Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming.
I echo others' support for this legislation because it's in response to a court decision. However, I think we are being challenged by the fact that we're seeing piecemeal amendments to the Indian Act in response to court decisions.
Just as we saw with Bill C-31 in 1985, I think all of us are very nervous about unintended consequences. I was reviewing some of the impacts of Bill C-31. I know that you're well aware of them, but what we're hearing from people are some of the same concerns they had with Bill C-31 regarding increased financial pressure on first nations. I know there is a working group addressing that, but as you know, even today first nations are still struggling with the unintended consequences of some of the financial pressures. Bill C-31 created huge divisions within communities, and again, I know you're aware of those. The most serious unintended consequence of Bill C-31 was the second generation cut-off rule, leading to what some people are calling legislated assimilation. So I think a lot of us are really anxious about some possible unintended consequences from this bill.
However, there are a couple of other issues I would like you to address. One is the issue around resources. I was reviewing a paper, the “First Nations Registration (Status) and Membership Research Report” from July 2008. It was by the joint AFN-INAC technical working group. They raised some issues around program funding and community cohesion in their research report. They indicated that because of the differences in citizenship and status, which you've already referred to, bands who have their own citizenship codes and allow people without status to become band members are penalized financially, because they provide housing and other services to people who they agree have citizenship but may not have status.
In the case before us, we know that resources are becoming a huge issue. There are two questions. People may regain status, and you have a working group looking at resources around that, but status people may have relatives who are not status Indians who come and live with them. So what kind of approach are you taking to that?
The second question I have for you is around the exploratory process. I think many of us applauded the work of Wendy Grant-John on the matrimonial real property process. However, when her report came forward, many of the recommendations were not included in the matrimonial real property bill, which I understand has been retabled in the Senate.
What degree of comfort will the people involved in this exploratory process have that the government will actually incorporate their recommendations, if they come to some consensus and their recommendations are brought forward?