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

F18
1 obligation to present all of those arguments before the Court. So this is not a situation
2 where there will be no representation of those children, because those 23 children are in
3 fact beneficiaries of the trust currently. So it’s really not a situation where -- where we’re
4 asking to add them so that in fact the trust would be diluted. They are currently
5 beneficiaries of the trust. And so as beneficiaries, the trustees have an obligation to
6 represent them and put their arguments forward. As they will with all of the affected
7 groups: The Bill C-31s and the wives of First Nations men who also will be removed
8
9
from the definition. So we expect that all of those arguments will be there.
10 In respect of the other people who may be putting arguments forward, we do also have
11 Sawridge band, Sawridge First Nation, who will be at the table and has a very unique and
12 good perspective and insight. And they will also be presenting arguments in respect of
13
14
the various impacts of the change in definition.
15 We also have the Federal Crown who we understand will be involved in the application
16 throughout. The Federal Crown, in fact, has jurisdiction over children who live on
17 reserves. And so -- and we know that the Federal Crown, from all the cases that have
18 been put forward, have been involved with Sawridge throughout all of the applications
19 that have been, or -- and all of the litigation that has been before the Court. So they have
20
21
a unique perspective. They have unique knowledge. And they will also be here.
22 Lots has been said about the parents. We have noticed in the cases that have been cited
23 by the Public Trustee that those -- that in most cases the parents were there and asking the
24 Public Trustee to be involved. We don’t know if parents will be here. Ithink it’s fair to
25 say that maybe we would have heard from them by now if they would have been here, if
26 they intended to be involved. And we’ve heard from none of them. And I take
27 Ms. Hutchison’s position that perhaps their silence is that they are happy to have the
28 Public Trustee involved. We don’t know that. Perhaps their silence is that they don’t
29 want to pay to have the Public Trustee involved. But I do think that the parents are still
30
31
an important factor and they should be given that opportunity to come forward.
32 And finally, the Court has its own parens patriae power. And it can exercise it. And it
33 certainly does. And we can see from the cases cited, the sterilization case and others, that
34 the Court does exercise that power and is asked to exercise that power. And that power is
35 to not just sit and listen but to say, I need to understand and make sure that children are
36 not going to be impacted negatively and make sure that the power is exercised. So it is
37 our submission that there are already, even without the Public Trustee, several people at
38 the table who will be putting forward arguments on behalf of the children and -- and so
39 those arguments will be before the Court. It’s not as though those arguments will not be
40
41
before the Court.