Bill C-47 (Historical)

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves

This enactment provides for the adoption of First Nation laws and the establishment of provisional rules and procedures that apply during a conjugal relationship, when that relationship breaks down or on the death of a spouse or common-law partner, respecting the use, occupation and possession of family homes on First Nation reserves and the division of the value of any interests or rights held by spouses or common-law partners in or to structures and lands on those reserves.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for passing Bill C-30. It is one of those moments in a minority Parliament where we see a bill go through. I think Canadians will be pleased as well as first nations that have worked hard on the bill. It is the right thing to do at the right time, for the right reasons, and it is a delight to see it pass through the House. We hope the Senate will deal with it speedily.

I am also pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, which is a long title. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as well, as it offers a practical, balanced and effective solution to a complex issue that we believe needs to be corrected.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill as it offers a practical, balanced and effective solution to a complex issue.

In recent years on reserve matrimonial real property has been the focus of much study, consultation and discussion. Members of first nations and national aboriginal organizations, along with experts in law, women's issues, human rights, governance and other fields, have offered a variety of insights into relevant issues and commented on potential solutions. While nearly all expert opinion concludes that legislation is needed to rectify the problems associated with matrimonial real property, different viewpoints have been expressed on how the legislation should be structured.

There is no question, however, that the legislative vacuum represented by on reserve matrimonial real property, continues to affect many lives. Clearly, the time has come to put a stop to some of the injustices that are occurring day by day.

To appreciate the proposed legislation and the value of the solution it stands to bring requires a thorough understanding of the issues related to matrimonial real property, or MRP, on reserves.

While some members of the House possess such an understanding, particularly my colleague, the Minister of Industry, as well as members of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Status of Women who contributed to committee reports on the issue, I will to take this opportunity to provide some additional context.

Matrimonial real property is a term for a relatively simple legal concept. It refers to the fixed assets owned by one or both spouses and used for family purposes. For most Canadians, MRP includes a house and the property on which it sits.

When spouses separate or divorce, the division of MRP is often contentious, but legally straightforward. Under our Constitution, property rights fall under provincial jurisdiction. Laws exist in each province and territory to protect the matrimonial real property interests of married and, in some cases, common law spouses. This means that should a marriage break down one spouse cannot sell the family home without the consent of the other spouse. The laws also empower judges to remedy spousal disputes involving MRP. For instance, a judge can order an abusive spouse to move out of the family home.

Individuals who live in first nations communities, however, do not enjoy access to these legal remedies. The Indian Act limits the scope of provincial laws on reserve lands. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that provincial laws cannot alter any interest in MRP located on reserve lands. The Supreme Court ruled that since reserve lands fell outside provincial jurisdiction, only federal law could resolve this issue. However, the fact is there is no federal law on MRP on reserves. This gap means that spouses living on reserves have no legal protection for their MRP interests.

As a result, judges cannot deal with the real property of spouses on reserves. Even in the most extreme cases, those involving spousal abuse or physical violence, no court can order a change in possession of an on reserve family home. Furthermore, the courts cannot prevent a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home without the consent of the other spouse, regardless of the severe repercussions these actions might have.

Closing the MRP legislative gap has proven to be a challenge. Not all off reserve MRP remedies can be replicated on reserves because of the collective nature of reserve lands, our Constitution, the varied land holding systems and housing allocations and the inability of non-members to possess reserve lands.

The House endorsed a partial solution nearly a decade ago when it passed the First Nations Land Management Act. The act provides first nations with a mechanism to opt out of the land management provisions of the Indian Act and develop laws governing, among other things, MRP. The House has also approved self-government legislation that addresses matrimonial interests or rights on reserves. However, despite these actions, a strong majority of residents of first nations communities remain without protection.

In an effort to identify an effective solution, several studies, research projects, information sessions and consultations were undertaken. I draw the attention of the House to three reports that have provided significant insight into this issue.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights investigated relevant legal aspects and tabled an interim report, “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, in 2003.

Two years later, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development published its report, “Walking Arm in Arm to Resolve the Issue of On Reserve MRP”.

In 2006 the Standing Committee on the Status of Women reviewed the issue and presented its report, recommending a process and timetable to move the resolution forward. In addition, officials with my department have held dozens of information and consultation sessions with first nation communities and national aboriginal organizations in recent years. Although a mutually acceptable solution has not emerged from these efforts, they have helped to generate the collective will needed to design and implement an effective legislative solution.

Shortly after taking office, our Conservative government launched a new initiative to identify a solution. To direct this effort, a ministerial representative was appointed, Ms. Wendy Grant-John, to facilitate and oversee the consultation process and to ensure that a viable legislative solution was proposed.

During her noteworthy career, Ms. Grant-John has served as chief of the Musqueam First Nation, regional vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations and associate regional director-general of my department's British Columbia office. She is also a mother, a grandmother, an entrepreneur and former director of Four Corners Bank.

Ms. Grant-John spent many months facilitating consultations with aboriginal groups on the MRP issue. The consultation process included three phases: planning, consultation and consensus building. The government provided funds to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to work collaboratively with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in carrying out the consultation process.

From September 2006 to January 2007, consultations were held across Canada with aboriginal organizations and communities and provincial and territorial governments. There were 109 consultative sessions with aboriginal groups, providing a total of 135 consultation days at 64 different locations across Canada. In addition, 12 consultation sessions were held with provincial and territorial governments.

An intensive consensus building phase was held in February 2007 among Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the ministerial representative.

In March 2007 Ms. Grant-John released her final report, which was tabled in the House in April of last year. Her final report offered a number of recommendations for a legislative solution.

Bill C-47 responds to the majority of these recommendations, including: first, providing basic protections for individual residents on reserve during and after the breakdown of a conjugal relationship; second, balancing individual rights and the collective rights of first nations communities; and third, establishing a mechanism for first nations to develop their own MRP laws.

The legislation now before us was informed by the solid foundation built through these consultations and the reports I mentioned earlier. There were the consensus building phase, the report from the ministerial representative and the sharing of the draft legislative proposal with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and others.

Bill C-47 strives to achieve two goals: first, to establish an immediate federal regime to protect matrimonial interests that would apply to first nations without laws in this area; and second, to provide first nations with a mechanism to opt out of this regime by developing and adopting MRP laws of their own. These goals would satisfy two of the requirements identified most frequently during consultations.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to keep these goals in mind as they study the legislation and to recognize what Bill C-47 would accomplish and the balanced solution it would represent.

Under Bill C-47, spouses and common law partners living on reserves would be able to access a range of MRP rights and remedies similar to those available off reserve. At the same time, Bill C-47 would also provide protection concerning the collective interest of first nations. For example, non-members would be unable to use the provisions of the legislation to ever gain ownership of reserve lands. That is very important. Furthermore, first nations may make representations to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to many orders available under the legislation.

The bill also responds to an important concern commonly expressed during consultations, and that is ensuring that members of first nations have direct input into MRP law-making decisions taken by chiefs and councils. Bill C-47 would provide for a ratification process. In essence, for a first nations MRP regime to pass into law, it must first earn the support of a majority of eligible voters. This provision would promote accountability and encourage community members to play an active role in the development of laws, which are two crucial components of a strong democracy.

To support the proposed legislation, the government plans to provide first nation individuals, organizations and governments, as well as law enforcement officials, access to information about rights and remedies available on reserves to address matrimonial interests or rights and services and tools for responding to individual or community needs.

As my hon. colleagues know well, laws are much more likely to succeed when drafted with the input of the people who would be affected by them. Engaging first nation members in law-making discussions would also achieve another key goal, aligning MRP laws with community values and traditions. This was another concern expressed repeatedly during consultations.

Two other ideas often heard during the consultative process are also reflected in Bill C-47.

Many of the people consulted wanted legislation that would provide an immediate and effective solution. The majority said that they would reject a law that enabled the application of provincial laws related to MRP. This was echoed by both the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Bill C-47 will satisfy these concerns by instituting an effective federal regime, one informed by but distinct from legislation in place in the provinces and territories. At the same time, this federal regime will be an interim solution until such time as a first nation develops its own MRP law.

Drafts of the legislation were the focus of further discussions with aboriginal groups and officials from the provinces and territories. The results are now before this House in the form of Bill C-47.

I have no doubt that a further analysis of the issues surrounding on-reserve matrimonial real property will lead to one inescapable conclusion: the time has come to enact the practical, balanced and effective solution articulated in Bill C-47. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this legislation.

I have no doubt that a thorough analysis of the issues surrounding on reserve MRP will lead to an inescapable conclusion. The time has come to enact the worthy balance and effective solution articulated in Bill C-47. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this legislation.

If I could also take a moment to thank Ms. Wendy Grant-John and the many other people who, in the 109 consultative meetings, contributed their expertise to make this bill as good as it could be.

There will be accusations that the bill is not perfect; any bill that comes before the House will get that accusation. I do believe it is another one of those bills that deals with something that has been a gap in legislation for far too long. This is something that affects primarily women on reserve that may lose the matrimonial home in the case of an unfortunate marital breakup. Right now there is no solution for them. This legislation reflects the desire to help those people. It is time to do that. It also allows first nations to develop their own distinct MRP laws as they apply to the reserve. That is important because it reflects the constitutional reality in which we also live.

It is a balancing act, as I mentioned. It is a unique situation. Most Canadians would not realize that this gap in legislation means that many people, primarily women, do not have the protection that people take for granted every day off reserve.

I hope that we will have a good discussion and debate on this. I look forward to the support of hon. colleagues in this House.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations sent a letter on this and attached an analysis which said, “It is very important to note that Bill C-47 does not contain a non-derogation clause”. That type of clause occurs quite often in bills these days.

I am just wondering if the minister could outline why this particular bill does not have that clause.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question.

The non-derogation clause is in several other pieces of legislation and in fact was added in committee to Bill C-21, as the member knows, on the extension of human rights of general application to first nations living on reserve. The committee added it as one of its amendments.

I am not a lawyer, but the legal advice is that because the Constitution covers all Canadians, the non-derogation clause does not change the essence of the bill. It will always be interpreted in light of the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is clear about aboriginal rights and title. It is clear about what that means. The courts always will interpret legislation or interpret a court case based on constitutional reality. As the member knows, we have any number of cases that work their way through the legal system that might be challenged, and always the court will hold up the Constitution beside the document and make sure that it is consistent.

A non-derogation clause attempts to ensure that we pay attention to the Constitution when we look at the bill, but of course the courts do that anyway. In our opinion, it does not really strengthen the bill. There may be some discussion about that and I would be interested to hear what others may have to say, but the courts always must be cognizant of the Constitution, sections 35 and 92 and other sections that apply, and in our opinion, it does not strengthen the bill to add the non-derogation clause.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's speech, and in a few minutes, I will have an opportunity to reply to him with the Bloc Québécois' position.

I would like the minister to comment on one thing. Aboriginal women are very concerned about this bill. I believe that my Liberal Party colleague will also talk about this in her speech in a moment. One thing women have been wondering about is how Bill C-47 differs from Bill C-31. Aboriginal women got the short end of the stick, as they put it, with Bill C-31, which was passed and gave back some rights and other things. How is Bill C-47, which the minister is asking the House to adopt, any different? How will it apply on reserves? Of course, I will have a chance to talk more about this later.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is talking about two different issues. I realize they both may end up in the courts one way or another, but the effort in Bill C-47 is to extend some sort of a federal framework because of the Supreme Court rulings on the application of provincial MRP laws. They just do not apply on reserve lands. What we are trying to do with Bill C-47 is to extend some sort of a federal framework so that, and it is not just first nations women, but primarily first nations women will have the protection that others take for granted in a provincial court system.

Right now the unfortunate reality is if there is a marriage breakdown, or if there is violence against a spouse, frequently or mostly against women, someone needs to intervene to get a restriction, a court order or some sort of legal means to keep the house in the possession of the woman who is raising the kids and needs the protection of the matrimonial home to that. A restraining order or a way to restrict the individual from getting close to the woman is needed and we do not have the tools to do it.

This bill is for the protection of women, for the development of individual MRP laws on each reserve over time, but a law of general application in the meantime that would allow us to have a provision which says we have to look after those interests. Although some homes are owned by the band office, for example, they might be owned collectively, social housing perhaps, many other homes are built by and owned by individual first nations people. The trouble is if there is a marriage breakdown, no laws apply. The guy with the biggest, broadest shoulders wins the argument and that is not fair for first nations women.

This bill will not solve all problems and it does not address the Bill C-31 issues, but it does attempt to fill the gap that otherwise will continue until we do fill it. The system is quite hit and miss across the country. There are some good examples of good leadership on reserve under the First Nations Land Management Act, and there are examples of many first nations which have introduced their own MRP laws, but it is too hit and miss. It does not capture the rest of aboriginal women who deserve the same protection as others.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs for introducing this important legislation into our House of Commons. I know it will make a big difference in the lives of first nations people across our country.

Earlier today Bill C-30 finally moved on to the other chamber. I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre, as well as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for finally getting control of their caucus and bringing forward a resolution to that debate.

My question for the minister is, why is there a sentiment among some members opposite that because a bill is not completely perfect, or because a bill has not received unanimous support from all communities, it should not be brought forward? Could he explain the philosophy we want to employ to bring some resolution to this issue?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary has a passionate interest in this bill. He has spoken to me many times and has said that one of the reasons he got involved in politics was to try to bring in this sort of a measure to protect aboriginal women. I appreciate the work he has done on this.

Everyone will speak to his or her own reasons for opposing or supporting the bill. If there is a problem in the parliamentary system, and maybe it is accentuated by a minority government, I do not know, it is that the perfect does become the enemy of the good. We had 109 consultative meetings. Maybe we should have had 129, I do not know; maybe we should have had 299. There is always more we could do, granted, but my hope is that the bill will pass the House, go to committee and there will be more consultations in committee. I would encourage, of course, to have those consultations and broaden them again. That would be good and worthwhile.

As I mentioned on Bill C-30, there are certainly other good issues to raise about all kinds of things, but we should focus on the legislation that is before us, because it is part of a package of ideas that will improve things for first nations. It will not do it all. It is not meant to do it all, but it is meant to focus on matrimonial real property rights.

I think most Canadians have no idea that the laws they take for granted living in Toronto, Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie or anywhere else do not apply to first nations on reserve when it comes to matrimonial property. I know the government will take a pasting for who knows what else, but my hope is that people will focus on this bill, on this issue and get the bill to committee where there can be some more study.

My hope is that we will follow through and do the right thing because it is the right thing for the right reasons.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-47. It is an important bill, one that certainly deserves consideration. It is a bill that is a matter of human rights for women and children living on reserve. Members of my party are the party of the Charter of Human Rights and we support the measure to extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations.

While the opposition supports the intent of the bill, we do not support the flawed process taken by the federal government to introduce the legislation. We will support moving the bill to committee so we can hear from many concerned stakeholders, many of whom we have heard from already, and legal experts.

I want to emphasize, just picking up on the minister's remarks, that we do not view the representations at committee as consultations. We view them as part of a process of improving legislation that has been brought before the committee.

We were instrumental in making critical changes to Bill C-21 to ensure that aboriginal Canadians would have the time and capacity they needed to deal with the changes. We will continue to push the government to address human rights in all its manifestations, to address the needs of aboriginal Canadians, issues such as education, jobs, poverty and health.

I will take the liberty to go over a little of what the minister has spoken to already.

As we know and have heard, the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship broke down on reserves, courts could not apply provincial, territorial family law because reserve lands fell under federal jurisdiction. We have also heard that, as a result, aboriginal women living on reserve have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserve. They are not entitled to an equal share of the matrimonial property at the time of marriage breakdown. Matrimonial real property refers to the house or the land that a couple lives on while they are married or in a common law relationship.

Since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling, the gap in the law has had serious consequences. When a marriage or relationship ends, the courts have no authority to protect the MRP interests of spouses living on reserves. As a result, spouses living on reserve cannot ask the court to grant an order of temporary or permanent possession of the home or to partition and sale of a home if it applies to enforce an order or preclude a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home if it applies without the consent of another spouse.

We know approaches to addressing the legislative gap respecting MRP have been under consideration for some time, and the minister has outlined some of the reports and phases. In recent years we know that three parliamentary committees have recommended a legislative mechanism to resolve the issue, and we support one, but we support one brought in appropriately.

Yesterday, we debated Bill C-30, the specific land claims bill, legislation that was done in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, a bill that was a compromise, albeit a good first step. Now we are here today debating a bill that the government claims was done in consultation. It said that it worked in collaboration to bring forward a bill. An INAC website states:

The Crown’s consultation process was comprehensive. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada consulted with the provinces and territories and other interested organizations and communities not represented by either Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada. The Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada facilitated input from First Nation representatives from across the country. Representatives from the Department accompanied the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women’s Association of Canada at sessions they facilitated.

It is one thing to conduct consultations, but it is another to put forward a bill that does not reflect the outcomes from that consultation.

The government will work in collaboration with first nations when a bill is a voluntary measure, like the specific claims bill, and we applaud it for that, but it will close doors when it is a mandatory measure and it will impose policies on first nations people without taking their input into consideration.

Early reaction to the bill would lead one to believe that the government had the bill drafted even before the consultations took place. When some of us raised that at the time, we were told it was not so, but one cannot help but be skeptical.

On the same day the on reserve matrimonial real property legislation was introduced, it was denounced by the Native Women's Association of Canada, one of the organizations with which the government conducted its so-called consultations. It immediately came out to say that the consultative partnership the government had boasted about was a sham. How could legislation, which was worked on in consultation with affected native organizations, be called a sham?

The president of the Native Women's Association went on to say:

—we have not experienced our relationship with the federal Department of Indian Affairs as being one of partnership or even consultation but rather it feels like another experience of colonialism, or at best piecemeal, individually based solutions that will not result in real equality for the women we represent.

The Conservatives appear simply not to get it. They have not learned from their mistakes in their introduction of Bill C-21. They continue to show disrespect. They continue to act unilaterally. They continue to be paternalistic. Even the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations expressed regret in the government's process. He said:

—the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty....the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively.

Both these two organizations have major concerns about the bill. The Assembly of First Nations has, in a letter to the minister, even commented that the bill may not survive a constitutional challenge.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak to Ellen Gabriel, president of Quebec Native Women's Association. It too has concerns with the legislation, concerns surrounding consultation, among many others, which I will address a little later on.

When the government first set out on its process to study matrimonial real property, we on this side of the House were optimistic. It seemed like the former minister had set out a process in a positive direction.

In June 2006 the Indian and Northern Affairs minister at the time, as we heard, appointed Wendy Grant-John as the ministerial representative to facilitate a consultation piece on matrimonial real property.

Ms. Grant-John is a most distinguished, respected aboriginal leader in her community. We have heard that she served three times as chief of the Musqueam First Nation, and was the first women elected regional vice-chief to the Assembly of First Nations. She had previously worked at Indian and Northern Affairs as a regional director general. She has had an honourary doctorate, and her list of accomplishments go on.

The report by Ms. Grant-John on matrimonial real property issues describes the result of a three phase consultation process, which we heard about from the minister. The primary objective of this process was to provide a recommendation to the minister regarding a viable legislative option to address matrimonial real property on reserves. The process was to comply with the Haida case.

No one expected all applicable parties would agree on everything. It was expected compromises would be made and if there was not a consensus, it would be the representative's mandate to make recommendations, informed by the discussions of the applicable parties. Fourteen key themes came from the discussions, and I will not go through them because I am watching the clock.

As I said earlier, we support the intent of the bill, but we do not support the process taken by the government in its introduction of the bill. We need to get it done right, and that is what I hope the committee will do. The bill does not reflect the ministerial representative's report. It does not reflect the will of aboriginal women. It is a flawed legislation and something that cannot be taken lightly.

The government introduced the legislation, in spite of recommendations of all aboriginal groups. Many problems have been addressed by aboriginal groups and by aboriginal women.

Some problems with the bill include, as indicated by the Native Women's Association: a complete lack of information about the implementation plans and measures that are in the proposed legislation, including timeframes, resources for measures specified in the bill and resources for first nations to implement the legislation; and a lack of information regarding the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for MRP and to develop capacity to implement either Bill C-47 or their own laws.

Bill C-47 would provide a widowed spouse with only 180 days to remain in a family home following the death of her partner, a time too short. The lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities means that the measures contained in Bill C-47 will not assist women and children to obtain alternative housing in the community following the breakdown of a marriage or a relationship. This will continue the status quo, which is many women and children must leave their first nations community following relationship breakdown to find housing and therefore lose access to their family, social networks, culture, language and the services provided on reserve.

The legislation refers individuals to court processes and will likely result in court cases to clarify ambiguous measures. This places remedies contained in the bill out of reach of aboriginal women who cannot access the legal system due to lack of information, poverty or geographic isolation.

NWAC's position is that properly addressing MRP requires both legislative and non-legislative solutions. Non-legislative measures are needed, NWAC suggests, to address the issues and underlie any legislative solutions such as housing, poverty, governance, access to justice and violence, the issues about which we all know.

Like the others, the Quebec Native Women Inc. also expressed concern with the serious housing shortage on reserve. Will there be measures to find housing on reserve for the person against whom an emergency protection order has been made? We know aboriginal women are at greater risk to become the victims of domestic violence. In situations such as these, the frustration can lead to even more violence.

The Quebec Native Women Inc. have also raised the fact that Quebec is a province that applies both the civil code as well as common law. The legislation does not reflect this and therefore does not reflect the interest of native women in Quebec.

As mentioned earlier, the AFN has said that the proposed legislation may well be deemed unconstitutional. It stated:

This is largely because of issues relating to the rejection of delegated power, the lack of capacity for First Nations to effectively use the limited law-making authority and the lack of access by individuals to the provincial court system.

AFN believes there is a need for a “broad and comprehensive approach”. It said:

Such an approach would deal with important related matters concerning land management, dispute resolution capacity, housing, child welfare, shelters, policing membership...and would be based on the implementation of section 35, Constitution Act, 1982 compliance measures.

This is not the first time the government has head these views proposed. It just simply has not listened.

In a letter to the minister, the national chief also pointed out:

The shared view among First Nations across the country was that certain principles should guide the search for solutions and the standard upon which the proposed solutions should be evaluated:

strengthening First Nations families and communities;

fairness

respect for traditional values;

protection of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights;

no abrogation or derogation of First Nations collective rights;

protection and preservation of First Nations lands for future generations;

recognition and implementation of First Nations jurisdiction; and

community basis solutions.

This approach falls short on all of these points. They were simply bypassed by the government.

This bill also will force first nations women to seek remedies in the court. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many first nations women in remote communities, as expressed by the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

Time after time we have heard aboriginal women's groups call for real investments in adequate safe and accessible housing on reserves. Still the government continues to ignore the will of first nations women. How can the government claim that it stands for the rights of these first nations women if it does not listen?

As mentioned earlier, in reading the ministerial representative's executive summary, many of the same issues were raised. First nations people expect the federal Crown to fully respect its fiduciary duties in respect to first nations land, treaty and aboriginal rights. In the discussions held, there was a very strong preference for recognition of first nations jurisdiction to fill the legislative gap identified, a minimal role for federal legislation and a virtual universal opposition to the introduction of provincial laws, by incorporating them in a federal law, to deal with this issue. Participants in both AFN and NWAC discussions have said that first nations people want to see matrimonial real property that incorporates first nations views of land and family.

There are so many points to touch on, but quite simply, the government has not listened to the first nations women, yet at the same time the government says it stands up for their rights. Why does the government think it knows best for aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal women?

The Liberal opposition believes matrimonial property rights should be extended to first nations communities, particularly to protect the interests of first nations women and children, but understand it has implications for the whole community. We understand that these rights should not be imposed.

When consultations take place, we know they should not be ignored. We also know there should not always be consensus, but we also know what it means to work in collaboration. After all, for 18 months the previous Liberal government worked with aboriginal people to bring forward the Kelowna accord, something that would address many of the issues that first nations, Inuit and Métis people face today. Notably, it would have addressed the issues related to housing. It offered hope, but hope was taken away when the government needlessly scrapped the accord.

Now the government professes to champion aboriginal issues. With actions taken with legislation like Bill C-21 and now Bill C-47, and little or no investment in three budgets, and with conditions in first nations communities worse today than they were a year ago, it is no surprise that we are about to see a second day of action.

I want to reiterate the position of my party. We want this legislation to go to committee. We believe that addressing the matter of matrimonial real property rights is important. We believe it is particularly important to do it in real collaboration, in real consultation with aboriginal women's groups, to listen to them, to hear their concerns, to incorporate their concerns into the legislation, not to tell them that we know what is best for them.

We want this legislation to go to committee. We want to hear from the experts. We want to hear from the stakeholders. We will take the opportunity to make this a better piece of legislation.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on this important matter. The government appreciates that her party supports sending the bill to committee. When it gets to committee, there will be some excellent commentary from a number of groups and we will do our best to make this bill better.

I want to put on the record that considerable consultation was done across our great nation. There were over 109 sessions over 135 days in 64 different locations. We heard a lot of commentary from across the country. One must remember that this bill provides for first nations communities to create their own legislation should they want to bring about modifications to the way property is dealt with when marriages break down.

There are a number of measures within the bill to alleviate the concerns of the member opposite. Nonetheless, we are appreciative that the bill will be going to committee based on what she has just said.

I have two questions for her. The first one is around what she mentioned in relation to how a shortage of housing on reserve within our country could be, in essence, an argumentative point in relation to this bill gaining support. Although there is no question that there is a shortage of housing on reserve, and that needs to be put on the record as it is clearly a fact, should that not be used as an argument for this important legislation? Though related, they are two different points.

The second question is, there are a number of first nations communities in Manitoba that are seeking to remove houses from a military base in her riding. Is she supportive of the first nations who are seeking to do that?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that housing is an integral part of the problems that women deal with regarding marriage breakdown on reserve. There is an important need for additional housing. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, the Kelowna accord spoke to the housing issues. Had Kelowna been implemented, we would be well on the way to providing additional housing on reserve. I do not think one can separate the importance of adequate safe housing that is not crowded from the issues of marriage breakdown, domestic violence, et cetera. Housing is an integral part of dealing with some of the issues related to matrimonial real property.

The member opposite has raised the issue of moving the houses at Kapyong Barracks to first nations communities. I would say to the member that is not a housing policy. I would not be prepared at this point to give him a definitive response on whether those houses should be moved to first nations communities. It is important that an assessment be done of the quality of those houses. I know that some of them are not in great shape and some of them are in fine shape. One also has to measure the cost of moving the houses compared to the cost of building new ones. I know that an effort like this was looked at for the houses at CFB Gagetown and was deemed not viable because of the extraordinary cost of doing it.

Therefore, I have no definitive answer. I would need to get more information on that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague. To be certain that I understood her correctly, I even listened in English. Of course, I respect her party's position. I also listened closely to the minister earlier. I will come back to that when I rise to speak in a few minutes.

I have a question for my hon. Liberal colleague. There comes a time when we must start somewhere and I will come back to this later. I am wondering how we can integrate women's voices into our consultations, when everyone knows that most first nations are led by men and that the issue of matrimonial real property very often affects women.

Yes, problems exist in the communities—we will talk about them again—but I am trying to understand how to orient our work to ensure that Bill C-47 can go forward and help women. Indeed, we can all agree on this, this bill is about 90% intended for women. I would therefore like to know what direction our work should take. Does the hon. member have any ideas concerning how we should orient our work once the House decides to refer Bill C-47 to committee for study?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised a very important question.

Should we remain in Ottawa to conduct all of the consultations on the bill, we will certainly hear from representatives of aboriginal women's groups and aboriginal women leaders. We have heard some of their statements already on the bill.

I think it is a matter of discussion for the committee as to how we will hear directly from some of the women who have been affected by the loss of their marital home through relationship or marriage breakdown. I do not have an easy answer, but it is a discussion the committee should have so that we explore this issue in a full and comprehensive way.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made a very good speech regarding some of the critical points that are important for the House, and subsequently, if the bill gets to committee, for the committee to consider.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that Bill C-30 was the product of a lengthy consultative and collaborative process involving key stakeholders. He went on to talk about the fact that Bill C-30 represents a tremendous collaborative effort between first nations and the federal government at achieving agreement on the design, composition and mandate of an independent specific claims tribunal.

The member talked about consultation in her speech, but I would ask her what she sees as the key differences between the process that happened with respect to Bill C-30 and the process that is currently under way with respect to Bill C-47.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, for example, has said that it does not consider this to be a full consultative process. Neither does Wendy Grant-John. She laid out in recommendation 18 a number of specific key points that need to be present in a consultative process.

I wonder if the member could address the differences.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I am smiling, Mr. Speaker, because what comes to mind immediately is it appears for the most part that the government listened in the collaborative process, not the consultative process, that went on with Bill C-30.

Wendy Grant-John oversaw a consultation process that went on across the country. For the most part, the recommendations that Ms. Grant-John put forward and that were integral to the implementation of matrimonial real property legislation have been bypassed.

The government worked collaboratively with respect to one bill and chose to bypass on another.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can only take a very brief question or comment.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba we have a first nations women's council. It participated in a region specific matrimonial real property session. In its report to government, it stressed:

The session was framed as a preliminary educational/information session. Participants felt that consultation with First Nations directly by the federal government must occur based on the principles of free, prior and informed consent, and reconciliation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has about 20 seconds to respond.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was but, just briefly, I think that the Manitoba aboriginal women's council summed up in the statement my colleague read the essence of what real consultation should be about, and that has not happened.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, along with Bill C-21 the bill before us is probably one of the most important bills with respect to aboriginal affairs the government has introduced.

There was Bill C-30, which I believe was passed unanimously by the House. That bill fulfills and will fulfill, I hope, all conditions, including consultation, and will allow the first nations to go forward with their land claims.

However, today we will be focusing on Bill C-47. Allow me to take a moment to quote from an extremely important document that we received from the Native Women's Association of Canada. This document reports on the government's study of matrimonial rights. The title speaks for itself: Reclaiming our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions. This document was prepared by native women and I would like to begin by quoting a phrase that truly recognizes the problems:

The key is restoring equality and only then will Aboriginal women regain and occupy their rightful place as equal partners [all these words are important] in Aboriginal society—we used to be raised as equal to men but when the Indian Act came along, the Europeans said women are property of the men.

In my opinion, the debate surrounding Bill C-47, which is now before us, revolves around the following statement by a native woman found in this extremely important document entitled Reclaiming our Way of Being:

I want back the respect that my grandmothers and ancestors had—people listened to them; let’s put women back to their rightful place of respect.

The entire debate will revolve around Bill C-47. This excellent document looks at what led native women to look at their rights, in particular matrimonial real property rights. I would also like to refer to another document.

This all started when the Supreme Court had to rule on two extremely important cases: Derrickson v. Derrickson, and Paul v. Paul in 1986. The debate on matrimonial real property has been going on since 1986. We will try to make progress on this issue with Bill C-47, but in both decisions in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that, since reserve lands fall under federal jurisdiction, as a result of subsection 91(24) and so forth, provincial legislation cannot apply to modify any individual interest in reserve land.

In plain words, women living on a first nations reserve are not equal to women living off reserve. It is not complicated. This is precisely what the ruling under the Indian Act states and is repeated in the document I was just reading.

Aboriginal women are submissive, they have to be submissive, and if Bill C-47 is adopted, a change in mentality will be necessary. I am not sure whether today, May 13, all aboriginal communities in Canada are aware of this Bill C-47 that we will be studying soon in committee.

In the Supreme Court rulings in Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul in 1986, the reason for the limited application of provincial and territorial legislation and the reason that the Indian Act was not mentioned in terms of matrimonial property, was that most of the first nations communities on reserve are denied protection and significant recourse. For example, the courts cannot invoke provincial and territorial legislation to issue an order for possession concerning a matrimonial home, to order the sale or sharing of a matrimonial home on the reserve to execute a compensation order, or to prohibit the sale or encumbrance of a matrimonial home.

That is precisely the problem. The problem Bill C-47 seeks to address is an extremely important problem that affects—we must be honest here in this House—90% of aboriginal women living on reserve. We have to listen carefully to these women. What do these aboriginal women have to say? The Bloc and I have a small problem. In fact, this could become a very big problem if we do not listen to aboriginal women.

In 2006, through the then-minister of Indian Affairs, who is now the Minister of Industry, the government said that it would consult aboriginal women. Wendy Grant-John, an extremely respectable woman, was appointed, and she travelled around, holding consultations and meeting with many aboriginal women before submitting her report. That is when things started to go wrong.

Earlier, my Liberal Party colleague from Winnipeg South Centre said something important. The government does not seem to have listened, and that is troubling. In her report, Ms. Grant-John made a number of recommendations. Here is what the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council says about the bill:

The bill will ultimately force First Nations Women to seek remedies in provincial courts. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many First Nations women in remote communities.

That is one of the biggest problems. The government would be creating two classes of aboriginal women: those who live on reserve and those who live off reserve. Those who live off reserve—women in Montreal, Calgary or any Canadian city—have to go to civil courts. Superior courts can order violent spouses to get out and leave the house to the aboriginal woman and her children. In several cases that have gone before the Superior Court of Quebec, among others—I will focus on Quebec because that is where I am from—aboriginal women living off reserve have had these rights, while aboriginal women living on reserve have not.

I would like to give a quick example. Aboriginal women from Akwesasne, from Kahnawake, from Pikogan, or from Kitigan Zibi who live near large cities do not have the same rights as aboriginal women living in Maniwaki or in large cities like Montreal, or even in Amos over in Abitibi. That is a problem. Furthermore, this problem will get even worse if we do not do what must be done to resolve it.

The women who live in remote reserves have even fewer rights now, particularly in Kashechewan and Winneway. It is not guaranteed that they will have more rights after the passage of Bill C-47. Therein lies the debate, or at least part of the debate. One problem brought up by aboriginal women is the following:

During consultations...women asked that Matrimonial Real Property rights be developed from their own cultural values and traditions, not under provincial or federal rules they had no part in crafting.

This means that aboriginal women should be invited to the committee; we should listen to them explain how matrimonial real property rights can be developed, taking into account the cultural values and traditions of aboriginal women. I think that will be an interesting part of our work.

Aboriginal women also say that:

Rather than recognizing First Nations authority, the Bill constrains how First Nations rules are to be made in a complicated process yet offers no support for First Nations in doing this work. In the end, the Bill will impose a complex, bureaucratic system, with no support or consideration for implementation.

That is an important point that the committee will have to consider. Passing and implementing Bill C-47 should not create more problems for aboriginal women than the ones that already exist—and there are many. I repeat in this House, 90% of aboriginal women on reserves are affected by this bill that could be passed in this House.

Lastly, aboriginal women have this to say:

For Matrimonial Real Property Rights to be meaningful, women told us the government must ensure there is adequate safe and accessible housing.

Therein lies part of the problem. The government should have listened to aboriginal women. The government, too, can read this document in which aboriginal women say they want to reclaim their way of being, which is extremely important, and in which they make a whole series of recommendations to solve the problem of matrimonial real property.

If we want to implement a bill such as Bill C-47, a debate in committee will be important, but would we not do well to also address the problems affecting the first nations, problems pertaining to violence, justice and education in communities? All these issues are part of a whole. We cannot deal with the issue of matrimonial real property without looking at all aspects of the reality of aboriginal communities on reserve today.

I invite any members of this House who have not already done so to view the film by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie entitled The Invisible Nation, which concerns the status of aboriginal people. Members can rent the film or ask the National Film Board to send them a copy. Extreme poverty and lack of education in communities often lead to violence. Sadly, women and children are most often the ones who pay the price for this violence.

Bill C-47 concerns a basic issue that we need to look at. I have a particular case in mind, although I will not name the parties. When I was a lawyer, we wondered about this case. An aboriginal couple living on a reserve opened a gas station and convenience store on the reserve. The couple fought, and the woman had to leave. Nearly 10 years later, the gas station and convenience store are still in operation and bring in more than $1 million for the father of the woman's children.

There was an attempt to proceed to judgment, and a person can try, but judgments cannot be executed on reserve. This is precisely what Bill C-47 is trying to change. We really hope that happens.

There are some important points in this bill that we cannot ignore. One thing is sure: the government is finally tackling a glaring need, that is, respect for aboriginal women on reserves. But even more needs to be done. The bill must be adaptable to the needs of the first nations. It must be studied very carefully. In fact, certain mechanisms will allow first nations to develop and implement their own laws, and take action on matrimonial rights and interests, but this poses a problem. As I was saying, a drastic change in mentality is necessary, since a balance must be struck between the authority of the chief and councils on matters of matrimonial property.

With all due respect, I must say here today that the work needs to be done not only by the government or here in this House. Many first nations, quite a number really, must take charge of their own affairs. First nations councils must make important decisions in favour of aboriginal women and children in those communities. Anyone can say that women and men are equal, but in many aboriginal communities, still today, on May 13, 2008, this is simply not the case and is far from the reality. Thus, we hope this will change.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of referring this bill to committee for study. It is an important bill. There is work to be done. I will mention only a few points, since time is running out. To date, there has been a serious lack of information. What is the action plan? How will this bill be implemented? How will the government go about implementing this bill once it passes? What measures and resources can the government offer to implement this bill?

We have been told certain things, but I do not wish to go into the legal details of the consultations in general. At present, native women in Canada know that the bill is coming. But what will they do if a court orders the man to leave the home when there is no housing in the native community? Or, what will a native woman do if she decides to leave the home to the man because it is crowded and not appropriate for her and her four children, but there is no housing in the native community? She will find herself on the outside. That is currently one of the major problems.

I do not wish to speak again about Pikogan, but I can talk about Timiskaming and several other communities where we see native women leave the reserve with children because, quite often, they are abused. Often they are harassed. The chiefs should take charge of their communities and the band councils should accept that this bill will be implemented and that they should be prepared for its implementation. One of the problems is the lack of housing.

I see that I have less than one minute and so I will close with one remark. Once the bill has passed and if the present housing stock is not increased, it may be a futile exercise.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain: something has to be done. Is Bill C-47 what native women have been awaiting for over 30 years?

No matter, we will vote for this bill so that it is studied in committee. I hope that native women will make their voices heard at the committee and that they will be heard in their own communities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the member ended his comments in exactly the direction on which I wanted to ask him a question.

In a recent Auditor General's report on aboriginal children and welfare, the Auditor General pointed out that unless there were remedies outside of the child protection system, such as housing, education and supports to the family, the underlying causes of why children were being apprehended would not, in the long term, be addressed.

In this legislation, I know the Quebec Native Women Inc. and the Labrador Native Women's Association are kicking off a parallel campaign around dealing with the issue of women and violence. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this bill does not include remedies to the things that often contribute to marital breakdown. It also does not have a long term strategy for dealing with the causes of marital breakdown. The member mentioned housing but there are many other factors on reserves that are causing families to disintegrate.

I wonder if he could comment on the absence of those remedies in the bill.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. My New Democratic colleague is absolutely correct. Yesterday I read the Auditor General's report on the situation of children in aboriginal communities, and it is a crisis situation. I will try to be polite: we are sitting on a volcano. If we want to assimilate the first nations, we simply have to continue taking children off the reserves and putting them up for adoption and the problem will be solved. But I do not think that is the solution.

My NDP colleague is absolutely correct in saying that this is one of the issues we will face in implementing Bill C-47. In my opinion, and I say this with all due respect, everything is closely linked. We will have to be ready. What impact will Bill C-47 have on communities?

Courts and judges will hand down decisions and will order that the store be sold and the profits split. However, if none of the surrounding issues are fixed—poverty, lack of water, violence, because there is violence in these communities—we will not be any further ahead. At least something will have been done. It is a small step but an important one. We need to make aboriginal children and women our priority.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for acknowledging his party's support to send this bill to committee where we will consider the bill in its full context and work toward undoing and creating a new scenario for first nations women and men on reserve so they can utilize similar provisions that other Canadians take for granted. I know this is important work that he has often spoken about in the past.

The member raised a number of points that were similar to the points made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He linked some of the issues in certain first nations communities where there are housing shortages to this issue. Does the member genuinely believe that if there were more houses on reserve, this issue would not exist?

I know it is a rhetorical question because I fully understand and believe that this issue cannot be addressed simply by more housing stock. It is a fundamental issue that first nations people simply do not have access to a proper breakdown and division of matrimonial assets after a marriage has broken down.

If he could speak a little bit to that argument, which seems to have been posed now by a few members of the opposition, that would be appreciated.

When this bill does get to committee, I am hopeful that we will be able to work in an expeditious way to see its passing and eventually sent back to this House, as we did with Bill C-30 today. I again would like to thank him and his party for their support on that bill.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to my colleague's question. I want to say one thing to the government, and I hope it is clear. I do not want the government to rush us, push us, order us, ask us to move quickly or put pressure on us to implement this bill as fast as possible. This bill is much too important and vital for them to push us around and ask us to move quickly. We will agree to examine it in committee, but I do not want to set a deadline for it to be passed before the House adjourns in June. That would be unacceptable. It would be an insult to aboriginal women.

Now, as for his first question, I would say that it is clear. Even if there were many buildings or homes in aboriginal communities, matrimonial property would clearly still cause problems. That is obvious. The situation in aboriginal communities transcends the housing problem, but that is not all. There are the water and sewer systems. There is the fact that in many communities, the band council is run by a chief whose brother is the police chief, which means that when a woman files a complaint, nothing happens. It has to do with all of that.

There needs to be, and I say this with all due respect, some kind of major change in attitude.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

The NDP will be supporting this bill and getting it to committee. I hope that the committee will have an opportunity to study the bill extensively and to call witnesses who reflect some of the concerns that we are certainly hearing.

Much has been said already about the report from Wendy Grant-John that was presented in the spring. Sadly, there was no response from the government to this report. I want to quote from one particular section of this report because I think it lays a foundation for any further discussion. She states:

Matrimonial property law is intended to provide guidance in resolving conflicts between spouses concerning the disposition of property. Matrimonial real property issues affect the interests of men, women and children. Accordingly, First Nation citizens are concerned that any legislative and nonlegislative responses should promote social cohesiveness while also providing fair and equitable treatment of spouses. First Nation people do not wish to see federal legislation that again divides community members. They feel that this would occur if the federal government acts in a way that would reinforce old stereotypes e.g. that all First Nation governments are antagonistic to the protection of individual human rights or that matrimonial property is a “women’s” issue. It is important to understand that when people say matrimonial property is not a women’s issue they are not denying that there are particular impacts on First Nation women. Rather this means that it is an issue that affects the entire community and communities must determine solutions.

We heard the minister earlier speak about the fact that this was a consultative process and that we should really just all adopt the bill.

Contrary to what the minister was saying, we have actually had a number of people speaking up quite strongly around the bill. Wendy Grant-John is a well-respected first nations woman. She has extensive experience and put together an extensive report. However, this is where the crunch comes. A press release issued by the Native Women's Association of Canada, March 4, states:

'Consultative Partnership' a Sham

The Government of Canada has acted unilaterally in trying to resolve the issue of a lack of matrimonial real property laws that apply on reserve. Despite engaging in a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation, The Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, that does not have the support of the Native Women’s Association of Canada...President Beverley Jacobs noted, “we have not experienced our relationship with the federal Department of Indian Affairs as being one of partnership or even consultation but rather it feels like another experience of colonialism”--

The Office of the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations also spoke up about the process and stated:

While it was a positive and practical step forward to engage in dialogue with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Native Women's Association of Canada in the development of this legislation, the approach falls far short of First Nations' direction that the Crown should fully engage with First Nations in the developing policy and legislation that affects First Nations.

Furthermore, the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty.

I believe that when we start on a process, ask people for their input, and then slam the door on them, that is a disrespectful process. Other members have spoken about the importance of having a bill that addresses matrimonial property. I quoted from Wendy Grant-John's report where is speaks about the fact that matrimonial property affects women and children disproportionately. However, it also affects men.

In fact, when meeting with a Six Nations representative, what he said to me was that in a first nations community, and I know this to be true, when there is a family breakup, it not only affects the man, the woman and the children who are involved in that relationship but it affects the aunts and the uncles, the grandmothers and the grandfathers, and the cousins, and it spreads throughout the community.

So, matrimonial property is a very important element that has to be considered in the context of the social impact it has on the entire community. However, I want to provide a bit of historical background, and again, this is from Wendy Grant-John's report. I will not go through the whole piece because it is a lengthy history, but she talks about the historical timelines that have led us to the place where men, women and children on reserve simply do not have a process that recognizes their cultural and social traditions. She states:

Prior to Colonization:

First Nations cultural norms, kinship systems and laws determine outcomes of marriage breakdown

Matriarchal kinship systems and egalitarian values were common

She goes into the colonial period where she talks about the notion of individual property rights and male domination in property and civil rights introduced by colonial governments, and efforts to assimilate first nations people, with the hopes of ultimately eliminating reserves altogether.

Then she goes through the lengthy history of denial of rights to men, women and children on reserves, whether it is the fact that women cannot vote at band councils or aboriginal people in Canada simply did not have the right to vote until the 1960s.

She goes through the whole history of the denial of rights and then addresses the 1985 Bill C-31, which attempted to reinstate women who had married non-aboriginal men. What a fiasco that bill has been, whether it was the fact that adequate resources were not put in place to address the impacts that bill would have on reserve, one of them being housing, or whether it was an illumination of status built into that bill, the second generation cutoff, which is continuing to play itself out, and nobody in the House has taken the time to address it.

I want to skip to the 1990s and bring it into the present day. Ms. Grant-John, in her report, outlines the following:

Several commissions of inquiry in Canada draw attention to the issue and the need for some action--

Eight UN human rights bodies express concern about the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves.

Litigation on lack of protection for matrimonial real property rights is launched by First Nation women organizations.

In 2003, the Senate Standing Committee issued its report--

In 2005, the House of Commons Aboriginal Affairs Committee issued a report--

In 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women takes up the issue--

Once again, we had lots of reports and no action.

In addition, I want to quote briefly from one of the United Nations bodies, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This is the report from March 2007. In that report, it again censures Canada. It talks about the fact that it regrets the lack of substantial progress made by the state in an effort to address residual discrimination against first nations women and makes a recommendation which states:

The Committee urges the State party to take the necessary measures to reach a legislative solution to effectively address the discriminatory effects of the Indian Act on the rights of Aboriginal women and children to marry, to choose one's spouse, to own property, and to inherit, in consultation with First Nations organizations and communities, including aboriginal women's organizations, without further delay.

One of the critical points, of course, is urging the government to adopt legislation but it also talks about the consultative piece.

In that same report, there are any number of human rights violations outlined, including the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act. Of course, Bill C-21, which was before the House, went to committee. The committee amended it after hearing substantial testimony from first nations witnesses from coast to coast to coast. The committee listened very carefully to what was being presented and made some amendments. We are still waiting for the bill to come back to the House.

Again, it is another example of the government's complete disregard when it hears evidence that it does not like. It just disregards the evidence and decides to shelve the bill. We are still waiting for Bill C-21 to come back. In this particular CERD report, it also talks about resources. I will not read the whole thing but in part it states:

--the Committee remains concerned at the extent of the dramatic inequality in living standards still experienced by Aboriginal peoples. In this regard, the Committee, recognising the importance of the right of indigenous peoples to own, develop and control and use their lands, territories and resources in relation to their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, regrets that in its report, the State party did not address the question of limitations imposed on the use by Aboriginal people of their land, as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the State party has yet to fully implement the 1996 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples--

Again, Canada is being censured in an international forum for its lack of progress on the living conditions on reserves.

Wendy Grant-John's report had made a number of specific recommendations. This piece of legislation before the House, Bill C-47, simply fails to address a number of the recommendations, whether it is on first nations jurisdictional rights, comparable rights and remedies, customary practices, alternative dispute resolution, the resources required to implement this bill or on the duty to consult.

It is well and good to talk about going out and consulting, but we have to do something with the information that we hear.

I just referenced the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report from 1996, and I want to refer to volume 3, Gathering Strength. This is an important context for the rights of first nations to self-government and to be treated on a nation to nation perspective. Property rights is an intrinsic part of the rights to self-determination.

In the RCAP report it says:

Acknowledging that it may be some time before full self-government and a new land tenure system for Aboriginal lands are in place, we recommended in Volume 2, Chapter 3 that, in the transition phase, Parliament pass an Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Governance Act to make explicit what is implicit in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—namely, that Aboriginal nations constitute an order of government within the Canadian federation and can exercise law-making authority in areas they deem to be core areas of their jurisdiction. Such legislation would make resources available to proceed with rebuilding Aboriginal nations in anticipation of nation-to-nation negotiations for the full implementation of a new relationship.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the solution is obvious, and it is talking about the matrimonial matters for Indian persons living on reserve. It states:

Aboriginal communities should be able to legislate in this area. Federal and provincial governments should acknowledge the authority of Aboriginal governments to adopt laws with regard to the matrimonial home and to establish their family law regimes compatible with their cultures and traditions.

This is from the 1996 RCAP report, a document that the Assembly of First Nations in the past has reported on and has said that the past Liberal government and the current Conservative government have simply failed to move forward on the bulk of the recommendations. We see it again in the current piece of legislation before the House.

Others have made a number of recommendations as well in terms of what should be included in Bill C-47 and in reclaiming our way of being matrimonial real property solutions. It is an extensive and respectful report. It talked of elders, women and many communities from coast to coast. It outlines a number of issues, including violence against women and other transitional provisions. However, I want to read one quote from the report about the Native Women's Association of Canada. It said:

NWAC presented recommendations about non-legislative approaches and solutions that would assist women and their children following the end of a marital or common law relationship. While MRP is sometimes narrowly defined as relating only to the matrimonial home, the situation of individuals experiencing this issue brings in a wide variety of related issues. The individuals who attended our sessions spoke of membership, status, and the negative effects of Bill C-31 on individuals and communities. They talked about housing on reserves, including availability, safety, adequacy, repair, and overcrowding.

Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary ask that if housing were fixed would everything be okay. Of course not. In my question for the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I referenced the Auditor General's report on first nations child and family services program. In that report, under exhibit 4.1, she specifically talks about the fact that if we do not address the socio-economic conditions:

Many First Nations face difficult socio-economic conditions. Some communities are in crisis. According to First Nations, these conditions present different challenges for First Nations than for mainstream society, but are not taken into account in the child welfare system. There is also a need to address the underlying causes of child welfare cases.

I would argue that the same statement also applies when we talk about matrimonial real property. In Ms. Grant-John's report, in her summary of conclusions and recommendations, she also says that:

If First Nation governments are to be looked to, to provide rights and remedies comparable to those available under provincial and territorial laws, while taking into account the distinct nature of the land regime in First Nation communities, there must be a comparable scope of recognized jurisdiction, resources, capacity and institutional development. Otherwise First Nations would be placed in a catch-22 situation–they would be held to the same standard as provincial governments but not have the resources and capacity to achieve it

Without resources and capacity to achieve some of these things, it is simply an untenable situation and it is the same thing that we saw in the old Bill C-31 from 1985.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in article 18, says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

We have heard the minister say that there was a consultative process. Many of us would argue that it was not a consultative process. Recommendation 18 in Ms. Grant-John's report talks about the elements that need to be in place for a consultative process. She says:

The Department should develop, as soon as possible, specific policies and procedures relating to consultation in order to ensure that future consultation activities can identify and discharge any legal duty to consult while also fulfilling objectives of good governance and public policy...

Then she names six elements that need to be in place. I will not go over these six elements, but they include things such as timely manner, relevant information, an opportunity for first nations to express their concerns, listening to, analyzing and seriously considering the representations, ensuring proper analysis by the Department of Justice of section 35 issues, seriously considering proposals from mitigating any potential negative impact and establishing a protocol for the development of legislative proposals. Much of that is absent in this legislation.

There are other examples in North America. I will cite an example from the United States, where there is a recognition of customary law, of tribal law. This comes from the Harvard study on economic development. This piece was “Lessons Learned from the U.S. Experience”. In this summary it says:

Upon examination, we conclude that the resolution of real property disputes under tribal law and by tribal courts has tended to be more successful than dispute resolution under the alternative regime.

It goes on to say:

In essence, this lesson reiterates several of the observations above. Because they possess complete jurisdiction over all the real property likely to enter the divorce disputes—

Some of the rules are a bit different because they are talking about trust and non-trust property.

—and because they tend to be more knowledgeable of the laws that govern such property and the possibilities for its disposition, tribal forums applying tribal laws are able to make complete settlements that are also generally perceived as fair.

It goes on to talk about the fact and says:

While Native nations that lack rules and systems to govern the division of matrimonial real property can rely on various examples and models to develop this legal infrastructure, they nonetheless face a number of decisions about what will work best for their citizens. Limitations on tribes' financial and human capital also may slow the development of appropriate laws and dispute resolution mechanisms. Thus, decisionmaking about rules and systems takes time, and the time it takes is unpredictable—each Native nation will move at its own pace on these issues, according to its own processes, and subject to its own constraints.

These are examples where first nations have been able to develop laws that do respect the rights of men, women and children on the reserves, that take into account the customary traditions, that allow for mediation or alternative dispute resolution and that involves some of the community traditions. If nations in the United States can do this and come up with laws that respect those human rights, surely we could also look at implementing the same piece in Canada.

The NDP will support the legislation in getting it to committee. However, I expect that we will hear from groups from coast to coast to coast on their concerns around it. I am quite certain amendments will be proposed to address some of the shortcomings in the bill. I look forward to a healthy discussion. Hopefully, once the bill comes back from committee to the House, if it gets through that stage, the government will move forward on proposed amendments, unlike Bill C-21.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the great work of my colleague in the NDP and her commitment to improving the lives of aboriginal people across Canada. I had the privilege of serving with her on that committee, and I do not second guess her commitment.

The member did mention, however, that some groups opposed the process or the bill itself. She said “people spoke up strongly against the bill”.

I point out that this same occurrence is true of many other bills, in fact, probably every bill that comes before committee. There will always be those, who in spite of overwhelming broad based support, will not necessarily support the specifics of the bill.

As it relates to Bill C-47, the fact is clear that there was extensive consultation and collaboration. There were 109 consultation sessions with aboriginal groups and 135 consultation days at 64 different locations across Canada. No, not every group or individual sees this as a perfect bill, but it is clearly a step in the right direction.

I have two questions.

First, how would my colleague define adequate consultation and how long would she be willing to extend this consultation process and continue to slow down the final implementation?

Second, will she reiterate her support today for Bill C-47 at second reading so it can go to committee, be studied, have possible amendments and finally be implemented in the interests of all aboriginal people?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what was very interesting about the process that was undertaken, whether it was Ms. Grant-John's report or the work that the Native Women's Association of Canada undertook and proposed some possible solutions, was some of the key elements out of those consultative processes were not included in the legislation.

In a previous life I used to do consultation work. We used to call it the DEAD model of consultation, decide, educate, advise and defend. It had nothing to do with listening to people, taking the information they provided, having them included in drafting the legislation so it reflected the consultative process, which would then ensure we had a bill that was much closer to what people told the people who conducted the consultation.

I would argue that, yes, it was a positive step to start the consultative process, but when a huge percentage of the information presented to us is ignored, that does not actually count as consultation.

In terms of the length of time, I agree that this is a matter on which we need to move forward. Therefore, I welcome the bill going to committee so perhaps we can take some of the consultation, incorporate some of those recommendations into amendments and then bring a bill back to the House, which more reflects the consultation carried out from coast to coast to coast.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member maybe speak to the practical issues a bit more in terms of the bill and what the report said? The ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, did a very comprehensive report. One of the issues, in practical terms for people in my riding, is the access to the justice system. Just that in itself makes the terms of the bill almost untenable.

Would the member comment on that?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her great work on the committee.

In terms of access to the justice system, first, there is some provision in Bill C-47 around provincial involvement in matrimonial real property.

There are a huge number of issues around access to the justice system in many rural and remote reserves and whether people will have adequate supports to access the justice system. The enforcement provisions in the legislation raise a number of questions around who will pay for some of the enforcement provisions and whether it will become a provincial responsibility without adequate resources attached to it.

However, Ms. Grant-John also recognizes clearly in her report that a cookie cutter approach will not work. We need an approach that recognizes some of the cultural differences among communities, that looks at some of the customary traditions, that looks at mediation, for example. I know some bands currently use mediation in marital breakdown, whether or not there are alternative dispute resolution processes.

It is a complicated area and we really need to take a hard look at Ms. Grant-John's report and look at implementing some of the recommendations in this legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, a member on the government side said that there would always be a number of groups against any bill that came through Parliament.

I would think the Native Women's Association of Canada would be the primary supporter of such a bill. I know the member is very well versed in this area and on committee, and I appreciate the research she has done. I would assume this would be very close to, if not on the top of her list of the people who we would expect to support such a bill, especially because the people we hope to help with it are women. There may be other groups that would be more opposed.

I am not on the committee, so I am not as familiar with it, but I am puzzled as to why the one group we would expect would be on side is against it.

The second thing is related to resources. Does the member think it is kind of like déjà vu, related to the human rights bill, where one of the big complaints was that we would make a new law, but the first nations government would need to have some resources and training to implement it, but it could not be done right away? We see the same comments related to this bill. Would the member like to comment on that item as well?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is absolutely right. The Native Women's Association of Canada, the native women's associations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council have all spoken out quite strongly about the deficiencies in Bill C-47. The Native Women's Association of Canada undertook some work which resulted in the report,“Reclaiming our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions”. Again, much of what was recommended was simply not included in the bill. It is so disrespectful to ask people what they think and then disregard it without even a simple explanation about why those recommendations were not included.

On the resources issue, we have seen this time and time again. I talked about the 1985 Bill C-31 where there were not adequate resources to make sure that people who were being reinstated to the communities actually could move back to their communities. It is the same issue with Bill C-21, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Where were the resources for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to actually undertake to work with first nations communities to make sure that people had the resources and understood what this new piece of legislation might mean?

At committee yesterday, the Auditor General's office talked about stovepipe solutions. This piece of legislation is another stovepipe solution that does not look at the broader socio-economic status on first nations reserves, whether it is housing, whether it is education, whether it is support for mediation, alternative dispute resolution. Without those kinds of resources we have a piece of legislation that is just a small part of the puzzle. Without the support for that, it simply is not going to be effective.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves. I am especially pleased to contribute to this debate as I am a Cree first nation woman of the Norway House Cree Nation on my paternal side and the Muskrat Dam First Nation in the treaty 9 area on my maternal side.

Matrimonial real property rights are a long-standing issue of great concern. Over 20 years ago the legislative gap was brought to the forefront by the Supreme Court rulings in Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul. The result of these rulings is that provincial and territorial laws relating to the division of matrimonial real property upon marital breakdown do not apply on reserve lands.

In the “Report of the Ministerial Representative: Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” which was delivered to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 9, 2007, ministerial representative Wendy Grant-John contextualized the importance of finding solutions to this ongoing issue:

The impacts of the lack of matrimonial real property protections have been greater for First Nation women overall than for First Nation men due to current social roles and ongoing impacts from past discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that excluded First Nations women from governance and property. The issue of domestic violence is linked to matrimonial real property issues. Protecting the interests of children is a central concern.

This is not the first time I am addressing this matter in the House. My hon. colleagues will recall Bill C-289, the private member's legislation which was introduced in the previous session of this 39th Parliament. While the bill before us today was introduced by the government, I understand that it is similar to Bill C-289, in that on neither was there a sufficient consultative process. The government thereby circumvented its legal duty to consult. The House does not need to take just my word on this. In a media release issued on March 4, 2008, the same day the bill was announced, the Native Women's Association of Canada said of the Conservatives' bill:

The Government of Canada has acted unilaterally in trying to resolve the issue of a lack of matrimonial real property laws that apply on reserve. Despite engaging in a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation, The Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, that does not have the support of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

In addition, on April 28, 2008 the deputy grand chief, RoseAnne Archibald, of the Women's Council of the Assembly of First Nations stated in a media release:

We are not convinced that the Bill as it stands is going to help First Nations women access justice. Let's be clear, First Nations women and families have waited too long already for equitable and workable solutions and this bill is at best a half-way measure.

First nations people deserve legislation that respects the Crown's legal duty to consult. They deserve legislation to reflect their interests, their customary laws, their traditional ways and their just place in this country.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada may have initiated a discussion process with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations as neutrally brokered by an appointed ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, yet the substance of the proposed legislation clearly indicates that the government in no way listened to the concerns or suggestions voiced by aboriginal women across this country.

As contained in the report by Wendy Grant-John, participants dismissed any legislative solutions that would infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, or be impractical to implement due to problems of harmonization and conflict of laws, nor did they support a concurrent jurisdictional model. Support was given to potential remedies which were based on first nations practice and legal traditions and first nations views of land and family.

If indeed it is the intent of the government to address critical issues facing first nations women and children, then I find it difficult to understand why it has failed to listen to the voices of aboriginal women who have spoken out on the issue of matrimonial real property.

The lack of consultation by the government is deeply troubling for Native Women's Association of Canada President Beverley Jacobs. As she clearly stated in a news release on March 4:

I promised Aboriginal women who participated in providing solutions to this issue that their voices would be heard. I worked hard to get their messages to government but those messages fell on deaf ears.

In summing up her critique, she added:

In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

In light of Ms. Jacobs' assertions surrounding the lack of consultation by the government in the formulation of Bill C-47, it is not surprising that the Native Women's Association of Canada and other organizations representing aboriginal women have expressed significant concerns.

The Native Women's Association of Canada does not support Bill C-47. In its estimation the legislation does not include non-legislative measures to address matrimonial real property, nor does it address the needs of individuals affected by matrimonial real property. Indeed, the Native Women's Association of Canada has outlined a number of issues of concern with the proposed legislation, a few of which I will briefly highlight.

First, it suggests that the proposed legislation lacks concrete information regarding the implementation plans and measures, including timeframes, resources for measures specified in the bill and resources for first nations to implement the legislation.

Second, the association believes there is a lack of information in relation to the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for matrimonial real property and to develop capacity to implement either the proposed legislation or their own laws related to matrimonial real property.

Third, the proposed bill is also lacking in compassion for newly widowed spouses. According to the Native Women's Association of Canada, Bill C-47 sets out a time limit of 180 days for a widowed spouse to vacate a family home after the death of his or her partner. The Native Women's Association of Canada calls for an extension of this limited time period.

Fourth, Bill C-47 is perceived by NWAC to not be a remedy for the status quo of women and children being forced to leave first nations communities following the breakup of a marriage or common law relationship. The lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities, which is not addressed in the proposed legislation, means women will continue to be forced off reserve to seek housing. In so doing, they will lose access to their family, social networks, their culture, language and the services provided to them on reserve.

Finally, NWAC is concerned that the proposed legislation will negatively impact aboriginal women who cannot access the legal system due to multiple factors, including poverty, lack of information and geographic isolation.

NWAC is not alone in its criticism of Bill C-47. The Assembly of First Nations Women's Council also sees significant problems with the bill as it stands. Specifically it outlines four areas of concern.

It asserts that the bill will ultimately force first nations women to seek remedies in provincial courts. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many first nations women in remote communities.

Aboriginal women asked the government to formulate legislation on matrimonial real property rights that reflected their cultural values and traditions. The proposed legislation does not reflect this desire and instead would compel first nations women to be subject to provincial and federal structures and rules that they had no part in crafting.

The AFN Women's Council also calls into question the constraints placed upon first nations in the proposed legislation. More specifically, it draws attention to the reality that the bill would impose a complex bureaucratic system with no support or consideration for implementation on first nations. In so doing, the bill fails to recognize the authority of first nations.

Finally, the AFN Women's Council is adamant that if matrimonial real property rights are to be meaningful for aboriginal women, the government must address the serious lack of adequate safe and accessible housing on reserve.

I believe the concerns of NWAC and the AFN Women's Council clearly demonstrate that the government did not meaningfully engage in a dialogue process with aboriginal women. Any claims to the contrary are clearly a misrepresentation of the facts.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is keenly aware of how disappointed first nations people are with the government's handling of the dialogue process leading to the formulation of Bill C-47.

In a letter addressed to the minister and dated April 8, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations wrote:

--the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively. Unfortunately, the advice and direction of AFN and First Nations has not been heeded and I must point out that the First Nations assessment of the proposed legislation will likely be that it is unconstitutional in law and of no value to First Nations individuals or governments in practice.

Bill C-47 reflects another missed opportunity by the government to truly engage first nations people in a meaningful process to strengthen their capacity for self-determination. Instead of working collaboratively with first nations people to produce a solution to the legislative gap in connection to matrimonial real property rights, the government has conceived legislation that will impose a system upon first nations.

The most significant opportunity this government missed to promote first nations self-determination was its dismissal of the Kelowna accord. The Kelowna accord was a first step that would have provided over $5 billion to address critical issues affecting first nations women and children, including the day to day urgent needs in housing, safe drinking water, education, health care and developing capacity in the health care field, economic development, and addressing governance structures, which is absolutely essential for aboriginal people to move forward in self-determination.

Another more recent example of the government's unilateral approach to first nations governance in Canada was its decision to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Time and time again, the government is claiming to improve the lives of first nations people in this country, yet it is doing nothing substantial to improve the capacity of first nations people for their own self-determination.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that Bill C-47 is legislation that was not created through consultation with first nations people. The government has circumvented its legal duty to consult first nations on the issue of matrimonial real property rights and any assertions to the contrary are false.

As Grand Chief Phil Fontaine wrote in a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

Real and lasting solutions must address the real problems...The quick fix approach does not work and, in fact, can harm First Nations collectively and individually.

I hope the minister will see fit to engage in consultations with first nations people in the future.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the member for Churchill. Of course she represents the part of Canada where I grew up and I know that many first nations in the north also have to deal with these important issues of matrimonial property and of course marriage breakdown. Although it is an unfortunate situation, it does occur, so I am very happy to hear that her party and of course her colleagues are supportive of bringing this bill forward to committee.

Does she believe that this plan, for which the Government of Canada sought input from over 109 different groups in 64 different locations, is a good foundation from which to start this process? Will it help the committee as it goes forward to bring in new information, new consultation and new witnesses? Does she believe that we must proceed on this important piece of legislation because it is needed in first nations communities?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House is disagreeing with the fact that this is needed and is a necessary step. In fact, we all have stated in our speeches that this issue has come forward to Parliament, has been discussed and has been the subject of committee reports and Senate committee reports. In fact, the first nations organizations and the Native Women's Association of Canada have been participating in seeking a partnership toward solutions.

What is really important about what is happening on Bill C-47 and which we must never forget is this fact about the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, particularly the Women's Council of the Assembly of First Nations. Over 100 chiefs in Canada are women. In my riding, we have a first nations women's council that does a significant amount of work in the Manitoba region. What we must not forget is that everybody felt hopeful that they were being engaged in a process, not only a dialogue process that was set out. In fact, even in Manitoba, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the first nations women's council were really proud and really encouraged to host a region-specific information session on matrimonial real property.

However, here I would like to make two points. One is that this does not meet the legal obligation of the duty to consult, which the government must be engaged in. That is one thing. Second, this is not about first nations people or the opposition parties not wanting to move forward toward a solution for matrimonial real property on reserve.

As I said earlier, I think people were very encouraged. All members of this House were encouraged and first nations women were encouraged that there was a process under way toward a solution, toward true dialogue, consultation and creating measures that would meet the needs of first nations in Canada.

However, the government then decided to table legislation without informing the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations and its Women's Council, and it created legislation that did not reflect the initial dialogue. Nor did it decide to take the next step toward consultation before tabling the legislation. As a parliamentarian and a first nations woman, I find it really difficult to understand why the government took that step.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on what the Liberal member just said. I just want to clarify and take this a bit further. She spoke as a first nations woman and I have the utmost respect for her. However, she comes from the riding of Churchill, which—we can all agree—is relatively remote. There are glaring problems in those communities that I could talk about when it comes to Quebec as well: there are serious problems. The more remote the community, the more problems it might have.

What are the hon. member's expectations? What approach should we take in considering Bill C-47—an approach that would meet the wishes of the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council? Let us forget the matter of consultations for now, in terms of whether we should go back to everywhere. Since Bill C-47 will be referred to committee for more careful consideration, how should we approach it to truly understand the scope of the matter?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question reflects the frustration of many people, not just in this House but within the first nations communities as well.

I would like to remind the member, though, about one of the things that I think happens in this process. For over 100 years, first nations people have had their lives and their rights trampled upon through a process of colonization. As for what is important about the duty to consult, I disagree with the member. We cannot underestimate the importance of the duty to consult.

What first nations people are saying to us over and over again is that they need to be part of the process and they need to be ensuring that our aboriginal treaty rights, as entrenched in the Constitution of this country, are respected. I do not even understand this concept of entrenching them in the Constitution if we are not going to respect them. The duty to consult is paramount in how we move forward.

In fact, we have had over 100 years of colonization and the imposition of policies and laws that have devastated our lives, most recently as Bill C-31, which I know the member is really aware of in terms of the implications. That is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the woman whose rights had been abused through the process of Bill C-31. This is going to have a huge impact in terms of status Indian roles in Canada.

This is really critical. This is what first nations women are saying in the dialogue sessions. They are not just saying that they have issues like severe housing issues. One of the primary issues, and I have to make this statement, is that they are concerned about their families. Through every system for first nations families, whether it is health, education or child welfare, they are not being provided money for prevention to ensure that their families stay together. And then we have the housing crisis.

Yes, all those day to day issues are issues that we have to hear about, but we need to hear from the women themselves.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Churchill for what was once again a very passionate speech on a topic that is very important to her residents, particularly the aboriginal people in her riding. She always puts forth the issues very eloquently, with passionate support for them.

I have three questions. One is on the consultation. I do not quite understand what the issue is with consultation. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada each received $2.7 million for consultations. There were numbers of meetings, as the minister said.

The second thing that perplexes me is that the government hired someone to put forward a plan. The person was very well respected. In his speech, the minister talked about how well respected this person was, and yet the person did not follow major elements of the proposal.

Last, there seems to be an improvement or at least an acknowledgement by the government on collective rights. In the human rights bill that we discussed for so long, the government had neglected that completely, but here at least it has made some accommodation for it in this bill. However, from the input by some native groups, it is not sufficient accommodation.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of the member for Yukon in the debate today, because he always ensures that he represents his riding in a very respectful way.

I would like to answer the question about the issue around the process. I will go back to the idea that there was a process in place, which was very encouraging. I have to wrap this up, so I will just say that I am really disappointed that we have not responded to or continued that process. I look forward to hearing from people at committee.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the message from the official consultations on matrimonial real property was very clear. As the Native Women's Association stated:

There is nothing in the legislation that addresses the systemic issues of violence many women face that lead to the dissolution of marriages nor is there any money available for implementation. In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

In June 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard from Bev Jacobs from the Native Women's Association. She stated:

...legislative and non-legislative policies are required to alleviate the underlying issues of poverty and violence against women and children.

The government fails to see the real solutions. It refuses to sign on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, even though this House endorsed the declaration and demanded the Government of Canada sign on.

The government has failed to address the systemic discrimination that first nations, Inuit and Métis women face, and it has so far failed to issue an official unqualified apology for the survivors of the residential schools.

Reconciliation cannot happen until there is an acknowledgement from the Government of Canada that first nations peoples suffered and continue to suffer from the legacy of those horrific actions, which, in the words of survivors, included being beaten for speaking their language, being torn away from their families, living in isolation from their communities and traditions, and, because of their vulnerability, they often were victims of sexual molestation. In the worst cases, children died in unexplained circumstances and were buried in unmarked graves.

I have spent a great deal of time as an MPP and an MP working with first nations communities. Most recently, my work has taken me to My Sister's Place in London which serves many first nations women. One sister from the Six Nations community told the story of the residential schools. They called it the “Mush Pit” because it was a place where children were literally destroyed. She talked about one disabled child, a child who could not walk and needed crutches but there were no crutches. The child was left unable to get around. One day a woman went to the woods nearby to find a stick for her friend so she could at least manage to get around the school but she was beaten for doing that. She was beaten for interfering. The child was left defenceless and finally was thrown into the cellar underneath the stairwell. She was down there for many days. She cried, wailed and pleaded to be let out but then she just disappeared. There was no real explanation about the disappearance and, clearly, no concern. A child had disappeared and her family was told that she had run away. A child who could not even walk had run away and no one seemed to be all that concerned.

That is the legacy we live with. For those children who did return home, they were strangers to their parents and to the customs and traditions that are the strength of first nations communities. No wonder there is still so much despair. To our great shame, we have done so little to make up for the sins and abuses of the past.

The government had the opportunity in the past two years to correct a great wrong but instead ignored the advice of the extensive consultations and did not consult on the actual legislation that we see before us today.

I would like to read from the Native Women's Association of Canada peoples' report entitled, “Reclaiming Our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions”. I would like to read from this report because it is important for the voices of first nations women to be heard in this House. I do hope that parliamentarians are listening to those voices. The report states:

Violence is the single most important issue facing Aboriginal women today. NWAC knows that violence against Aboriginal women can take many forms, including violence in the home, violence in relationships, and violence on the streets. Statistics Canada has reported that Aboriginal women are more than three times more likely to be the victim of spousal violence than other women in Canada.

The report goes on to state:

There are many stories about abuse on the reserve, women are stuck in homes of misery.

The experience of violence affects not only the woman and her children, but also her family and her community. One woman described this cycle:

“Generations to generations; I am a survivor of a mother that had to run away, all the way to the city of Toronto, take her five kids and move there for domestic violence as she was scared for her life. She was chased out of her house and out of her community and I see that”.

Violence against Aboriginal women is compounded by the lack of understanding and utter indifference from community members, service providers and society in general.

Another survivor said:

Even if we get something big, wonderful, all encompassing beautiful document that’s going to help us forever, how do you enforce it, especially in the isolated communities? Hey, you’ve got a gun at your head and there’s no police around you, what do you do? You take off and you leave. So I mean the enforcement to me has to be well thought out and we have to have the cooperation of the justice systems in this.

Another said:

When my marriage broke down I felt like I had no where to go and no one to guide me.

There should be some type of transitional houses on reserves… this would enable members to stay in their communities.

The report goes on to state:

Many participants talked about the lack of policing in First Nations communities. Women spoke of situations where they had asked law enforcement personnel for assistance, but were unable to get help.

Another survivor stated:

But the fact that we don’t have help, not only just with family law, but in a lot of areas on reserve, in reserve life there are no laws.

There is no authority right now, he can walk in and beat her up whenever he wants and that is how it is.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to cut off the hon. member but she will have 13 minutes left to finish her remarks after question period.

Now we will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Peterborough.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe had the floor and there were 14 minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for London--Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking previously, I had made reference to the fact that many women on first nations reserves had talked about the lack of enforcement with regard to violence against women. Another woman involved in the consultations said:

Whatever occurred in that community we had to take care of it ourselves, there was no one to rescue us. I remember the frustrations I felt and had seeking help in when I was in a violent relationship and there was no one available… the police were an hour by flight, skidoo, boat, and there are no services in the community for women in crisis.

The report, “Reclaiming our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions” states:

Women who cannot remain in their homes because of violence need immediate help. Sometimes assistance may be available through their family and friends, but the provision of assistance through programs and service providers is essential to ensuring that women have access to the continuum of supports. Transition houses help women in two ways: they provide a temporary place to stay and the support workers can help women to make healthy choices about their next steps. Women who live in remote or isolated areas also need transition housing, but they told us that they are often unable to access these services because these services are not available in their communities; the cost of transportation to travel from their community to the service was too high; or because they were ineligible to use the services based on some eligibility criteria.

Women went on to say:

Certainly we need more services on reserve but for a woman who needs to make the choice for safety reasons; you know there needs to be services and supports elsewhere as well. So I don't think it should be an either/or. Options are great because you can meet your own particular need.

There must be options. The report states:

When there is no transition house located on the reserve, women who need these services have to decide whether to leave their community in order to access them. Some women told us that they could not leave the reserve, because this would disrupt their children's schooling, or because they would lose their access to other services if they moved off reserve.

Separation should be planned and not have to be emergency evacuation, and there is a need for protection of the right to leave or the right to stay. In order to secure a safe place for her children, one woman said that it was sometimes necessary for the male spouse to leave. It was important that she remain in her home.

The report further states:

Some participants suggested that transitional houses for men should also be developed. It would be less disruptive for the family if the woman and children can stay in the home, and the man can find temporary shelter elsewhere. Some elders spoke of traditional approaches that supported this idea.

Creating transitional houses for men would bring the added benefit of increasing their access to programs and support that usually are available at these sites which could help men to resolve the issues that led them to the transition house in the first place. This would benefit women and children by helping the matrimonial home to continue to be a place that was safe for them.

Respondents to the consultation were very clear. They said, “We know about the cycle of violence and all that. If we can help the children in this process, then I think that will help in the coming years, decades and generations”.

The housing shortage that exists on many reserves makes the issues associated with matrimonial real property even worse. There is not enough housing to accommodate marriage breakups. One respondent said, “I think the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has fallen down in its responsibility”. The lack of housing can be one of the key reasons women stay in abusive and violent relationships. There is a need not just for more housing but also for subsidized and affordable housing for aboriginal women and children both on and off reserve. Another respondent said, “The issue is not enough housing in our community. It wasn't resolved in Bill C-31 and they need to address severe housing shortages in our communities”.

The report states:

Finally, women spoke about the need to develop tools that will help communities move their people along the healing path. Traditionally, First Nations people had a collective responsibility for the well being of the community. This responsibility included providing assistance to community members who require help to resolve conflicts, including those between partners.

One elder concluded:

We probably will go back to the way we used to do things, with Elders and community members rather than go to the court system.

…even though the legislative options are focused on matrimonial real property and the underlying issue is violence, there needs to be clear protection for women on reserve in terms of legislation, shelters, a community safety plan, which is broader than the legislation being proposed but this is important and because of the Indian Act and colonization there is disrespect for women, violence and women are being pushed out of their homes.

The report goes on to state:

Freedom from violence will allow Aboriginal communities to thrive, and will allow community members to reclaim their way....

The government had a golden opportunity to end generations of neglect and it failed. Enforcing legislation that ignored the specific wishes and advice of first nations communities, the message is clear: first nations' solutions are of no interest to the government.

The extensive and excellent work of Wendy Grant-John and the many first nations women and men who have lived in hope because of the proposed legislation was obviously for naught. Their needs and wishes have not been respected.

The report concludes by stating:

The connections of Aboriginal peoples to our lands and territories are sacred and historical. These are not just pieces of land, but our traditional territories. This issue of matrimonial property on reserve was not created by Aboriginal people. The issue of matrimonial real property on reserve is now a complex one to resolve; however, it should not be. There has been much discrimination in the past and it continues to this day. This discrimination has created detrimental impacts upon many generations of youth, women, men, families, and communities across this country.

When the Indian Act was amended in 1985 (Bill C-31), NWAC and the AFN made contributions prior to any amendments being made. There were many lessons learned from that process. One of them is that we do not want to be used as pawns to justify government processes. We will not get caught by divide and conquer tactics. NWAC believes that our communities need to resolve the impacts of colonization and to assist in building healthy communities. We know that our voices are critical to these efforts.

NWAC appreciated having at least a short time to consult with Aboriginal women and their children who felt the direct impacts of the MRP issue. This was considered the “bridging” point between the long fight for the recognition of Aboriginal women’s rights and issues arising out of the MRP cases. It was an opportunity for these participants to speak their truth and to have a voice.

However, there were very serious concerns raised by the participants regarding the short time frame for this consultation process. As noted in previous NWAC submissions, a full year would be needed to complete consultations. In this process, we were given three months. Many participants were skeptical of this process because they viewed it as government driven....

Fortunately, as I said, Wendy Grant-John did the impossible and produced a remarkable report in the voice of the men and women involved.

The report continues:

The participants in this process stated that they want their rightful place in society. ...women are re-establishing their feelings of pride and self-worth by speaking out about themselves and their communities. The voices of these women must be heeded.

The women who provided these solutions are daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers and granddaughters. They want the intergenerational cycle of abuse and marginalization to end. They want this to be a collective effort to bring the required change in their communities. The men we heard from are our sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandsons. They too wanted to see change that respects our ways of being and the women of their communities. Through the creation of a responsive and comprehensive MRP process, they want to heal and come together to reclaim their way of being now more than ever.

Those aspirations have not been achieved with Bill C-47. In the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we heard the fear expressed by Bev Jacobs of the Native Women's Association of Canada and the women's committee of the AFN that the legislation governing matrimonial real property was already written long before the consultation, that it would be a situation where the responsibility would be sloughed off to the provinces.

The minister responsible insisted that it was not true and he was very clear about that. Unfortunately, the fears of the women of NWAC and the AFN were quite accurate. Ultimately, Bill C-47 was not written in consultation with first nations, despite all the promises. Their hopes were frustrated and their wishes were ignored.

We keep travelling down the same old paths, the same road that led to the school incidents where children were abused and to the situation in Parliament where the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be ignored and set aside. We have travelled this road for far too long and we need to do better. The government has an obligation to do better. We all have an obligation to listen to the voices, to respect the needs of the communities and to act in accordance with an honourable kind of resolution.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some very eloquent points.

She talked about a number of elements in terms of Canadian policy that have had a detrimental impact on first nations, women, children and the lives of families and how they have been very vocal through the dialogue sessions with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council. They have insisted that there needs to be a new direction and a new process in which they could participate in terms of determining and being part of the process to create legislation that would impact their lives.

One of the statements they made in one of the publications in response to this was that Europeans have a different view of the role of women. They do not respect women or their contributions to society in the way that aboriginal cultures did. Canadian society came from Europe and it was very patriarchal and this has had a damaging impact on the families because of Canadian policies coming from that view.

Could the member articulate a bit more about how she thinks we can do better?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. The kind of system that has been imposed on first nations people is alien. It is patriarchal and European.

In my interactions with first nations women, I know about the traditional role of women as leaders, as the advisors to the community and that women were always consulted and their wisdom and input was always respected.

It is very clear that in this process there has been a going back to the old ways that does not work between governments and first nations people.

The harms that I and other members in the House have talked about are very real. They continue and the things that we have done in the past haunt us, haunt the members of first nations in the present and, unless we change, they will haunt us in the future.

Wendy Grant-John did a remarkable job. She managed to consult and hear from many isolated communities. She went to places that very rarely are visited or considered by government. She did the impossible, as I said. However, at the end of the day, despite all of the promises of the minister responsible, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Women's Council of the AFN were not consulted when it came to the writing of Bill C-47.

Quite simply, the government, I suppose one could say, threw in the towel. It would have been a challenge to ensure it followed through on its promises and I do not disregard the fact that it would have created challenges for the government, but it did not do its duty. It simply walked away and went back to the old way of doing things that did not work in the past, do not work now and will not work in the future.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member and her party for their continuing support for our aboriginal agenda. Her party assisted us in ratifying the Indian residential schools settlement. Her party also assisted us in passing Bill C-30, the Nunavut land claims agreement, allowing our government and this Parliament to bring forward a number of important pieces of legislation and initiatives for aboriginal people. It also sounds like they will be supporting us again on this, which is appreciated.

She said that our government had walked away on this bill, had walked away from our obligations. Should we walk away when a person on reserve, a first nations mother, is being removed from her home because she has no access to matrimonial real property? Should we walk away and not do anything?

If we were to follow what she is suggesting, we would simply not let anything come forward and languish while we know that these situations are occurring throughout the country. What is she suggesting? Should we simply let these situations continue to go on for years to come?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some careful listening needs to happen and that is what has been missing in this process. The government promised that it would listen to first nations women and communities and that it would ensure that first nations women and communities had a part in writing the legislation.

Certainly a women in distress should never be abandoned but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about listening to the solutions that were proposed by first nations people because they have a communal kind of reality. They have communal property.

The notion of individual property is alien in terms of how reserves operate and we need to respect that. The problem is that we have not been respectful. We have not listened. More housing is needed on and off reserve but budget 2008 contained nothing in terms of additional housing. It tinkered away at some projects for those who suffer from mental illness but there was nothing real and substantive.

We need a national, affordable housing strategy that addresses the need for decent and affordable housing on and off reserve for first nations communities, for other communities and for seniors, those who are struggling and living in poverty, but the government has not come forward with any of that.

The Conservatives talk about how concerned they are. I have heard a lot of talk from the government but all the talk does not amount to anything unless there is investment, unless there is action and unless there is respect for the people with whom we deal, and I have not seen that, which is what is missing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

First, she alluded to Wendy Grant-John's work in glowing terms, as have others. I am not on the committee so I wonder if she could give me more details of the recommendations that were ignored. I am not sure why anyone would hire someone and then ignore a huge number of the person's recommendations. I could see changing some things but some of the good recommendations were ignored.

Second, with women having the most to gain from this or being most harmed without it, one would think that the two groups that would be most in support of it would be the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council, which the member mentioned. I just wonder if she could explain to us what concerns they have about this bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not an expert on all of the recommendations that Wendy Grant-John put forward but I know that the need for more housing was key and central to that.

As I said before, there were opportunities in budget 2007 and budget 2008 to invest in affordable housing and to bring back a national housing strategy that met the needs of Canadians but that was ignored. It was not there. Instead, we saw $14.5 billion going in tax cuts to profitable corporations, big oil and big banks, instead of the respect for the communal needs of first nations people.

First and foremost, the member makes an important point. The NWAC and the Women's Council of the AFN did reject the solutions arrived at by the government because those solutions were arrived at without their consultation or advice and will serve no purpose in terms of what we truly need.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

This act would basically establish a federal matrimonial real property regime, combined with the mechanism for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

Essentially, for the public watching who may not understand this, for people not on reserve whose marriage breaks up, in most of Canada, there are laws to protect them. There are usually provincial or territorial laws to protect each person in the breakup, so that there is a fair distribution of the assets and that the appropriate person has access to the house to live in. Other provisions can also be put in place, if there is spousal abuse for example, to ensure that the individuals do not both have to be living in the same building.

However, these rights do not occur on reserve, as was determined by the courts. The reason being that the legal provisions on reserve are a federal responsibility and most of these laws are provincial or territorial. So, for years, aboriginal spouses, women, in particular, have had the problem of not having access to these protections in a matrimonial breakup.

This has been brought forward for decades and there have been various attempts by various governments to work on this, to study this, and various studies have been outlined by previous speakers. It is somewhat of an intractable problem in that respect.

It is very complicated for the people watching who wonder why it has taken so long to deal with this and to come up with a debate on it, a debate where a number of concerns have already been raised. One of the reasons being is that there are three orders of government involved. We have the first nation or aboriginal governments, and there are different categories and different situations. They may be self-governing or not self-governing, or they may have a first nations land act. Then we have the provincial or territorial governments and the federal government. When we have all three governments having some role in this problem, then obviously it will be a complex situation. That is why today we have already had a number of concerns or issues raised.

Everyone supports the fact that the issue has to be dealt with. I think that will be unanimous in the House. But also I think most members will be outlining certain concerns with this particular attempt at dealing with the issue. I look forward to listening to the government speakers when they answer some of the concerns that have come from all the opposition parties today related to this bill. I will also be interested to hear how we can move forward in a positive manner.

I am going to outline some of the aspects of how the bill would work, some of the concerns that I have, and some of the specifics related to my particular riding. I will also mention some of the concerns that some groups have brought forward.

Obviously, there are a number of positive items in the bill. I do not have to dwell at length on those because we all agree and we can move on quickly and get this in place. However, if there are concerns, then we will be anxiously listening to the government speakers to hear how they will deal with the concerns, so that we know we are moving forward in the right direction.

This bill is a matter of human rights for women, and often children, quite often in single parent families in particular in the majority of cases. This will, of course, occur after a split up, where the woman is the one responsible for the children. We are making decisions here that are going to really affect the lives of children who are often with the women.

The Liberal Party, as the party of the charter, is in strong support of people having charter rights and of extending matrimonial real property rights to first nations people.

We support the intent of the bill, but we have concerns with the proposed process. If the process is not correct, then some of the content could easily be at jeopardy. That has been outlined, I think every eloquently, by the experts, the critics in each party, who have spoken to this bill and by the aboriginal people who have spoken to this bill to date, and I certainly do not have anywhere near their expertise.

The purpose of the bill is to extend this regime to first nations or to encourage them to develop their own matrimonial real property laws. Indeed, a vast majority of the House is totally in agreement with the concept that the ultimate solution to the best government for first nations people is self-government and I hope the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asks his usual question about owning property because I have a great answer.

I did not have a chance to answer him yesterday, but self-government is the answer. It has had all sorts of success stories that I could outline if I am questioned on it and it is a great step forward where people are taking care of their own lives. The strength of the bill is in the fact that it encourages that to occur and it encourages first nations to put their own lives in place, but it has a default federal law until the first nations put their own laws in place to cover this.

In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship breaks down on reserve, courts cannot apply provincial-territorial family law because the reserve falls under federal jurisdiction. As a result, aboriginal women living on reserves have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserves. They are not entitled to an equal share of matrimonial property at the time of marriage breakdown and matrimonial real property refers to the house and land the couple lives on while they are married or in a common-law relationship.

Since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling, the gap in law has had serious consequences and some members, I think even the minister, quoted some women and the harm that has been done to them in that situation. When a marriage or relationship ends, the courts have no authority to protect the matrimonial real property interests of spouses living on reserve. As a result, spouses living on reserve cannot ask the courts to grant an order for temporary or permanent possession of the family home even in a situation of domestic violence or when the spouse has custody of the children.

Without that protection what is a woman with children to do if she wants out or wants to break up from an abusive spouse, and where is she actually going to live with these children? In many situations she would not have any income and there are housing shortages which many members have already talked about in this debate, and this too must be dealt with.

There may not be a spot for her to go to and yet she does not have that protection today. The courts cannot be asked to order a partition and sale of the family home to enforce an order of compensation from one spouse to the other, so she could not even get 50% from her half of the house in order to carry on with her life. It precludes the spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home without consent of another spouse. That is in the common law in Canada and these women, in the majority, it could be men, on reserve do not have access to that particular protection. Someone could just go ahead and sell their house and they would not even know it. That is why this needs to be dealt with.

Approaches to addressing the legislative gap respecting this have been under consideration for some time. In recent years three parliamentary committees have recommended legislative mechanisms to resolve this issue. To carry out the consultations the department provided the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations each with $2.7 million and INAC also held consultations with and provided funding to a diverse range of aboriginal organizations not represented by the Native Women's Association or the AFN. It would be good to have a list of those other organizations for the committee when it deals with this.

I asked that question earlier and it is one of the major issues that will have to be dealt with at committee. Why, with $5.4 million minimally plus all of INAC's time devoted to consultation, are there concerns being raised by so many speakers today and key stakeholder groups about the consultation process?

Under this new legislation all first nations, with the exception of those first nations that have matrimonial real property laws under the First Nations Land Management Act or self-government agreements, would be subject to the bill's proposed provisional and federal rules unless and until such time as they enact their own laws.

Under the First Nations Land Management Act they have a time limit. They can put laws in place if they have not already done so. I think 10 out of 20 already have their own matrimonial laws, but they will have a certain amount of time to put laws in place so that the default federal law would not apply.

The provisional bill applies to approximately 50% of the first nations that use the Indian Act land allotment system, but the rules in the bill would not apply to the lands that have been allotted according to custom. However, the bill would apply in respect to matrimonial interests recognized by an agreement between spouses and first nations or by the courts. If a first nation does not recognize the matrimonial rights or interests, the spouse or partner can turn to the courts. I am going to comment on that a bit later.

Bill C-47 would provide spouses or common law partners with an equal entitlement to occupancy of the family home until the relationship ends. It also would provide spouses or common law partners with protection against disposition or encumbrance of the family home without their consent.

This is a list of the things that are available generally to other Canadians.

The bill would allow the court to order that a spouse or common law partner be excluded from the family home on an urgent basis. An urgent basis could be, for example, spousal abuse.

It would enable the courts to provide short to long term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of one of the spouses or partners.

Bill C-47 would ensure the proven value of a couple's matrimonial interests or rights in or to the family home and other structures. The lands on reserve would be shared equally in a relationship breakdown.

The bill would allow the courts to transfer, in some circumstances, the matrimonial interests between spouses or common law partners together with or instead of financial compensation.

When a spouse or common law partner dies, Bill C-47 would ensure that the survivor could remain in the home for a specified period of time and could apply for half the value of the matrimonial rights and interests as an alternative to inheriting from the estate of the deceased. There will be some debate in committee on the particular time limits.

The bill would allow for the courts to enforce a free and informed written agreement made by the spouse or common law partner that sets out the amount to which each is entitled and how to settle the amount.

The bill would provide for a first nation council, on application from a non-member, spouse or common law partner, to enforce on reserve a court order made under the act.

It would provide first nations with the jurisdiction to adopt laws with respect to matrimonial real property interests. Bill C-47 would require a community ratification process when first nations develop their own laws.

A rogue council with some particular interest could not secretly pass a law that would supersede the federal law. Just like in land claims or self-government agreements, there has to be a community ratification process.

Bill C-47 would provide for first nations to be notified when community collective rights are engaged with respect to a ruling. The first nation may then choose to make representation to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to the proceedings.

This element of the bill is a good news and a bad news story. People are starting to comprehend that aboriginal culture is a different type of culture. Aboriginal people have a different way of thinking, a different way of organizing themselves, and a different social organization than European culture and other cultures in Canada.

One of the primary differences is the sense of collective responsibility, collective management, collective rights, and collective culture, as opposed to some of our individual rights and how those supercede other rights in the European culture.

This was a great problem when we came to the human rights bill that was before Parliament, because there was no recognition by the government of that huge difference in the two cultures when the bill was brought forward.

However, in this bill that is recognized. That is the good news part of it. There is this provision, which I have just read out, whereby “the First Nation may make representations to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to the proceedings”.

When we are dealing with a major item of someone's culture, we cannot simply say that they are allowed to make a statement in court about it. Some first nations have said that this is not a strong enough provision with respect to those rights.

Before I get on to my other points, and before I run out of time, I want to tell my own constituents how the bill will affect them. In my area of Yukon, 11 of 14 first nations already have their land claims and self-government agreement. The agreement recognizes aboriginal jurisdiction over aboriginal lands, but jurisdiction over matrimonial property, real or personal, is not explicitly addressed.

As a result of the provisions of the agreements which address provincial-territorial laws of application and relationship of laws, provincial-territorial matrimonial property laws of general application will apply, although these may be superseded by subsequent aboriginal government laws respecting matrimonial rights or interests. The Nisga'a Final Agreement and the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement are examples of this approach.

For my friends back home, let me say that until they develop their own matrimonial laws, the umbrella federal law will apply after this bill. Of course, for the Kaska, the Ross River Dene and the White River First Nation, the federal law will apply because they do not have a self-government agreement in this area yet.

Some of the concerns that I talked about earlier I will now be looking for when the government puts up a speaker to address what I have already mentioned. There are the concerns of the Assembly of First Nations.

One of its concerns is related to the fact that Bill C-47 does not contain a non-derogation clause. The minister gave a very sincere answer, saying he does not think it is required because the Constitution, in sections 35 and 92, et cetera, covers all that territory and will ultimately trump anything else, so there is no need for the less powerful non-derogation clause. Yet it would give great comfort to some first nations people, so if there is no problem with it, then I think there will probably be discussion at committee about perhaps adding it.

The Assembly of First Nations of course raised the point I just talked about, which is related to collective rights. One of its other concerns is that the government's implementation plan appears not to contain any provisions to support first nations in developing its rules regarding matrimonial real property or to comply with the verification process.

Furthermore, it would appear that legislation will immediately apply to first nations as soon as it is passed, not allowing for a period of time for development and verification to take place. We had the same problem with the human rights bill, of course, and had hoped that the government would have learned from that bill. When we tell a government to put new laws in place, the people have to be trained to have the capacity and it is going to cost money. There needs to be time to implement the laws. The Assembly of First Nations notes a significant lack of all of that in this implementation plan.

I do not have time to go into the issues that Native Women's Association of Canada addressed. Needless to say, those issues will be covered at great length in committee.

I will close with the two philosophical problems that important stakeholder groups have. One is that the law in itself needs to be in concert with a whole bunch of other issues that would support and prevent family breakdowns, which is what causes the problem in the first place. Also, the underlying resolution lies in supporting communities and clearly emphasizing the need to keep families--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Alas, it is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. We will now have questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has the floor.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate any opportunity to get up and speak to this very important bill, which will finally extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations citizens on reserve, an opportunity they have not had in the past. When marriages break down, we will not see first nations mothers being removed from their homes in a way that no Canadian could see as being fair.

I have a question for the member for Yukon. In light of his party's support for the Indian residential schools settlement, which we ratified as practically the first act of the House when we first came to office, and his party's support for the Nunavik land claims agreement, Bill C-30, the independent claims tribunal, and of course for all the other important first nations aboriginal bills that we have done, is his party going to support this bill as it goes to committee and comes back to the House? We are hopeful that his party will continue to support this bill not just now but beyond committee.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question because it shows us one of the major problems that the Conservative Party has had since it became government. Asking if my party is going to support this bill after it comes out of committee shows an entire lack of democratic process. Then why would we even go to committee to find out from experts and stakeholders whether a bill is good? This happens time and time again with that party.

I am on the justice committee so that is where my experience lies. Those members go into committee, experts suggest amendments, and there are proposals that make no sense whatsoever, but what does the government do? It does absolutely nothing. We might as well not waste millions of dollars and taxpayers' time in going to committee and hearing from the experts and stakeholders about how to improve bills.

The government wants us to commit to something before all the thousands of dollars worth of hearings have taken place. Of course I will not commit to what is going to happen and thus say that the voice of the aboriginal people of Canada is worthless and that all the people coming to committee are wasting their time.

What I hope the member will do is deal with the concerns that have come up in today's debate on the bill. He seems to be in favour of the bill, so indeed, if he would deal with the concerns that have been raised all day instead of raising more, it would make it easier for all the parties to put it through more quickly.

He mentioned a lot of the recent aboriginal successes that were started during the Liberal government, in particular the residential schools agreement. I am delighted that he mentioned it, because I was there the day the agreement was made with first nations. It was a spectacular success for Grand Chief Phil Fontaine. There were many tears that evening. It was a wonderful move forward that we achieved for first nations people. I just hope we can deal with the unfortunate consequence of some of the payments that are coming out and the tragedies they led to. Hopefully we can provide more healing and counselling money to deal with some of those corollary difficulties.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for a response from the member for Yukon to the letter from Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, in which she told the minister directly:

Despite...a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation...that does not have the support of...NWAC....

The minister responsible was well aware of this, she said.

Ms. Jacobs and other members of first nations communities suggested legislative and non-legislative solutions, one being a long term solution that enables women and children to access their treaty, membership and aboriginal rights regardless of their residency. This, according to first nations, would be a significant improvement, because it would result in women being able to access programs and supports delivered through their band councils based on their need for the services in an appropriate and communal way, rather than what the government has presented us with.

I would ask the member to comment on these long term solutions that involve access by children and women to their treaty, membership and aboriginal rights.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an excellent and substantive one.

Over and above the concerns she listed, and hopefully the government is taking this down so it can answer this, the Native Women's Association of Canada also had concerns about a complete lack of an implementation plan, a lack of provision of resources to develop plans to implement this, as I talked about earlier, the only 180 days that a widow is allowed to stay in the house, the lack of appropriate housing, which we all talked about earlier, and the reference to a court process, which I said I was going to get back to but forgot. The problem with the court process, of course, is this: how many aboriginal people, single women with children, can actually afford to go to court to get their remedies?

There were a lot of difficulties. Personally, of course, I am going to support the bill going to committee so that all these issues can be discussed, which is the purpose of committees. We can hear from experts and stakeholders. I am not a member of the committee, but I hope that together its members can come up with solutions for these concerns that will make the bill much more palatable to the very major groups that should be supporting this in the first place. Even after extensive consultation worth $5.4 million, the groups that should be the major supporters are still not supporting the bill. Hopefully the committee can smooth this out, this very intractable problem will be dealt with and there will be at least a relatively positive solution.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the hon. parliamentary secretary's question because I was a little disturbed by the answer I heard. I have had the privilege and honour to sit on this committee for quite some time to work on the issue of human rights for first nations communities and human rights for on reserve first nations people.

The member talked about the need to have it holed up in the committee forever. It is important that we understand his position and the position of his party now and also the direction in which they are going in the future. Quite frankly, I do not want to have to waste another year to a year and a half with those members trying to water down amendments on something that is essential structural reform for first nations communities. This follows the exact same guidelines.

Quite frankly, I think this is a very valid question. We need to know if the Liberal Party of Canada is going to do the same thing that it did before, which is to stand up in the House of Commons, pass it through to committee unanimously, and then sit and try to delay and deceive for at least year on the bill. We need to get real action for some of these communities.

I represent many of the people in these communities. They want to see the structural reform that this government has brought forward. For the first time in 15 years, a government finally has a vision for first nations communities. I think it is imperative that the opposition--if it is not going to stand up in the House and vote against it--get on side and support us on this vision.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely astounding. Just after the parliamentary secretary got a tongue-lashing for asking people to ignore aboriginal people when they come to committee to tell us what they are going to do now, the member has asked for the same thing. What is the purpose of the committee if the Conservatives do not want to have it? Why do we not just give the answer now?

I am delighted that the member brought up the human rights bill, which the government drafted so poorly. It only had 12 words in it, but I think took a year for the three opposition parties to put in I do not know how many improvements to it, to strengthen the bill, to make it realistic and to answer what all the stakeholders wanted so that the aboriginal people of Canada could have their human rights.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in this House today to take part in the debate on Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

I listened closely to my colleagues who spoke before me. I listened with particular attention to my colleague from Yukon, a person dedicated to protecting fundamental human rights and a tireless worker in his community on behalf of the most needy. I know that because he has often appealed to our generosity to help the members of his community, and I find that very praiseworthy. However, I was not surprised at the way in which my colleagues from Westlock—St. Paul and Winnipeg South responded to the comments by the member for Yukon, who was speaking on an issue he feels deeply about.

It has been said that a bill can change the lives of thousands of people and Bill C-47 can do that. If it is well articulated, well crafted and well presented this bill can make a real difference in the lives of thousands of people, especially in the case of aboriginal women, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration. They have to overcome difficulties that are much greater than anything we may experience outside aboriginal communities. Because this bill in large measure concerns women, if it is not carefully considered and crafted, it could also make women even greater victims than they are at present.

Several years ago we consulted with women from aboriginal communities on various topics, for various reasons and for various committees, both in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we wanted to learn about their experiences and profit from their knowledge so as to improve conditions for all women, as well as in our ridings in order to find out how we can learn more about their situation and their communities so that we can better work with them.

In the past, mistakes were made as we tried to do what was right and help aboriginal communities. We decided as white men and women—even though men were in charge at that time—what was best for them. I have the uneasy feeling that we are still trying to decide what is best for aboriginal communities, without having listened carefully enough to what they told us when we consulted them.

Of course, the consultations did not last very long. Communities had from September 29, 2006 to January 29, 2007 to hold their consultations. If I am not mistaken, that makes four months to consult on such an important bill. What is more, one month out of that period is the traditional holiday season, when people celebrate with their families. I do not believe the communities were very interested in discussing Bill C-47 at that time.

To take so little time to draft such an important bill shows what I would call a serious lack of judgment. Once again, this comes as no surprise, considering that the government is refusing to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It does not surprise me that this same government does not want to pay more attention to what women and men in aboriginal communities have had to say about Bill C-47.

Since I am from Quebec, I have a better knowledge of the communities in Quebec. I would therefore like to quote from a letter that Ellen Gabriel, the president of Quebec Native Women, sent all the members of the Senate and the political parties:

—we would like to express our concern over certain key issues that seem to have been omitted in Bill C-47, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act that has recently been introduced.

First, we do not believe that the negative gender-based impacts are “unavoidable and likely justifiable” as stated in the Gender-Based Analysis issue paper. As mentioned, courts may tend to provide caregiver spouses or common-law partners with exclusive occupation of the family home.

That is a key point.

Because women are more likely to be caregivers of dependent children and/or adults, men may be less likely to retain occupation of the family home on breakdown of a conjugal relationship. As a result, [under Bill C-47] more women than men may be required to financially compensate their spouse or common-law partner for their share of the family home. What is not mentioned is that because women act as the main caregivers of children and elders, women are often not, or at least not the main breadwinners for the family.

This is where things get tricky. This should be clear. It is true that this must not make much of a difference to a party that is not terribly concerned about women's problems.

Ms. Gabriel continues:

Also, [Bill] C-47 does not take into account the fact that there is a serious housing shortage on reserve.

Let us talk about housing. In a number of aboriginal communities people have had to move because their housing was uninhabitable and unsafe, with no water, heating and all the necessities. Housing is already uninhabitable and now the government wants to cause even more problems.

The letter goes on:

We wonder if any measures will be taken to find housing on reserve for the person against whom an emergency protection order has been made. The frustration that may result from such a situation can lead to even more violence.

As we know, violence affects women from aboriginal communities more so than women from other communities and that is too bad. Aboriginal communities are already going through enough. Women's shelters in these communities receive less funding than shelters outside aboriginal communities, which come under the jurisdiction of the various provinces. Women's shelters in aboriginal communities are subsidized by the federal government.

Ms. Gabriel goes on to say:

This is why we would like to caution ... [the] Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages on her comment.

The comment made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was:

This important new legislation will afford protections to women and children living on-reserve that are similar to those now available to women and children living elsewhere.

Ms. Gabriel continues:

We would like to remind [the] Minister ... that Aboriginal women and children living on-reserve do not share the same realities as their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

When drafting legislation, we have to be aware that it will have a major impact on many communities.

There are 600 aboriginal communities in Canada. They are all governed differently. They have different cultures because not all aboriginal peoples have the same origins, the same cultural backgrounds, or the same traditions. Their cultures differ according to whether they live close to the forests or the waters, are nomadic or sedentary. All aboriginal peoples have different characteristics and different cultures. It is important to remember that as we attempt to bring in legislation for such a diverse group of cultures.

In Quebec, our laws are worded differently. We are governed by the civil code. Quebec Native Women has pointed out that Bill C-47 would enact laws that might be difficult to apply in Quebec. QNW wanted the federal government to conduct more meaningful—not simply token—consultation, which would certainly have produced different results. QNW wanted the government

—to properly inform and seek the advice of aboriginal peoples before passing this important legislation.

QNW also had this to say to the federal government:

We also caution against pan-aboriginal legislation since the over 600 aboriginal communities in Canada contain a diverse cross-section of...realities—

Ongoing research into the needs of aboriginal peoples is happening every day, every week and every year. Research is being done into the impact on aboriginal peoples of the various laws we have imposed on them over the years and throughout history. Research gives us food for thought. It should also give the government food for thought. If the government does not think this through, if it acts only to please some of the voters, it will not be meeting the basic needs of the people it claims to want to help.

I believe that the government was trying to do the right thing by drafting this bill, because the government does not generally draft bills that try to do the wrong thing. They do not mean to do the wrong thing, but by trying to act too quickly, they make mistakes when it comes to setting goals and objectives. The Native Women's Association of Canada produced a report about the consultations that took place. The report repeatedly refers to the difficulties that aboriginal peoples are experiencing now. It says: “—we became non-persons. We couldn’t vote. Our women had no say whatsoever.” That is what we did to them in the past. We reduced aboriginal peoples to entities living on reserves.

I would point out that the term “reserve” is not one that is particularly appreciated by the aboriginal peoples. These are aboriginal communities, but people still use the term “reserve” in French. It is not particularly appreciated. When you go to Africa, reserves are for animals, cattle, lions, elephants, giraffes. That is what reserves are. They are wildlife reserves, various kinds of reserves. I too am opposed to using this expression when we are talking about the aboriginal peoples.

The aboriginal peoples were also forced into the schools. They were forced to betray their culture, their traditions, their history. The grandmothers used to gather the children around them and pass on their culture, which is so important. Perhaps today we would have fewer problems with young people in the aboriginal communities. We might have fewer suicides among young people if they felt the full pride that comes from belonging to a people that is this great and this strong.

For years, and even for hundreds of years, we tried to assimilate them completely into the society outside the aboriginal communities. For years, we have been trying to make them forget their roots. In spite of that, and in spite of how they are disappearing, little by little, every year, many members of these aboriginal peoples have still found the courage, the strength, the audacity to discover solutions to enable them to make their communities whole again. They have found the strength to be able to forgive what was done to them, to be able to keep moving forward.

And today, we are once again trying to lock them into something that would suit us: there are no more problems, we have legislated, we have made a law, let them make do with that, it is the best thing we could do for them, and we know best what they need!

That is not how we should be acting toward a people that has thousands of years of history, wisdom, culture and traditions, and who can probably show us much more than we can show them, if we just make the effort to listen.

So I would like this bill to be sent to committee so we can make the effort to listen to the people who have not been heard, so we can make the effort to listen to experts on what is happening elsewhere. What is being done elsewhere, where the fundamental rights of the aboriginal peoples have been recognized? Even if we do not want to do it here, we still have to know that it is being done elsewhere. Only three member states of the United Nations have refused to recognize them, and we are one of them. Shame!

But elsewhere, in other countries, these peoples have been recognized, their rights have been recognized—fundamental rights of human beings. As human beings, they are entitled to the same dignity and the same respect as everyone who lives within Canada's borders—the same dignity and the same respect for all the women, men and children of the aboriginal peoples.

We may get there, if the government agrees. This seems to be a major issue, since the Liberal Party—oh!—does not want to vote on the bill immediately. Beyond a doubt, should we have to vote on a bill without having the chance to examine it in depth? I am sorry, we may be in opposition, we may be the opposition parties, but we have more respect than that for the people we represent. This bill will pass one day, I hope, if we agree that it be sent to committee and if we agree that it be amended, not to water down its importance, but to maximize the results and the effects on the women and men who will have to live with this bill, until those women and men adopt their own law to govern matrimonial property.

I sincerely hope that this House, like the Bloc Québécois, will choose to vote to refer Bill C-47 to committee, so it can be argued, scrutinized, studied, evaluated and amended in committee and come back even better and stronger for all of the aboriginal peoples.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr.Speaker, I appreciate the submission by the member opposite.

Our party, our government, appreciates the support that the Bloc will be providing for this important bill. It is important that we extend matrimonial real property rights to individuals who are living on reserve. That is where I want to go with my question.

I know the member often brings up women's issues in the House, so I would pose this question. She referenced a number of leaders from aboriginal first nations communities in Quebec. Some of these leaders have put forward the argument that when a marriage breaks down on reserve, if the wife is not first nation, she should not receive any access to marital property. I personally disagree with that.

What does the member opposite have to say about that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg South knows, it is up to aboriginal people to decide how they will deal with questions of marital property, violence and individuals, aboriginal or not, who live on reserves. We, not as government, but as people first, decided that band councils would govern aboriginal communities.

If we are not happy with the decisions they are making, we have only ourselves to blame. Instead of remaining matriarchal communities, they have become patriarchal communities. Since that change, aboriginal women have had a hard time accessing band councils to make their opinions known.

That is the difference, and that is what the previous government decided should happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, Fisheries; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Ethics.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Laval for her speech on Bill C-47. I am a bit surprised. I do not believe that aboriginal women are supporting this bill, even though it concerns family homes situated on first nation reserves and matrimonial rights to or interests in structures and lands situated on those reserves.

Why does the member for Laval think that the Conservative government introduced a bill that concerns the rights of aboriginal women, even though these women do not support this bill?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right, and I in fact said in my remarks that native women are not in favour of this bill because they were not adequately consulted and because their recommendations were not taken into account. That is what I said. I also said that this was why we want to send the bill back to committee.

They want something that incorporates matrimonial rights, something done properly, which is of real use and beneficial to them. However, they do not want the bill as put forward. They want it amended to reflect the recommendations they made and the needs they expressed during consultations, although the consultations were inadequate.

For this reason, we will vote to send the bill to committee and not because we support it at the moment. In fact, we oppose it.

My colleague is right that the women are dismissing it out of hand and do not agree with it, as it fails to meet their expressed needs.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns what my colleague from the Bloc said a number of times in her remarks and answers the question by my Liberal Party colleague for Etobicoke North as well. She said simply that the studies done on the matter were inadequate because they lasted no more than three or four months. That is not the case. I was elected in 2000. I know that that parliament and preceding ones thoroughly examined the matter on a number of occasions. It has been examined under both the federal government and our Conservative government a number of times.

Why does the member want still more studies, when the matter has already been examined a number of times? The matter of equality for women in each region of the country is very important. All Canadian women, including native women and indeed everyone should be governed by the same laws and enjoy the same protections. In this country, we must have equality before the law.

Why wait further to act? The question is a simple one. Why should we wait? If the hon. member supports the spirit of equality, if she acknowledges that all women in our country should be equal before the law, can she tell us why we should wait before acting?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like that question from my colleague. Of course I am in favour of equality—equality of rights, but also equality in fact. This bill in no way brings us closer to equality in fact.

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, the realities are very different from one aboriginal community to another. There are 600 different aboriginal communities in Canada, and the realities of the different aboriginal communities must be taken into account. All those communities do not need the same bill. Some of them have procedures that enable them to work effectively in the case of separation or divorce, and even where there is violence.

To achieve real equality it is essential that this government begin by actually recognizing the fundamental rights of aboriginals by agreeing to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her very passionate and eloquent speech, raising her concerns.

First, does she actually think the government has listened to those concerns and will deal with them?

Second, she mentioned how, for thousands of years, first nations have very ably governed themselves and that now we are trying to impose something on them. Because of that, one of the groups has suggested that it may not be constitutional. Does she think that is a concern in this case?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the chief concerns of aboriginal communities stems from the fact that the government does not take into consideration their timetable, their needs or their rights. The government takes nothing into consideration. On numerous occasions, we have seen the lack of tact and the lack of judgment of this government.

This government has already broken its promise to seniors with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. It broke its promise to women; we do not have equality, whether my colleague likes it or not. It has also broken its promise to veterans. The government broke its promise three times—and those are only three examples.

They would like us to believe that this bill will resolve the situation of aboriginal people, that all will be well and there will be no more problems. That is nonsense; I do not believe it.

So long as the bill is not properly amended to respond to the needs and demands of the women who made their recommendations to us, we will not pass it. Whether my Conservative colleagues like it or not, we are going to wait.

We must not forget that aboriginals have real rights. They were here before we arrived. The Bloc Québécois often talks about sovereignty. If anyone is sovereign here, it is the aboriginal people. They are the very people who should have precedence in terms of rights, respect and dignity.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. On the surface, all of us are absolutely, positively desirous of ensuring that aboriginal women and men have equal rights under the law, like non-aboriginal women and men, and that there is one set of rights, rules and regulations so that everyone has the same rights and rules and everyone is protected under our courts.

This pertains to the issue of those women and men who are in situations where their families are affected by issues and tragedies that compel them to need legal protection and a structure wherein they can deal with the division of assets in family breakups or when a spouse dies.

The fact that we are here speaking to this bill alludes to a much larger problem in that we have an issue of separate development in Canada. Somehow we are trying to tag on a series of rules, regulations and acts to ensure that in this case aboriginal women have some protection and security under the law. But that deals with a much larger issue of a separate development that has occurred in our country between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. In part that is responsible for the terrible social discord and horrible social circumstances that affect too many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people on and off reserve.

There are some concerns about the bill, but we support sending the bill to committee. The Liberal Party will be calling upon witnesses and representatives of aboriginal women in Canada to ensure that their voices are heard because they have a lot of concerns about this. The Native Women's Association of Canada does not support Bill C-47 in its current form for many reasons. An example is the complete lack of information about the implementation plans and measures for this legislation including timeframes, resources for measures that are specified in the bill, and resources for first nations to implement the legislation.

There is a lack of information regarding the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for the MRP. Another issue is that a widowed spouse only has 180 days to remain in a family home following the death of his or her partner. It is perfectly understandable why NWAC believes that is too short a period of time to allow a person to live in his or her own home when such a tragedy has befallen him or her. There is a lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities. This has been mentioned multiple times in this House. The measures contained in Bill C-47 will not assist women and children in obtaining alternate housing in the community during the breakdown of a marriage or common law relationship.

I cannot impress enough on members the degree of tragedy and the horrible living conditions found on too many reserves. I worked as a physician in northern British Columbia and I remember flying into reserves. The houses are so poorly built that people are living in homes that are essentially a health hazard. They are boxes of disease. To see this level of housing in Canada is absolutely appalling. If there is a breakup in a relationship, particularly in smaller communities where there is already an acute lack of housing and the housing that is available is unsafe and frankly toxic, where would the person go? Where would the spouse and children go in that kind of an environment? There is no other housing locally. Would they go to an urban centre? Would they go off reserve? The choices for them are quite bleak. That is one of the central problems of this piece of legislation.

We support sending the bill to committee but we would like to ensure that these issues are dealt with. I personally hope that this galvanizes the government to deal with the horrible health and socio-economic conditions on reserves, including the housing on reserves.

One example from my riding would be the Pacheedaht reserve. It is near Port Renfrew on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I was there several days ago. The roads on the reserve are pock-marked and full of holes. None of them are paved. There is detritus and refuse everywhere on the reserve. Why? Because the band does not have any agreement to remove the waste on the reserve. It does not have the money nor the people to do it. As a result, there is waste everywhere.

There are homes with the windowpanes smashed out. The windowpanes are not replaced because people do not have the money to replace them, so they cover the windows with plastic sheeting. What would it be like in the dead of winter in Canada to live in a house where the windowpanes have been smashed out and the windows are covered with plastic sheeting? What does it mean for the health of the people who live in that house? What does it mean for the children who have to live in those horrible conditions, huddled under blankets to try to keep warm, because the whole house has actually broken apart?

Inside the houses people have put plywood over the flooring so people do not fall through the floorboards. That is the way many of these houses are made. In the corners, around the windows and on the walls there is mould, which is toxic.

There are buildings that have been improperly built. In addition, there is the mould which is toxic. These are unsafe structures. Children, men and women live in these structures. Is that the Canada we know? That is the Canada we have. That is the trauma many aboriginal people are living in right now. Those are horrible third world conditions.

The minister has brought up some very important and legitimate concerns about the issue of housing in that money is given to communities, houses are built, often improperly, and the money goes to waste in too many cases. Why? There is an essential problem of capacity. The government has given reserves and aboriginal leaders money. The government has also given them the responsibility to take care of various things, including some of the social services, housing and health care. However, what if they do not have the capacity to execute those areas for their people? We have set up many communities for failure.

It is all right not to have the capacity to implement something, but if we give them the responsibility for such things as health care, housing and social services, it is very important to ensure that the aboriginal communities can build the capacity within their communities so they can take care of these areas. That is not happening. As a result, we are setting up these communities for failure. That is absolutely immoral. They can never get out of this rut if they do not have the capacity to implement these things and make them operational.

I was very happy that the minister today spoke about the fact that he has asked Chief Clarence Louie, who is a success story with the Osoyoos Band, to teach other aboriginal communities what they can do to ensure that they have sustainable development in their communities.

Right now there is often a huge chasm between capabilities and resources and the desire to implement what it is they want. The difference between desire and the plans they want to implement and the capacity to implement those plans is quite broad. INAC must ensure that it actually engages with aboriginal communities to give them the capacity building that they desperately require.

Another few examples are in Esquimalt. We have the Esquimalt Nation as well as the Beecher Bay Nation in Beecher Bay in my riding. Both have fantastic leadership. Chief Russell Chipps is the head of Beecher Bay. They are trying very hard to build up their communities, but they hit a huge wall at INAC. Today the minister said that he will try to streamline the process. He will find cross-party support in enabling the Department of Indian Affairs to be more efficient at addressing and working with aboriginal communities to ensure that they have the tools and resources to do the job.

There is $9.2 billion spent through the Department of Indian Affairs every year. Tragically only a trickle of that money gets to the people who need it the most. There is a claim that $1.5 billion is spent on administration.

I do not know how we can account for the fact that the per capita income for aboriginal people in Canada is $13,500 a year. That means half the people earn more than that amount and half the people earn less than that amount. How on earth can someone survive in Canada on $13,500 a year? A person cannot. We have created in many ways a case of institutional penury. Part of the reason is that the institutional structures, as well-meaning as they have been, have been set up for failure.

As one first nations chief said, the reserve system was never meant to work. It says a lot when that comes from a first nations chief. It expresses the deep frustration of aboriginal leaders and aboriginal people across our country. The most heartbreaking thing to see is the lack of hope. There have been some extraordinary success stories. There are aboriginal communities that are doing a wonderful job, that are being incredibly dynamic and are working by their people for their people. They are showcases that ought to be held up for other communities across the country. However, there are other communities that we need to consider.

There are small communities in areas of our country where there is no hope whatsoever of developing a sustainable environment. The people who live there must have the opportunity to ensure that their children are educated, that they as adults have the skill sets, so that they can go wherever they want to for periods of time to work at a job and generate the funds that they require. It is hard to be part of a 21st century economy when people's skill sets do not match. It is hard to be part of that economy if three-quarters of the children are not going to graduate from high school.

One of the great challenges that I have seen in too many cases is that the children have to travel vast distances, sometimes three hours a day, to attend school. How can children participate in the extracurricular activities, study and do their homework when they get home if they are travelling three hours a day? The children on the Pacheedaht reserve have to travel three hours a day to and from school. It is no wonder that the dropout rate there is astronomical. If we were living in the same conditions, the same thing would happen. We would not have the endurance needed to travel three hours a day to and from school and be able to think when we got home.

There is the other issue about nutrition. As a physician, often I have seen that the ability to access nutritional food is very limited. The costs are prohibitive. Again, I go back to the fact that half of first nations people in Canada earn less than $13,500 a year. How can they afford to buy the fruit and vegetables and meat that is required for a balanced diet? As a result, we see malnutrition and terrible health conditions in some of the more remote communities.

I also want to deal with the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. It is in epidemic proportions among aboriginal people on and off reserve. It is the leading cause of preventable brain damage from birth in Canada. It is something that has received short shrift. More than half of the people in jail have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. The average IQ is 70. The tragedy is that this is an entirely preventable problem.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading preventable cause of brain damage at birth and we need more than just posters on clinic walls. We need a series of engagements through our medical community.

I want to propose something that was in a private member's bill that was quite controversial but received two responses. One response was from those who deal with rights issues and they said that I was violating women's rights. The other was from those who took care of children with fetal alcohol syndrome and they said, “Thank God you have done this. Thank you for bringing this bill forward”.

The bill said that if a woman was pregnant, had chosen to take her fetus to term, was willingly and knowingly taking substances that were injurious to the fetus and had refused all help, two physicians could actually put that woman, against her will, into a medical facility for treatment. I know it is harsh but I have dealt with this clinically.

I have had 15-year-olds tell me to take a hike when I have begged and pleaded with them to take the treatment I was offering while they were pregnant. When I asked one 15-year-old patient what she would do if her baby had fetal alcohol syndrome, she responded by saying that if it were cute, she would keep it, but if it were not, she would give it up. That is the reality. That is the harsh situation on the ground. While nobody wants to trample on anybody's rights, it is fundamentally important, I would suggest, that we take a pragmatic approach to this.

We have the same parallel for adults. Two physicians can put people in treatment in a hospital against their will if they are a danger to themselves, to other people or are unable to take care of themselves. If a person meets those criteria, physicians in Canada can sign a legal form and put those individuals in a treatment facility against their wishes. Why do we not apply the same thing for a pregnant woman who deserve all the sympathy and compassion that we deserve?

The hard, cold fact of the matter is that a child does not deserve to be born with an IQ of 70 if that baby boy or girl can have a chance of being born with a normal IQ. Life is tough enough as it stands to have a normal IQ and be able to navigate the shoals of life as they come toward us. Is it not cruel to saddle a child with irreversible brain damage, damage that never had to occur, and committing him or her to a life that can truly be horrific?

I know that is controversial and difficult but it may be something that the government might want to propose in the House. We should have that debate and bring fetal alcohol syndrome to the forefront. We should try to find the best minds in our country and the best ideas internationally and apply them to this hidden crisis.

Fetal alcohol syndrome affects many people but is largely unknown because fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects in someone is not immediately evident to anybody else. They do not come with a stamp on their foreheads that say they have FAS or FAE. The signs are subtle and often clinically difficult to pick up but the impact upon the lives of those people is so profound, so significant and have so many negative implications that I cannot overstate the matter.

I was a correctional officer years ago and all one needs to do is go to the jails and speak to psychologists to see the number of people incarcerated who have this. The proof in the pudding is that the chances of an aboriginal male being incarcerated is 11 times higher than an non-aboriginal male. Another shocker is that the chances of an aboriginal female going to jail are a staggering 250 times greater than that of a non-aboriginal woman. Can anyone imagine that? That is a social catastrophe.

I think the government would find a willingness from all parts of the House to work with the best minds, the aboriginal communities, the aboriginal leaders and those in first nations communities who know and have solutions that will address these pressing social problems. I would plead with the government to do that as soon as possible.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I met with about 25 first nations students who were doing their post-secondary studies. I talked with them about some of the issues they had faced in getting there. Some of the issues were very similar to many other Canadian students, such as the financial burden of a huge student debt. However, they did mention something very specific, which was the need for a model through a mentorship program that many of them were exposed to.

It is interesting that many of the students who spoke with me were themselves mentoring their younger brothers, sisters or cousins. Most of the students told me that the program needed more resources. In many cases, they felt overwhelmed by the issues that they were asked to deal with through the mentorship program.

One of the recommendations that the human resources committee made through the employability study that we were conducting over the past couple of years was to build that capacity through mentorship programs. I am wondering if the hon. member would comment on how that kind of mentorship could be expanded and improved with the understanding that he brings to these issues. How can we support those young people who are themselves now in a position to provide mentorship to their brothers and sisters?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Victoria has a lot of interest and knowledge in social issues and works very hard on these issues back home and across the country.

Her comments are well taken. As I mentioned earlier, the Native Women's Association of Canada expressed the very concern that the member from Victoria is expressing, which is that there are not enough resources at the grassroots levels to do these incredible initiatives that are coming up by aboriginal people for aboriginal people.

What INAC needs to do is to facilitate the resources and get on the ground to support those grassroots NGOs and grassroots initiatives that can accomplish just that.

Earlier today, in questions and comments on a previous bill dealing with first nations issues, the minister said that, on the economic side, he was trying to do that with respect to economic development. Maybe what we need to do is identify some best practices in aboriginal communities across the country and share those best practices across the land so that a mentoring program that is working well in British Columbia can be shared with a mentoring program for communities in Ontario, Newfoundland and other parts of our country.

It is critically important that this happens. I have always been a fan of where, in this case, first nations community groups that are doing some extraordinary work, that those jewels, those areas of success should be shared and that those people who are doing the work should have the resources to go across the country and share their expertise with other communities.

I think that would be something that the minister and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs should champion forthwith.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine remarks on Bill C-47 and for outlining the realities faced by many native people across this country.

The bill is entitled, “An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves”.

We have said in this House that we support the intent of the bill going to the committee because there are some issues that are valuable in the bill and it does deals with some of the concerns that have arisen since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling which basically stated that the courts could not apply provincial-territorial family law because reserve lands fall under federal jurisdictions.

At the same time, even though we support the intent of the bill and we understand that there are incredible matters of human rights and rights of women and children living on reserves that need to be addressed, I take note, and my hon. colleague has already stated that he takes note as well, that the Native Women's Association of Canada, in its March 4 press release, stated:

There is nothing in the legislation that addresses the systemic issues of violence many women face that lead to the dissolution of marriages nor is there any money available for implementation. In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

That was said by Bev Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. She criticizes the legislation because it fails to address some of these issues.

As I said, I support the intent of the legislation and there is some value to studying the legislation, but it is somewhat inadequate in addressing all those realities and all those issues.

Perhaps my hon. colleague could answer some of those questions that were raised.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Davenport has been an ardent worker on an array of social issues in his riding of Davenport, as well as across the country.

The cruel aspect of this bill and something that absolutely needs to be addressed in committee is what to do with the acute housing shortage that exists. If a family breaks up, the woman and the children need to go somewhere but the question is, where. Because of the toxic situation of homes on reserves, the lack of absolute numbers and the lack of quality, this poses an extraordinary problem, a problem that has not been addressed and which can be brought to light through this bill and, in so doing, would enable us, I hope, to get the best ideas possible to deal with the housing situation.

I know the minister raised a very good concern, one he and other aboriginal leaders across the country have, which is where the moneys that are going in are going.

Also, however, there is a lack of resources going into housing and the housing that is built is often not of the quality it should be. Some of the unscrupulous individuals who are building substandard housing in Canada should, frankly, be put through the court system and tried for fraud because they are ripping off aboriginal communities and taking money away from those people who can least afford it. They are leaving them with horrific situations and horrific financial conditions that they cannot get out from under.

The third thing is that where housing is being built, there should be a mandatory provision for capacity building within first nations communities. There should be an obligation on a contractor who is doing work in the community to build capacity within and among the aboriginal members of that community. I think that would go a long way to addressing some of the conditions we see and building up the long term capacity that is desperately needed in first nations communities.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear the member opposite make a number of interventions on aboriginal issues. He did speak to the bill, as well, but he raised a number of other issues which I agree do exist within first nations throughout our country.

However, it seemed that he was also latching on to an argument that has been posed by other members, that, in light of the fact there are these other issues that do exist, perhaps that should be used as an argument against supporting this bill. I would like to ask him whether he is using that flawed logic as well.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as they say, carpe diem, seize the day.

This is an opportunity for us to use the bill, to seize the day, to deal with issues such as aboriginal housing, aboriginal health, access to education, governance structures, environmental conditions on and off reserve.

I say off reserve too, because we know a the large number of aboriginal people living off reserve are excluded. Frankly, they only receive about 3.5% of the moneys through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are left bereft, but their needs are as great as those living on reserve.

This is an opportunity for the government to seize the day, take initiatives, tap into the finest ideas of our land and deal with these issues now.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow the member, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He has used the phrase carpe diem. I want to use the phrase fidelitas in arduis, which is Latin for strength and determination in adversity.

My friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will be the only person in the House who knows what I am talking about. That is actually the motto of our high school. This past weekend he and I attended the 50th anniversary dinner for Neil McNeil High School in Toronto. This is not the subject of my intervention, but I wanted to mention that.

We are dealing with a statute that will be making a major change in the legislative foundation law that governs our first nations. While one can see the reason why the House and the government are dealing with the legislation, one also has to acknowledge that we would rather, as a Parliament, not have to legislate for our first nations. The best of all possible worlds would be that our first nations would themselves be in a position continually to deal with the personal law matters of their members on their reserves.

Throughout the wide breadth of the country, that is in fact the case. The tribal councils on all the reserves handle pretty well most of the daily needs, legally, of the reserve, albeit under the infrastructure of the century old Indian Act, which they complain, and which most members of Parliament will agree, is a bit too old and decrepit as a statute to govern the modern circumstance.

Approximately eight or nine years ago, I recall three or four separate major pieces of legislation were proposed to the House, which were very controversial. While some of the first nations across the country supported those bills, many did not. Many also regarded those statutory proposals as unwarranted interventions by Parliament in the first nations sphere of activity.

The problem Parliament and government has is that government has a constitutional obligation to manage or oversee what is called Indian affairs. It also has the contractual obligations of treaties and has ongoing societal development issues on the reserves involving our first nations. It is very difficult to do that under the auspices of a statute that is 100 years old.

It needs to be modernized. Therefore, if we all agreed on that, I suppose we would then move into the phase of developing modern laws for our first nations, ones that they have wanted. The difficulty is that there is not one first nation. Our first nations are as diverse as the rest of the world is. Each reserve, each tribe, each grouping has local traditions and languages. Therefore, it is very difficult for one Parliament, one legislature, to somehow embrace the whole scope of first nations activity and social development and come up with one set of laws that will govern.

I wanted to get that on the record because any member who speaks in here on these statutes I am sure will want to recognize the complexity of this and why we feel that government is compelled to do this at this point in history. We want to try to do it as best we can, but realize that at the end of the day, we expect and want our first nations to step up to the plate, wherever they can, and manage these issues.

The statute under consideration deals with matrimonial breakup, matrimonial property, domestic breakup, domestic property and also what happens in an estate at the time of death.

Up to now each first nation may have its own way of handling these things. For those who do not or do not do it effectively, there is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A lot of the people working there now are first nations peoples, but over history most of them were not. This resulted in the unsatisfactory circumstance of an administration attempting to administer laws and impose rules and regulate affairs on our reserves, when they might have been hundreds and thousands of miles apart and divided by culture and by language, which was very unsatisfactory.

The proposed statute realizes the significant need among our first nations for some clarity, to fill voids in the law. Most Canadians know they have access to laws that govern the breakup of a marriage or govern an estate at the time of a death. This is not the case with every first nation because provincial laws do not govern first nations. I suppose individuals on a reserve could voluntarily subscribe to those laws if they wished to enter into settlements, but those laws do not bind our first nations. The deal that the white man cut with our first nations centuries ago and in treaties was that our first nations people manage those things themselves.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to be there for all Canadians. We are now finding that our legal infrastructure, in some cases, is not accessible by first nations on reserves. If the statute passes, I would like to think our first nations peoples will accept it as a reasonable attempt by Parliament, as a whole, to offer them a legal infrastructure that will allow for some regularization and to fill some of their needs.

There needs to be some consistency across the country and if not across the country, at least within a province. What happens in a family breakup on a reserve can be roughly consistent with what happens in a breakup elsewhere. If two people cannot solve the problem themselves, they have to go to a decision-maker. Who is the decision-maker? What rules will he or she use to decide on this? There has to be clarity and consistency. We have to fill the void. We are a country that thrives and relies on rule of law. We cannot have voids in our law and places in the country where there is the application of discretion, unregulated discretion, arbitrary decisions, or unfair decisions.

The best to expect would be that each couple involved, whether in a breakup or a death, would settle it without a dispute. That happens a percentage of the time, but a lot of the time it does not. We realize that.

Then the next best thing we could have is it could be settled on a first nation reserve, using the rules the first nation itself normally uses, rules that the first nations members themselves have embraced, accepted and are used to applying. That is probably a pretty good arrangement and one that would be consistent with our history and our rule of law, which includes the Constitution-based first nations entitlements.

However, we still may have the problem of inconsistency. If the rules on a particular reserve say that the chief makes the decision, the chief may make a decision that is conspicuously out of keeping with decisions made on other reserves or, for that matter, elsewhere in the province in question.

The statute deals with the family home and then with other matrimonial property. The matrimonial home is dealt with one way and that is how it is handled in most of our provinces, if not all now. The matrimonial property, the money, the heirlooms, the hand-me-downs, are handled separately from the family home.

The proposed law itself begins by setting out some basic definitions. While to the layman, they will read as a very complex thing, what it actually tries to do is encourage first nations to adopt their own rules and laws. If first nations do that, this proposed statute will enable them and assist them to do it. In so doing, it imposes a regime of verification, which is really Parliament's attempt to ensure that when the first nations develop these codification of laws governing these issues, that they are in the ballpark and compliant with our charter and with prevailing norms in terms of matrimonial settlements.

We all realize there has to be some flexibility. As much as in theory, a first nations chief might have the ability to pick between two sometime common law spouses. At the end of the day, it will not be fair if those decisions are made and are way out of keeping with prevailing legal norms. All citizens of Canada, including members of first nations, are entitled to the benefits of the charter, which includes rule of law, some certainly and fairness as to how their lives are sorted out when there is a dispute like this.

Clause 7 of the statute sets out a mechanism that allows for the first nations to write some of their own laws and rules. It is noteworthy that in so doing, Parliament in this statute so far, and I have not sensed a will to change it, has decided that the delegation of that ability to make rules, which from a Canadian statutory point, is a delegation to the first nation. However, under first nations perspective, they might not see it as a delegation at all. First nations might say, no, that it is their right to make these laws, that we cannot delegate anything to them that they do not already have the right to do as first nations because the white man and the Queen said that they could do it that way 100 or 150 years ago, or whenever it was.

In the statutes it is described as a kind of a delegation of law making authority, but it also says that this delegation of law making authority is not a statutory instrument. It is not a statutory instrument that would fall under the normal delegation of rule making powers that we often use around here.

If Parliament delegates the authority to a minister to make regulations, those regulations are scrutinized by Parliament and our courts of law. In this statute, when we delegate our way to the first nations, those are not statutory instruments and they will not be scrutinized or treated as statutory instruments.

My own tendency, as a legislator, is to say no, we better not delegate anything without the ability to scrutinize and check it. At the end of the day, out of respect for our first nations, we do this. We say they have the rule making authority and we are not going to oversee and scrutinize it like we do all of our other legislation. We respect their right and need to make those rules and laws. We will help them do it with the verification process, but we are not going to interpose and tell them how to do everything and scrutinize the way we do our other laws.

I want to reference an existing problem included in this. Most members will not be aware that there have been two reports presented to this House from the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations that reported to the House serious problems with the Indian estates regulations.

As l pointed out, this bill covers the breakdown of a marriage in death, but what happens to the property? Prior to this, under the Indian Act, the government had already encountered problems in dealing with matrimonial property and general property on the death of a first nations member. In most cases, it was pretty clear and members of the first nation knew exactly what was to happen when the individual passed away. But in the modern world with all the changes going on things began to go a bit askew.

I will give an example where a male would get married and maybe the marriage would last for a couple of years and then he would take a common-law wife after that. Perhaps he and the common-law spouse would live together for 20 years and the old marriage was way in the past, but still in existence. Let us say the individual were to pass away. Who, in law, would the spouse be who would be entitled to take the property of the diseased male? And it can work the other way too. But it was very unclear, if the local chief or tribal council did not have that organized, and it was really complicated as to who was going to get the property.

Under the Indian Act, where there was some power to do this, the government decided to adopt regulations. The regulations permitted the minister to make the decision about which spouse and which set of kids inherited the property of the deceased first nations member. Wherever there was a big problem, it seemed to work except for one thing. The government actually never had the power in law to make those regulations.

So, those regulations have been impugned and while we have not struck them down, there are many decisions of ministers deciding to entitle group A and not group B, when group B may have actually had the legal entitlement. There are unresolved cases out there and I give credit to the aboriginal community and the people involved in those matters for acceding to the purported use of power by the Indian Act administration.

This act, unfortunately, does not resolve those regulations. We asked the government to include in this bill a provision that would settle and say that all those old decisions are legal and binding. The government did not take that advice. That provision is not included in here, so there are still some issues outstanding in theory.

Having put that on the record, I will stop there.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the remarks of my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. I can imagine that there are not that many aboriginal or first nations people in his riding as there are not in my riding either of Etobicoke North. I was quite impressed with his knowledge of the landscape of this particular bill.

I have been following the debate on the bill and I think it is a very important piece of legislation. I am surprised that a bill dealing with matrimonial interests and rights does not seem to have the support of aboriginal women in Canada nor does it seem to have the support of the Assembly of First Nations. I find that rather shocking and perhaps if the bill goes to committee there will be ways to improve and enhance the bill.

However, I am surprised that the Conservative government would table a bill that does not seem to even remotely have the support of some of the key stakeholders that would be involved.

I know that my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River is a very accomplished lawyer. I wonder if he could expand on some of the jurisdictional issues that he touched on and that I have become aware of in following this bill and the debate that is going on.

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court in 1986 ruled that when a conjugal relationship breaks down on reserve, the courts cannot apply provincial and territorial family law because reserve lands fall under federal jurisdiction. So, although on the face of it that seems fairly straightforward, I wonder if the member for Scarborough—Rouge River would speak about some of the constitutionalities of those issues.

These provisions, which I gather if this legislation would come into force, would be an interim measure and would be a bridging measure that would suffice until the various first nations communities brought in their own laws. Indeed, we have been moving toward self-governance among the aboriginal people of Canada.

Currently, how are these problems resolved in the absence of this legislative framework and how does he see it moving in transition from this legislation to a world where there is more self-governance within the aboriginal communities?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that while we might look upon this proposed statute as a bridge, allowing time for aboriginal communities or first nations communities to actually enact the rules they want in their various communities, it is probably a fact that they will not all get around to it over time. In the absence of really clear, enforceable rules among the first nations, we have problems of lack of clarity and inconsistency, and we have charter problems.

I like what the bill offers in terms of saying to first nations, “Take this and run with it and we will help you do it”. However, for those who never get around to it, the provisions in the bill will govern. I can understand why aboriginal women's groups might be cautious about this. In a sense I am guessing because I have not met with any in the last little while.

However, if there is an aboriginal female on reserve and she looks at the tribal council and she looks at all the guys running the show, she might not feel that comfortable having these guys make up a bunch of rules. A lot of the women might prefer the legislative template and infrastructure that exists in the provinces.

However, women do not have access to those. Also, provincial legislation and federal legislation is not in any way nuanced to deal with the circumstances of the first nations women. They have their own history and culture.

This law has been developed, using current existing legislative norms and matrimonial law norms from across the country. Those women may say that it is great for us in urban Canada, but they have their own thing. This bill does not hit the nail on the head and they need more time, or something. I have respect for that.

On the constitutional side, we are making the best of a very complex basket weave situation here where the provinces just do not, because of our constitutional history, have any jurisdiction involving these matters on reserves. It might be a lot simpler if they did, but if that were to be the case, we would have to have the first nations on the reserve fully plugged into an accountable legislature, and electing people to the legislature. We just have not developed that yet.

I am not sure what the first nations want in that regard, but I sure do not want to propose something that they do not want. What they have now is what they have, and I would like to have members of Parliament work with them and help them develop what they want. However, in the interim, we have this one size fits all with an opt out for first nations who want to customize their own lives in this regard.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major criticisms that the first nations have, and the women's groups in particular, has been that there is no provision in the legislation for funding for the transition that will be required. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that and whether his party would be prepared to oppose the bill until we see that kind of relationship established.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is really a cogent question. I cannot speak for my party, but most of us could endorse a concept of federal assistance with funding to assist the first nations to develop.

I do not think we would put an actual amount in the bill, and if we do not put an actual amount in the bill, then we would have the question of how much and then it is sort of left with the government. I do not think I would want to oppose a provision in the bill that put on the government a statutory obligation in some fashion, either firm or flexible or something in between, to assist financially in the development of the transition as requested by the first nations women.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think the next speaker on the list might be interested in the answer to this too. I would like to ask the member if he thinks the government supports this bill. As of this afternoon, we have had a whole day of debate and the government has not had a member speak on the bill. The minister of course supports it as it is his bill. He introduced it.

However, every problem has raised a number of issues. The normal procedure would be that the government would say, “Yes, but here is the answer to those issues, and yes, we still support the bill”. We have no indication of that at this moment. I would like the member to comment on the policy making process.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spotted what might be interpreted as an apparent lack of interest on the part of the government in passing the bill, but there was a time when the member and I sat on that side of the House, on the government side, and there are occasions when a government believes the bill is perfect in every way and does not believe it is necessary to put up members to speak and delay the passage of the bill.

The opposition often takes a slightly different perspective on it and, for all kinds of reasons, wants to make constructive comment on the bill. I have tried to do that here today. I know the next speaker will do the same.

I should point out that earlier today we actually did get another bill passed in this same first nations envelope, so the government is probably feeling fairly good about that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-47, the act respecting family homes situated on first nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

Some people who were speaking to this yesterday brought a lot of dimension to the very difficult situation that exists on first nations reserves. This legislation is necessary because at the moment there is no legislation to which people can turn when there is a need for matrimonial real property laws. This is also an issue of human rights for women and children who live on reserve. Really, it is a human rights issue for the families.

The Liberal Party is certainly a great supporter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we do support this measure to extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations. While the Liberal opposition supports the intent of the bill, we do not support the unilateral process taken by the federal government to introduce this piece of legislation.

I am going to speak more on matters of governance and capacity building, also in support of why we would like the federal Conservative government to listen to the people and take the road of real partnership and consultation. What we have been trying to say for the last two years as members of the aboriginal community, members of the aboriginal affairs committee and our party is that if we want to see real solutions in our aboriginal communities, there has to be real partnership and collaboration, and that they not be token gestures.

For me, real partnership is going to be based on respect, collaboration, courtesy and compromise. The negotiations would be on the level of diplomacy that I think most of our communities are very good at. All our aboriginal communities are interested in seeing their communities move forward to being healthier and safer for everyone who lives in those communities, whether they are on reserve or off reserve. These are our homes, our lands and areas of great historical connection. These are communities in which we are going to continue to live.

Of course we want to look for solutions that will see healthier communities able to take care of their own and offer solutions. In order to take steps that will move our communities forward, we need to also look at the governance issues. We need to give people an opportunity to be part of the solution, and to offer solutions to issues that are coming before us, in particular for reserves that have been under the rule of a 130-year-old law, the Indian Act.

We know that none of the solutions is going to be quick. History has a way of coming back and making it very difficult for our people to move forward, especially with people who have lived under the Indian Act.

We were reassured when the government came into power and sought the advice of the aboriginal community, especially by appointing Wendy Grant-John to engage in consultations with the people. NWAC was involved. The aboriginal communities were involved. She came back with a report that many people were comfortable with as the basis from which some legislation would come forth. I am sad to say that none of that seems to have made it into Bill C-47.

NWAC and the AFN have put out press releases giving their opinions on Bill C-47, and they have not been complimentary. They feel that all the work they did in helping with the consultation was not taken into consideration. The communities feel that they have been let down. As with the specific claims process, there was praise given to the government for allowing them to be part of the decision making and working with them to produce the act.

We all know that any legislation that comes to this House will not have the support of each and every person out there. However, as a government and having been in government, we feel that we can move forward with a piece of legislation when many people acknowledge that it is a work of collaboration and good consultation. People feel it is one which they can live with and support, given that they will be given a chance to report on it in three to five years, depending on what is in the legislation and that there will be some opportunity to make some improvements to it. Once there is that kind of feedback from the people who are going to be impacted by the legislation, then we know that there is an opportunity that the legislation will actually be implemented and supported by the communities. However, that is not the case with Bill C-47.

I remember when we worked on the First Nations Land Management Act, some bands were quite skeptical that another piece of legislation was dealing with a tiny piece of the Indian Act instead of an overall deletion of the Indian Act.

I have been a member of Parliament for almost 11 years now, and I am proud to say that I am probably the only member of Parliament who has stayed on one committee for the whole term. I have the good fortune of being able to remember how many pieces of legislation have gone through our committee and the number of witnesses that we have heard from all over on the different pieces of legislation that have come before our committee.

When the First Nations Land Management Act came in, there was some skepticism, but after it was implemented and people started to see the benefits for their own bands, they were very open to trying it out. It was voluntary, but more people were applying to go into that regime than the act was capable of taking on. If we do that type of work with the communities and try to help them in their capacity building and in their own governance, I think we will see more success with legislation being put forth that concerns aboriginal people in this country. Because there was cooperation and less conflict, people were open to suggestions. That is what we want to see with legislation that comes forth. We want people to feel that they can contribute, try something out and see whether it will work for their communities.

We do not want to see intimidation. We do not want to see heavy-handed approaches, which is how a lot of decisions were made in the past, especially in the 1960s and even before that, where someone in Ottawa made decisions and told the community what would have to be done. We had no say in any of that. It does not produce good governance or cooperation from the people. It alienates everyone who might have wanted to cooperate to make his or her community a better place to live.

I am sure most Canadians know now that most of the land in our communities are communally owned. I know we are not bound by the Indian Act in Nunavut, but our land is community owned. We have to always take this into consideration when we make any legislation that deals with how one disposes of property, homes or, in this case, matrimonial real property.

Because of these special situations, we need to have an understanding of what solutions will work. This is why it is so important to have the members of a community behind any legislation that will affect their lives.

We know violence affects many homes, whether they are aboriginal communities or not. Unless we have programs to help people, we will not see a lessening of that. Having strictly legal measures to deal with this issue is not the answer. There has to be non-legislative measures also alongside legal measures. That was a very strong point put forth by NWAC, the National Women's Association of Canada. Not only do we need the legal measures and the law that people can go to for assistance, but we also need the measures in the community that will help women usually and children in these cases.

As I said, when I started this debate, we very much support seeing legislation that will help these communities, but how we go about it is fundamental in whether it will be accepted and implemented to the extent that it could help people more if there were more collaboration with the community.

We live in a day and age now where we want to solve more conflicts in the world peacefully and by involving the very people who are in the conflict. We cannot just go in, take over and decide this is the way things should be done. That certainly does not exclude our aboriginal communities. This is what we want to see. We are not saying that there should not be legislation to help families, especially the women and children, but we want to do it in a way that will work.

We are beyond the days of someone saying that they know best how to deal with our communities. It is very sad that we cannot take an opportunity like this to work with the people and have them help Parliament to address the very issues that sometimes end up putting a lot of children in care and our aboriginal people in jail. I do not think families get a real chance to stay together and work things out.

When these children go into care, or some other facility, or jail, it creates another breakdown where one loses their language or their culture, and it is very difficult to heal from that. We cannot keep inflicting damages on communities when we are still trying to recover from mistakes made in the past, such as residential schools, community relocations, people who lost their status and were reinstated, but with no resources for a smooth implementation. We cannot expect communities to move forward in a healthy and safe way when they do not have the capacity to deal with other social situations.

If we do not take into consideration the fact that we have to give the bands the ability to work together with different levels of government, then surely the legislation will fail in the key point, and that is to help women and children live safer and healthier lives.

We all want that. I do not think anyone here will argue that we all have the same goal, but it is how we do it. I cannot emphasize enough that we have to do things the right way with collaboration from the people, with solutions from grassroots. Surely we should know by now that the way we have done things in the past does not work.

I want to see the legislation in committee so we can hear from different witnesses, good experts in this matter, and hopefully see amendments that will improve it.

Committee work is all about that. It is about trying to improve the legislation that comes before us. In the past at committee our experience has shown that the government takes these as attacks, not opportunities to improve legislation. As parliamentarians, our job, as we sit in these chairs inside this chamber, is to provide the best laws and policies we can for our country, to improve it and make it a better country.

Canada is the best country in the world to live. I have seen that as I have travelled a few times internationally. We have a lot to offer, but we also have a lot to learn. The fact that we are open to different ideas and ways of doing things gives a lot of hope to Canadians. They have seen actual changes happen in committee as a result of our listening to witnesses.

We cannot please everyone and come up with the perfect piece of legislation, but at the end of the day, if we all work together, we can come up with legislation with which everyone can live. In a country as diverse as we are, to produce legislation that a lot of people can actually support is a great accomplishment.

I look forward to seeing the legislation in committee. I look forward to hearing from different witnesses. Hopefully we can improve it and make it legislation that communities will be proud to implement.

All those bands will welcome the opportunity to have this type of legislation to work with on their reserves. I do not think we will hear people say that they do not support some kind of legislation, or some kind of rule, or tools or capacity building that will make their reserves healthier and safer communities for their women and children.

When the legislation goes to committee, I strongly urge the government to be open to witnesses and to amendments. No one is arguing that this is not the time for the legislation. It is how we do it, how we implement it and whether we put the resources with it to ensure the communities can work with it in a positive way.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member for Nunavut in this regard as she has a long career of advocating on behalf of first nations, Inuit and Métis people throughout Canada.

I would like to explore a few of her comments. She indicated that, as a government, we had not included any of the ministerial representative's recommendations in the bill. In fact, a number were incorporated in the bill, including providing basic protections for individual residents on reserves during and after the breakdown of a conjugal relationship, balancing individual rights with collective rights, including the opportunity for first nations to exercise their law-making responsibility in this area, as well as providing for an initiative that will bring about a centre of excellence.

The member comes from a territory within Canada, where individuals have full access to matrimonial real property, as do I, as a Métis citizen from Winnipeg. The people of my community in Manitoba, who live off reserve, have this opportunity. It is something I know she believes needs to be extended.

In light of the fact that the bill provides first nations with the opportunity to develop their own codes on this matter, does the member not believe this is basically the ultimate opportunity to opt out of what we provide as legislation should a first nation believe it needs additional requirements within its code? Does she not see that as a great reason to support the bill?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that maybe I should not have said “any”. However, the overall feedback we are getting from the communities that are going to be affected is the government is being selective in the points it is putting into the legislation. One of the comments is the legislation does not recognize first nations governments, which is fundamental. If we are going to recognize and give credence to the bands as the law-making, or the band having the power to make rules and laws for their reserves, then I go back to my first statement of doing token measures.

If we are not going to recognize people as having the jurisdiction to make changes in their community, then we are only going halfway. The way the bill is written, they feel this could intrude on their jurisdiction and law-making practices. There is no planned transition period and support for first nations capacity building and development. If we are to give them the ability to make their own codes, then we have to give them the resources to do the research, to be able to implement them properly. It is fine and dandy to say to people that they can do a certain thing, but not give them the capacity to do it, or to have the people know what their rights are. If they do not know their rights, they will not exercise them.

If we give the law-making ability to make their own codes, and I know some of the land claims agreements have their own codes but they built into them the capacity and the resources with that, then we can work with the first nations to produce those codes. However, they need the money to research them. They need the money to consult with the people as to what those codes are. I know some of those codes are even higher than some of the provincial legislation, so it has been done. It is not like we have to reinvent the wheel.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague serves the largest riding in Canada and serves with distinction. Anywhere in her riding is a long way from Ottawa.

Some of the points that she just made have a direct impact on my riding. In her riding, she must fly everywhere. I represent 21 first nations in northern Ontario and I must fly to them all the time. Roughly one-quarter of all the fly-ins in Canada I serve in the Kenora riding.

One of the things she talked about just recently was the capacity. Even the most sophisticated urban reserves that have communities on them have resources or have access to resources. When we get to the remote sites that she serves and that I serve in northern Ontario, those challenges can be escalated. They do not have any resources and they have no information. They know nothing or very little of what is going to happen. We can feel the apprehension in these communities when we travel to them.

I would suggest that the hardest areas to serve are the remote sites, the fly-in sites, because the resources are not there. Unless they are specifically identified, these people will not have the opportunity to participate or to have the information and they will not be able to move this issue forward in any way. I think they will be afraid of this legislation.

I would like to hear her thoughts on those comments on the remote sites.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. In this country we expect a certain level of services, whether it be in education, health, corrections or legal aid. We all have the expectation that every Canadian has access to services but in some of the smaller communities, such as those in his riding and in mine where there could be only 300 people, they do not have the services in that community to meet the needs of the people.

In many of those cases, the women and children are flown out, usually to a southern municipality, away from their home, their school and their work, in order to deal with a marriage breakdown. That is a reality.

We need to have an understanding of the special needs that are going to be inflicted on these small communities. Unless they are given the resources and the capacity building, it will be very difficult to offer any services that are required by this legislation.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Liberal Party colleague for her presentation on Bill C-47. She is obviously well versed on this subject given that she has sat on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for a number of years.

I would also like to point out that she was part of the previous government when an agreement was made with first nations stating that each time legislation concerned them and could change their way of life, the government had to consult them.

In this regard, be it with Bills C-44, C-21, C-30 or C-47, is the current government consulting and respecting this agreement?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, that topic of the duty to consult is an area that every government needs to take to heart. If the people feel that they were not part of the decision making, the policy making and the drafting of legislation, it will be very difficult for any government, no matter which party is in government, to get full cooperation on implementing a piece of legislation if the people feel they were not part of it. One of the key points to introducing any legislation is that there must be proper consultation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Manufacturing Industry.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has the floor.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the current context of Bill C-47, we know that laws currently exist in Quebec and the provinces and territories of Canada on matrimonial property that recognize the general principle of equality between spouses. These laws govern spousal rights during the marriage and in the case of marital breakdown. They help define the personal and real matrimonial property of the spouses. They also allow for a system of mandatory rights and protections when it comes to matrimonial property and, in the event of a marital breakdown, the establishment of legal presumption in the equal division of matrimonial property. The laws also include various protection measures for each spouse, for example, in the case of the sale of the family home, where the signature of both spouses would be required.

Nonetheless, between Quebec and the provinces and territories of Canada, there are a few differences when it comes to common law relationships, same sex relationships, rights in the event of the death of a spouse and issues involving family violence.

These laws also apply to first nations spouses off reserve, but do not apply in the same way to people living on reserves administered by the Indian Act, mainly in terms of matrimonial real property, cases of family violence and marital breakdown.

The Indian Act provides for a land management regime that includes a system for making individual allotments of reserve lands to members of the band for whom the reserve has been set aside, but it is silent on the question of matrimonial property interests. It does not provide for a law-making power on the part of first nations in regard to matrimonial property, real or personal.

Bill C-47 concerns family homes situated on first nations reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves. It seeks to close the existing legal gap to ensure respect for basic and matrimonial rights and to offer recourse during a conjugal relationship, when that relationship breaks down or on the death of a spouse.

Basically, the bill seeks to balance individual and collective rights, to clarify the inalienability of reserve lands, and to provide greater certainty to spouses and common-law partners on reserves with respect to family homes and other matrimonial interests or rights.

Bill C-47 would set out provisional federal rules as well as provisions for the enactment of first nation laws. The federal rules would be a provisional measure, but would account for the reality that some first nations may not develop their own laws to address matrimonial interests or rights. The bill would enable communities to develop their own laws. Each first nation would be subject to the provisional federal rules set out in the bill until they adopt their own laws, with the exception of those that already have laws about matrimonial real property.

The proposed bill would be subject to the Charter. It would also be subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act insofar as its provisions fall within the scope of that act.

Not all off-reserve matrimonial real property remedies can be replicated on reserves. Given the collective nature of the reserve land regime, land on reserves cannot be owned outright, and the rights to possession differ between band members and non-members. For greater accuracy, the proposed act therefore refers to “interests or rights regarding family homes on reserves and other matrimonial interests or rights,” rather than “matrimonial real property” which, off reserves, refers to both land and structures.

The bill also proposes some provisions related to separation due to family violence.

I think all my colleagues here will agree that despite all the work that went into this bill, the government has still displayed a vindictive and know-it-all attitude when it once again failed to consult women or the Native Women's Association. Yet again, it managed to forget to resolve major flaws.

This week's visit from the president of the Quebec Native Women's Association, Ms. Gabriel, made this very clear.

The proposed act respecting family homes situated on first nations reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves would fix a major shortcoming in the current legislation.

Although the Bloc acknowledges this, and knows that we must act quickly, for the good of women and first nations communities, we think that the government has failed in its duties in some areas.

I would like to show my colleagues, here in this House, how the government did not fulfill its commitments. I would also like to explain what the Bloc Québécois proposes to fix the major shortcomings not only in this bill, but also in the entire process surrounding the bill.

To back up my comments about how the current government has not fulfilled its commitments in developing this bill, I would like to go back in time to discuss a political accord that was signed in 2005. As we all know, in order to get into power, the Conservatives ran a campaign based on demonstrating transparency and respecting commitments.

The past few months have shown us that this party does not seem to be any better than its predecessors. Allow me to quote some of its members: “It is our duty as elected members to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in us. We must demonstrate integrity and consistency in our decisions.”

The process leading up to Bill C-47 runs counter to an important agreement signed between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada in 2005. I will read an excerpt from this political accord of May 31, 2005, an accord we have been referring to since Bill C-44 was introduced in 2006:

No longer will [the government] develop policies first and discuss them with [the members of the first nations] later. This principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new relationship.

It also says:

The minister and the Assembly of First Nations commit to undertake discussions:

on processes to enhance the involvement of the Assembly of First Nations, mandated by the Chiefs in Assembly, in the development of federal policies which focus on, or have a significant specific impact on the First Nations—

The purpose of the accord was to enhance cooperation between the Assembly of First Nations and this government on the development of federal policies on first nations. Can someone please explain to me why that very Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, Quebec Native Women Inc. and the Native Women's Association of Canada are against this bill?

In the process of drafting this bill, it seems clear that an important aspect of communication was forgotten. We can all agree that in a discussion, two parties meet to share ideas. Consultations were indeed held with a whole host of groups representing first nations and with first nations women's groups, since this bill primarily concerns women.

However, it seems that if Indian and Northern Affairs Canada did indeed listen to the first nations representatives, it did not take into account or did not put enough stock in what they said. I do not think the government representatives acted in bad faith, but the spirit of the 2005 accord, where the cooperation and involvement of the first nations should have prevailed in the drafting of this bill, was not respected.

It would therefore make no sense to go ahead with second reading of this bill. That is why the Bloc is asking the House to refer Bill C-47 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development so that the committee can amend the bill to make it acceptable to first nations communities.

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the first nations have an inherent right to self-government, and it will ensure that that right is not undermined by the implementation of this bill. However, we also believe that such a bill can fill gaps in the current regulations while communities develop their own law on family homes.

Bill C-47 could be passed once it has been studied and amended by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, this time in collaboration with designated first nations representatives.

At this point, I would like to give some more concrete examples of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is asking that this bill be referred to committee.

Many of my colleagues are aware that the first nations are an integral part of the human landscape of my riding. I would therefore like to speak from my own experience with various nations.

One of the concerns that aboriginal women's groups have pertains to the lack of housing on reserves, because one of the provisions of this bill deals with obtaining accommodation after a conjugal relationship breaks down.

Having visited a number of aboriginal communities repeatedly, I can state that this concern is certainly justified. How many times have I seen whole families squeezed into cramped quarters? How many times has the message been hammered home to me, during meetings with chiefs, that the biggest challenge in communities is the lack of housing? I have lost count. In addition, in communities such as Eastmain, on James Bay, some families are living in buildings despite mould problems so severe that the buildings need to be reconstructed. When there is not enough housing, it becomes difficult to relocate families for any reason.

From my experience, I also wonder about another aspect of this bill. It establishes procedures, including referral to legal procedures that do not always take into account the cultural reality and the access that these communities—often isolated or impoverished—have to certain information and certain services. There is nothing in the bill regarding how the communities will be able to access information and legal services.

For the Bloc Québécois, it is crucial that these realities can be considered and these questions addressed. That is why we would like to know how the government plans to implement this, and how it intends to allocate funding to ensure that the people in question can benefit from the bill. I would also like to ask the government how much funding is earmarked for the communities in order to prepare for implementing the legislation. Finally, we would like the government to submit to the committee the studies concerning the impact of Bill C-47 on the communities as well as the measures that will be put in place to encourage communities to develop their own laws concerning matrimonial homes.

In closing, given the importance of the issue and the insecurity it causes for people living on reserves, the government must take action immediately. It must allow aboriginal people on reserves to exercise their matrimonial rights to and interests in structures and lands situated on reserves. It must ensure that all its actions and decisions comply with the recommendations of the main aboriginal organizations and those of the standing committees, while still honouring the political accord reached with the first nations in 2005.

I believe it would be possible to amend this bill and address the dissatisfaction expressed by aboriginal groups, for example, issues pertaining to the implementation of the action plan, available resources and access by women to legal processes. We undertake to work closely with the first nations and the government, whose actions will respect the 2005 agreement, in order to amend Bill C-30 and ensure that it is satisfactory. We will do the same for Bill C-47.

However, I must point out that the Bloc Québécois has questions about the government's plans for implementation of this bill. We also wonder about the funding that will be provided to the communities and about the introduction of measures to make the procedures accessible to the population, bearing in mind the information that must be provided to the population and the poverty and the geographic isolation, which could restrict the practical application of this bill.

To summarize, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-47 being sent to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to study the ins and outs and, above all, to hear the testimony of stakeholders.

But first, we wish to know the intentions of the government concerning the possible amendments to Bill C-47 that it would be willing to accept.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the member has attended a number of aboriginal affairs committee meetings and has provided considerable insight into the issues facing aboriginal Canadians throughout our country and in his own riding.

A few of my questions for him would be in relation to some of the matters he raised. One of the words he used in relation to us bringing forward this bill was the word “revenge”. I am hopeful that was just some sort of word lost in translation because that would never be a motive for our government. I just do not understand how that could come into the context of this discussion but I am sure he will perhaps illuminate us a little more on that.

However, I have a more specific question. He referenced consultation and how he felt that it was inadequate. We held over 109 consultation sessions throughout the country at 64 different locations. Many individuals came forward. How much adequate consultation does the member think a government, any government but, in our case, this government, needs to engage in before we can proceed with such an important bill to deliver matrimonial real property rights to first nations citizens and, of course, first nations women?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative Party colleague for his question. I did not say “revenge”; I said “vindictive”, which is a word used to describe someone who always makes the same mistake or insists on repeating it.

With respect to consultations, I am sure the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development talked about what constitutes consultation. Our position on this, a position shared by all opposition parties, is that the consultation should have been defined, as set out in the 2005 agreement, by the first nations' elected representatives and the government. In other words, the government should have worked with them to define what adequate consultation would be on various issues.

Had that been established from the very beginning, many problems and demands could have been eliminated that have been a waste of time for government members and all members of Parliament.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here to listen to the presentation by the member for Nunavut and I must say that she has been a champion on behalf of the interests of first nations, Inuit and Métis.

In a prior session of Parliament, on government Bill C-30 dealing with climate change, I can recall that there actually was a point of order raised with regard to the release of a draft bill to the public prior to it being tabled in the House. The government argued that the presentation of that draft bill to stakeholders, being environmental groups, et cetera, was necessary for full consultation to ensure there was an understanding and to ensure we had the best possible bill come forward.

I use that as a parallel, as with the urging of those who are participating in this debate, that there should have been broader consultation even before this bill came in. Now the members are arguing, very forcefully, that we need to have the input of the grassroots, as the member for Nunavut said, so that women and children can live safer and healthier lives, and that we need to do it the right way and we do need to consult fully.

However, I am concerned, and I do not know whether the member shares my concern, that the government has simply dismissed the requests and the urgings to have full consultations during the committee process and is urging members simply to pass the bill because it is a good bill. I do not agree with that approach and I wonder if the member has some comments to add.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I do not represent Nunavut. The member who spoke earlier might not want me to compete with her over her riding. My riding includes Nunavik, a region in Quebec. I would also address this remark to her colleague who spoke earlier.

I would like to repeat what I said at the outset. The government of the member who just asked the question signed an agreement with first nations in May 2005. That agreement was signed. The government made a solemn promise to consult elected representatives of the first nations before drafting any bill or introducing legislation that would change their lives or their culture.

Even so, the government persists in introducing legislation that violates that agreement. Even if the laws are good for them, this is an insulting way of going about it and gives them little option but to oppose the proposed legislation. This approach will not foster agreement or collaboration between first nations and Parliament or the government.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon to say a few words on this very complex issue. It involves a number of sub-issues and when we boil it all down, it is not simple.

First, I will support the legislation, when it comes for a vote, to send it to committee. There is some stakeholder opposition. I have read a lot of the points, the memos and the briefs that come in from different interest groups and I have tried to digest them as best I can. However, I will support the bill so it can go to committee, receive a full airing, have the refinements or improvements made and then come back to the House after the committee has deliberated on it.

We have a situation that has developed over the last number of years. We have a clash between what happens on reserves and what has changed substantially and considerably in Canadian society over the past 50 years. Sometimes that is not a bad thing, but in this case it cries out for redress.

My instincts, as a parliamentarian, are to proceed very carefully and cautiously, after much consultation with our aboriginal brothers and sisters, before we move on this issue. However, it is an issue that calls for a legislative solution, and hopefully it will be an interim legislative solution, but it is not an issue that we can ignore as parliamentarians. In my opinion, it is a basic matter of human rights for women and children living on reserves, an issue that cannot be ignored.

To frame the debate, it is interesting to consider the changes we have seen in society over the last 50 years. I started to practise law about 32 years ago. It was changing then, but let us go back a few years before that.

The basic rule of law was that a married woman, if there were separation or divorce, had very little in the way of rights. If individuals were not married, living common law, there were no rights. In most instances the title to the property, whether it be a farm or a home, was in the man's name. This concept has basically disappeared from the legal nomenclature, but there was an interest called dowry. A woman had a one-third life interest in the property and she had to sign off if the property was sold or mortgaged, but that right did not give her any one-half interest if there were a separation or divorce.

We can see how society has evolved and changed over the last 50 years. It was not transformative. It came gradually. We had certain provinces enact family property laws. They were debated, interpreted and changed. We came forward with no fault divorce legislation, where situations, like adultery, did not have to be proven, the best interest of the children became a concept in our matrimonial law. Looking back, from May 14, these are concepts that most Canadians would accept as basic human rights.

Then there is the situation that exists on aboriginal reserves right now. This goes back to a 1986 court decision regarding a situation where a husband and wife, whether legally married or common law, separated. The court decided that the provincial court did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon that land because it was located on a federal reserve, which came within federal jurisdictional powers. It certainly left a very large legal vacuum where people were basically left with no rights. Provincial law did not apply.

Off reserve aboriginals did not face the same predicament as provincial law would apply in this case. If an off reserve couple lived in a city, town or rural area in Canada, outside of an established reserve, and there was a separation, the normal matrimonial laws in the province would apply.

There were a number of problems. The biggest legal vacuum was there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the problem. Then it was complicated further because of the fact that on most reserves the land is not owned by individuals. It is owned collectively by the reserve. However, the couple or individual would have a possessory interest in the property, which complicated it a little further.

Therefore, there was what I consider to be a tremendous vacuum in the law if a couple separated, especially if it dealt with domestic violence or a situation where the rights, safety or protection of children were involved. In particular cases, the judges were handcuffed. No temporary or permanent restraining order could be issued. The court could not entertain a partition for the sale of the property. There would be nothing to preclude one of the spouses from selling whatever possessory interest he or she had, or a mortgage on the same. Basically, there was a situation where the basic human rights of individuals were and could be violated, which cries out for a legislative solution.

It has been a very significant issue and it is one that has been before the House several times before. It has been a subject of the discussion in debate in at least three parliamentary committees and it has been discussed in the House. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, it does not have the total support of the stakeholders: the Assembly of First Nations, the office of the grand chief and the Native Women's Association of Canada. They all take the position that they are presently against the legislation.

I read their briefs in the preparation of my remarks. I think they are trying to broaden the scope of the whole argument that it does not go to the causes of the particular situation. It does not address situations like poverty, education, health or the lack of access to water. However, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to get at this issue.

There is no attempt, and one could argue it should, to deal with the larger issues, and I do not think anyone in the House or any Canadian would suggest that they should not receive attention from the government. The bill deals with a very specific instance. It should be dealt with and should not be delayed that much longer.

That is where I am coming from in my remarks. It is time to send this to a committee and get further input and dialogue from the major stakeholders dealing with this issue.

Going back to the briefs received from some of the aboriginal leadership, the suggestion is that it does not acknowledge the inherent treaty rights of first nations. This is should be acknowledged. However, this is interim legislation only. It acknowledges in the legislation that the first nations and the bands should take this on themselves. It provides a certain framework for them to do that. It provides a certain time for them to do that. I hope they will go ahead and do what is right and necessary, so the necessary governance is there, so the existing issue will not exist once the first nations develop their own provisions for dealing with this issue.

Again, this is an acknowledgement that they, their governments and their leadership should take on. I consider this to be interim legislation, but it will prime the pump and get the thing going. Hopefully, the various bands across the country will address the situation.

We must not forget that this court case was adjudicated upon in 1986. We are here 22 years after the fact and nothing has happened since then. Until that happens, this legislation will apply.

Again, I think all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, would like to see this happen, in the interim. If there were a situation where a legally married couple or a common law couple separated or divorced, that there would be an equal division of whatever matrimonial assets were in the family. However, no person would be allowed to sell or mortgage any interest in the title, whether possessory or real, in the property. If there were a situation dealing with domestic violence, where the rights and interests of the children could have been affected, this could be subject to either an interim or a permanent court order. At the same time, the bands would be notified of any of these proceedings. This is very important in the whole process.

Again, as I said in my earlier remarks, when I first looked at this issue, it was something with which I wanted to proceed with tremendous caution and with the greatest amount of consultation. However, it is an issue on which Parliament has to move. I hope we are not here in 22 years time talking about that issue.

When I read the briefs from some of the stakeholders, they wanted to tie in a lot of the non-legislative issues, such as poverty, housing, water, access to justice and governance issues, and I agree with what they have said. There is no greater stain on Canadian society than the present plight of our aboriginals.

When I look back, it is something that cries out for action from the government. I look back at the tremendous opportunity missed at the Kelowna accord. In that room we had all 10 provinces, the major aboriginal groups, the Government of Canada and all the major stakeholders ready to sign on the dotted line. I would not suggest that would be the solution to all the problems. However, it was a platform. It was a start. Perhaps it would not have ended the bickering that goes on or the blame and accusations that fly back and forth in here every day, but it would have started the dialogue. I had so much hope for the initiative and I was so disappointed when it did not continue.

Again, however, we have to deal with the present, not the past.

I should say that I chair the public accounts committee, and we are certainly not the solution to these problems at all, but every year and sometimes twice a year we get very unpleasant and troubling reports from the Auditor General of Canada about the plight of our aboriginal citizens presently on reserve. The second-last one was about the education system on reserves or aboriginal communities. It was a distressing and troubling report. The job is not getting done.

The report we received last week talked about aboriginal children in custodial care, about the lack of guidelines and, really, about the lack of care. It is really troubling. We are talking about kids who are from three to seven years of age and they are being treated like this by our system. Certainly it did not come in for a hearing yet, but it is just another troubling chapter that has come to the committee from the Auditor General of Canada.

We make recommendations, but it is the same thing in four or five years. The same department comes back and things are no better. It is such a frustrating experience to see this year in and year out. All I can say is that the present system does not appear to be working in the best interests of our aboriginal citizens.

In conclusion, I will be supporting the bill going to committee. I hope that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has a long look at it and gives it a full airing. This is the framework. I certainly hope that there will be amendments and changes made to the bill. I hope committee members do not ignore the inherent right of our aboriginal communities, our first nations, and certainly do not ignore section 25 of the Canadian Constitution, and I hope they will come back to the House with a final draft of the legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's input. I have looked at correspondence from some of the stakeholder groups. One of the things I noticed that was common to all of them in regard to their concerns was the lack of what they refer to as the “non-legislative measures addressing matrimonial real property”.

There also seems to be a significant concern about the consultative process, which has been a matter of discussion long before this bill came up. In fact, it has been discussed with regard to dealing with a broad range of issues related to the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis.

I wonder if the member could comment on how important it is to have those thorough consultations in advance of the preparation of legislation so that good faith is built up in the process to ensure that we do get good legislative measures as well as consideration of and dialogue on the non-legislative measures.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important point. I read the briefs from the stakeholders. In particular, the National Aboriginal Women's Association came forward and said that this bill does not take care of the causes: the domestic abuse, the poverty, the water and the lack of justice. They are quite right. I could not agree more.

The brief by the grand chief talks about the governance issue: the lack of consultation, the lack of respect for the inherent treaty rights and the lack of respect for the Constitution of Canada. Again, that is one issue, and I agree with it.

As I said in this chamber in my first sentence, this is an issue that I as a parliamentarian take on very cautiously. My instinct is to go very slowly and cautiously, but at the end of the day, because of this particular situation, it is an issue that Parliament has to proceed on. It is an interim matter. It provides a framework for the first nations and bands to come forward with their own laws and rules, acknowledging their own right to self-government.

However, until that is done, the overarching framework will apply. The member across talked about the consultation. He is quite correct that it is about good faith. There is a suggestion from some of the stakeholders that the necessary consultation has not taken place. Accepting their brief as being correct, then that consultation hopefully will take place at the committee stage. This is why it is so important for the committee to get hold of this, have extensive consultations with all the stakeholders and come back to this House with the legislation in its final form.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has talked a lot about how we know what legislation is before us now, but he has used the word “consultation” many times. He did touch on the Kelowna accord. One of the largest efforts in consultation put forward by any government was to bring the Kelowna accord to fruition. We have heard the false claims there never was such an agreement and that there is no signed document.

The fact is that people from across Canada worked on the Kelowna proposal. We had collaboration from all walks of life in Canada. It was going to be a hallmark piece of legislation, an agreement that was going to move the first nations forward. As my colleague said, it was the first step in really bringing them forward.

I am going to give the member the opportunity to make any other comments on what Kelowna would have done for the first nations of Canada and what it would have done for Canadian society to realize that we are going to walk together as we move forward.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting development in our political life. We had this situation and were able, with a lot of hard work and consultation, to get all the players together in a general framework agreement. All 10 provinces, the 3 territories, the Government of Canada and all the major aboriginal organizations were there in the room. They all signed on the dotted line.

I am not going to suggest that the agreement was going to be the answer or solution to all the problems. It would be a little naive of me to say that, but certainly in my life it was the first time that I was seeing a platform where all the parties were talking to each other. If we are not talking to each other at the same table, we probably are not going to get too far in trying to resolve certain situations. In this situation, all the parties were actually talking to each other.

There was a framework for education and one for infrastructure, but again, I am not going to suggest to this House that this was going to be the answer to all the problems facing our aboriginal citizens. It was not, but it certainly would have been a major step and a platform for other initiatives and other developments to go ahead. That was lost. It was basically thrown off the back of the truck. It disappeared. In hindsight, I think we lost a tremendous opportunity.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to participate in debate on Bill C-47, which is a proposal to deal with the long outstanding issue around matrimonial property rights on reserves.

All who have participated in the debate have acknowledged that there is a need to finally address a matter that has been left in the lurch since the 1985 Supreme Court decision which ruled that provincial laws regarding division of property after a marriage breakdown did not apply on reserve. That we agree on.

I do not think there is anybody in this chamber who disagrees with the fundamental principle at stake here and the need to advance legislation to fill the vacuum. We all recognize that there must be legislation to ensure proper division of property and assets upon a marriage breakdown, whether the people are living on reserve or off reserve.

That principle we support. The question today is this: does this legislation actually fill the bill? Does it respond adequately to the situation at hand?

I listened very carefully to the member for Charlottetown suggesting that it may not be perfect, but heck, we have to act on something, and it is so long overdue. We have to put in place an interim arrangement and this might be it, he suggests. We will go through committee and we will see, it is suggested, and this is only intended to deal with this one narrow piece so let us get on with it.

However, I cannot separate the whole question of equality of matrimonial property from the issue of equality in general. We cannot simply say that we will deal with one tiny piece and leave everything else in disarray or neglected. We cannot put a little bandage on a situation in the hope that we can stop the hemorrhaging.

I suppose it would not hurt to get the bill to committee so we can hear from the various informed players in our society today just how badly the bill meets the requirements, just how much off the mark it really is, and just how little the consultation that did happen was reflected in the bill itself.

I will read again for members the words of the minister responsible for the legislation, who said, as he did just yesterday, that “laws are much more likely to succeed when drafted with the input of the people who would be affected by them”. I agree. The problem with this bill is that the government chose to ignore the bulk of the evidence that was presented to it, as well as the majority of the suggestions that were made and that should have been included in the legislation.

Therefore, the government is masquerading today. It is pretending that it has consulted, that it has addressed the vast array of interests and concerns in this area, and that here all of it is in the bill.

That is far from the truth. We only have to look at some of the key players. Let us go right to the Assembly of First Nations, a broad governing body of the first nations in this country. Obviously it was consulted. The minister would like to pretend that its input was included in the bill, but that is not what Phil Fontaine says.

Phil Fontaine makes it very clear, in fact, that the consultation took place, but the suggestions that were made are not reflected in the bill. I want to quote from his letter of April 8, in which he says:

--the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty.

Where is all this input from the community that the Conservatives are talking about? There is something strangely amiss in this place when the minister stands in the House and says that this bill was based on what the aboriginal people wanted and yet those people who were consulted say it is not there.

The same is reflected in material produced for all members of Parliament from the Native Women's Association of Canada which wrote as recently as yesterday that the association held extensive meetings with aboriginal women across Canada to identify solutions to the complex issues comprising the matrimonial real property problem. NWAC believes that the voices of these aboriginal women and the solutions they develop must be respected and included in the government's approach. This has not happened. I hope members are listening. The Native Women's Association of Canada says that this has not happened. Instead, the government has turned the processes that preceded the introduction of this bill into a farce by failing to include the elements that aboriginal women identified as important to them.

I hope that the members on the government benches are not making disparaging remarks about the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations. I hope that they are listening to the fact that these voices, these well-established organizations, these reputable organizations in our country today, feel that their concerns are not reflected, are not included in this bill. That is important. It goes back to what the minister himself said yesterday, that the best legislation around is that which reflects the feelings of the people it affects.

If this bill does not do that, we have to change it. We cannot simply let it go on and say that this is it. We cannot do as the member for Charlottetown said, that this is an interim measure, we will have some consultations and then we will get on with it. No. We have to fix the problem. If we are going to send it to committee, we have to do it on a real basis, on a substantive basis, and the government has to indicate it is prepared to accept the amendments and changes that the groups want.

Clearly, we have touched a sore point. The members on the Conservative benches are starting to heckle. I guess I am getting under their skin. I hope so.

There is no point in trying to deal with an issue that is so important and which has been neglected for so long in a half-hearted way. We have to do it in a comprehensive way, with the voices of those people who are affected, who say that this legislation in fact still allows the minister to strike down first nations laws regarding matrimonial interests. This legislation neglects to consider the welfare of children. This legislation, which has been a priority for first nations women since 1985, however, puts the value or the importance, the priority of individual rights ahead of collective rights, which is so paramount to how we deal with issues pertaining to first nations communities on reserves.

We need to send it back. We need to rewrite the bill. If we do it at committee, great. There is no problem with that. However, we cannot also neglect the social and economic context in which we find ourselves today.

I know that others in this House have said that yes, they know about all those problems with housing, water, health, child welfare, suicide, but they cannot all be dealt with in this piece of legislation. Then I ask, when can we deal with them? When will this government finally deal with the neglect in its own areas of jurisdiction, like child welfare on reserves? Why does it not act when there are independent reports such as Judge Guy's in Manitoba as a result of teenage suicides on reserves? Why does it not act after hearing from the Auditor General repeatedly, as we just heard this past week, about the situation with respect to aboriginal children and teenagers on reserves?

The evidence is in. There is a connection between neglect of people and worth of an individual, an entitlement to property when a family is in trouble or a marriage breaks down. There are connections to be made.

We all know that marriages sometimes break down because of socio-economic issues. Are we in this place not interested in trying to protect and preserve the family and the institution of marriage? Are we not interested in providing for equal access to property upon a dissolution of a marriage, which means looking at the inadequacy of the resources on the reserve in the first place?

What is the point of dividing up property and suggesting that one person in that marriage should leave the matrimonial home and find on the reserve another home that does not exist? What is the point in acting if we cannot find a way to deal with the violence against women which seems to be no longer on the government's agenda? What about the missing women and stolen sisters in this land? Did we not learn anything this past weekend when women marched in the streets of cities right across the country about the absence of programs to help missing women and to respond to situations facing women in domestic disputes?

In Winnipeg alone, women were marching the streets, responding to messages from people like Bev Jacobs of the Native Women's Association of Canada, from Gloria Enns, who is with the Dufferin Avenue women's drop-in, from Kim Pate, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and from Jackie Traverse, who is an artist and part of the whole movement to address the situation of missing women. Where is the government? Where is the response?

Is that not important in terms of matrimonial property and division of assets? Is it not important to look at the situation facing women and children?

As we speak, a campaign is being organized around the whole question of family violence in aboriginal communities. It is called the Awareness Campaign Against Family Violence. It flows from the recent documentation of the Auditor General and other reports showing in fact that the underfunding of services is an important issue when we are dealing with the issues before us today. They talk about the existence of a discriminatory bias that aboriginal families are undergoing whereby an alarming rate of children are apprehended to be placed in non-aboriginal families everywhere in this country. We learn that the quasi total amount allocated by the government in Ottawa for child care and family services is directed to child placements. Crumbs are allocated to prevention.

We cannot simply carve off a piece of the issues at hand and say we are going to fix this without even consulting or including the advice of those affected.

We have two problems with the bill that have to be fixed at committee. One, the bill on its own in terms of the division of matrimonial property on reserves is flawed. Two, the government's approach is flawed when it comes to dealing with the situation facing aboriginal people on reserves.

The government has failed to live up to the responsibilities under the Constitution for which it has responsibility. It is in dereliction of duty when it comes to responding to issues facing children and teenagers on reserves. It is in dereliction of duty when it comes to responding to violence facing women on reserves. The government has shown dereliction of duty in terms of its commitment to ensure proper health and social services for all people within its jurisdiction. There is no shortage of material to make this case.

Mr. Speaker, you will know that I have tried to seek consent from you to have an emergency debate on the question of adequate protection for aboriginal children on reserves. That flowed from the fact that the discrepancy between what the provincial government in Manitoba pays for children in welfare off reserve is so much richer, appropriate and responsible in comparison to the allocation of resources provided by the federal government for children on reserve, children in trouble on reserve, which is under the federal government's jurisdiction.

When will the government actually live up to its responsibilities and take seriously the needs of aboriginal people? That is the real question of the hour, because kids are dying. Suicides are happening every day. We only have to refer to what is happening in Shamattawa, Manitoba, and see the number of suicides that are mounting each and every day.

This is the opportunity when we can address the issues facing women, children and families on reserves, to give them the right to be treated as equal citizens in this country, to be given respect and to be treated with dignity and equality.

The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-47. In the debate on this bill yesterday, there were a number of very good points raised by the member for Nunavut.

This bill is an act respecting family homes situated on first nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

The debate has brought a lot of very important dimensions to the crisis that exists on first nations reserves. This legislation is necessary because there is no legislation now to which people can turn. These are the representations of the member for Nunavut, who has been one of the most stellar champions of aboriginal affairs, of first nations peoples, Métis and the Inuit. During her speech, she referred to a couple of stakeholder representations, which I want to review simply to provide a context as to why I have risen to speak.

The Native Women's Association of Canada expressed its views in a press release criticizing this legislation. It expressed its frustration with what it refers to as the government's unilateral action on the bill. The discussion has to do with legislative initiatives and unlegislated initiatives. It is the unlegislated initiatives part that is the source of some of the concern expressed by the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Bev Jacobs, the president of the NWAC, stated in her press release of March 4, 2008:

There is nothing in the legislation that addresses the systemic issues of violence many women face that lead to the dissolution of marriages nor is there any money available for implementation. In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

That is a very strong statement.

We just dealt with a report from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women relating to some of the issues, particularly with regard to the violence against many women and also some of the other areas, such as housing, poverty, governance, access to justice and general violence. It is very important to ensure that Canadians understand and our first nations also understand that we are sensitive to this. I have not seen that in regard to the representations of the government. As I listen to the questions asked by government members on Bill C-47, the government seems to be fairly dismissive. The attitude of the government is that we should just pass the bill, that it is a good bill and the government does not have to do anything else.

The government must listen to the stakeholders, those who are seeking some relief in dealing with a serious crisis within the first nations communities.

Also, there is a very significant letter dated April 8, 2008 from the office of the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine. When I read it, I was somewhat concerned about the allegations that were made in the letter. The position generally is that this bill is flawed in both process and substance and that while its assessment of the bill is not finalized, the Assembly of First Nations will want to make further representations. This letter is extremely important. It was very helpful to me in understanding the view of the stakeholders, and it does include the preliminary analysis of the Assembly of First Nations.

Even in the text of the letter, with regard to Bill C-47, Mr. Fontaine said:

While it was a positive and practical step forward to engage in dialogue with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Native Women's Association of Canada in the development of this legislation, the approach falls far short of First Nations' direction that the Crown should fully engage with First Nations in developing policy and legislation that affects First Nations.

The substantive foundation of the concerns that they have has to do with the consultation process. I recall that in her speech to the House, the member for Nunavut commented on that aspect. She said:

--if we want to see real solutions in our aboriginal communities, there has to be real partnership and collaboration, and that they not be token gestures.

The concern is if there is a perception of tokenism, of consultations which are going through the motions but which are not really sincere, it is a recipe for disagreement and maybe discontent. Parliament has a serious responsibility to consult with stakeholders regardless of which piece of legislation with which we are dealing. When we make laws, we are affecting people in one way or another and those people need to be heard.

According to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, it appears that has been a problem not only with regard to Bill C-47, but generally with regard to many of the issues that have come before Parliament.

Mr. Fontaine went on to say:

Furthermore, the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty.

I take this as a very serious alert for parliamentarians and for the government with regard to Bill C-47. We have to step up and take this a lot more seriously and determine whether or not there are appropriate steps to address these legitimate concerns that have been raised by Chief Fontaine.

He went on to say:

In regards to the process of engagement, the AFN has clearly stated, on numerous occasions, and in formal correspondence, the position of First Nations in this regard. In addition, the AFN and First Nations through the dialogue process, detailed alternative approaches and measures to address the issues arising in relation to matrimonial real property on reserve. Indeed, the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively.

He went on to say:

Unfortunately, the advice and direction of AFN and First Nations has not been heeded and I must point out that the First Nations assessment of the proposed legislation will likely be that it is unconstitutional in law and of no value to First Nations individuals or governments in practice.

When I read that it made me want to know more. I want to hear more. Should the bill go to committee for review, the questions that were raised in the consultation process and which apparently were not heeded by the government in proposing the legislation, need to be considered. We need to remediate that situation. We need to make sure that the stakeholders, regardless of their basis, are heard and that the issues raised are frontally and effectively addressed so that all understand. Regardless of which side one is on on a particular issue, there is always room for due respect for the opinions of others, but that does not seem to have been the case in this regard.

The bill contemplates an approach that will not provide any effective remedies for individuals seeking redress. That was the intent of the bill and is the intent of the bill. It is why the member for Nunavut, when she spoke before the House yesterday, made this argument over and over again. Yet when the parliamentary secretary rose on questions, he was dismissive of her question and made the assertion that the bill should be passed, that we should move forward because there were other things to do.

We have things to do. We have to get Bill C-47 right. The objectives of this place are to have full debate and to properly identify those issues which should be addressed.

The first nations wanted to articulate, as laid out in Chief Fontaine's letter, the principles that should guide the search for solutions and the standard upon which proposed solutions should be evaluated. He went on the list about a dozen. He lists strengthening first nations, families and communities, fairness, respect for traditional values, protection of aboriginal and treaty rights, no abrogation or derogation of first nations' collective rights, protection and preservation of first nations' land for future generations, recognition and implementation of first nations' jurisdiction and community based solutions.

I had the opportunity to be a member of the Standing Committee on Health when we dealt with aboriginal health issues. The committee travelled to a number of reserves to consult with stakeholders and to determine some of the non-legislative areas of which we should also be cognizant.

It was clear to me that there were substantive differences between reserves. Some are in much better shape than others. One thing I noticed was some of the fundamentals, like clean water and a sewage system, were not present.

There were a number of health issues in program areas. I remember I went into a modest community centre on one reserve. In the basement was a large lineup of people and I wanted to know why. I found out that people were lining up to buy cases of cigarettes for resale. However, next to that was the jail. It is hard for Canadians to understand the realities of the lives of first nations and the challenges they face.

As a consequence of that review, we found that the problems which existed on first nations reserves, which exist throughout Canadian society, were multiple times more in terms of severity as well as the occurrence levels, whether it be substance abuse, or domestic violence, or problems with children or social problems, et cetera. These are areas which Canadians demand that Parliament address in an appropriate fashion.

I thank Chief Fontaine for his letter of April 8 and the preliminary analysis. I will not go through this, but it is available and if members do not have a copy, I would be happy to provide it for them.

I want to comment generally on the bill. The Liberal Party supports the bill to go to committee. Like many bills where second reading occurs, we are often approached by stakeholders and constituents who suggest the bill should simply be defeated at second reading. This happened with regard to animal cruelty legislation. It is happening with regard to Bill C-51, which has to do with natural health products.

Canadians and all interested parties should understand that when a bill comes before the House at second reading, we have representations in an informal way from those who are interested parties. We have our own knowledge, some of our own research and some historic research.

What we do not have at second reading is the present assessment and the current input of the experts. We do not have the formal position of the stakeholders on both sides or all sides of the argument. What we do at second reading is debate, in principle, the aspects of the bill and whether there are any major problems.

Members know that when we pass a bill at second reading, we pass it in principle and get it to committee where there can be, as necessary, full consultation and public hearings to allow the stakeholders to come before the committee to articulate very clearly the positions and concerns they have to proposed amendments, et cetera. Some of the best work in Parliament happens at committee, where it is not just a handful or 12 members of Parliament who make the decisions. They are there participating in a consultation process with the necessary expertise, not only from the government and the officials of the department, who will answer the questions of the members and explain the bill in great detail, but also with those stakeholders, which is extremely important.

I am quite sure the bill will pass at second reading. However, I am also quite sure throughout this place there will be a strong representation that we should have very comprehensive public hearings and hear from the stakeholders to identify how we can deal with those matters which may not have been reflected in the bill, even though they may have been raised under preliminary consultation with the principal stakeholders.

There are many stakeholders in regard to the bill. We can never forget that this is a matter of human rights for women and children living on reserves. The whole objective of the bill is so they can have safer and healthier lives and therefore happier lives. Those are fundamental objectives. Who is against that?

How we deliver that will be the issue. Legislating certain things will help for those matters which require a legislative solution because we need a law to guide it. We cannot achieve the full impact and the benefit of the law without having the non-legislative component and the initiatives, the support and the funding necessary to provide an environment in which those laws can operate in a fair manner.

While we support the intent of the bill, we do not support the unilateral process the government has taken in introducing the legislation. We were instrumental in making critical changes to Bill C-21 to ensure that aboriginal Canadians would have the time and the capacity they needed to deal with changes. We continue to push the government to address issues such as the human rights needs of aboriginal Canadians, education, jobs, poverty, water and health, which are much the same kinds of conclusions that we reached in the health committee I back in 1994, which was when the new Parliament started.

It was an education for me, as an urban Canadian with very little exposure prior to coming to Parliament, about the challenges faced by our first nations and their people, the Métis and the Inuit.

The bill itself establishes a federal matrimonial real property regime, combined with the mechanisms for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

By way of background, in 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship broke down on reserve, courts could not apply provincial or territorial family law because reserve lands fell under federal jurisdiction. We can see the need to address that condition.

As a result, aboriginal women living on reserves have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserves. That is an important matter to be resolved. They are not entitled to an equal share of matrimonial property at the time of the marriage break down. Matrimonial real property refers to the house and the land that the couple lives on while they are married or in a common law relationship.

The government began preliminary consultations on this matter, but it focused on recommendations made by committees. The next step was to move to the legislation solution. As I had indicated, this is not simply a matter to be addressed by legislative proscriptions. It also requires a non-legislative approach.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member as he articulated his view of what happened with respect to the bill. He used the term “unilateral process”. I remind him and all members of the House that 109 different consultation sessions were held with aboriginal groups, a total of 135 consultation days in 64 different locations across Canada.

He went on to say that 12 members of committee should not be making the decision as we engage in this consultation process. I have three questions for the member.

First, is he aware that his party's critic for Indian affairs stated unequivocally that the Liberals did not consider the committee process part of the consultation process?

Second, would he envision another 109 or more sessions of consultation before committee?

Third, how long is he willing to have this important initiative held up? First nations people have been waiting for this for years. It is my opinion and the opinion of members on this side of the House that we cannot afford to unduly hold up this bill.

I would like an answer to those three questions please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear for all to see that depending on how one wishes to present the facts, another version can be given.

I was not giving my opinion on the consultation process. I was giving the position as articulated by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations in his letter of April 8. It is his opinion, on behalf of first nations, that the consultation process was hollow. It was not respected.

The member went on to suggest that the critic said that the committee process was not part of the consultation. It is not. That was the representation by the member. The consultation process on legislation to be tabled does not happen at committee. The member may have misspoken. Maybe he is referring to the ongoing dialogue and discussion that happens at committee. We have 12 members of Parliament at committee who will be able to have dialogue with the officials to fully understand the nuances of the legislation, the pitfalls and all the other matters and to hear witnesses and stakeholders.

Even as of April 8, when Chief Fontaine wrote his letter, the committee had only concluded a preliminary analysis. The member said that there were 109 consultation sessions. It is good to have a lot of people involved in a consultation process, but if they have not been given the time to do a full and proper assessment of important proposed legislation, then the consultation is hollow. We had the same thing with regard to the government's clean air bill, Bill 30, in which a copy of the bill, a secret cabinet document, was given to the public stakeholders on which to comment.

The member should know that these are the opinions of the Assembly of First Nations.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question for my colleague from Mississauga South.

I think he would be the first one to agree with me that the social condition of Canada's first nations is Canada's greatest shame and that is why many people view the time we are spending on this fairly narrow issue of matrimonial real property as somewhat of a red herring if the real problem lies with the Indian Act, a document unworthy of any western democracy.

The Indian Act has been responsible for 130 years of social tragedy, which is the only way to phrase it, and yet we are dealing with a fairly narrow Eurocentric, simplistic notion of matrimonial real property. When there are circumstances of abject poverty, it becomes less relevant and less important for Parliament to be seized with this one issue.

Does the member agree with me that something about this bill shows a lack of sensitivity to the traditional culture and heritage of aboriginal people? I will give him one example to illustrate this.

I took part in the constitutional discussions around the Charlottetown accord, the aboriginal round. We met with a group of aboriginal women elders who did not want us to pass the provisions of the Charlottetown accord as it pertained to aboriginal people, partly because of this Eurocentric lack of recognition. They told us that their culture was a lot older than ours and that they had ways of dealing with things.

One aboriginal woman elder told me that in her community, women were not allowed to run for chief. Many of us at the discussions shook our head and said that was terrible. She went on to say that the men were not allowed to vote. It was clear that in their community, they had, over thousands of years, developed a fairly egalitarian way of ensuring that men were not dominating the culture and tradition of that community. Yes, the women could not run for office but the men were not allowed to vote for the chief.

If we were to take that issue before the Human Rights Commission, some tribunal would be wrestling with that and would probably rule that the thousands of years of culture, tradition and heritage in that community would be invalid, not in keeping with Canadian values and would be interfered with. That is the type of nuance that probably would have come out were there genuine consultation taking place in the crafting of this bill.

I would agree with my colleague that consultation has legal meaning and part of true consultation means accommodating the legitimate concerns that are raised by those being consulted. Consultation is not just telling people what is going to be done to them. Would he agree with that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Nunavut said that real partnerships were not token, that they involved respect, collaboration, courtesy, compromise, diplomacy and the list goes on. This is not legislative. This is being sincere and open.

I must repeat what Chief Fontaine said in his letter. He said:

Unfortunately, the advice and direction of AFN and First Nations has not been heeded... .

He went on to list them. He said:

Based on the Report of the Ministerial Representative on Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves, and through the AFN's own report, "Matrimonial Real Property on Reserves: Our Land, Our Families, Our Solutions", the issues and remedies required clearly demonstrated the need for a broad and comprehensive approach.

That is not being taken fully in Bill C-47.

I must repeat that the message that has been given by so many people who have addressed this place on Bill C-47 is that, yes, we do need some legislative tools to work with to help bridge the problems but they cannot be totally effective unless we also address the non-legislative matters that are the root causes of many of the problems. This needs to be, as the member for Nunavut referred to, a holistic approach, and that is how we should approach these issues that have been raised by the stakeholders.

This is important legislation in a series of initiatives that must be taken by Parliament, but when we do it we had better do it right and that needs to start before the legislation gets on the table. If the signal goes out that notwithstanding the 109 consultations, they were not heeded and it is reflected in the legislation that they were not heeded, where is the good faith consultation? I do not think it is there.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a final wrap-up, I just want reinforce a point. When the first nations governance act was introduced there was a touring task force, so to speak, but on the idea of consultation, the minister of Indian affairs at that time claimed he had met the test and that he had truly done a consultation. The government at the time would staple a notice on a telephone pole in a certain community telling people that at 7 o'clock in the evening they would be talking about the first nations governance act and then there was a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo. Maybe three, four or five people would come out. Then the minister would say that they had consulted with that community. That cannot be called true consultation by any definition and I accuse the current government of the same thing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. According to Chief Fontaine, if the consultations had taken place, matters would have been dealt with, such as land management, dispute resolution capacity, housing, child welfare, shelters, policing, membership, residency, family violence, et cetera.

Those are not things that came up during the consultations on Bill C-47. Those are matters that have been before Canadians and before the government for many years.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to perhaps pursue the same line and themes that we heard from the member for Mississauga South and some of the questions and comments from my colleague from Winnipeg.

Although Bill C-47 has, as its essence, an idealistic approach, by the same token it is probably fairly naive, but, more important, it does not, as much as my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo would like me to think. He is missing the point and the bill misses the point in that regard that the alleged consultation process really never occurred.

It does not matter whether I say that the consultation process occurred or whether the member from Mississauga or any other member in the House says that the consultation process occurred. It is whether the first nations, the aboriginal communities in Canada, feel that it was a meaningful consultation process.

As we talked to representatives of the first nations, it was obvious that they did not accept that the process leading up to the drafting and filing of the bill in the House met any kind of meaningful consultation process. They have repeatedly raised specific concerns both with regard to their comments falling on deaf ears, which was stated, I believe, by the president of the AFN, and that they were not involved. They raised a number of other concerns that they believed needed to be addressed before this type of legislation was introduced.

I want to go back to the motivation behind this, which, I would suggest, everyone in the chamber from all parties agrees to. We recognize that the present process for dealing with marital relationship breakdown on the reserves ends with women, in particular, being treated unfairly. We can look at statements from the AFN and from the women's groups within the aboriginal and Métis community that would say the same thing.

However, that is not good enough to then justify this legislation. The legislation has some fundamental flaws, which were pointed out to us by the first nations on the reserves. They told us that the legislation did not address a number of other problems that are attendant in that overall relationship between people living together on the reserve and then the relationship breaking down. They know that much more work needs to be done with regard to interspousal violence and interfamily violence. The bill does nothing to effectively address that.

It is sometimes said that we are speaking on behalf of the male component of the first nations community. I want to be very clear that that is not the case. I am looking at a press release that summarizes the position of the Native Women's Association of Canada. It makes a number of points and I want to go over them, but I want to deal specifically with the problems that it sees and that it feels the bill does not address.

It talks about the problems, and one obviously being the issue of matrimonial real property and who has rights to it on breakup. It goes on to say that the bill does not address at all the intergenerational impacts of colonization, which is a major problem, violence against women and a limited access to justice.

One of the further points the association makes in that regard is that there is nothing in the proposed legislation dealing with the assistance needed to build capacity on the reserves and to deal with those issues. However, I recognize that it is not the nature of this proposed legislation to do that.

This is work that has to be done before we move to legislation. Programming has to be put into place and financial capacity has to be put into place to deal with these.

Let me raise one issue. On the larger reserves in particular, should we be establishing a separate judicial infrastructure, not to deal just with criminal matters as we have done on some of the reserves, but to deal with matrimonial matters? Is that one of the things we should be building? This legislation does not address it at all. It is perhaps necessary that we have that, especially in the larger reserves.

With regard to other social programming infrastructure that is necessary to deal with some of these issues in the situation of marital breakdown, again, there is no addressing of that. When we speak to the representatives of the first nations, we hear that that type of negotiation is not even going on to build that capacity to deal with this kind of a structure.

I want to be very clear that with respect to the women's groups and the national association, there are parts of this legislation that they could see as being usable even though, as my colleague from Winnipeg mentioned, it is very much Eurocentric in terms of its historical background. There are parts of it that they think may very well be usable within their structure, their tradition and their culture, but not all of it will. They know that. When they are given this holus-bolus and are told, “This is the regime we expect you to follow because that is what we follow in the rest of Canadian society”, they immediately say, “We cannot do that. It is not possible to do that”. Again, we need to analyze this legislation in much more detail from their perspective. That is what they said.

Even before we get to that, they expect that we will as a society be in a position to ask what they require in the way of building an infrastructure to support their existing culture but to deal with these problems as they have identified them; what can we do to help in that regard? I have to say it was the same problem with another piece of legislation around governance of first nations that we had in late 2003-04 under the previous Liberal administration. The government did not have the necessary consultation and coupled with that, the government came up with solutions that were clearly not acceptable within their culture, within their tradition. We are repeating that same error. Fortunately the filibuster, and I again acknowledge my colleague from Winnipeg, that he helped lead, along with a member from the Bloc, eventually got that legislation withdrawn and we are still working on a proper governance model.

Going at it as we are here with the matrimonial property legislation is so piecemeal to almost amount to being ridiculous.

Again, we understand the motivation. I am not in any way demeaning the reasoning behind this, but the methodology is just totally unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to us if we are going to have any meaningful, respectful relationship with our first nations people. However, it clearly is unacceptable to that sector of our community who come out of the first nations.

Our position as a party is that we have to have this consultation; we have to have programming put into place to build that capacity before we move to this stage.

Let me make one final point. That is with regard to the regime itself. The regime itself accepts the concept of private ownership. Again, in the press release I mentioned earlier from the Native Women's Association of Canada, it specifically addressed that point. That concept of private ownership of band property is alien to them. Their concept is based on collective ownership, which again is alien to the European experience. It is not alien to most of Asia or to most of Africa. It is very much a European concept, if we go back in the history of it. It takes time to adjust.

The first nations have to ask themselves if they are going to move more into the private ownership concept, or do they stay within the collective concept but still deal with the issues of who has possession of the matrimonial home in the situation of a marital break.

Those are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed. They are not addressed in this legislation. They have not been addressed clearly in the consultation, limited as it was, in the run-up to the legislation being brought before the House. For that and a number of other reasons, we have serious reservations that this legislation should proceed. The work that is going to go on in committee, because obviously the bill is going to go to committee, is very much going to have to take that into account if we have any chance of dealing in a respectful, meaningful way with the first nations.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)