You're right. Section 67 was repealed in 2008.
Just as a point of clarification, the Canadian Human Rights Act is primarily an act that allows complaints in the area of employment and services, so it's actually a good example to discuss today in terms of how a complaints-based mechanism can limit access to rights, as Marie-Claude, the Chief Commissioner, mentioned. The commission was before the Supreme Court of Canada just a few months ago about an interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The repeal of section 67 promised that indigenous people could file complaints in relation to the Indian Act, so Mr. Matson and Mr. Andrews filed complaints about historic discrimination because they had women in their family who had married outside to non-status men. What happened when it went all the way to the Supreme Court was the question of whether the determination of Indian status under the Indian Act was a service under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It was a technical legal question, but it's a good example of what happens when we rely on a complaints-based system, so the commission is supporting, as Marie-Claude mentioned, proactive and broadly accessible rights. I think it's important to point out that this government is currently considering that in the areas of accessibility and pay equity. There are ways to give rights to people without a complaints-based process. Ideally, that's a last resort. There has been too much on the backs of indigenous governments and individuals who have had to go all the way to the Supreme Court and back again.
The Human Rights Act is an incredible instrument. It's powerful. It has changed our country. Is it enough? No, not in this circumstance. There's a lot more that needs to be discussed.