I want to add something, as an initial matter, that it's really important to understand: Unlike in the McIvor and Descheneaux cases, in this case the court ordered a tailored remedy. If it went into effect, it would not hinder anyone else's ability to register or Parliament's ability to go further in changes if it wanted to.
I'll briefly note what the court said on this point:
In summary, the Declarations would remedy the precise Charter violations identified by the plaintiffs, as conceded by Canada, without restricting any entitlements or benefits under the Indian Act and without limiting Parliament's ability to craft any further legislative changes that it may consider appropriate.
I want to stress that there's no need to hold hostage the charter rights of the plaintiffs and those like them, whom the court has identified as having their rights violated, in order for Parliament to carry on the work of Bill S-2 and decide whether it wants to remove the second generation cut-off and go broader. We would certainly urge Canada to stop fighting to stop the court order from going into effect. If that went into effect, it would deal with the charter violations already identified, and Parliament would be free to pursue its debate on Bill S-2 without the pressure of a court-ordered deadline. I think it's really important for the committee to understand that point.