CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 145 Ï NUMBER 018 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 40th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, March 26, 2010 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 981 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, March 26, 2010 The House met at 10 a.m. known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in the province of British Columbia. Prayers This will have some significant consequences. As the members of the House will recognize, Indian status is a legal concept that confers a particular set of rights and entitlements. Should the two paragraphs of section 6 cease to have legal effect, it would lead to uncertainty GOVERNMENT ORDERS and confusion about entitlements to registration in British Columbia. Ï (1005) The legislation now before us proposes to avert these [English] consequences by amending certain registration provisions of the GENDER EQUITY IN INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT Indian Act. The bill addresses the root of the problem by removing the language that the court ruled unconstitutional. Hon. Stockwell Day (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved that Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of I have no doubt that every member of the House stands opposed to Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada discrimination based on gender. Despite this conviction, I expect that (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs), be read the second time all members appreciate that equality between men and women is and referred to a committee. difficult to achieve at times. Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to this Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of important goal and this is what this debate is all about, the ongoing Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I effort to eliminate gender discrimination. am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act and explain why I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting it. Parliament, of course, has played an important role in taking corrective actions to address this issue. For example, the House Bill C-3 proposes to accomplish two objectives. First, this endorsed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is legislation would remove a cause of gender discrimination in the recognized internationally as a milestone in the fight against Indian Act. Second, it would meet the deadline imposed upon discrimination. To understand the origins of the McIvor decision Parliament in a ruling of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. we must go back to the 1980s when the charter was first enacted. My remarks today will describe not only how Bill C-3 achieves The charter required the Government of Canada to amend or these objectives, but also how it would serve the larger national rescind federal legislation that caused, aided or abetted discrimina- interest. tion based on gender. A significant effort was undertaken to amend In last year's decision by the Court of Appeal for B.C. in McIvor the Indian Act, which clearly discriminated against women. v. Canada, the court ruled that the two paragraphs in section 6 of the Indian Act discriminate between men and women with respect to Perhaps the most egregious example of this discrimination was the registration as an Indian and therefore violate the equality provision Indian Act's treatment of a status Indian who married someone of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. without status. If the status Indian were a woman, she would immediately lose her status. If the status Indian were a man, he Rather than have the decision take effect right away, the court would retain his status and furthermore his wife would become suspended the effects of the decision until April 6, 2010, and entitled to registration. explicitly called on Parliament to enact an effective legislative solution. So these effects were dramatically different of course on their What this means is we have until April 6 to implement a solution children. Children of a woman who lost status and her non-Indian and if we fail to meet this deadline a key section of the Indian Act, husband were not entitled to registration, while children of a status one that spells out rules related to entitlement to registration also man and his non-Indian wife were entitled to registration. 982 COMMONS DEBATES March 26, 2010 Government Orders A provision in the former Indian Act, which was commonly Act. By any measure, this is a progressive and desirable step because referred to as the “double mother clause”, discriminated against it removes an identified cause of gender discrimination. children whose mother and paternal grandmother gained status upon marriage. These children, born after September 4, 1951, would lose their Indian status at age 21. As a modern nation, Canada champions justice and equality for all. Canadians recognize that discrimination does weaken the fabric In an effort to eliminate these types of discrimination, Parliament of our society and erodes public faith in our justice system. That is endorsed a series of amendments to the Indian Act in 1985. These why I am pleased to bring forward this legislation identified in the amendments are still known, colloquially, as Bill C-31 changes, and court's decision. they remain controversial and lie at the heart of the McIvor ruling at the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The problem lies with the mechanisms that Bill C-31 used to Members of this House have demonstrated over and over again rectify gender discrimination related to status entitlement and that willingness to address issues related to individual rights. It is registration. I will do my best to simplify two of the key amendments something they wish to do. In 2008 Parliament supported the repeal from 1985. of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example. Section 67 of this act had created an exception so that complaints for Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Good luck. people subject to the provisions of the Indian Act could not seek redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was the only Mr. John Duncan: Yes. “Good luck”, somebody just said. exception for Canadians in the act. To rectify this situation, members Subsection 6.(1) provided a way for Indian women who had lost of the House supported legislation to repeal this section. status through marriage to regain it and subsection 6.(2) made it possible for the children of these women to be registered. Ï (1010) Although this approach earned the approval of Parliament, and many other groups, subsequent generations were still subject to residual gender discrimination, and that is what was ruled on by the Bill C-3 has much in common with the legislation that repealed Court of Appeal for British Columbia. this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both strive to protect individual rights and promote equality. Putting an end to Now, let me provide members with a little history to the court's discrimination against first nations women is advantageous for all decision. Canadians, which is why I am asking members to support this bill. Sharon McIvor is an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man before 1985. They had children together. According to the Indian Act, at that time, Ms. McIvor would have lost her status and When speaking about protecting human rights, I would also like to her children would not be eligible for registration. take this opportunity to remind members of the House that this government has been actively seeking to address a legislative gap Through the amendments to the Indian Act, in 1985, Ms. McIvor that undermines our justice system. I am talking about matrimonial was registered in accordance with subsection 6.(1) and her son was real property legislation. I am talking about eliminating the gap that registered under subsection 6.(2). When this son had a child with a leaves first nations people, most often women and children, non-Indian woman, their children were not eligible for registration. vulnerable and without legal protection. This fact formed the basis for Sharon McIvor's arguments in McIvor v. Canada: that her descendants were not in the same position to transmit registration to their children as they would be if she were Addressing issues such as gender discrimination in certain male. registration provisions in the Indian Act, repealing section 67, and filling a legislative gap respecting matrimonial real property will To determine if this constituted bona fide discrimination, the have positive and lasting impacts. For too long aboriginal people Court of Appeal for British Columbia reviewed the Indian Act's have struggled to participate fully in the prosperity of the nation due provisions for registration following the Bill C-31 amendments to to a series of obstacles. By removing these obstacles, Canada enables the Indian Act in 1985. The court specifically examined Ms. aboriginal people to contribute socially, economically and culturally McIvor's situation in comparison to that of a brother. It found that the to this country. Parliament must play its key role in this process. consequences of two successive generations of parenting with non- Indians actually significantly differed in the male and female lines. While the 1985 amendments in Bill C-31 succeeded in eliminating We should consider the Specific Claims Tribunal Act. The gender discrimination in the first generation, it failed to eliminate it legislation was a crucial component in a larger action plan to resolve in subsequent generations. This is the core, essentially, of the court's another major obstacle to good relations between first nations and ruling.