Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Sure. It is possible for Canada to go back to the court to seek an extension of time. In order to be successful, from past experience, we know that we cannot go too soon. The government has to show that it did what it had to do and did best efforts to meet the deadline. Granting

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you for the question. If I understand—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. If I understand properly, the question is about who introduced the legislation in the Senate. To me that's a matter of parliamentary procedure and I'm not aware of the constitutional problem that has been raised.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I can't speculate on how this provision would be interpreted. Clearly it wouldn't target the government; it would simply protect the first nation. It is possible.... There was a previous question that was asked by one member of this committee a few minutes ago about whether inclu

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  There was a similar clause in the bill amending the Indian Act in 1985. If I recall correctly, it was clause 21, 22, or 23. There are other provisions in the statutes dealing with aboriginal issues or other issues limiting the liability of the crown as well. This is not unique.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  On whether decisions are made in good faith or not, it's not because provisions are litigated that we can assume what the result will be. Government officials have to apply legislation until it's struck down. So with respect, I wouldn't conclude that there is good faith simply be

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important verification. Clause 9 is fairly precise and circumscribed. It prohibits awards of damages on the basis of the fact that the individuals who will gain entitlement further to this amendment did not have an entitlement before. It in no w

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you for the question. What I'm trying to say is that in a democratic society like ours there are courts and tribunals to adjudicate on disagreements between individuals, as well as between individuals and the state. Further to the attempt in 1985 to remove the discriminatio

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems to me a clear indication from Parliament that there can be no compensation for a lack of entitlement for individuals who are covered by these new amendments. It would actually assist and strengthen a principle that exists in the case law but would

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clause 9 indeed protects both the crown and the council of a band from any claim for compensation, damages, or indemnity for decisions, or because of “anything done or omitted to be done”--in other words, for decisions made on the basis of the fact that cer

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. Just to be very clear, my understanding of the question is that assuming that the Indian Act is amended with an amendment to paragraph 6(1)(a) along the lines of what was discussed today, then would the addition of paragraph (c.1) to section 6 make sense. I believe wh

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The amended clause 2 would entitle a very large number of individuals. Just to clarify my answer.... Thank you; this gives me an opportunity. We are answering questions without the opportunity to consider this very carefully. I just realized now that the amended clause would e

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed this amendment would take a radically different approach from the one that is taken in Bill C-3. This would amend paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, which basically was the provision allowing the registration after 1985 of all the individuals who w

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, yes. I would just point out that these words, the words following from line 3 of the proposed amendment—“or of a person”, etc.—would appear to be unnecessary to achieve the goal of this amendment. That said, this is simply to point out a difficulty with this specifi