What is the effect of a provincial law that is inconsistent with a provision of the Indian Act?

The effect of a provincial law that is inconsistent with a provision of the Indian Act demonstrates the supremacy of federal law over provincial law in areas governed by federal statutes. According to Section 88 of the Indian Act, when there is a conflict between a provincial law and the Indian Act, the provincial law is rendered invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. This principle embodies the constitutional doctrine that federal laws take precedence over provincial laws when they are in conflict, especially in matters directly relating to Indigenous peoples and their rights.

The Indian Act is a federal statute that specifically addresses the governance and management of Indigenous affairs in Canada. If a provincial law tries to impose regulations or provisions that contradict the Indian Act, it does not have the power to alter or undermine the federal legislation. This ensures that the status and rights of Indigenous groups, as defined by the Indian Act, are protected from being diminished or altered by provincial regulations.

The other choices reflect misunderstandings of the relationship between federal and provincial laws. A provincial law remaining valid would violate the supremacy principle. Amending the Indian Act would require a formal legislative process and is not automatic upon a provincial law's inconsistency. Lastly, requiring federal approval for this scenario does not apply, as the existence of a conflict is sufficient