Gehl challenges the Indian Act’s legislative silence

Author Lynn Gehl offers an insider analysis of Indian Act litigation and the narrow remedies the court imposes. For example, in 1985, Canada removed an offensive word in law—'illegitimate' —while at the same time removed the protective measures associated with it.

Author Lynn Gehl, pictured, questions whether legislative reform in Canada is ultimately an opportunity to make things worse at the level of policy and in practice for Indigenous people. Photograph courtesy of Nik K. Gehl

Feature

BY LYNN GEHL

October 14, 2021

Legislative change must not be used by a government as an opportunity to create new forms of sex discrimination—and mask them through legislative silence. This is exactly what Canada has done. Canada has treaty responsibilities that it has to live up to. We all know this by now. Yet since 1985, a...

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Enjoy unlimited website access and the digital newspaper.

Cancel anytime.

Already a Subscriber?

Get Today’s Headlines Newsletter

Your quick scan of the news you need each weekday to be the smartest person in the room.

By entering your email address you consent to receive email from The Hill Times containing news, analysis, updates and offers. You may unsubscribe at any time. See our privacy policy