THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 4, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: [Innu-aimun spoken] In Innu-aimun, a language I am learning, the language of my nation, I thanked the Anishinaabe people for welcoming us to their land and allowing us to walk in their space every day. This space has welcomed many nations for centuries: First Nations, Métis, Inuit and all of Turtle Island.
[English]
I remind you that we have to take care of the interpreters, so let’s make sure that when we use earpieces, we don’t get too close to the microphone so that it doesn’t make sounds in their ears. If you aren’t using it, you can place it here where there is a big sticker.
[Translation]
Allow me to introduce myself: Michèle Audette, an Innu woman, chair of this committee and senator for the region of [Innu-aimun spoken] in Quebec.
[English]
I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki Territory.
Senator McNair: Welcome. John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: Welcome. I’m Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator McCallum: Welcome to the Senate. It’s good to have you here. Mary Jane McCallum, Cree, Treaty 10 Territory, Manitoba region.
Senator Tannas: Good morning. Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Good morning. Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 Territory.
The Chair: Thank you.
I also want to acknowledge the people from Human Resources — welcome to this committee — and the students, the leaders of today and tomorrow, from Carleton University who are involved with Professor Randy Boswell.
Today is a special day. Somebody is celebrating life. He will take the chair because, as you know, when we started this bill, Bill S-2, I recused myself.
[Translation]
We will continue our study of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements).
As the bill’s sponsor, I would remind you that I recused myself from the position of chair for all of the meetings at which we will study this bill. In so doing, I wish to honour the neutrality of the chair of a Senate committee.
[English]
When Senator Greenwood is absent, we agreed that Senator Prosper would chair the meeting.
Senator Paul Prosper (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette, for your kind remarks. It’s an honour and privilege to chair this very important meeting today.
I would now like to introduce our first witnesses. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Chief Francis Verreault-Paul; and at the table with us today, from the O’Chiese First Nation, Chief Phyllis Whitford; and James Cook, Indigenous traditional knowledge keeper and mental health worker, as an individual. Thank you all for joining us today.
Our witnesses will be providing opening remarks of approximately five minutes. Please take note of that. That will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I now invite Chief Verreault-Paul to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Chef Francis Verreault-Paul, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador: [Indigenous language spoken] Thank you. Mr. Chair [Technical difficulties] —
[English]
The Acting Chair: Excuse me. I’m sorry. My apologies, Chief.
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Yes?
The Acting Chair: We’re just working on a translation issue here. We will get you to hold on while we work through those logistics. Thank you.
Mr. Verreault-Paul: No problem. Perfect.
The Acting Chair: We are going to go to the next speaker while those issues get worked out. I will now invite Chief Phyllis Whitford to give her opening remarks.
Chief Phyllis Whitford, O’Chiese First Nation: Good morning. I want to begin by saying thank you to all the ministers and everyone in the room for inviting us to speak on the rights of our future generation.
I would like to acknowledge that I am a visitor in this territory. Again, my name is Phyllis Whitford. I am an Anishinaabe of the O’Chiese First Nation. We reside in the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta. I also am here on behalf of our allies Onion Lake Cree Nation and Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation. Our nations have been here long before the state of Canada and its provinces.
When the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was proclaimed by King George III, it related to the rights of the collective. It was a foundation to bring peace and coexistence to the First Peoples of the land and the settlers coming onto Turtle Island. Since its creation in 1867, Canada has been in the process of taking our collective rights and transforming them to individual rights.
This committee has largely focused on the rights of individuals and not on the Treaty rights of the nations on Turtle Island. We recognize the committee has focused on Bill S-2. Canada and the committee have focused on the right of the individual rather than the collective. The legislative changes that have been proposed are not going to deal with the present issue where children of 6(2) are not being presently registered, and they will not be registered through this proposed amendment.
The original process of the Indian Act was to determine who was an Indian, and it violated our Treaty rights. The origin of Treaty rights is our rights, and they do not come from the Indian Act.
Canada has also contradicted its position on membership. For example, O’Chiese First Nation has been exercising its own authority through the membership act since 1987. However, Indian Affairs continues to process membership applications without any reference to the O’Chiese First Nation membership act. This is a true violation of the law.
In our collective, the individual is protected. We’re not only Treaty Nations, but we’re First Peoples of this land. We are the leaders that represent all our members, from the youngest to the eldest. I recognize that this committee has focused its attention on organizations, but I want it duly noted that we are not an organization, and it also violates our Treaty rights.
At the time of Treaty making, the Treaty Commissioner, on behalf of the Crown, asked our leaders, “Who are your people?” What is it from this very simple question that our Treaty pay lists were created? After this, the state of Canada created its own rules and restrictions on our Treaty rights to determine our membership. I would like it noted that membership is a Treaty right in our nations.
Canada also has a fiduciary responsibility to Treaty First Nations. However, it has continued to provide inadequate funding based on outdated formulas and mechanisms. I recommend in this review that funding needs to be supported by free, prior and informed consent.
First Nations have been represented on numerous occasions at the UN, particularly in the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This committee has directed Canada that our free, prior and informed consent must be validated. However, it’s been recognized that Canada has chosen to give funding to organizations and call it consultation. This is also another violation to the Treaty right holders.
In the last Throne Speech, delivered by His Majesty, King Charles III made specific reference to our free, prior and informed consent.
We ask this committee to recognize and implement our Treaty rights in this review on Bill S-2. I challenge this committee to exercise Canada’s agenda to validate equitable mechanisms and funding based on free, prior and informed consent. This is an opportunity to determine and revitalize our natural structures in accordance to our natural family and membership laws.
In conclusion, I strongly believe there are solutions to adequate funding to exercise our rights. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
James Cooke, Indigenous traditional knowledge keeper and mental health worker, as an individual: Good morning. Tansi. [Indigenous language spoken.]
I come to you today in her spirit. My government name, as everybody can see, is James Cooke. I come here today in the spirit of my grandmother, and I say that, my nookomis, because it is her that brought me here today. The reason I say that is she is a woman I never met, a woman who passed away when I was two years old. She died of alcoholism. She was a woman who lost her rights as an Anishinaabe woman a long time ago. It took me 30 years to put that puzzle back together and to reconnect who my family was. That process was not an easy journey because when I started to identify who my grandmother was, I reached out to governments, I reached out to agencies, I reached out to everybody, only to be told, “This person does not exist; she is nowhere to be found on any records.”
You know, I truly believe everything led me through her spirit. And the reason I say that is, every door that closed, another window opened. Us, as Anishinaabe People, we always look at how do we move forward in a good way? How do we collectively find the best way to navigate to the best results of who we are? That is what I was always taught: never, ever look backward. Always move forward.
In the process of trying to find out who my grandmother was — like I said, it took me 30 years — in those 30 years, it presented me with a lot of different obstacles. Number one, I had to reach outside of what I realized in trying to get information.
When you think back to the 1960s and 1970s, the residential school that my grandmother went to burnt down in 1966. All information was destroyed. All of a sudden, I had introduction, again, led by spirit, and was introduced to a gentleman by the name of Father Maurice. He was a gentleman out of Thunder Bay, Ontario, who had the records for the CN and CP Railways, and he was able to provide me with a direction. When I went and asked him for help, he finally agreed to help. However, he also said, “I will never ever fulfill all the requests that I have here before me because you’re not the only one looking for answers in regard to your Anishinaabe heritage and who are you.” But I asked him, “Would you mind showing me the direction? How do I navigate through these books? How do I navigate to do what I need to do?”
I knew I was Anishinaabe before I even regained treaty. I knew that. There was something inside me, and I always realized and respected that spirit. In short, I was able to go through books and books of records, and I was able to go back to my family history of 1874. It was not a simple journey; it was a journey that I had to go through. I had to understand the English language and how they presented it — all the misspellings and all the information that was never documented properly. But I was able to muddle through that. I say that because I think the drive for me was because of my loss of identity — loss of who I was — trying to understand who I was as an Anishinaabe male. For my family — I have a huge family. My family, again — here we are today, finally accepting the roots as Anishinaabe. I walked this way with my family for over 30 years, like I said, before anyone acknowledged that.
My journey has always brought me in and out of different components. One of the biggest components that was always brought forward to me was that I realized the struggles that I had to fight for, and one more thing was all those closed doors. One thing I realized, when I started working for government — I work for Correctional Service Canada — I realized paperwork only goes so far. I say that because you had to learn how to become vocal. You had to be able to learn to speak in a good way. You had to learn how to ask the right questions.
I worked in a system, in regard to Correctional Service Canada, with a bunch of men — I also worked with women at the same time but on a different level and component — but in a system that, in my mind, was a new residential school for this day and age. It’s a new way of converting us as an Anishinaabe People. I say that because I was hired on as an individual, based upon my qualifications, my culture and my spirit, only for them to try to redefine who I was. They kept trying to change me to the point where I was actually asked to leave several times. I finally had to step away a few years back because of the racism, discrimination and harassment. I stayed and fought as much as I could because I understood the stories of the men who were incarcerated — that loss of identity, loss of purpose, loss of understanding who they were and having those connections. The majority of them had no clue who they were and how they were affiliated to whatever community. I knew that feeling far too well.
I am a proud member of Long Lake #58 First Nation, and it took me a long time to make that connection. One thing I always realized is that everything that has navigated me to where I am today — I am sitting here because of my grandmother today. The words I believe I’m speaking I hope are the words she would say, if maybe a little bit differently. She might be a little more polite. I have no idea.
The reality of this is that when you do move forward, when I look at the registration component, for myself, I know it was a struggle. I also knew it was a struggle for the men who were incarcerated to get their so-called identity and be recognized as Anishinaabe within the realms of how we see the status card and the government. And by doing what I did, it opened up — how do I say in so many different ways — a channel —
The Acting Chair: Mr. Cooke, I’m sorry, but you will have to conclude.
Mr. Cooke: Sure, no problem. Meegwetch.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Honourable colleagues, you each have a four-minute intervention, which includes questions and answers, with a 30-seconds head up, to ensure everybody gets the chance to ask at least one question.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I want to thank you both for what you have taught us today, for the people who are in prisons, with their loss of identity and who are probably forgotten in this conversation, and for the Chief saying, “Who are our People?” when you were getting the treaty rights.
I want to go to customary law. In addition to the recognition in UNDRIP of the right to a healthy natural environment, the rights to a healthy environment may have further implications in the context of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. While the nature and scope of the rights vary, courts have long recognized that Indigenous Peoples have the right to be free from government actions that would substantially deprive them of lands, resources, traditional practices, customs and traditions, including identity, and that the customary law has been recognized. In your two communities, is there a practice for customary law? How could we use it to further the conversations today?
Ms. Whitford: One of the things that’s really important to me, not only as a Chief of our Nation but also as a mother, grandmother and câpân is that we are a Nation that is still very fluent in our language as well as rooted in our ceremonies, culture and all of who we are as O’Chiese People. One of the main things that we talk about as O’Chiese People is ensuring that our children are born with identity, language and our ways of practising who we are as First Nation People.
I can use myself as an example. Anishinaabe is my first language, my second language is Cree and my third language is English. I don’t know any other way other than the O’Chiese way of living: how we conduct ourselves, how we live and navigate through life, and how we live to balance the two worlds that we live in. I believe that our children need that opportunity to continue living that lifestyle.
Yes, we were not affected by the residential school system; however, we were still damaged by the effects — the assimilation and colonization. We still felt oppression. However, we’re at this time today where it’s very critical to make sure that our children are connected and that we have protected their identity and spirit as O’Chiese People. Our ceremonies reflect that, as do our practices.
I believe a question was asked to me: What happens to those children who are lost in the membership code, where they’re no longer deemed “status”? I really want to say to this group that you are the people who are going to make recommendations for us. Please think about those children. That way, they are rooted and connected in who we are as Treaty People. Thank you.
Senator Francis: The discriminatory provisions in the registration provisions of the Indian Act, specifically the second‑generation cut-off, were created to reduce the number of registered First Nation People over time, thereby shrinking the population to whom Canada owes fiduciary duties and Treaty obligations. Various witnesses have linked this legislation to not only assimilation but also genocide. Do you agree with that perspective? Is Canada using the registration provisions in the Indian Act, including second-generation cut-off, to continue to destroy “Indians” in whole or in part, and should our committee act now to amend Bill S-2 to force Canada to end the discrimination once and for all and ensure the existence of First Nations into perpetuity through the one-parent rule?
Mr. Cooke: Wow. If that’s a question, I love the question.
With regard to identity as Anishinaabe People, we don’t look at ourselves as male or female down the line. When you look at the act and how people have to navigate how to become an Anishinaabe, it is very difficult. You have to have proof of who you are, and you have to be able to understand your identity. You have to understand the lineage and linkages with your family. It really takes away from that person being Anishinaabe. You are born Anishinaabe. You are born in spirit, you are born in love and you are born in all those components. Who are we to say who is Anishinaabe, and who are we to say who is not? It is a very fine and difficult line.
When you look at how we have to prove ourselves as Anishinaabe People — for example, I can speak of those I know who are struggling to prove who they are because they cannot find the paperwork of their lineage that supports who they are. That makes it very difficult. We are excluding a whole whack of our own People because they cannot prove who they are; yet, in spirit, they know who they are.
So is it discrimination? Yes, I truly believe it is.
Ms. Whitford: I want to go back to where I had mentioned the Royal Proclamation. Basically, it is a foundation to bring peace and coexistence, but what does that mean? First of all, we are the First People of this land. Before settlers came in, we had our own governance, structures and organization in how we functioned as First Peoples.
That being said, I was just saying this to my co-workers — the ladies who work with me — it is like, for hundreds of years, trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. That’s what it is. We don’t fit into that colonial system and the effects of that, where we have been beaten — that square peg in a round hole — and the effects of oppression, racism, discrimination, all of those, come into effect. We don’t fit that system. The last 100 years describe that. It just doesn’t fit.
I would like to say that the O’Chiese have been very fortunate such that we were able to maintain our natural laws in accordance with how our families, membership and community function. It is beyond the typical Western look of family. We are more than just “a parent, two children and a dog.” We come with a huge family. In our systems, we honour the grandmothers, great-grandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces. We have that internal system within our communities that is still very loud and valid and that needs to be recognized, for sure.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses for appearing. It is good to see you both.
We have been urged to pass this legislation without amending it to correct some of the folks who would be left behind. I would like to hear from both of you what your suggestions to us are.
Ms. Whitford: We anticipated that question.
We go back to the original Treaty. We go back to my grandfather’s interpretation of what “Treaty” meant: coexistence. When you define “coexistence,” that meant that the settlers coming to Turtle Island needed to accept who we are — our identities, our systems, our natural organizations. I worry about the life of our membership — our land base. The Indian Act legally binds Canada to continue their fiduciary responsibility, and I see strangers making decisions for my grandchildren. That is worrisome to me, and that is why I am here today: to speak for those children. There are people out there making decisions for us. I really appreciate and am open to more discussion. I think about the four or five minutes we have to speak. There is so much we would love to bring to this table just to make sure that our children are heard, as well as those who are not born yet. I want to see our children have the future that we have today and ensure that their rights and their identity are still recognized — and those promises of what “Treaty” is. In my opinion, “Treaty” is what I know as we interpret among the O’Chiese and that was to make sure that we coexisted with the settlers and accepted each other’s differences. It was also never forgetting that we are the First Peoples of this land.
Mr. Cooke: When I think about that question, several things come to mind.
As Anishinaabe People, we have what we call our Traditional Laws. Our Traditional Laws govern how we move forward in our communities. When I talk about our Traditional Laws, I’m talking about how we move forward in a good way. When we come into life, we realize our children are gifts; each one of these children is recognized as a gift coming in. That child is brought into ceremony ASAP. That child is given a name, clan, direction and purpose. Everything we do where I come from always starts with ceremony — always acknowledging the land and water — everything that moves us forward in a good way.
When you look at how we navigate — and I totally agree with my cohort sitting beside me — it’s sad that now we have shared our knowledge, teachings and values, only to have people misconstrue and misinterpret it, and then try to tell us how to do it differently. We need to have these voices again with our true Elders and Knowledge Keepers. They are the ones who have that experience and that great connection to the greater well-being. I truly believe that is what will bring things forward.
Also, there needs to be that great respect for what I call Spirit. That’s how I personally look at this: How do we do this? My grandmother used to say this all the time: Right thoughts and right actions always bring forth the right results. Interpreted in the simplest way, you have to involve the people.
Senator Pate: Mr. Cooke, when you and I first met, you were doing very laudable work in Stony Mountain with men imprisoned there. Can you comment on the impact of incarceration as it has been described as the current residential school? What do you think the difference could have been for many of the men you have worked with if they had had the opportunity to be part of community and be recognized in the way that this bill argues they should be?
Mr. Cooke: I worked in Stony Mountain Institution for approximately 17 years. I left about six years ago. At that time, 75% of the prison population base was Indigenous. Within that 75%, there were a lot of men who didn’t have a clue who they were, who had lost their identity and sense of purpose and were affiliated with situations, people, events and gangs and whatever else you wanted to do. The sad part about it is that within Correctional Services Canada, and it’s my opinion, it has become the new residential school because it is now trying to create rules, regulations and formulate ideas that they think best suit the men in the institution. One of the newest programs they developed a few years back was ICPM. ICPM, in my opinion, was a program that one size fits all. It didn’t really break down the individuals as to who they were.
In regard to ceremony, for those of us who practise ceremonies within the institution, we were taken away from that and told we were not allowed to performance ceremonies. We were not allowed to take men into that process of healing. Any time we did anything with regard to that healing component, it all of a sudden became an issue. How do I put this gently? I was an Indigenous program officer, and what that meant was, in our field, any position that became vacant now got filled by a non‑native. I have nothing against non-natives. But when you start to put that component in, there was a huge reaction and decline in regard to how men were treated because now you had people who did not speak the language and did not know the culture and did not know who they were. Yet, they are trying to teach us how to be Anishinaabe.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Chief Whitford, I want to just ask a couple of questions around your comments with respect to status granted by the government versus membership in your community and people that you know are members of your community. I think I heard you say that there was a disconnect that was concerning you with respect to people being granted status that were not members of your community. I just wondered if you were signalling some kind of a problem there, or maybe I just didn’t hear it right.
Also, we have heard a lot about the urgency of dealing with the second-generation cut-off and, in particular, that now there are in the community children of members with 6(2) status such that now there are children with no status, which equals no funding. They need to be educated, looked after, health, etc. Is that particular issue showing itself financially in your community, or is it either not yet an issue or not an issue at all?
Ms. Whitford: Those are huge questions, for sure.
I want to back up a little bit. We talk about funding. Is it becoming an issue? It has always been an issue. I want to go back to our living example at O’Chiese. Funding is based on population. Funding is based on the statistics of our membership with the nation. Now, today, O’Chiese people are at about 1,500 membership. Our funding from Indigenous Services Canada is funded at 800. We were at 800 members 10 or 20 years ago. That funding is severely outdated. I was just asking to verify the funding that we get for housing. It is based on outdated population data that doesn’t truly reflect what they are today. So that is an issue. It has always been an issue. I urge all of you to review that piece. We are always at a place where we are 10, 20, 30 years behind in the data in the system. We update our membership yearly, monthly, quarterly. We provide as much support as we can to families in all aspects, from housing to health to CFS, to education. But that funding is severely outdated. It doesn’t reflect the true membership in the nation.
Is it urgent? Of course it is urgent. It was urgent 100 years ago. It was urgent the day the Indian Act determined how we should have our membership. Again, I go back to our systems — our natural systems as family, our natural systems as members of our community. I look at our membership and the genealogy, the relationships and the ties. When I look at the Indian Act, it is again that colonial system being imposed on us to determine who I am as a woman. Am I Anishinaabe? Am I a status Indian? Am I a Treaty person?
Those are the considerations I would really like to put on the table. I urge all of you — please, you are the decision makers. You are that body that is going to make recommendations. Talk amongst yourselves, but I think for all of us coming here, we all need to make sure that we make the best decisions for our children today and those pending on that section 6(2) and those yet unborn. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you so much for your presentations, your words, your stories and for being in this room with us.
I just want to understand. You mentioned, Chief, 800 members recognized. I’ll speak Indian Act language, but I don’t like it. I just want to understand. You have more membership citizens, but Ottawa recognized only 800?
Ms. Whitford: As an example, I asked our housing department, our administrator, to review our funding, and I asked people at ISC to say what is the formula being used to fund any of our services. One is based on membership. So what is the number they use? That number was used from 10 or 15 years ago when O’Chiese were like 800. Now, we are at 1,500, so we are using severely outdated data that reflects the terrible discrepancies in our funding.
Senator Audette: I have another question for the two of you.
Forty years ago, our mothers were sitting where you are to denounce the Indian Act — a few men also, but mostly women — and now some of us take their journey and continue. Lately — I would say for the past 10 years — I would hear a little more that the Chief needs to decide, the Chief has the control or the Chief must do something, not the government. I have heard so many Chiefs and former Chiefs lately say that, 20 years ago, they were not there but they are ready today. What do we say to the other chamber? It’s a bill from the other chamber — from the government. Many Chiefs today are ready, and it seems that we hear “duty to consult,” but on certain bills, you don’t really have a duty to consult. In this case, what would you say? Are you ready as a Chief to take care of and recognize your People?
Ms. Whitford: I have so much to say on that piece, but I’m going to contain myself.
As a leader of my community, my process is to consult with our Elders and to have discussions with our membership. That’s our process. In that process, I am accountable to them. At the end of the day, I’m put in this position as a leader. However, I’m accountable to them. I will make decisions as long as I have proper processes where I consult with them, member to member, a matriarch to the community, in all my connections and relationships within the community. I have to be really careful in how we navigate.
I find that the system is starting to break down. We come from places where Chiefs now become “executive” Chiefs. I, for one, could never speak on behalf of another Chief. I, for one, could never make a decision for another community. In my opening remarks, I acknowledged our allies. We have two other First Nations that we work with, and the leaders work together to have a bigger voice in all that we do to protect our children and the Treaty rights of our Nations.
When I talk about organizations, organizations seem to be the places where people are consulting. True consultation needs to happen at the grassroots. You are going to hear and observe the challenge of 6(2). You are going to hear from people we don’t normally hear from at this table. True consultation needs to be in the heart of the community and people. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: We are getting close to our time, so Senator Francis, please keep it to two minutes for the question and answer, both.
Senator Francis: When asked how many more months or even years it will take the federal government to address all remaining discrimination, including the second-generation cut‑off, Minister Gull-Masty did not set an end date. The fact is that, even if she did, the minister cannot, regardless of her best intentions, guarantee that Canada will stop the discrimination before there is a cabinet shuffle or another federal election. Why should we believe her at this time?
Ms. Whitford: Did you want to answer that?
Mr. Cooke: That’s a very tough question.
The way I look at this right now and what I find really interesting is that one thing keeps going through my mind: It is interesting how we as Anishinaabe People have to prove ourselves, yet we have people and organizations that are now falsely identifying themselves and that are now moving forward quicker than we are as Anishinaabe People. Is there a discrimination component to all of this? Yes, I could go on with this topic for quite some time because there are so many discrepancies in regard to how things need to be done. So, yes. Where do you begin? That’s a conversation that will take more than three minutes.
Ms. Whitford: I would also like to add that the urgency around an amendment is to strengthen the membership — the amendment that your recommendations, I trust, is to protect our membership, not to allow the cut-off. We are putting ourselves out there such that we are asking you to speak on our behalf, and I need to trust that you are going to take care of our children and that it goes beyond those 6(1) and 6(2) cut-offs. Stop those and just strengthen things.
The Acting Chair: Honourable senators, the time for this panel is complete. I thank our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Please welcome, via video conference, from the Council of Yukon First Nations, Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini. With us today at the table please welcome, from the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, accompanied by Sandra Hodzic, Chief Advisor, Political Affairs, Grand Chief’s Office; and from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, Chief Jeremiah Johnson.
Thank you all 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.
Grand Chief Math’ieya Alatini, Council of Yukon First Nations: Good morning, senators. [Indigenous language spoken.]
My name is Math’ieya Alatini, Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations and AFN Yukon Regional Chief. I am a citizen of the Kluane First Nation, a self-governing nation here in the southwest Yukon.
I speak today on behalf of Yukon First Nations — 11 modern treaty holders and 3 nations still governed under the Indian Act — who carry both the promise and the burden of Canada’s laws. I am speaking to address amendments to one of those laws in a way that truly lives up to the honour of the Crown and the Charter’s guarantee of equality before and under the law.
I want to acknowledge the AFN National Chief’s remarks. She has clearly outlined the technical amendments in Bill S-2. I will not repeat them. Instead, I will highlight two key points she made. First, that enfranchisement was a tool of assimilation; and second, that discrimination still remains. My purpose today is to show you where that discrimination continues to live and how you can end it.
My family has lived the Indian Act’s experiment. My 96‑year‑old grandmother is a full-status First Nation woman who had children while in a common-law relationship with a non‑status First Nation man. Because that man, as were others, was targeted by the Indian agent and identified by the local Catholic priest for having children out of wedlock, he made a statutory declaration claiming paternity. The law at the time stripped my grandmother and her children of their Indian status. My mother and uncle were among those children who were enfranchised, not because they were any less Dene or Kluane but because of an arbitrary Indian Act clause that targeted First Nation children born outside of marriage in the 1950s. The statutory statement filed was without consultation with my grandmother. This capricious legislation was in place for only a few years, then changed without reinstating the status of the affected children.
My mother tried to reclaim her status in the early 1970s with the assistance of the legal counsel of the then Yukon Native Brotherhood. This effort was halted by the statutory statement of our non-status, First Nation father and the Indian Act clause stating how the status was left to the discretion of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or at the recommendation of the Indian band, of which there were no recognized Chief and Council of Kluane Indian Band until 1964.
The Indian Act turned a family matter into a tool of assimilation. It took what should have been a source of belonging and made it a cause for erasure. My mother was later reinstated under Bill C-31 as a 6(1). I stand before you today as a 6(2). Under the carry-forward provisions, status ends with me unless my children’s other parent also has status, which he does not. This is not reconciliation. That is legislated extinction on a delay.
Yukon First Nations support the repeal of 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(e) to correct the enduring harms of enfranchisement. Those who were pushed out must be able to pass on status on equal terms as those who were never forced out. This aligns with section 15 of the Charter and the principles of UNDRIP.
The second-generation cut-off and the two tier 6(1)/6(2) system continues to divide our families into haves and have not. These tools are mechanical in different community belonging and designed to gradually reduce the number of status Indians over time. In practice, they divide cousins, bar grandchildren from programs and services, and turn identity into paperwork.
If Bill S-2 is truly about reconciliation and not merely litigation management, then we must address all the known discrimination now, not later. Later is not neutral. Every year you wait, more children are cut off.
In the Yukon, we see this every day in health, education and sport where non-status First Nation youth pay fees their status cousins don’t, or they are turned way from tournaments that build connection and pride. In civic life non-status family members cannot vote or lead in some of their home nations, eroding identity and community belonging. In public health and safety in the time of opioid poisonings and violence, anything that disconnects our young people from community deepens their risk. With cross-border mobility, many Yukon families straddle the Alaska-Yukon border, and we are still asked to provide how much blood quantum we have or to provide letters confirming status to cross and return tomorrow.
Justice demands timelines, as Truth and Reconciliation reminds us. Reconciliation is a verb, and it requires action once the truth is known.
In the Yukon context, most Yukon First Nations are self‑governing. We determine our own citizenship under our constitution and final agreements. We serve all our citizens — status and non-status — yet federal formulas and programs still depend on the number of status Indians, meaning Ottawa’s registration rules directly affect our capacity to serve our people. Self-government did not repeal Canada’s fiduciary duty, its Charter obligations or its UNDRIP commitments, particularly Article 8, which prohibits forced assimilation. Your choices on Bill S-2 must align with those obligations.
We’re asking you to adopt Bill S-2’s enfranchisement fixes, ensuring reinstated individuals can transmit status equally to their descendents; to replace the second-generation cut-off with a one-parent rule and reinstate those already excluded; to co‑develop an implementation plan with First Nations to modernize registration; to respect nation-based citizenship; to reform funding formulas so nations aren’t penalized for federal delays and publicly report progress and remaining gaps; to remove discriminatory and outdated language; and to ensure voluntary deregistration cannot be used as a form enfranchisement. These steps do not undermine self-government; they strengthen it by restoring community coherence and dignity.
I want to address two common concerns: cost and numbers. Reconciliation has a price. Assimilation has one too, and we have paid it in lost lives, lost language and loss of belonging. Fiscal caution is no defence for legal discrimination.
Some have said Bill S-2 was never meant to be as ambitious, but as we learned through the TRC, when you see injustice and have the power to end it, the honour of the Crown requires that you do so.
In closing, when my mother regained her status under Bill C-31, it was a homecoming — partial, conditional and bureaucratic, but still a homecoming — yet that same law now tells me that the line ends with me and that my children and grandchildren may be strangers to their own people because of a statute.
Senators, reconciliation invites you to work with Indigenous people in good faith. Bill S-2 is your opportunity to move from repairing the past to protecting the future. End enfranchisement’s residue. End the second-generation cut-off. Choose a law that keeps families whole and honours the living nations of this land.
Gunalchéesh, Shäw níthän, Kwänäschis, Mahsi’.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Alatini.
Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, Southern Chiefs’ Organization: Aniin, Boozhoo. Honourable members of the committee, chair, thank you for the opportunity to address this forum today and share our unique perspective on Bill S-2, An Act to Amend the Indian Act.
My name is Jerry Daniels. I’m the Grand Chief of the Southern Chiefs’ Organization representing 32 First Nations in Southern Manitoba, Treaty 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, including the Dakota Nations, 87,000 First Nations citizens.
At the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, our work is rooted in treaty relationships and the inherent rights of our Nations. We are guided by the principle that no First Nation child should lose their identify or entitlements simply because of colonial provisions that restrict registration or membership to status.
We see disproportionate registration when you look into systems like the child welfare system, where many of the birth registries only have one parent. Because of that, they’re losing their status and become either 6(b) or they just lose their status altogether. It’s a very unique situation created by colonialism and continues to impact our First Nations children.
The ongoing impacts of the Indian Act have divided families, denied identity and eroded community connections for generations, and those have come from a cruel history of cultural genocide that is occurring here in Canada today. We can no longer accept Canada’s paternalistic views of our identity, and we call for substantial and overdue reform.
The Southern Chiefs’ Organization supports many of the efforts behind Bill S-2, in principle, as a step towards eliminating discrimination in the Indian Act registration process. However, Bill S-2 does not include a remedy for the second‑generation cut-off rule, the two-parent rule introduced in 1985 under Bill C-31 that prevents children and grandchildren of status holders from registering if they have two consecutive generations with a non-status parent. Nowhere else in the world do you see citizens of countries like Canada, for example, where if you have a child with a non-Canadian, you eliminate that child from being able to have Canadian citizenship. The same should be done for First Nations, and the jurisdiction of First Nations should prevail in that instance.
We do support some of the provisions; however, it does not go far enough. We welcome efforts to eliminate the remaining sex‑based discrimination and inequities in registration, but we also need to see these amendments as part of a broader conversation about self-determination in citizenship and nationhood. Many federal programs and services for First Nations still depend on registration of our members. The ongoing exclusion of citizens due to the cut-off rule perpetuates this injustice.
Act-based reform is only a part of the path. True justice requires that our nations be meaningfully involved in membership decisions and that our systems for citizenship, identity and belonging are based on inherent law and treaty relationships, not solely federal statute. SCO maintains that true reconciliation requires transitioning Indian status from federal control to First Nations’ inherent authority to define citizenship and membership according to our own laws, traditions and governance systems.
On behalf of our 32 member nations, SCO respectfully submits the following recommendations in relation to Bill S-2:
First Nations-led control over citizenship. True reconciliation means moving beyond piecemeal amendments of the colonial framework. Our nations must ultimately reclaim full authority to determine our own identity, consistent with our laws and traditions. While the bill does not resolve the second-generation cut-off, it does address many of the long-standing injustices that must be addressed, but it doesn’t go far enough. Because of that, we are losing time, and it is costing lives and it’s costing opportunity and creating a lot of barriers. As such, we recommend that the bill continue to undergo scrutiny and continue to consider the lost opportunity that is going to take place should it not include a true amendment to addressing the second-generation cut-off.
To ensure that eligible citizens of SCO member nations can apply for their membership status, Canada must commit to properly funding and resourcing the support of a registration office and other community-based supports.
Along the same lines, the Southern Chiefs’ Organization would like to call for the immediate abolishment of the second‑generation cut-off rule, replacing it instead with a one‑parent rule. This is to be aligned with citizenship law and basic principles of equality.
SCO calls that eligibility to transmit status be held by any parent with entitlement because we cannot ask our citizens to wait multiple years before this is changed.
Capacity challenges and accountability:
Expanding eligibility under Bill S-2 will create significant administrative pressures for communities already under‑resourced. We call for Indigenous Services Canada to provide funding and support so that First Nations can manage new registration requests and ensure that services, housing and education funding reflect the real population increases that follow. This also includes a commitment to transparent implementation, including data-sharing and consultation with affected nations to ensure no one falls through the cracks. SCO asks that metrics, timelines and What We Heard reports be made public and regularly updated so nations can follow progress and hold the government to account.
Last but not least, the committee should monitor Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan measures, including those dealing with registration reform.
In closing, this legislation is an important step but cannot be the last. We must move forward to a future where our nations, and not colonial legislation, define who our citizens are.
At the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, we want to be clear: No child of a status First Nations parent should be excluded from belonging or stripped of the capacity to reconnect, carry on their culture or access rights and services. The two-parent rule must end.
On behalf of the Chiefs and citizens of the 32 nations, I call on this committee to encourage reform that respects our inherent rights and treaty relationships. We call on Canada to help us create a future where our children and grandchildren stand fully recognized, fully connected and fully belonging.
On behalf of the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the committee and with Indigenous Services Canada in the weeks and months to come. Meegwetch. Pidamaya ye. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Daniels.
Chief Jeremiah Johnson, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:keThank you very much. [Indigenous language spoken]
Shekon wa’tkanonhweraton sewakwekon.
Ratsénhaienhs Jeremiah Johnson Iontiats.
My name is Ratsénhaienhs Jeremiah Johnson, of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. I sit before you today as a representative of the Mohawk council and the people of Kahnawà:ke to convey our position on Bill S-2.
Let me begin by stating clearly that Kahnawà:ke opposes Bill S-2. While the bill may be framed as a step towards reconciliation, it continues a long-standing pattern of federal overreach into matters that are inherently for First Nations to decide: who is recognized as Onkwehonwe, who belongs to our communities. For generations, the Indian Act has imposed definitions of identity that fracture our families, erase our histories and undermine our governance. Bill S-2, though it seeks to correct injustices like involuntary enfranchisement and outdated language, still operates within a colonial framework. It does not dismantle the system; it simply changes its vocabulary.
This bill proposes to add approximately 3,500 individuals to the Indian Register, some of whom may seek residency in our communities. Yet, there has been no meaningful consultation with Kahnawà:ke — no dialogue about how this influx could affect our housing, our services, our governance or our laws. Again, we are expected to absorb the consequences of decisions made without any meaningful engagement or our consent.
In Kahnawà:ke, we have our own Kanienkehaka of Kahnawake Law, established in 1981 and further amended in 2019. This law was enacted through a consensus-based community decision-making process that is rooted in our customs and collective will. We have the Kahnawà:ke Kanien’kehá:ka Registry, which is based on lineage. We do not recognize the Indian Act as the authority to determine who our people are. Who is onkwehonwe is for onkwehonwe to decide.
Kahnawà:ke has always stood strong, consistently maintaining that Canada must stop adding individuals to the Kahnawà:ke band list upon granting Indian status, but alternatively, to maintain a separate general registry of Indian status and respect Kahnawà:ke’s jurisdiction over its own membership. This position has been upheld by Kahnawà:ke at the Kahnawake‑Canada relations table for several years and aligns with the principles of self-determination.
Bill S-2 also fails to address deeper systemic issues, such as the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds, which continue to disenfranchise our people. These are not simply technical problems; they are violations of our right to self-governance.
We understand that this bill responds to litigation under the Charter, but legal compliance should not come at the cost of Indigenous jurisdiction. The solution is not to continuously patch your broken law; it is to respect our laws and our right to govern our own affairs.
We urge this committee to consider the broader implications of Bill S-2. If reconciliation is truly the goal, then Canada must stop legislating who we are. Instead, it must support our efforts to define ourselves, govern ourselves and care for our people on our own terms.
In closing, I ask that you remember that identity is not a bureaucratic category. It is not simply a box you check on a form. It is a sacred cultural bond between a person, their community and their nation. This bond cannot be legislated by Ottawa. It must be recognized, respected and protected by those claiming to walk the path of reconciliation.
Nia:wen kó:wa. Thank you all for your time. That’s all I have.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Chief Johnson.
We will now proceed with questions from senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a four-minute intervention, which includes question and answer, with a 30‑second heads-up.
Senator Francis: Thank you all for your testimony this morning. It is greatly appreciated.
I’m going to ask a question that I raised in the first panel. When senators asked how many more months or even years it will take the federal government to address all remaining discrimination, including the second-generation cut-off, Minister Gull-Masty did not set an end date. Yet, even if she did, the minister cannot, regardless of her best intentions, guarantee that the Government of Canada will stop the discrimination. There may be a cabinet shuffle or another federal election in the future. So my question to you is: Why should anyone believe that this time will be different, that Canada will act to end all remaining discrimination soon, and First Nations people will not be waiting and fighting years or decades for equality and justice?
Mr. Johnson: I’m not sure that there will ever be an end. We have been fighting for hundreds of years to end this discrimination, and I suspect we will be fighting a lot longer. I have taken this fight on from my grandmother, who is an elder who fought in these places the same way, fighting for our rights and our ability to define who we are. She told me, “I’ll never live to see the end of this.” She said, “You may never either.” That’s the way I look at it. I’ll be here to fight until the next generation takes up the mantle from me.
Mr. Daniels: The challenge with governments is that I think it was never done appropriately. First Nations should never have been brought within Canadian legislation. Our governments should have continued to exist and been respected for their independence and their sovereignty. When you look at the socio-economic status of First Nations, you see it disproportionately affecting First Nations. We’re the ones in jail. We’re the ones with the low education outcomes. We’re the ones in poverty and suffering with challenges as it relates to substance abuse. A lot of that is structured to the detriment of our First Nations. That’s just the facts. I don’t see a lot of leadership around the country who are willing to rise up in great numbers to challenge that existing system, and it’s very unfortunate.
Ms. Alatini: I’m not sure what your question was. Were you asking how long it would take?
Senator Francis: Yes. And do you believe that the current government will actually deal with it now to put an end to the discrimination and genocide that has been going on for years?
Ms. Alatini: Well, I’m hoping this bill gets passed. I think, at this point, incremental improvements is the best that we can hope for. I don’t think there is going to be sweeping changes. I don’t have a magic wand. I would be happy if this bill gets passed. I think there is a lot of work to do still.
The Acting Chair: Do you have a supplemental question?
Senator Francis: Yes. I want to ask the Grand Chief her thoughts on the amendment for the section 6(2) cut-off, dealing with the 6(2) cut-off.
Ms. Alatini: As I understand it, it is allowing for those individuals who are part of the 6(2) cut-off, myself included, to be eligible for reinstatement or to allow for our children to carry forward. I think that, given that I’m not a unique situation, this is quite common. It would be an act of reconciliation to amend the legislation in order to allow my children, who are Indigenous, to have their status. All of their cousins do, but because my mom was a 6(1) re-instatee, my children do not.
Senator Audette: Thank you very much to all the witnesses, the people who came and spoke their truth and about their vision also for our children and grandchildren. I had the privilege of meeting Mary Two-Axe Earley many moons ago and was able to understand why she stood up when she came back to your territory or your community. I just want to understand, Chief Johnson. If you have had your own since 1981, will Bill S-2 change or affect that?
Mr. Johnson: No, the Indian Act provisions don’t affect our membership law whatsoever.
Senator Audette: Okay. What is the provision in your own membership code if a woman from your nation married out? We know some men married Canadian women but they were registered in 1981. What is the justice when I hear women saying, “They are in, but not us just because we’re women.” Is that the situation today?
Mr. Johnson: That is not the situation with our membership. We use the custom code. How that works is that if you have Onkwehonwe and you have a child with a non-Onkwehonwe, your child is half. That child can then either marry in and continue Onkwehonwe or marry out. Men or women. There is no sexual discrimination.
Senator Audette: What is this list? You said there is a federal list or Ottawa has a list?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. The federal list of Indian registrars should be maintained separately. When people are given Indian status, they are automatically assigned to a community. So they are assigned to Kahnawake.
Senator Audette: Thank you for the clarification.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
My question is for the Grand Chief. When you look at how you want to proceed with this relationship with the government and correcting what’s there, how do you see that progressing? Your situation with the Southern Chiefs’ Organization is very different from the rest of Canada, and there is not one solution that fits all. They are doing consultation, but I don’t know on what. What do you think is the best way for you to proceed to move ahead with the conversation with the minister’s office?
Mr. Daniels: I think we have to look at what history has told us. That history is that the relationship was never one in which First Nations agreed to be disenfranchised. That was a colonial policy. It didn’t reflect the true relationship. For years, First Nations have always honoured their side of the arrangement. When I think about what is the solution, it is a one-parent rule. I don’t see any society in this world where you would agree that a child could be just excluded because the father or the mother or somebody is not First Nations. I think in any society, no matter where you come from, if you are a child of that community, you are a child of that community and it doesn’t change. If it is the father who looks after the child, you are part of that father’s side. If it’s the mother who looks after the child, you are part of the mother’s.
We know why. It’s Canada trying to get away from its obligation to meet the promises that were made that were supposed to be for as long as the sun shines and the grass grows and the rivers flow.
Senator McCallum: As a group, how are you going to start changing what’s happening here in your own communities? I’m just trying to get an idea of what the process is when you look at what needs to be done by the community, by the leadership.
Mr. Daniels: We need our own jurisdiction as it relates to control of the lands that were promised in Treaty. We need our own health care system and our own child welfare system. We need access to our own resources. We need to eliminate the blockades on First Nations economies from competing and having investment from foreign entities who could work with us. The country was built that way. There’s no reason First Nations couldn’t be built in the same way. We have been excluded in many ways, and we could manage a lot of those things ourselves. We just haven’t been given the opportunity to do so.
Senator McCallum: Did anyone else want to answer?
Ms. Alatini: You contrast a unique situation where we have modern Treaty holders, and under the 11 self-governing nations, everybody has their own constitution and citizen codes, whether that’s a traditional code or a code that is quasi affected by the Indian Act. We mostly maintain two separate citizenship lists. We have the citizenship list that recognizes everybody under our membership, and then we have the Indian Act registered status. We get funding under our final agreements for those who are registered status, and we provide services to all citizens regardless of whether they are status or not, in our First Nations situation, following our matrilineal registry. It creates a discrepancy because we are looking at providing services that we don’t actually get money for. For my children, whom we provide services for, we don’t actually receive funding through our financial transfer arrangements with Canada, through our final agreements, because they are not status. Because we have FTAs, and they’re flexible, we can spend those dollars how we choose, but those nations that are under the Indian Act don’t have that same type of flexibility and don’t have those same types of financial resources in order to provide services or benefits to those citizens or members of their community that are not status. It ends up creating this divide in our nations of haves and have‑nots.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief. Those balloons are because it is my birthday today.
Ms. Alatini: Happy birthday.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you for your testimony.
I want to say hello and [Indigenous language spoken] particularly to Chief Johnson. I’m from Cornwall, Ontario, on traditional Mohawk territory of Akwesasne. I’m saying hello specifically.
Grand Chief Alatini, you spoke of your mother and of her coming back, and you used words such as it was a partial bureaucratic homecoming, sort of expressing all the feelings. It is a good thing, yet it is a recognition that it was a government rectifying something that it shouldn’t have done in the first place. It was quite powerful.
We are told to support Bill S-2. We are getting witness testimony saying Bill S-2 is good, but it is also not going far enough. We are also getting pressure not to go further. We have been told to wait and let consultations take place. How do you respond to that? I wouldn’t mind comments from you as well on consultations. That’s what we are being told. You are describing how it continues to divide communities, and this incremental change will continue to divide communities.
Ms. Alatini: As a person who is directly affected by this, there have been enough court cases that have shown that the discrimination against women, against matriarchal society, has been upheld by this legislation. It is time to actually amend even that little piece of it. For nations that are matrilineal, this is extremely important, because we are talking about the ability for nations to receive recognition for those citizens that they are providing services for, in our case in the Yukon. It rights a wrong. The fact that women had their rights stripped from them at the discretion of a priest — where else in Canada do we have that? Being able to rectify that would be an incremental piece towards reconciliation.
I know that there is not a sweeping change. Our nations across Canada are not going to agree to amend the Indian Act or do away with the Indian Act, so chipping away at discrimination is extremely important. I encourage the passing of Bill S-2.
Senator Clement: On consultations, do you have any other comments?
Ms. Alatini: On consultation, there is an expectation from Yukon First Nations to proceed with government-to-government, nation-to-nation discussions and respect the implementation of the modern treaties that have been signed by Canada, Yukon and the respective First Nations. Being able to have those discussions and recognize the citizenship codes and the unique governance positions of our First Nations is a must. I can see the difficulty. It ends up being 694 different consultations across Canada, and how do you reconcile that in one federal statute? There are modern treaty agreements that need to be upheld and historic treaties as well.
Senator Clement: Grand Chief Daniels, you have indicated that we should go further with Bill S-2.
Mr. Daniels: We are a big believer in the best practice, and we think it is in the best interest of the child to have those values set up within us. We believe that our Elders and our grandmothers and grandfathers would never have allowed any child to be left out. It is those principles that guide our thinking and values.
When I think about the consultation process, you cannot exclude the accommodation and the right of First Nations to have their children included in who they are. It is quite unfortunate that Canada continues to think that that’s okay, because it is a reflection of genocide. It is a reflection of killing the Indian in the child. It is just done in a very slowed-down process. It’s death by a thousand cuts. Basically, you’re trying to relieve yourself of having responsibility, and in this case, fiscal responsibility. If you tie it all together, you see what the true intent is here.
We do support incremental changes, but we don’t agree with it. We understand why you are doing it, but we still think the foundation of all that is still wrong.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Francis: Grand Chief, to be clear, do you mean we should pass Bill S-2 but with an amendment to address the second-generation cut-off and other discrimination? I believe that is what you meant, but I want to be clear so it is on the record.
Ms. Alatini: Yes.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: There has been a fair bit of discussion on the second-generation cut-off. There have been words such as “forced assimilation,” “genocide,” and words of that nature. Could each of you share what that perspective means for children and families within the community? How does that translate for them as they seek out certain benefits and as they interact with their fellow members within their community? Could you share any experiences or details or knowledge you have in that regard?
Mr. Daniels: I think the system of child welfare is a unique one. A lot of children have only one signature on their birth certificate, so they are excluded from educational benefits, health benefits and a lot of opportunities and benefits that come from the fact that First Nations have defended and fought for this country and fought to maintain our own identity.
We have to keep in mind that the treaty relationship and the rights that are inherent within it are a reflection of societal beliefs and values. We have the medicine chest because that’s how we governed ourselves. We had to look after everybody. We didn’t exclude anybody. We did the same with education. A lot of the provisions were about First Nations wanting to not only benefit themselves but to be a true partner and to help grow this country into something great. The children who are being excluded and not being given those opportunities end up in those socioeconomic margins faster and have less opportunity to rise out of that.
Mr. Johnson: For my community, the second-generation cut‑off is essentially the imposition of a foreign policy on our nation. That’s how we view it. It is akin to the U.S. telling Canada who their citizens are. Who is Canada to decide who our people are? That’s for us. The policy was designed to reduce our numbers and wash away the “Indian problem,” as it were. We are opposed to this, of course, because we want our numbers to grow. We want to be here in the future. We want to have our grandchildren. We think seven generations into the future. In our opinion, any provisions of the Indian Act touching upon membership, residency and registration are all foreign impositions on our Nation.
Ms. Alatini: There are some examples of this.
I really appreciate Grand Chief Jerry Daniels’ comments, because when you think of mental wellness and the toxic drug crisis we are facing, having youth be able to participate in sport is a part of mental well-being. We host a big hockey tournament here. You have to be a status Indian in order to participate in that hockey tournament. You can’t be a citizen of a First Nation; you have to be status. My daughter was not able to play because she is not status. Regardless of the fact that she is a member of Kluane First Nation, she could not participate. That is detrimental to their well-being. It is those minor infractions, if you will, that end up eroding their identity and sense of who they are.
I totally agree that the way the legislation was created, it was designed to reduce the numbers of the financial burden for Canada when we are looking at the fiscal burden of providing services for status Indians. It is not about heritage or about creating wellness in Indigenous communities. It is really about reducing the “Indian problem” and the fiscal burden of that.
Senator Audette: As sponsor of this bill, I want to say thank you. I think this is the first time that we’ve heard a clear position to totally reject the bill. Thank you for your courage in coming here and saying that. It shows that we don’t influence who comes here and who says what. I acknowledge that.
Do I understand, also, that in the membership code, if a woman gives birth and there is no dad who signs, those children will be recognized in your Nation?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Audette: Thank you so much. I hope it is black and white in the report.
Does Ottawa honour that? When it is time to transfer the budget to your community, is how you recognize your people, the number or statistic — I don’t like those words — but does Ottawa honour that with you and with your government?
Mr. Johnson: Not quite. It is something we are working on at our governmental tables. We have a discrepancy in that 10,000 people are registered on the federal list, but our Kahnawà:ke Onkwehonwe list is 6,600. That’s the discrepancy in people who hold Indian status as opposed to those we consider members of our community.
Senator Audette: What I meant is, do you recognize the mothers who have children without, let’s say, a dad who signs?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Audette: So it does increase the number of your citizens.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Audette: But does Ottawa acknowledge and respect that when it’s time to transfer to your government and community, the second-generation cut-off the way it says here?
Mr. Johnson: We are not funded on a per capita basis. We are not funded based upon how many members we have in our Territory. It is an agreement lump sum.
Senator Audette: Okay, thank you. That does help.
The Acting Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us today.
Honour colleagues, that brings us to the end of our meeting today.
(The committee adjourned.)