Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2009

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

You've acknowledged in your presentation that this is a very narrow response to the B.C. court's decision, and I think there's pretty widespread acknowledgement that there are some very serious problems. You mentioned the second-generation cut-off. My understanding is that there are other court cases wending their way through the system about various matters around status.

Are you going to go piecemeal, so as each court decision comes through and finds that the practice is discriminatory, we'll then have another piece of legislation? Why aren't we proceeding with that extensive work?

[Caroline Davis]

The level of risk involved in the McIvor decision—it's a decision that's here right now; we need to deal with it--is higher than the pending legislation, which is still going through the courts. I have to come back to the point made about the possibility of a legislative void and how difficult that would be administratively and also for the people involved. I think it's advisable to address the issue before us right now.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

How many court cases are you aware of going through the system that are dealing with...?

[Caroline Davis]

I think there are about four or five.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

The discussion paper of changes to the Indian Act affecting Indian registration and band membership talks about the impact of such an amendment, and there is a paragraph that talks about the fact that.... I'm sorry, the pages aren't numbered or I'd give you the page number.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

They are.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Oh, I have the photocopy. It's where I made my notes.

It talks about the fact that the direct impact on first nations communities may be limited in such areas as demand for on-reserve housing and services. There's a lot of controversy over that, because what we have heard from first nations communities is that after Bill C-31 came into effect in 1985, there were many people who simply could not return to reserves because there were huge waiting lists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Ms. Crowder, could you please wrap up, because you're out of time.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Okay.

It's just that I think that statement is inaccurate. I don't think you can presume that there wouldn't be impact on housing. The simple fact of the matter is there isn't enough housing now, so even if people wanted to return they couldn't.

I wonder if I could have a quick comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead. A brief response would be fine.

[Caroline Davis]

We certainly would accept that comment from a parliamentarian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have just a brief interjection here before I go to the next speaker. Ms. Crowder raised the point here with respect to the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Could you just go over that again for the benefit of members. Maybe it's just me. But because Ms. McIvor announced in June that she was going to apply to appeal the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, what impact does that have on the deadline in April, or does it have any impact whatsoever?

Could you go over that again just so we understand the implications of that appeal and the cross appeal by the government?

[Caroline Davis]

Well currently the decision of the court is the British Columbia decision, so that is the one that will take effect in April. Now, if the leave to appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When would we likely know that?

[Caroline Davis]

It would probably be within two to three months. Well, most likely it would be before the April deadline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Carry on.

[Caroline Davis]

At that point we would then have an indication that the court decision is now under review by the Supreme Court, and at that point we would most likely file an application to have the B.C. court decision stayed during the appeal process. The Indian Act, as it is right now, would continue until the end of the Supreme Court's deliberations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

And it would effectively render the deadline moot until such time as the Supreme Court has made a ruling on the McIvor question.

[Caroline Davis]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, understood.

Let's go to Mr. Duncan for seven minutes, followed by Mr. Bélanger. Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much.

It's on days like this that I appreciate the fact that those who advised me to pursue a legal option in my career were unsuccessful.

That was for you, Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I understand.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

If the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is unsuccessful, what is the practical implication after April 6, 2010? In other words, what does this do to the registration process?

[Caroline Davis]

It essentially means that for people who are applying to register, we would not have an administrative basis for taking a decision on their applications. The possible implications of that, you could envisage, if it's allowed to extend over an extensive period of time, would be that parents whose children are born who would be entitled to status we might not be able to register. And that would mean that over time the entitlements to medical benefits would disappear.

It's a complicated issue, and for Health Canada, certainly, we would be discussing very carefully with them exactly what would happen with benefits as of April. I would certainly hope we can find a way so that we don't have children who need medical attention and where their benefits are going to come from is questionable. That is one thing the government needs to very carefully consider before we get to that date, and we are doing that.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Are all of those implications strictly for the province of British Columbia?