Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2010

Evidence of meeting #7 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was status.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Roy Gray Director, Resolution and Individual Affairs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Brenda Kustra Director General, Governance Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Martin Reiher Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Department of Justice

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you.

Of course, I appreciate the efforts of members of this committee in the House to get this bill to committee and to deal with it as quickly as possible. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your words about understanding the importance of the bill. And of course we're responding to a court order.

I think I mentioned this the last time I was here, but just to confirm it, we've also applied to the court for an extension. I don't know if they'll give it to us, but they can see that we've tabled the legislation. I think every good faith measure has been taken to try to get this done as quickly as possible. They may or may not grant us an extension. That's up to the court.

If no extension is granted on the suspension of the application of the court ruling, what that means is that the decision of the Court of Appeal in British Columbia only applies in British Columbia. In other words, it won't apply right across the country. This will only apply in British Columbia. So the coming into force of the invalidity of that section would mean that no new registrations could be made in British Columbia.

Now it's important to reassure people that this does not affect anyone who has status. Anyone who has status maintains status. The rest of the country isn't affected at all. It's business as usual in nine provinces and in the territories. And people who have to renew their cards or their status in British Columbia aren't affected. They'll be able to renew. Who it affects are those people in the subsections 6(1) and 6(2) categories, and it would only apply, again, in British Columbia.

Obviously, it's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world if we take a couple of weeks to get this done. Again, just to assure people, no person with Indian status in the country will lose status. No one will. That's just to assure people, because there are rumours out there.

The other provinces won't be affected at all. What you've been used to dealing with is exactly what you'll deal with post-April 6. Within British Columbia itself, if they don't grant an extension, it will only apply to that very narrow group of people who fit into the court's ruling itself.

Overall, it's not good, because it perpetuates the gender inequity. But I think if we can get this through fairly quickly, the number of people who are going to be affected will be affected only for weeks, a couple of weeks maybe, or however long it takes, and only in the one province. It's serious, but it's not a crisis. It's not as if people are not going to be able to get their status cards or need to worry about their current status. That's not the impact. But obviously, I think it's important that we try to deal with the court ruling on an important charter issue as quickly as possible.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC

Thank you for that.

In the Speech from the Throne there was a commitment to further protect the rights of aboriginal people, particularly women, living on reserve. I think what we've just tabled as the government in the Senate is an example of that. Perhaps you could describe that situation as well.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Right.

It is another rights bill, if you will. It tries to be consistent with the recommendations, and admonitions even, that we've had from both national and international rights groups who see this as a real gap in the Canadian legislative system. Currently there are no provisions for real property rights, if you will, on reserves in the case of a marriage breakdown or a partnership breakdown.

Most Canadians take it pretty much for granted now. We've gone through the evolution of the Divorce Act and the consequences of many, many, many court rulings that have kind of honed what happens in the unfortunate dissolution of a marriage or a long-term relationship.

But on reserve there's no such protection. The Indian Act is silent on that, so depending on the local traditions or depending on almost the whim...across the country, people are treated in different ways following that breakup. So in some cases, it may be a very peaceful and equitable distribution of those assets. Somebody says, “I've got $50,000 sunk into this home and assets and everything from furniture to you name it, and it's half mine,” and everyone agrees. If everybody agrees, the world's a very peaceful place. But what happens, unfortunately, when there's acrimony or if there isn't any goodwill between the partners, then it's just.... You know, it could go any way.

What usually happens, unfortunately--far too often, as we see in society generally--is aboriginal women and children come out on the short end of that. There's no way to enforce a distribution of those real property assets. So if you come home and the lock is changed on the front door, who do you go to? Normally, in society at large, you'd say that if you had to--if it was going to be nasty like this--you would go to the court and get the court to make a ruling of some sort. But on reserves there is no provision to deal with that. So you're completely at the whim of the person changing the lock. That means that often--not always but often--that's the women, and usually women are the caretakers of the children as well, and that means women and children, in my opinion, are disproportionately affected.

So my hope is that the bill will get a good hearing and will become law. I think an important consideration in that is that it addresses the principle, but it also is very respectful of the fact that first nations, if in that bill, will have the right--and I would encourage them--to develop their own matrimonial property laws that will apply to their nation. Then they don't have to check with us and this committee or me and my department. They just put those laws and rules in place and those become the effective rules in that community. So it's respectful of first nation authority, but it makes sure that we don't have a gap on reserves.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

This would be an appropriate time to.... We have finished our first round. We'll take the second round after the minister leaves.

I understand you have to get to another committee meeting, and we do appreciate you giving us, on rather short notice, this time slot this morning, Minister.

We'll take just a very brief recess, members, and then we'll come back and continue the regular questioning into the second and third rounds. Okay?

We will suspend.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton

Let's continue, members.

I'd ask everyone to make their way back to the table.

It was perhaps a little premature to ask everyone to come back. I didn't realize that at least a third of our panel was getting refreshments at the back, but all the better. We'll keep going, because we have another hour and 15 minutes to continue.

At this time, I'd like to properly introduce the representatives we have from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I welcome back Mr. Martin Reiher, senior counsel. He's actually, I should say, with the Department of Justice. Good to see you back, Mr. Reiher.

We also have, from INAC, Roy Gray, director of the resolution and individual affairs sector. Mr. Gray has been in front of us before as well. Welcome back.

We have Brenda Kustra, director general of governance for the department.

We'll continue, as I said before, into our second rounds and for as many rounds as we can get in before we wrap up at 11.

Let's go to Mr. Bagnell. We're on five-minute questions and answers now.

Mr. Bagnell, go ahead.

April 1st, 2010 / 9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

And thank you for being here. I'm very supportive of the bill, and I know you've done good work.

I have just a few questions about costs.

I do have a message, not for you but for the minister. I thought he'd be here for the whole hour.

I was kind of disgusted yesterday. He mentioned in the emergency debate that the fiscal position of the government was important in denying the thousands of aboriginal people who were crying for an extension of the healing foundation. That would have been $350 million. Yesterday, out of the blue, the government came out with $400 million for Haiti. It's great that they could come up with that, but if they could come up with that, it would be easy to get another $350 million.

My first question is on the costs of this bill. Because this plan has been in place for months, I assume you did some initial estimates. I know the minister said there are a bunch of what ifs and many varieties of things that could happen, but I assume someone did a rough estimate. All things being equal, if it applied to all of Canada--which court cases would probably end up doing--roughly, and if there were forty-five or however many thousands of people, and the simple parts of this bill were just added up...was there ever an estimate, a ballpark figure, of what the total costs might be?