Evidence of meeting #9 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 indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Todd Russell
Thank you very much, Ms. Leslie, and you're right on time.
We will now go to the last questions of the day. Mr. Duncan will be splitting his time with Mr. Payne, for five minutes.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
I have two questions. The first one would be for Kathy Hodgson-Smith.
It's a very direct question. Maybe you said it, but if you did, I missed it. Does Métis status exclude persons who have status under the Indian Act? Does it necessarily follow that if you have status under the Indian Act, you are ineligible for Métis status?
Barrister and Solicitor, Hodgson-Smith Law, Métis National Council
Yes, sir, it does, because of the requirement to self-identify as a distinct people.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
I thought that's what you were saying, but I wanted to clarify.
For the Canadian Bar Association, your first recommendation deals with the issue of a parent not being able to register unless they have a child. The net effect would be that the parent would move from subsection 6(2) to subsection 6(1).
If that person does not have a child, it's neither here nor there, in any case, because transmittal is not an issue. The difficulty is that this individual applying for 6(1) status without a child is very problematic for the registrar, as I understand it, or could be very problematic or very onerous.
So I just wonder if the strength of your recommendation, which looks very straightforward, is actually useful if it makes no difference but creates administrative complexity and burden. Have you taken that into account?
Executive Member, National Aboriginal Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I would say two things. First, unlike the court of appeal, Parliament can cast its net somewhat wider than the narrow confines of the bill. To the extent that there is a distinction within the communities between people who have 6(2) status as opposed to 6(1) status, this amendment would try to eradicate that.
There are very overt distinctions made. Looking forward again, with the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it could well be that people who have 6(2) status but are otherwise entitled to 6(1) status, but for the fact that they don't have a child, could face discrimination in some way from their band council. So I'm anticipating future litigation there.
What we say is that, first of all, the registrar has to deal with complex registration questions all the time. The first nations have to put together their package, their application form, and they have to be able to prove their situation.
The administrative inefficiency that we've identified is actually in the situation where the person does have a child. They've already been registered as 6(2); they've already gone through that process. Now they're going to have to go through it again in addition to registering their child. It's doubling up.
The objective is the transmittal of status to that grandchild, but in order to do that you actually have to change the registration status of two people, not just one, not just the grandchild but also of the child's generation, the Jacob Grismer generation. We say that creates administrative inefficiencies. Why deal with two applications in front of the registrar when in fact you only need to deal with one?
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
I have two really quick questions for the Canadian Bar Association.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, in terms of totally eliminating gender discrimination, has the Canadian Bar Association calculated the number of individuals who would be eligible for status under the Indian Act?
Quickly, after that, have you done any estimates in terms of the costs that you suggest should be provided under your recommendation in support of funding for first nations?
Executive Member, National Aboriginal Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Quickly, the answer is that we have relied on the government's expert, Stewart Clatworthy, for the estimates there, and we haven't done any costing at all.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Todd Russell
Fantastic, Mr. Payne.
First of all, thank you, witnesses, for your briefs and for taking the time to be with us to share your thoughts. It will certainly inform our committee's work as we go forward.
There are just a couple of things for committee members before we adjourn. Mr. Lemay presented a scenario around an amendment, and the bar association from Quebec and the Canadian Bar Association had indicated that they might want to respond.
To put this in a timeframe, we might be going to clause-by-clause next Thursday. So if you have something additional that you would like to present, that is the sort of timeframe we may be working within.
Secondly, to all committee members, if there are amendments that people are looking to put before the committee, it may help administratively if we have them by Wednesday so that they can be distributed. It doesn't preclude, of course, as I understand from the clerk, amendments coming from the floor. But if you have them written and at least some time to consider them, that may facilitate the process.
That said, have a good weekend. Bonne fin de semaine.
The meeting is adjourned.
