Canada – More on Bill S-3…Can We Afford It?

This from Vice News Canada regarding Bill S-3. (see previous related posts here). It appears that Fearless Leader Justin Trudeau is also not in favour of Bill S-3 as it will come out of the Senate.

This article may bring some much needed context to the CJ editorial, dated August 9, 2017 written by Brian Giesbrecht on Bill S-3 and its possible ramifications.

What is an Indian?

For more than a century, Ottawa has decided who is, and who is not, an Indian, based on their parents. The Senate is trying to change that, and the Trudeau government isn’t happy

By Tamara Khandaker and Rhiannon Johnson May 25, 201

The Liberal government is planning to reject an amendment to the Indian Act proposed by the Senate that could give as many as two million Indigenous people Indian status.

Two years ago, a Quebec court ordered the government to make changes to the act, after finding that it had, for decades, discriminated against women.

The act has always allowed men with Indian status who married non-status women before to pass their Indian status to their grandchildren and beyond. But the act, historically, stripped status from status women who married non-status men, and their children, until it was changed in 1985. That gendered distinction has withheld Indian status from thousands, if not millions, of First Nations people.

The Indian Act dates back to 1876, and has been described as a fundamentally racist document.

While the act has been updated several times over the past hundred years, there are still First Nations people who do not have status because of the historical language from the act. To try and rectify that — and to satisfy the court ruling — the Trudeau government introduced a bill S-3 into the Senate. Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett told the Senate committee that she envisioned the legislation offering Indian status to some 35,000 First Nations people in Canada.

The bill aimed to offer Indian status to anyone descended from those who were either denied status, or who lost their status, before changes were introduced to the act in 1985. The changes will primarily apply to the children and grandchildren of women who lost their status after marrying a non-Indian man and to those born out of wedlock.

The government’s changes only apply to certain Indigenous people who were denied their status between 1951 and 1985 and, by extension, their children and grandchildren.

But the Senate wanted the legislation to go further, and introduced amendments aimed at removing those distinctions for descendants of men and women who married non-Indians before 1951, going back to the 1800s. Those amendments still need to be approved by the whole Senate chamber.

Another amendment made to the bill, introduced by Senator Murray Sinclair, would require the government to offer status to applicants based on the evidence in front of them, “without being required to establish the identity of that parent, grandparent, or other ancestor.”

Indian status under the act offers increased autonomy for First Nations peoples, and ostensibly includes local decision-making on control of their land, education, and resources — though the extent to which that is actually the case is a matter of debate, and a source conflict with the federal government. The act does not cover Inuit and Métis peoples, and many Indigenous people believe the act ought to be scrapped altogether, and replaced with a more modern document that guarantees more autonomy.

Bennett told the committee that the proposal could mean bill S-3 would apply to “hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of new people and radically alter the composition of communities.” The government’s estimates, sent to the Globe & Mail, put that number at anywhere between 80,000 and two million.

While she noted the “many potential inequities not addressed in this bill,” Bennett added that the planned changes “absent adequate consultation and without knowing the practical implications beforehand would be irresponsible, and we will not be able to accept such an amendment.”

The clock is now ticking down, and a showdown between the two houses of Parliament appears to be looming. – Vice News

article website here

…Bennett told the committee that the proposal could mean bill S-3 would apply to “hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of new people and radically alter the composition of communities.” The government’s estimates, sent to the Globe & Mail, put that number at anywhere between 80,000 and two million…..

Government estimates anywhere from 80,000 to 2,000,000 of new people that would have status under the Indian Act.  Those are figures from the Government of Canada.

Sooooo, as I asked before, can we afford Bill S-3? Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs does not think so. Neither do I.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

enter code *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.