31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al

F17
1 aside this money, and now we need to know how we should deal with it because however
2 the Court decides to change the definition or not change the definition, there are groups
3 that are going to be affected. And ultimately, the Court will have a very difficult decision
4 interms of changing the definition of the beneficiary. It may be needed to change to
5 correct the long-standing discrimination that has happened against those women who were
6 brought back in through Bill C-31. And that is -- that is the opinions that the trustees got
7 that this definition may be discriminatory against those women and that they should be
8 brought back in. And of course doing that potentially affects, then, the children.
9 Although, you, I think, have seen some arguments that perhaps they can be grandfathered.
10 But that -- all of those arguments in fact will be before the Court. The trustees have an
11 obligation to have a very fiduciary duty to bring this before the Court, to put those
12
13
arguments forward.
14 So it is our submission that while it will be a very difficult decision for the Court to
15 decide which group will be affected, how should that definition be changed, ultimately, it
16 is not a very difficult issue in the sense that we know what the definition is, we know the
17 groups that are impacted by the definition, and we know that the trustees have a fiduciary
18 duty to the current beneficiaries who are those 23 children, to other beneficiaries. There
19 are thousands of First Nation men who are also impacted by a change in the definition.
20 And the Bill C-31 women. All of those people, however this definition is changed, could
21 be impacted. But again, that evidence will be before you. That information will be
22 before you or before this Court. And as I said, while the decision to change it is difficult
23
24
because people will be impacted, the issues themselves are not difficult.
25 We want to say that we have, of course, the utmost respect for the Public Trustee and we
26 know that all of their submissions and the positions they’re taking are noble and in respect
27 of the children. But we have to say that the most difficult issue for the trustees is the
28 issue of costs. And the fact that they have a fiduciary duty to protect the trust and to
29 protect the costs. And they do find it difficult that they have a government department
30 coming to them to be funded to argue for beneficiaries of the trust. It’s usually, in all of
31 these cases that have been cited, the other way around. Individuals are coming to the
32 government. But here you have the government saying to these trustees, You should pay
33 us to represent these children. And they find that a very difficult position. So that is why
34 we are here today and we are defending that and saying that that is, in fact, an
35
36
inappropriate thing for the trust to have to do to pay the government to be involved.
37 The -- as I said, we would expect that as the trustees, as council for the trustees, will be
38 coming to the Court in the main application to lay out all of the problems with the
39 definition, to lay out the possible changes to the definition, the problems with those
40 changes, lay out potential solutions. And so we believe that the arguments on behalf of
41 the children, that we have an obligation, the fiduciary duty of the trustees, they have an