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

F28
1
2 Inparagraphs 25 to 34 of their brief, they raise these concerns about the minors losing
3 their rights and the fact that these issues need to be addressed. And I would submit that
4 absolutely those are going to be the main issues addressed. Obviously that’s a significant
5 issue for these minors to lose their rights in -- as beneficiaries. It’s also significant that
6 the Bill C-31 women are discriminated against, and what will be the solution to do this.
7 And it is our submission that at the end of the day there is going to probably be one
8 group that will be unhappy in terms of being taken out as beneficiaries of this trust, but
9 the one solution that has been put forward and the one solution that will be before you is
10 that if we change the definition to make members beneficiaries, then everybody is put on
11 equal footing in the sense that everyone then can apply to be a member and then can
12 obtain benefits from the trust. And so while they may be discriminated against, maybe
13 they’ll be taken out as beneficiaries, it’s not as though they don’t have the opportunity to
14 get back in. So it’s not a final determination. Because if they have a connection to the
15 band, if they fit the membership criteria, then they will get in. I’m not suggesting for a
16 minute that it still isn’t a difficult and hard issue or decision to say, Yes, but I’m going to
17 take away your rights as a beneficiary and then just give you the opportunity. But it’s
18 also avery difficult decision to say, Well, we’re just going to keep discriminating against
19 the Bill C-31 women. So I would suggest that while it’s not a complex argument, it
20
21
certainly will be before the Court.
22 I’d like to address paragraph 57 of the reply brief because there are, in my submission,
23 some troubling submissions made. So first it says that, in the second sentence:The Court
24 is faced with a situation where there is no party willing to represent the interests of
25 minors in relation to an application that will have significant financial and social impacts.
26 And I would say that’s not true because the trustees have an obligation to put their
27 arguments forward. And Iapologize for being repetitious, but I do want to address the
28 arguments that have been made. And certainly, as I said, all the other parties will also be
29
30
involved.
31 It goes on to say that: The Public Trustee does not have a budget to fund representation
32 of minors. They have no statutory duty to represent. But I would say that there is no
33 evidence of that, and certainly I think it was incumbent on the Office of the Public
34 Trustee to put that in evidence and not just put it into an argument. Certainly if that had
35 been put into an affidavit, there would have been some opportunity to explore this further
36 and determine if, in fact, you know, in the fiscal year there is no budget to represent these
37 kind of minors in this kind of litigation. But obviously the Public Trustee has a mandate
38 and abudget to represent minors. That is obviously the case. That is their mandate. So
39
40
I don’t think that simple statement can be relied on without evidence.
41 The -- in addition, it says in paragraph 57 that minors can be assumed to have no