to say that the federal government created a policy that we didn’t agree to, which is the Indian Act. The federal government once again created an engagement policy on a nation-to-nation-only approach. Once again, as Indigenous women, we didn’t agree to that.
We’ve been trying to impact that policy since it’s been in place and say that we need to engage with women who are being impacted by public policy. That is good public policy here in Canada. For instance, the Indian Act has influenced the thinking of people and leaders in our nations, some of whom believe that we no longer belong because of enfranchisement. If we want to restore balance, we need that sense of belonging and community.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples clearly identified the need for Indigenous Peoples to heal from the consequences of domination, displacement and assimilation before self-government can succeed. That’s what we’re seeing here today. Our nations must be able to exercise jurisdiction and self-governance, including determining citizenship in a way that respects First Nations women’s equality and rights. There is no acceptable amount of discrimination here in Canada, in our communities, and it is caused by that colonial thinking ingrained in our communities.
We have to make sure the work we do is about restoring First Nations women and their descendants. That is the work that we’re doing here, and that is the work, I think, we’re all agreeing to as we move forward. Meegwetch.
Mr. Matson: I don’t have too much to add other than to note that part of reconciliation is correcting the wrongs of the past and ensuring that there are no wrongs going into the future. An apology would be nice. Once, one of the lawyers in my domestic case at the Federal Court of Appeal came up and apologized to me for what that person was doing in fighting against me. That is a form of reconciliation between myself and an individual who, through various tiers of the judicial system, apologized to me.
That was nice, but there has to be an apology from the executive of the Canadian government, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Indigenous Services. I think this committee apologized with its Make It Stop! and Respected and Protected reports in positive ways.
But to look at leadership from a community-based lens — for people who have been discriminated against — like Sharon McIvor and others have said, the government needs to provide more funding to the communities when people come in. We need to ensure people have enough funding for programs, services and housing. When it comes to people coming back into or welcomed back into a community — “welcome” would be a nice word — there has to be enough funding for the communities to not be deprived. There are already issues with housing and other programs and services — post-secondary education and so forth.
When it comes to leadership, the people who are bringing court cases are leaders. Sharon McIvor is a leader. Cora is a leader. People who are pressing matters forward are the people who should be consulted.
But I don’t think we need to do any more consultations about the Indian Act. Canada has already been found in violation of what we’re talking about here today. That is all.
The Deputy Chair: In the interest of time, there are two senators left, and I will ask them to limit their questions and interventions to two minutes.
Senator Prosper: I will just follow up on some of the evidence we heard previously. The minister talked about the need for consultations before definitive plans are made with respect to things like membership codes, voting thresholds related to that and the second-generation cut-off.
I want to get to the point made by Ms. McGuire-Cyrette. As it relates to consultation, you mentioned that it seems to be on what an acceptable level of discrimination is. How does one really consult on extinction, as is guaranteed through the second-generation cut-off? Can you expand upon that a bit? Thank you.
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: Definitely. Thank you for the question.
As Indigenous People, we need to reconcile with ourselves for this to be successful. That is where we’re looking at the fear around welcoming back the women and children. Otherwise, what we’re really talking about is using colonial tools to look at who we want to let in, as a fear-based tactic because of the lack of resources in communities to welcome the women and children back.
On our end, we’re seeing these ongoing engagement tactics that are about engaging within these colonial structures around the Indian Act system and so on. It’s about them asking the questions about how much discrimination we are facing. They are not going to ask the question in such a blunt way — “How can we discriminate against women?” — but the questions they are asking are actually around those kinds of things. “What are we going to do with the women and children from Bill S-2 or who are under the one-parent rule?” That is about how much discrimination we are going to allow as communities. Not all communities are of that mindset, but unfortunately, some are. I know that my own community doesn’t have that mindset, luckily, because we have very strong women in the community who are speaking out about this. However, not all communities are like that. That is due to a lack of capacity or resources — all of the systemic issues that are there — so we haven’t had an opportunity to reclaim our Indigenous systems and Ways of Knowing and Being.
So continuing to use tactics for engagement on what is going to be done with this one-parent rule, and what is to be done with removing certain sections of the Indian Act is essentially engaging around what an acceptable amount of discrimination is. The federal government is going to place it on us, for us to do that engagement, instead of saying, “Let’s engage on what we need and how to welcome back the women and children.” Meegwetch.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I’d like to touch briefly on the bars to compensation that are still being upheld through Bill S-2 as we have it before us. I also want to acknowledge in my question that we had these bars to compensation in Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-3, which were before the Senate previously.
Could you please comment on the equality rights that are being impacted by the bars to compensation that exist in Bill S-2?
Mr. Matson: I’ll quickly touch on that.
In my cases, regarding the reparations part, the Human Rights Council in both cases said to provide compensation to the ones who have been assimilated — that is with the sex-based discrimination and also the subsection 6(2) people. That is something Canada has to respond to, especially under UNDA and other international calls. That is already stated in the Make It Stop! report.
Then, when it comes to the dollar value, that is something we should start working on. What aspects have those individuals been deprived of, and what does that look like? That is another conversation for another day, but bars to compensation have to be removed, because it’s already happened in other scenarios with First Nations’ clean drinking water and with residential schools. Now it’s time to help out our women with that aspect.
Senator McPhedran: Ms. McGuire-Cyrette, did you want to add to that?
Ms. McGuire-Cyrette: Thank you. When we look at other colonial impacts have allowed for compensation — residential schools, child welfare — why not for Indigenous women? I think that is a question we always need to look at. And UNDRIP Article 39 states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.
So it really is always interesting for me to see that the colonial tactics continue, and that when we’re addressing these systems, it’s the women who are always refused compensation.
There are many ways for us to look at this. We’re talking about restoring community and restoring women back to community. This could be both individual and collective compensation. We could say there is individual compensation, to right those wrongs, and also have collective compensation because of the collective, intergenerational impacts this has had on our communities. That is another aspect of repairing the harms.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to all of you.
Honourable colleagues, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us today.
If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk by five o’clock today — I think that’s what I said earlier.
Colleagues, I would now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses, who are joining us via video conference.
Please welcome, from the Snuneymuxw First Nation, Joan Brown, Syuwén’ct Director; and, appearing as an individual, Lynda Price, former Chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation.
Welcome to you both and thank you for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I now invite Ms. Brown to give her opening remarks.
Joan Brown, Syuwén’ct Director, Snuneymuxw First Nation: [Indigenous language spoken].
Good morning, chair and members of the Senate committee. I begin by acknowledging the lands that hold us and the ancestors who continue to guide us.
My name is Joan Brown. I am the great-great-granddaughter of the first signatory of our Sarlequun Treaty.
I come before you today with humility, reflecting on the ancestral way. Our old people left us a brilliance, a way of being that is complete, balanced and deeply wise.
They taught us how to live in right relationship — to one another, to the lands and waters, to the spirit that connects us to all living things.
That way still lives within us. It is not something of the past. It is the heart of who we are.
And yet this proposed membership bill continues the old colonial idea that the government can decide who belongs to our nations. That authority does not belong to Canada. It belongs to the people — to the nations — to those whose relationship to the land and to each other defines who they are.
Membership is not a number. It is not a piece of paper. It is not blood quantum. It is a sacred relationship and a way of life. To be a member is to carry the responsibility of our ancestors to live in a way that honours that sacred trust.
Membership is what holds this ancestral way in place, because it is through belonging, caring for and connecting to the land that we find life itself.
These lands and waters are not outside of us. They run through our veins. They breathe life into who we are.
When another government claims the right to decide who belongs, it disturbs that sacred relationship. It tells us that our essence is looking to be defined from outside ourselves.
This is not reconciliation. This is not self-determination.
If we are truly walking towards reconciliation, then the authority to define belonging must return to where it has always lived — with the nations, the people and the land.
I ask you to listen with your hearts as well as your minds. This is not about legislation. This is about life. It is about identity. It is about the sacred responsibilities that define us as a people who have lived from the beginning of time.
[Indigenous language spoken].
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Brown. I will now invite Ms. Price to give her opening remarks. Ms. Price, the floor is yours.
Lynda Price, Independent consultant and former Chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation, as an individual: [Indigenous language spoken].
Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you so much for hearing my submission as you deliberate proposed amendments to the Indian Act in Bill S-2.
I am the great-granddaughter of the late Chief Domas Squinas, who was the Chief of our community, Ulkatcho First Nation. Our ancestral lands are located in the interior of British Columbia.
I am also a former elected Chief of my community located at Anahim Lake. As well, I am a former elected member of the executive of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and a former board member of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, or BCAFN — all positions I would not have been able to attain but for the amendment to the Indian Act under Bill C-31 in 1985.
The issue I will address is unequal provisions under the Indian Act paragraphs 6(1)(a.3)(i) and (ii). This legislation does not permit the Indian Registrar to equitably issue certificates of Indian status to siblings and their grandchildren within the same family unit with identical genealogy. This is evident by the comparator group analysis in the example attached. I hope all of you received a copy. I have sent all of you a chart; it is called “The Price Family Grandchildren,” and I will be speaking to it.
If you look under “Grandparent” to the left of the chart, you will see “Theresa”; she is my mother. She was born in 1927. She is now aged 98; she had her birthday the other day. She was enfranchised when she married my father, who was non-status. She was reinstated under Bill C-31 in 1985.
Under “First Generation” on the chart, you will see that Theresa had two children, Mike and Lynda. Mike was born in 1949. I was born in 1959. Both children were reinstated under Bill C-31 in 1985. Both children married non-status spouses. Mike married before 1985. I married after April 17, 1985.
If you look under “Second Generation,” you will see Mike had a daughter, Rebecca, who was born before April 17, 1985. I have a son, Carey, who was born after April 17, 1985. They both received their certificates of Indian status under Bill C-3 in 2011.
If you look under “Third Generation,” you will see Mike’s grandchildren, Zoe and Abigail, received their certificates of Indian status and were registered 6(2).
However, when my grandchildren — if you look towards the bottom right of that chart, you will see Liv, Millie and Lincoln — applied for their certificates of Indian status, they were denied. The letter from John Gordon, Indian Registrar, stated it was due to the second-generation cut-off rule.
The chart, the Price family grandchildren comparator group analysis, demonstrates that the Indian Act legislation discriminated against my grandchildren when they applied for their certificates of Indian status; although they were born in the identical family genealogy, they were not treated the same as their first cousins. Carey Price has verified this to you in a letter, which all of you should also have.
The legislation under Indian Act paragraphs 6(1)(a.3)(i) and (ii) must be amended to comply with Canada’s Constitution Act Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 15, on equality rights.
I wanted to provide an opportunity for you to have a comparator group analysis in front of you so you can see how that piece of legislation is definitely violating the Charter.
[Indigenous language spoken]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Price. We will now proceed with questions from the senators.
Honourable colleagues, each of you will have a four-minute intervention — including the question and the answer — with a 30-second heads-up so everyone can ask a question.
Senator McPhedran: I have a question I wish to ask both witnesses.
Before I do that, on a personal note, I hope it is okay to refer to you respectfully as “Auntie Joan” and to thank for the incredibly generous hospitality you, your community and your Chief showed to Senator McCallum and me when we were able to visit. It is still a highlight in my life.
My question is about the illegality of many of the clauses in this bill. Both of you have spoken eloquently about the way it should be and the way it is not.
I wish to ask a specific question, and that around your opinion on the fact there are still bars to compensation stopping any Indigenous woman from looking to the government for the harms caused not only by Bill C-3, the most recent version, but also previous bills that have become law in this country. I’m referring to specific sections in this bill that continue this prohibition so that Indigenous women cannot claim any compensation for the harms caused to them as a result of the way in which the Indian Act discriminates against them.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, senator, for your kind comments. It is wonderful to see both you and Senator McCallum.
Thank you for that important question in the sense that we are matriarchs, without a doubt, and it tears at the fabric of who we are as a people and our roles as women in the community. We are the historians. We are the ones who keep things alive. When it is determined outside our organization — our way of being, as you describe, senator — it is problematic. We are continually on the outside looking in, women especially. That is why we are saying to bring it back to the nations; they understand the roles and responsibilities and can begin to lift each other up as a people, including — and especially — women. Thank you, senator.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
How about you, Ms. Price?
Ms. Price: Thank you for the question. I wish to thank Joan Brown for being on the panel with me today. Thank you, all, for inviting us to this important discussion.
I wish to say, regarding your question on my opinion on the bars to compensation for Indigenous women and the harms caused prior to this bill, my mom and I were reinstated under Bill C-31 in 1985.
I wish to tell you — I hope I don’t get emotional — my mom was born in 1927. She married my father and had five children. I have three brothers and an older sister. My father passed away in a plane crash when I was five years old. She had to raise those five children on her own.
I have to say that, when she lost her status, she got enfranchised. She didn’t have a choice of keeping her status. She was enfranchised. When she lost her status, she lost all benefits from the community.
My mom’s younger sister eventually became the Chief of our community. However, she was unable to help my mom because the provisions under the Indian Act would not allow her to benefit without a status card. All those years, she raised five children on her own. She had to make a living. She is a hard worker. I’m very grateful she made provision for us. We did a lot of hunting. We sustenance hunted.
However, as you said, she suffered all those years. When she received her status in 1985, she wasn’t compensated. You know, just using common sense, it is clear that she lost a lot. She didn’t have access to housing, health, education — all the provisions the status members of our community had.
What was worse was that her grandfather, Chief Domas Squinas, would absolutely not have agreed with that, because it was our ancestral lands that provided for the revenue for the funds that went to the Province of British Columbia, through forestry and other economic benefits that came from the land.
Yet my mom did not receive any of those. And there was such a divide in the Indian Act, the divide and division of powers — the federal government and the provincial government. There was just no reconciliation there.
I’m really thankful today that the federal government and the provincial government are now working together with our First Nation communities on impact benefit agreements. We have one in place now.
I wanted to say that for your information. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you both very much for being here. I would like to direct my question to both of you, so I’ll move along quickly in hopes that you can both respond.
I note that the official intent of Bill S-2 has got a bit lost in our debate here, and I want to believe that’s because we all agree that the bill, in its current form, should pass.
Regarding the second-generation cut-off debate, I’m asking each of you, at the community level, what resources will First Nations need in order to support and integrate those additional members? And in your experience, are communities truly prepared to manage that process, both financially and administratively?
Ms. Brown: Thank you for your question. Without a doubt, what we’re trying to impress — at least from a Snuneymuxw perspective — is that overall, wellness is reliant on each of us being a part of the whole. What arrives after that is all of those resources are required, just like an ancestral way of being. With those financial resources, it starts to move and to live again.
So we certainly have the ability to manage, but first and foremost, from our perspective, it is really about healing those wounds so that we can start moving and paddling forward.
Without a doubt, we’re prepared in a way where we never leave anyone behind. That’s our story. That’s our way of being. That’s what we’re asking everyone: to trust who we are, what we are and the brilliance of the old people. We’re standing on their shoulders, and they’ve left us so much that those kinds of things are not first and foremost. It’s about wellness where, in the collective self, everything is restored and renewed.
We’re really confident, but most importantly, as my relative Lynda has said, those wounds — what’s happened to our parents and our grandparents — we want to leave that in the past and start healing. That begins today with your help in turning things over to the nations.
[Indigenous language spoken].
Ms. Price: Good morning. Thank you for the question. That’s a really important one.
I guess I would turn that around. Being a leader in my community and a former Chief, I’ve served a number of terms. I served as an elected Chief from 2005 to 2009. I was the first woman elected to the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs executive, and I served on the First Nations Leadership Council with former premier Gordon Campbell serving at the time, with Grand Chief Ed John, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and former National Chief Shawn Atleo. There were many things we had to address at the leadership level. One of them was capacity in our community.
As we all know, we need to have our band members back in our communities so that we can start building them. Without our children being reinstated, we’re losing the capacity and we actually lose our communities.
When I was on the First Nations Leadership Council, we signed the Tripartite Health Agreement with the federal government, the province and the First Nations in British Columbia. As a result, we set up the First Nations Health Governance Framework. Within that framework, a number of regional offices were set up.
So I see our people who are returning entering into those positions. As a leader in my community, I helped negotiate the gaming revenue agreements. Back in the day, we didn’t have enough revenue to fund our post-secondary students, and we had a cap of only 400,000 in our community.
After I returned, we were able to enter into a partnership agreement with the Province of British Columbia. We were able to get resources back into the community, so instead of having 15 students when I left my position this spring — I did not run again — we had 60 students on our post-secondary list.
And I see those students coming back to our community, building our community, helping with the economy and providing the capacity for us to move forward in a good way.
So I don’t see a detriment here, but I do see a detriment if we don’t address this issue. What worries me is my grandchildren: Liv, who is 9; Millie, who is 7; and Lincoln, who is 5. What will they do without their status in our communities? They won’t feel welcome because they don’t have their status. It will create discrimination.
I really am concerned. This is my great-grandfather’s ancestral land we’re talking about. These are his great-great-grandchildren. There is no way in a million years that my great-grandfather would have agreed to them not being able to serve in our communities.
And if I had not been reinstated under Bill C-31, back in 1985, I would never have been elected in my community, been able to serve on the First Nations Leadership Council at a provincial level or been elected the first woman to the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs executive, which began in 1969.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for your service.
Senator Tannas: I want to build a bit on the comments Ms. Price just put forward. This year, we just had the first 6(2)‑status Indians turn 40. So we should have an increasing number of younger children being born on-reserve without status and, therefore, no funding for education, health or housing.
And we should start seeing no status kids turning 20 soon, I would think. Probably there are some who are going to have the adult requirements around housing in the community.
Could each of you comment on how much stress this is putting on the community at the moment, having a lot of unfunded people and a growing number entering into the school system primarily, but also in the other areas of community expense? What is it doing to the culture?
Because if we’re going to consult on this for another five years, this is something that — we’ve heard from others — is becoming a significant financial issue. It’s starting to become a community morale issue and create divisions.
I would like to get your thoughts on your specific communities and how bad or good they are around this subject. Thank you.
Ms. Price: So the question regards the increased amount of status 6(2) or non-status people returning to our communities and how will that impact our First Nations?
Senator Tannas: It’s more about those who are already there. We’ve heard a lot of evidence that there are a lot of 6(2)s in the communities who have had kids, and they are not funded. And I’m more interested in that than this whole spectre of people returning, et cetera. I’m talking about the community and the people in it right now.
Ms. Price: Yes, that is a concern for sure. I know that, regarding my children, when I was going to university, Bill C-3 had not been introduced yet, so they didn’t have their status. My children didn’t receive their status until well into their twenties, so I lived it; I know it.
I was fortunate in that I was able to survive because I was a hard-working woman and able to bring in revenue. I served as a school trustee for School District No. 27 for 10 years, and I worked within my community with the education portfolio. I worked very diligently on getting our band school built and our daycare built. I worked very diligently on getting a new clinic, a new band office as well as other infrastructure built. I worked in our natural resources centre, and I set up the referral process as well as the conservation program. I also set up the Elder’s council, which represented all the Elders in our community. We dealt with all of the referrals in the community.
So when I look at the community as a whole, we invited everybody to take positions to work. Basically, we didn’t depend so much on looking at the welfare syndrome; we were looking for ways to create job opportunities.
We entered into a joint venture with Carrier Lumber, the local community and the band. We set up a forestry operation where we were able to bring revenue into the community so that everybody could work. All the families — men, women and kids, whether status or not — were able to work in that community and buy homes and vehicles.
We were very fortunate in that we were able to focus on revenue and economic development.
To me, that is what it’s about: entering into partnerships, not only with the industry but with communities, and working together for the betterment of us all. That’s the way life is these days.
We can’t concentrate on what revenues we will get from the government when this government is in so much debt. How are they going to afford to pay it all? If you look at the government of the province of British Columbia, I shudder to know they are $10.5 billion in debt. The federal government is not doing much better.
So we need to focus on partnerships and economic development. Those are the things we have to put our minds towards. What’s creating all the problems is that we’re so worried about what’s going on that we’re going around in a circle. We need to welcome our children and families back so we can work together to build a strong community. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Can you give your thoughts briefly, Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown: Thank you, senator.
My perspective is always from a cultural lens and really understanding what it’s like to be on the outside looking in. Many times, there are women who are non-Indigenous who have married into our community and have status, and that’s really so hurtful; you can’t imagine what that’s like in our community. But at the end of the day, when we’re well, economics is just a small part of the story. We don’t focus so much where we must. Please, senator, we talk about healing, and once we’re all home, you just prepare yourself for the extraordinary, as my relative said. The economics will take care of itself.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, I would invite you to keep your questions and answers to two minutes at this point.
Senator Clement: Thank you to both witnesses. Ms. Brown, your words about the sacred relationship — and how that being disturbed is not reconciliation — were powerful. Thank you, Ms. Price, for the chart and your point about identical genealogies leading to unequal results.
My question is around rights holders and how you define that term. It has been suggested to me that this committee shouldn’t make amendments or go further s reconciliation because we haven’t heard from a sufficient number of rights holders. It seems to me that we have heard from many impacted individuals, including matriarchs and elected people.
What is your concept of rights holders?
Ms. Price: Thank you. In terms of Aboriginal rights, there are two — it comes under section 35 rights in that we obviously have Aboriginal rights and title to our lands, and we also have the rights to all of our cultural practices, which have been defined by the courts under a number of different cases to mean to fish, hunt and gather sustenance on our lands.
For each of us, I don’t think you can ever take our rights away. Our rights come with our bloodline. In our community of Ulkatcho, although we are called the Ulkatcho First Nation, we have a number of families in our community, and each one is connected to the land. Our language is a conduit to our land, so basically, our laws are written within our language.
So when I think about my ancestors, I think about the ways that we lived and grew up on the land. My great-grandfather Chief Domas Squinas was Nuxalk. He was Coast Salish. His first wife was Tsilhqot’in, and they were the first to win the Xeni Gwet’in Tsilhqot’in case for Aboriginal title, which we’re very proud of. That happened in 2014. Then, his second wife was Christine, my dear grandmother, who was from Ootsa Lake, and her family was flooded out. Their gravesites were floating when Alcan put Kenney Dam in up north.
So you can see how our people are connected to the land. Each of our family groups in our community are all connected to what we call a keyoh area, which is like our homeland. We have hunted and gathered there from time immemorial.
So when I think about Aboriginal rights and title, I think about our right under section 35. But even before that, we had that right.
When the newcomers came, which included ancestors on my dad’s side, our people welcomed them, and that’s why people sometimes took advantage, which is why we’re suffering today, I think.
But what’s most important is our children being able to experience living in our land.
I intentionally raised my two children, Carey and Kayla, on the land. We had the choice of living in Vancouver — my husband had a really good job — but I said that we had to go back to my community, as I wanted my children to experience living and being raised in my community so they would know their ancestors, their relatives and how we lived off the land.
Today, I’m so proud of that, because both my children know who they are. My son hunts with my husband every fall and continues to subsistence hunt the way he was taught, which is the way my grandmother taught me. I’m so proud of that.
So Aboriginal rights and title are very significant. If our children’s rights are severed because they don’t have their status, that would be unacceptable. Thank you.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, senator. Again, my answers are always from a cultural perspective. Rights and title holders, of course, are people of and from the land. With all my heart and all my strength, the land knows me and I know the land. She is going to react to those who are rights and title holders. We hear her voice, and she responds kindly.
That is how I understand that relationship. It really comes from knowing the land but, more important, she knows us and our relationship with her back to the beginning of time. She sees who I am.
Thank you, senator.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, witnesses. It’s been quite a learning experience with incredible stories of resilience. There is a lot of wisdom and knowledge here being shared, and I thank you for that.
For each witness, this bill seeks to remedy enfranchisement and provides a legal mechanism for the recognition of status for those individuals subject to enfranchisement. However, within your testimony, you have noted further injustices that are ongoing. Ms. Price, you put it in black and white with a chart of your family.
Ms. Brown, you talked about humility, the right relationship, wisdom and a balanced approach. As Indigenous People, we are not just numbers, and who belongs shouldn’t be a consideration for Canada; it’s for our nations.
There’s been a lot of discussion on the second-generation cut‑off, which is not front and centre in this bill at this time. Do you think that element should be a consideration within the context of this bill in the form of an amendment? We’ll start with Ms. Brown and then move to Ms. Price.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, senator.
I’m going to try not to get emotional, because this impacts my grandchildren, who live next door to me. How could I say that they don’t belong? It is not in our way of being. It has such a high impact — more than anybody can really begin to understand.
My grandchildren are carvers. They know the songs. They live and breathe our way of being. That is why we’re emphasizing that we are the ones who know who belongs and how they belong. Nobody else can determine it but us, our own people. That’s what’s really hard. We can’t say, “You don’t belong anymore, my son. It is time for you to live somewhere else.” You could never imagine what it’s like to say to your grandchildren, “Sorry. You have to change your name. You can’t carry this name.” It tears at our hearts. I will leave it there.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Ms. Price: Thank you. That is a really important question, and it’s the reason I’m here today.
I was working on Bill C-38. I was there when we made a submission to former minister Patty Hajdu, representing the BC Assembly of First Nations as the Chief of Ulkatcho; I was appointed by the Chiefs to do a submission to the former minister, along with the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs’ representative, Chief Marilyn Slett from Heiltsuk. We both presented. Basically, we wanted to bring recognition regarding all the resolutions that were passed over the years. Resolution 2010-03 states that “. . . the BCAFN Chiefs-in-Assembly stated that First Nations have the inherent right and jurisdiction to determine citizenship . . .” Then, another resolution passed called Resolution 2019-07(g), which states that “. . . the BCAFN Chiefs-in-Assembly called upon Canada to immediately end sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act . . .”
The Senate committee recognized, in our resolution dated March 9 and 10, 2023, the BCAFN held a special Chiefs assembly. We passed Resolution 01/2023, the subject being, “ENDING SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN THE INDIAN ACT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE UN DECLARATION.” Within that resolution, we said:
The federal Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples (then the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples) report, Make It Stop: Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration released in June 2022 makes 9 recommendations to address ongoing sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act and make reparations;
That was something we recognized in the assembly. The Chiefs passed a resolution and, in October, the working group was set up. I believe Sharon McIvor, who presented to you yesterday or the day before, was part of that working group. Basically, the BCAFN Chiefs-in-Assembly passed a resolution to support the recommendations in the Make It Stop! report. They also fully supported the conclusion and recommendation of the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group. They also called upon Canada:
. . . to ensure that any amendments to the Indian Act (1985) are consistent with the Indigenous and human rights affirmed in the UN Declaration and meet the requirement of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
So I believe that our people in the province of British Columbia have already said it’s time — it’s long overdue. Honestly, the government is breaking the law. Back in the early 1980s, we passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a section called “Equality Rights,” which is section 15. Within that framework, if any government, be it federal or provincial, passed legislation that discriminates in that area, that legislation needs to be struck.
So this is a really serious matter, and this has been going on too long. I think the Supreme Court of British Columbia has made a ruling in that Nicholas case and has given CIRNAC 10 months to get it right. That needs to be noted. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I’m very cognizant of time. We have two minutes total.
Senator McCallum: I realize that.
I want say hello to Auntie Joan. It’s good to see you again, and I hope to visit soon.
I want to tell people here that we have asked for the stats of the people involved in the Nicholas lawsuit — how many of them are going to fall into the second-generation cut-off. There will be some. They are in line for another discrimination.
According to official government statistics, Canada welcomed approximately 483,591 immigrants in 2024, which includes 483,390 permanent residents. It is the highest number of immigrants in a single year since 1972. Canada will continue to bring in 395,000 in 2025, 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 permanent residents in 2027. The government spends billions to support immigrants — more than $3.2 billion over three years in funding for services, including language training and professional licensing.
The Interim Housing Assistance Program provides billions more for the cost of sheltering asylum claimants. For instance, an additional $362.4 million was announced for this program in January 2024, in addition to $212 million for the previous summer.
Do you agree that First Nations should have been prioritized when you look at what the government has been spending on, considering this long history of discrimination under the second-generation cut-off? Why do you think that type of money has not been given to First Nations to correct the discrimination?
The Deputy Chair: I invite your comments.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, senator. Just to hear those words is so impactful — to really understand the pain and suffering that we have endured, the level of poverty we have suffered under, the poor housing and all of those things. Yet we continue to be on the outside looking in as second-class citizens, and everybody else is pushed ahead of us. We live and breathe that living on‑reserve more than anybody could possibly imagine. And then when you look in our urban community, there are even fewer services. So for us it is one of the most painful things we are continually subjected to: being pushed to the back of the line. I don’t know of anything that is more hurtful.
Thank you for that perspective, senator. I always think about the Chiefs, and they are saying, “You go manage poverty.” It is really very difficult, from the previous Chiefs, to rise above the ashes when we are continually on the outside. Thank you for putting that in perspective, Senator McCallum.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Ms. Price.
Ms. Price: Thank you for the question. Regarding the royal commission and many other studies and commissions throughout our history — Canada has done several commissions, and I think all of the recommendations that have come out of those commissions require resources. I believe it is paramount that those obligations be dealt with first. I believe in supporting people and that it is always good for us to look at other people who are in need as well. But when we have such a great need in our own backyard, in our own country, and when our rights are also recognized under section 35, I believe those rights need to be addressed first.
We need to be a part of the solution. We need our needs addressed, and then we can work together to address all of these other things that need to be addressed. But I really believe that the royal commission pretty much laid it all out.
We have people with no drinking water, and there are a lot of people without housing, as you indicated earlier. We need to ensure that those needs are addressed.
What worries me is that this is not healthy for any of our communities. When I look at our own communities, I see how many of our members live off-reserve. If you look to see how many live on-reserve and how many live off-reserve, in the majority of our communities, their members live off-reserve. That means they are looking for housing in the cities, in the municipalities and in the little villages. If there is no housing for them, where is the housing for everybody else? So I guess that is a good question that needs to be resolved. Thank you so much for asking it.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. The time for this panel is complete. Thank you, once again, for joining us and taking the time to be with us today.
If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them to the clerk, and it has to be by five o’clock today. That is the latest that we will be accepting submissions.
Honourable colleagues, that brings us to the end of the public portion of our meeting today. I have a question for all of you, if you could just remain.
To our witnesses, thank you and have a lovely day.
(The committee continued in camera.)