My question is for the Honourable Senator Harder.

In finding that sex-based hierarchies in the Indian Act violate Canada’s international human rights obligations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressly rejected Canada’s argument that sex-based distinctions between different categories of status is justified by the aim of preserving previously acquired rights. I quote: “. . . the State Party has not demonstrated how recognizing equal status for” Sharon McIvor, Jacob Grismer and similarly situated Indigenous women and their descendants “under section 6(1)(a) would adversely affect the acquired rights of others. The State Party therefore has failed to demonstrate that the stated aim is based on objective and reasonable grounds.”

The Government of Canada has relied on this argument regarding acquired rights since at least 2011 to claim that there is no remaining sex discrimination in the Indian Act and that the government is under no obligation to remove the 1951 cut-off.

The UN committee’s decision makes it clear that this is no longer a viable argument. Without the outstanding provisions in force, Bill S-3 violates international human rights law and, as Sharon McIvor has recently reiterated, the ongoing government consultation regarding the Bill S-3 cannot give Canada the right to discriminate.

Would the Honourable Senator Harder explain why the outstanding provisions of Bill S-3 should not be brought into force immediately?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for her question. She will know that it is appropriate for me to consult with the minister and respond as appropriate.

Senator Pate: When do you expect that response?

Senator Harder: As soon as possible.