Says New Indian Act Change is Threat to Rights

A new clause in The Indian Act which was written into Canadian statutes last month mainly as result of a court case in London - "threatens the constitutional rights of all Canadian Indians," a London lawyer charged Friday.

In effect it places Indians under jurisdiction of provincial laws for matters not already covered by Federal statutes. It was seen here in legal circles as an attempt to plug loopholes in the act such as one discovered in a traffic case heard in Middlesex magistrate's court last July.

The case concerned a 22-year-old Oneida Indian, Donald Doxtator, charged with driving a car on a road within Muncey Indian Reserve without license plates for the current year. The charge was laid under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act.

It was dismissed by Magistrate A. F. Cook, who ruled Ontario's traffic laws did not apply to Indians on reservations and that they are under the executive jurisdiction of Federal statutes.

This was the argument put forward by Doxtators's lawyer, W. R. Poole.

The case came to attention of afficials in Ottawa and, on September 4, the new clause was introduced in the Indian Act.

An appeal against Magistrate Cook's ruling was scheduled to be heard by County Judge Ian MacRae but this has been abondoned in view of the new revision to the act.

Clause 87, Chapter 20, Revised Statutes of Canada, reads:

Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other act of the Parliament of Canada, all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this act or any order, rule, regulation or bylaw made thereunder, and except to the extent that such laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this act."

This clause was termed "too indefinite" and "too dangerous" by Mr. Poole on Friday. He claimed it was a threat to constitutional rights of the Indians and could mean loss in privileges they have held since Confederation.

"It should name specific [] and should let the Indian know where he stands," he said. Criticizing the clause as "too general" he felt it would take the Supreme Court of Canada to find out where the Indians stand.

A second London lawyer, James Donahue, also has been notified that an impending appeal against a client has been dropped in view of the revised act.

The appeal was intended against acquittal of Miss Doris Nichols of Muncey, on a charge of driving a car without an operator's licence just inside the reserve. The case was heard in county magistrate's court August 7, and dismissed by Magistrate Cook again for the same reason.