Bill C-8 (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.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the NDP aboriginal affairs critic with interest.

During questions and comments we heard the member talk about the process that was used for Bill C-28, the Cree-Naskapi act, in terms of consultation and so on. We also heard very similar comments from the opposition parties in terms of how Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act was developed. That Act received royal assent in the last two weeks.

I would like to point out that Bill C-8, which is the bill dealing with matrimonial property issues, was also developed in a very consultative approach. The drafting of the bill was done with two major national aboriginal organizations very much participating; that would be the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. Therefore, it is not a case of black and white on consultation or no consultation. This is a very difficult area when we have 630 first nations across the country.

I would like to invite the member to comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a relief when calm returns to this place. It is too bad that people sometimes get carried away in question period.

Now, back to the work at hand, which I find much more interesting than question period. I refer to Bill C-28 concerning Cree and native communities in northern Quebec.

As I have eight minutes left, and now one less, I would like to point out that the bill is in negotiation. The agreement has been in negotiation since 1984. Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, it took nine years for discussions to begin to reach the agreement signed by representatives of the nine Cree communities and the Government of Canada.

The agreement will give greater autonomy to the Cree and the Naskapi, in fact, more to the Cree than to the Naskapi because there is still room for an agreement with the Naskapi. The lands of these two communities overlap and so an agreement with the Naskapi is required as well.

The land mentioned in the agreement overlaps part of the land of the Inuit in Quebec, but, overall, the James Bay Cree should end up with full autonomy with regard to the Canadian government through the agreement. Accordingly, the Cree Regional Authority will be able to take over the federal government's responsibilities under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

It was in fact essential for the Cree to come to an agreement with the federal government and with the Quebec government pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It appears that these agreements are now complete and finalized. We can very soon allow the Cree to move to full autonomy over their ancestral land. This is the intent of Bill C-28.

We will support this bill because we consider it important to support autonomy and the native peoples. The Bloc has always recognized that native peoples are distinct and have a right to their culture, language, customs and traditions and to choose the way their identity will be developed. That is what is happening with this bill.

I do not have a lot of time left, but I want to emphasize before the House that when the government can and wants to, it is possible to reach agreements with native peoples. I believe that this agreement with the Cree paves the way for further agreements. What we would most like to see are further agreements with the Innu, Algonquin, Attikamek and Naskapi so that aboriginal communities not only have rights and responsibilities but are also allowed to develop in accordance with their ancestral customs on their ancestral lands. That is what this bill will achieve.

We should remember that there was a Cree-Naskapi Commission, which made a number of recommendations.

There were 20 of them, and I would like to highlight a few: full and explicit recognition of the inherent right of Eeyou self-government—that is what this bill provides; recognition of the existence and application of Eeyou traditional law, customs and practices in the exercise and practice of Eeyou self-government; and elimination of provisions that conflict with Eeyou traditional law, customs and practices.

All that will be achieved, therefore, on their lands. I read only three of the 20 recommendations. The important thing is that henceforth they will be self-governing and will have jurisdiction over their ancestral lands, which will enable the Cree to develop. The Eeyou community will also be able to develop in accordance with its customs.

We think, therefore, that this is an excellent bill. When the government wants to, it can sit down at the table. It should do the same in regard to Bill C-8 on matrimonial rights in aboriginal communities. This bill has been severely criticized by all feminist organizations and aboriginal associations and communities. We think the government should go back to the drawing board and introduce a new Bill C-8.

We hope, in conclusion, that Bill C-28 passes quickly so that Cree community self-government can be established. We hope this government develops in accordance with the ancestral customs of the Cree. I can only hope one more thing: that this entente cordiale between the Cree and the federal government proves sustainable and leads to the development of these communities, which are located in a part of the country where life is not easy.

I wish them, therefore, the best of luck. I hope that the wishes and desires of the Cree communities which signed the agreement leading to Bill C-28 will all be realized. It is the Bloc’s greatest hope that the Cree communities joined together in the Grand Council of the Crees achieve their independence, live finally in accordance with their traditional customs on their own lands, develop themselves and administer what is lawfully theirs, that is to say, their ancestral territory.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8, the matrimonial real property bill, would correct a clear inequality that exists for those living on reserve by granting them basic rights and protections that all other Canadians currently enjoy in the event of a relationship breakdown. This inequality often adversely affects women and children the most.

Last night the opposition attempted to kill Bill C-8, but that attempt failed. I am pleased that this important piece of legislation will now get the discussion it deserves.

Despite a lot of misinformation, Bill C-8 would provide first nations communities the very thing that they are seeking, namely, the mechanism to enact their own culturally relevant laws without any involvement of the federal government.

The bill would also ensure that in the interim, as communities develop their own laws, families would be immediately protected from the legal void that has existed for far too long.

Extensive consultations were held, including with the Assembly of First Nations. It is time to act now based on many of the numerous studies on the subject that recommend it.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I am glad to stand in the House and support Bill C-28, and act to amend the Cree-Naskapi Act of 1984.

The numerous benefits of this legislation have already been read into the record. The bill is now at third reading and hopefully it will get royal assent in the not too distant future, after some 33 years of intense negotiation and, at many times, litigation, and not always an amicable relationship between the Crown, whether provincial or federal, and the aboriginal people involved.

A lot of work has been undertaken over those 33 years since 1975 when we had the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement, the northeastern Quebec agreement in 1979 and then the Cree-Naskapi Act in 1984, which is what the bill we are talking about today would amend.

Since 1984, the Cree people have been in a tangle with the federal government about the true implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act of 1984. They have tried diligently to ensure that land claims were implemented, not only in terms of the details of that particular land claim but in terms of the spirit and intent of it. A new relationship agreement was signed in 2008, which is the basis of what we are dealing with here today.

The agreement itself was spoken of in endearing terms by Bill Namagoose at committee, who was one of the chief negotiators of that particular deal. We also heard from the minister and the department about how the relationship between the Department of Justice, the federal Crown and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee was much improved.

One of the lawyers at the time said that he had been practising for 43 years and that it was the first time in those 43 years that he could actually commend the people from the Department of Justice for the way they had behaved, for their manners and for their professionalism, and he hoped that particular relationship would continue into the future.

I want to read into the record a couple of quotes about land claims and speak in terms of going forward.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, Minister of Forests, wrote:

The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably. Nothing less is required if we are to achieve “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.

On the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the report on Canada in 2004 around the settling of comprehensive land claims, the United Nations special rapporteur said:

The settling of comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements (such as those of Nunavut or James Bay) are important milestones in the solution of outstanding human rights concerns of Aboriginal people. They do not, in themselves, resolve many of the human rights grievances afflicting Aboriginal communities and do require more political will regarding implementation, responsive institutional mechanisms, effective dispute resolution mechanisms, and stricter monitoring procedures at all levels.

What is being said here is that the Crown must act honourably when signing treaties and must implement not only the letter of the treaties but the spirit and intent of them.

Some of the most formidable work being done today around the implementation of land claims is coming from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which is made up of basically all of the modern treaty-holders from Labrador to B.C. and from Yukon to Nunavut.

Members of this coalition underlined four undertakings that the Government of Canada should put in place regarding treaty implementation. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to adopt a new policy on the full implementation of modern treaties between aboriginal peoples and the Crown. They also ask that the Government of Canada draft and promptly introduce legislation to establish a land claims agreements implementation commission, that the Government of Canada establish a cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs to oversee and coordinate the full involvement of federal agencies and ongoing treaty implementation activities, and that the periodic negotiation of implementation funding for Canada's obligations under modern land claims agreements be led by a chief federal negotiator appointed jointly by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Land Claims Agreement Coalition.

Those are very practical solutions and they arise out of the context of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement of 1975. They arise out of the historical context that has led, after 33 years, to the Cree-Naskapi 1984 amendments that we are talking about today. The coalition members cite this as movement in the right direction, which we in our party agree with as well. they also understand that across the country there are outstanding grievances within first nations, Inuit and some Métis communities around the implementation of land claims. They call for this way forward.

I will not prolong the debate on third reading except to say that my party supports this because it is a way forward. We also support it because it was a collaborative approach. We cannot say that strongly enough. It was a collaborative approach between the Government of Canada and aboriginal peoples who sat at the table. They will not call it co-drafting because they say that legally we cannot co-draft but that is a purview of the federal government itself. In essence, they basically dotted the i's and crossed the t's and said that this was a nice way to go forward and the government says that it is its legislation.

I will say this in another context because we have another bill before the House called Bill C-8, which was not co-drafted, was not done in co-operation or consultation with first nations people and is not receiving the kind of unanimity within the House that we see on Bill C-28. The difference in approach has an impact on the content and the agreement that various parties can reach.

We are supporting Bill C-28 because of the process and the content. I wish the Cree of Eeyou Istchee good luck with this. We wish them the best and the Liberal Party will certainly be a partner in the future as this agreement and other agreements are implemented under the new relationship.

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

I will repeat what I said to the minister. It is not because the amendment was defeated yesterday that the government can assume that Bill C-8 will pass easily when it comes back for second reading. It is clear that the department must sit down with the first nations.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, 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, and of the amendment.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight there will be an important vote on matrimonial real property rights, Bill C-8. The bill would correct the clear inequality that exists for those living on reserves by granting them basic rights and protections in the event of a relationship breakdown. All other Canadians currently enjoy this right but the Liberals are trying to defeat this bill with a hoist motion before the House.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs tell this House why it is important that all parties support the bill?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I have the releases as well.

One member said to me yesterday that the reason their party wants to get this bad bill to committee, which they said they would defeat, is because it will give them an opportunity to embarrass the government on each and every clause. In other words, it is a political stunt.

In my view, if we send this very important Bill C-8 to committee, we waste time and the bill will not be passed. We have to put the interests of aboriginal Canadians ahead of our partisan interests.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South has once again demonstrated that the Liberals have lost total sight of the objective of the bill.

We have three Conservative members on the aboriginal affairs committee who have an extensive number of reserves in their ridings. We are not naive. The member for Kenora has about 50 first nations in his riding. My riding has about 24 reserves. The member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River has many reserves in his riding and has done policing on reserves.

The legislation was shared in draft form, in the same way the government was complimented yesterday in terms of the Cree-Naskapi act development, which sailed through committee.

Yesterday the Liberal Party wrote in its communiqué that Bill C-8 mandated that verification officers play an active role in the development and approval of local matrimonial real property regimes and that was a complaint of the AFN. This is wrong. The verification officers are only responsible for determining whether the community approval and ratification processes are held in accordance with the proposed legislation.

Would the hon. member care to comment on these statements?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-8, 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 summary of the bill reads:

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.

Members are probably aware that I do not have any reserves in my riding so I will take a moment to explain why I am speaking to this and how I came to take an interest in the bill. It really started in the last Parliament with a former colleague, Tina Keeper, who is from the north and who had done a lot of work on this issue. There was a bill, Bill C-47, before the House that she expressed a lot of concern about. I met with her not too long ago and she was very adamant that she wanted to continue to be involved and that she would help in any way she could to ensure that any legislation that comes forward on matrimonial real property will be appropriate legislation that is fairly reflective of the aboriginal rights to self-determination and self-government.

About four weeks ago, when we had the last parliamentary break, the Ontario caucus of my party extended an invitation to groups to speak to us about the issues that were important to them. It was an outreach event. One of the groups that came before us was led by Mr. Richard C. Powless who is a consultant for first nations. Mr. Powless and his colleagues from the Six Nations came to talk about Bill C-8. After they were finished their brief presentation, there was some silence. I was not sure why because, to me, their presentation was very serious. The presentation basically said that there was no support whatsoever for this bill in the first nations across Canada but it is going forward, which is a travesty. Some of their reasons were laid out.

I decided to speak up and ask a couple of questions. The next thing I knew, Mr. Powless had agreed to send me many more details about the bill than he could possibly talk about in the brief time that he had to deal with us. He did send the material and it was terrific. It went virtually clause-by-clause down the bill and laid out some of the problems. I could, with the unanimous consent of the House, spend about two hours going through each of those but I do not think it is necessary. I will circulate it to members. It is important if they have not seen it already.

Subsequent to that, Mr. Powless, as we were corresponding, asked me whether or not he could meet with additional representatives and we did that a week or so ago. At this meeting, in addition to Mr. Powless, were: Lawané:Wan Clinton M. Cornelius, Oneida Nation of the Thames Council; Julie Phillips-Jacobs, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne; Mr. Carl Hill, Six Nations Council; and Ava Hill, Six Nations Council.

We spent some time reviewing the representations that Mr. Powless had made to our caucus and I was presented with some additional materials that laid out the concerns that they had with the bill.

Then we talked about strategy. It was pretty clear that Bill C-8 was identical to Bill C-47 in the last Parliament. There really has not been any evolution with regard to the policy or the proposed legislation.

Because Bill C-8 had been delayed down the order paper and did not come forward as expeditiously as it should, that was an indication the government did not really have its heart behind it, that it knew there were problems and it did not want to have to face this.

Strategically, some things could be done. The AFN and the National Women's Aboriginal Council, representing all aboriginals across the country, could write the minister to let him know there was no support among aboriginal communities for this bill, for substantive reasons. They could ask the government to withdraw the bill and have the appropriate consultations and discussions on all the points identified as being flawed, flawed to the point that the bill could not even be repaired at committee. That was their view.

Yesterday, the member for Toronto Centre gave an eloquent speech about how important it was for legislation not fly in the face of the stakeholders affected by it. The stakeholders have to be consulted. They have to understand why it is necessary. The Government of Canada was basically imposing legislation on stakeholders, in this case the first nations of Canada, which would have an enormous impact on them and also seriously contradict a lot of the things it had earlier. There were big problems with the bill. This was two irreconcilable forces. It was not going to happen. The whole idea is we cannot force the bill through. It will not work because it is not reparable.

Some members have suggested we could send it to committee and fix it there. We have to listen to what the AFN had to say. We do not have to go to committee, have witnesses and try to identify what the problems are. It has already provided a paper, which I will give it to any member who wants it. Page by page, issue by issue, it is an extraordinary work. We cannot ignore that work. That should have been known and reviewed by the government prior to Bill C-8 being called at second reading. If the government would recognize that it is a fundamentally flawed bill and that it does not have a hope of passing, it would be in the best interests of the AFN, of Canada's aboriginal communities, to withdraw the bill, or defeat it, or hoist the bill, do anything to stop this flawed processed because it will not work. That is what should happen, but it has not. The government is insistent.

Let me quote from the minister's speech from Monday. Members will recall that we had a concurrence motion after question period, which took up most of the afternoon, so we did not get around to this until about 6:15 p.m., 15 minutes before the House was to adjourn for the day. The minister got up to speak to Bill C-8. I was astounded at what he said. The minister described a process in a bill, which is not the process I know. One of his statements was:

—the bill was developed after exhaustive study, authoritative research and comprehensive consultation with first nations groups.

Bill C-8 was not developed after exhaustive study because it bill is the same bill that we had in the last Parliament, Bill C-47. There may have been consultations on Bill C-47, but not on this bill.

As for authoritative research, there was no additional research. There was no additional work done on this. As for comprehensive consultation, there were consultations. I know the parliamentary secretary has boasted about having hundreds of meetings. There is a difference between having consultations and listening to the consultations.

In fact, members will know that the government's own consultant on the bill had many recommendations and 85% of them were rejected by the government. It has to tell us something. If 85% of the recommendations of its consultant are rejected by the government, if no first nations groups in the country support the bill and if all three opposition parties are telling the government that the bill must be defeated somehow at some stage, why is the government being so closed-minded to the realities?

I want to thank Mr. Richard Powless who raised this issue with the Ontario Liberal caucus in the hopes that we would be able to do something. I am not sure if we will be able to do enough to make the right things happen. We know we need a bill, but we need the right bill that is based on proper consultations and due respect for the laws of Canada. It is very important.

I have the resolution for Bill C-47, signed by Phil Fontaine, National Chief. It is quite long. It states:

The Ministerial Representative on Matrimonial Real Property submitted a report on March 9, 2007 and included important considerations and recommendations regarding consultation and First Nation jurisdiction;

In spite of the views of First Nations and many of the recommendations of its own Ministerial Representative, the Government drafted and introduced Bill C-47 on March 4, 2008;

I referred to this in the House. The consultant of the government made recommendations and they were ignored.

It also goes on to state:

Bill C-47 contains clauses that provide the Federal Government with control over the First Nation law making process through a “verification officer” and is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the First Nation inherent right to self government.

I cannot think of anything more fundamental in legislation.

Let me refer to a couple of the resolutions:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:

Chiefs-in-Assembly reject Bill C-47 and the approach taken by the Federal government as it did not fulfill the duty of the Crown to consult and to accommodate the views and interests of First Nations.

Therefore, it also rejects Bill C-8 because it is the same bill:

It goes on to say that:

Chiefs-in-Assembly demand that the Federal Government withdraw Bill C-47 and provide First Nations with resources to properly develop and implement a meaningful process that respects First Nation jurisdiction and existing First Nation processes addressing MRP.

This resolution, passed by the AFN and signed by Chief Phil Fontaine, was dated July 17, 2008. This is not new to the government.

Notwithstanding the clear statements by the AFN and the Native Women's Council, the government ignored them. In fact, the minister himself gave a 15-minute speech. The clock ran out and the minister did not come back to the House to finish his speech or to allow members to ask questions. That is significant.

I want to close the last part of my speech. Yesterday, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the AFN Women's Council, and the Assembly of First Nations published a joint release dated May 14, yesterday. This is a joint communiqué, and we have to take this into account very seriously.

It reads:

Today the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the AFN Women's Council united to express their opposition to the federal Bill C-8, 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.

It goes on to say:

[We] all agree that Bill C-8 will do nothing to resolve or to solve the problems associated with Matrimonial Real Property (MPR) on-reserve; that the federal government failed in its duty to consult and accommodate the views of First Nations; and, as a result, the Bill is fatally flawed and cannot be fixed. It should not proceed to committee.

This goes on substantively. I would be happy to provide this to any hon. members who would like to have it. I think it is important. It is clear, concise, and correct.

As the hon. member for Toronto Centre said yesterday, how can the federal government bring forward legislation that does not respect the views and the interests of the stakeholders that will be impacted?

We cannot have this butting of heads. It has to be a respectful process. It has to be a process that acknowledges and respects the laws of Canada as they relate to aboriginals. It has to be a process with an understanding that, yes, we need a bill and the sooner we get the bill, the better. However, it has to be a good bill. Time is being wasted.

If we send the bill to committee, all we will do is have weeks of witnesses, weeks of questions on items, when in fact the work has been done already. It shows time and time again that consultations have not taken place. Where there have been recommendations from the government's consultant, the vast majority, over 85%, of them were rejected.

It is an insult to first nations, Canadians and Parliament to suggest somehow that there has been significant consultation. First nations, and in particular the Native Women's Association of Canada, which speaks for women's groups, and the women's council, which also represents women's issues through the full council of the AFN, should be taken into account. The stakeholders, those affected by the legislation, need to believe and feel they have been consulted. They need to believe their concerns and views have been respected.

When there is a rejection of any of those suggestions, the right thing to do is explain it in true, full and plain fashion. That has not happened.

For all of those reasons, my recommendation to the House is to pass the current hoist motion before us, which suggests the bill has to stop now. We need to start the process to get the right bill so we can work here and pass legislation in the best interests of first nations in Canada.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting is that instead of referring the bill to committee after second reading, where the committee is limited in the scope of what it can do, I had hoped the government would consider referring the bill to committee before second reading where we could then engage, in a constructive manner, in crafting legislation that would reflect the will of all parliamentarians and of the interested parties, the aboriginal community of Canada.

The member for Simcoe North agreed with me when I pointed out that the committee we currently have is functioning very well. We have already dealt with two bills, Bill C-5 and C-28, expeditiously after listening to witnesses, but in both cases there was exemplary co-operation between the government side and the opposition parties. Also, in both cases, the aboriginal communities that were interested in the legislation supported the legislation.

We have a situation now with Bill C-8 where the aboriginal communities do not support the legislation and have expressed great reservations. If we approve this legislation at second reading and then send it to committee, it will tie the hands of the committee in its ability to improve the legislation. The amendments that could be introduced at that stage are rather limited and must be narrower in scope than what the legislation says.

When I hear the members of the NDP and my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois say that they want to improve the legislation by passing it at second reading and sending it to committee, I think they and the government forgot that we could have gone another route, which would have made for a situation that would have been much more constructive and more in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that is supposed to exist between the Crown and aboriginal communities ever since we had an incredible ceremony in this House, as people will remember, and ever since we had a royal commission look into the matter. We have all agreed that we need to start dealing with the aboriginal communities in a much more respectful manner and in a manner that engages them, gives them a voice and we listen to their voice. It is a matter of the honour of the Crown that we must respect that.

That is essentially what I was saying in my comments yesterday. I would hope that the members from the Bloc Québécois and the members from the NDP would support this motion, would give an occasion to the government to go back and consult properly and then bring forward a bill that we could refer to committee before second reading in order to give the committee the chance to do good work, as it has.

The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, 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, and of the amendment.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I will support the motion, but I want to explain why. In doing so, I hope to convince my colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc to seriously consider that the avenue we are suggesting might be the better course.

I want first to demonstrate that, under the able stewardship of the member for Simcoe North as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, the committee has been demonstrating exemplary cooperation. I see him nodding his head in agreement. We have had the opportunity to deal with two bills already.

Those bills were Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, and Bill C-28, this very day.

In both cases, the government bills were supported by representatives of the aboriginal communities and the responsible bodies concerned with the issues involved. They appeared before us. In one of the two cases, the bill was tweaked slightly with government consent. That was done unanimously. Today, a minor amendment was made to Bill C-28, and the bill was passed without much discussion.

I raise this point for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that, as far as the official opposition is concerned—and I dare say in this instance also of the two other parties in opposition —there is a desire for cooperation and for doing things properly. The other reason is also very important. In both cases, the bills passed in committee after being passed here at second reading had the unconditional support of the aboriginal communities. That is not the case for Bill C-8, and I feel that needs to be said.

I want to talk about the process for awhile. Parliament is a wonderful thing. It shows flexibility, ingenuity and a way sometimes of dealing with things in different ways, to improve our ways, to make sure that people are heard, to make sure people have an opportunity to express themselves in respect of an overall democratic will.

This is the 40th Parliament. In the 39th Parliament what I am going to talk about happened three times and in the 38th Parliament, which is where it started in earnest, it happened quite often. I am talking about referral of a government bill to committee before second reading. This is something we must consider very carefully.

In a minority Parliament in particular, that means that before a bill is adopted at second reading, it is referred to a committee. The government can do that on its own. It can determine that a bill will go to committee after five hours of debate whether the opposition parties want it to or not. The difference between referring a bill to committee before second reading or after second reading is very important. After second reading the House has stated its approval in principle of what is contained in the bill. Amendments are very restricted in nature. They can constrain, or they can orient a little more precisely certain things, but they cannot expand. Therefore, the capacity of a committee to change a bill is very different if the bill is adopted and referred to committee after second reading as opposed to being referred to committee before second reading. That is crucial for a number of reasons.

That was done over 30 times in the 38th Parliament. I thought that demonstrated a willingness to engage parliamentarians of all parties in shaping legislation. Beyond that, it involved the witnesses and those interested in the legislation as they came to committee because it gave a wider range to parliamentarians in effect to give shape to the legislation.

In the 39th Parliament, it happened three times. In this Parliament it has not happened yet. In the 39th Parliament and this Parliament, even though at times opposition members recommended and the House approved the notion that bills be referred to committee before second reading in order to have that flexibility, that capacity to engage the witnesses, to really engage the expertise in the country to shape legislation as a better expression of the common will, it has not been happening. It has not happened a single time in this Parliament.

I know my colleague from Simcoe North knows what I am talking about because I brought this up at committee. It is an act of respect of Parliament for a minority government to ask that legislation be referred to committee before second reading. It gives the ability of all members on that committee to bring a constructiveness to it. It gives an opportunity to all witnesses to be taken seriously, and perhaps to suggest amendments. It engages all kinds of NGOs. It engages academia. It engages the private sector. In this case it certainly would have engaged the aboriginal communities across the land, the same aboriginal communities that have said they are not supportive of Bill C-8.

I was listening very closely to my colleague from Toronto Centre and my colleague from Ottawa Centre and they were not contradicting each other. My colleague from Ottawa Centre said we should send it to committee where we could amend it and I totally agree with him. Let us send it to committee where the committee can do some real work and shape this legislation and have the witnesses engage in shaping it so that it becomes a constructive exercise and not a confrontation exercise as it might turn out to be if we do it this way.

That is why the motion to defer the matter for six months would give the government an opportunity to consider seriously consulting widely.

Honestly, I would have preferred if the government had chosen to send the bill to committee before second reading. I do not think we would be having this debate. The committee is working very well. It could have demonstrated to Canadians its capacity to do so. It could have engaged the aboriginal community in a very thorough manner, taking whatever time was needed, having as many meetings as were needed in order to listen to proposals and suggestions. The committee has demonstrated that ability and it could have demonstrated it even more so.

Because the government chose not to do that, we are now caught in the situation where our party, I think very legitimately, is saying that because the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada are saying they do not like the bill, we should hoist it. The hoist motion calls for a delay of six months.

If the government would step back and consider that perhaps the bill should have been referred to committee before second reading, this would all be over. The committee has demonstrated its capacity to work, to fully engage in a very serious matter. It could engage all the witnesses that want to be engaged in a constructive legislative exercise. Unfortunately, because the government chose not to refer the bill to committee before second reading, we are into the current situation.

Once again, I would ask my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues to consider one point very seriously. We are not opposed to sending this bill to committee. However, we would like the committee responsible for studying it to have the kind of freedom that it cannot have if the bill goes to committee after second reading. That is crucial.

From what I can tell, today and for some time now, we have been getting very clear signals from aboriginals, from the Assembly of First Nations, from the Native Women's Association of Canada and other stakeholders. Personally, as a member of the committee, I have heard from a lot of people. They are very concerned about this bill, about how it was written, about what it contains, and about what it does not contain. If we have to restrict ourselves to a more limited range of amendments because the House has passed this bill at second reading, we will end up limiting Parliament's ability to do good work. I suggest that my colleagues give that some serious thought.

If—all together—we do tell the government that we want to do this work, that is fine, but let us do it with the latitude, flexibility and desire to be constructive that this committee has demonstrated so far. All of the committee members, whether they represent the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals or the Conservatives, have demonstrated good will and the ability to work well together.

I had hoped that the government would seize this opportunity to try to resolve, once and for all, a problem that has been around for years, even decades, to resolve it constructively, which a minority government or Parliament can do if it so chooses. That would have been a strong indication of the government's respect for Parliament and for aboriginal communities in Canada. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. We believe that we should not proceed with the bill as written. Aboriginal communities are not happy with it.

I also think that there is another reason this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

It is another topic that we broached at committee time and again and I hope we explore even further. I see my colleague from Simcoe North nodding again. It is the concept of honour of the Crown. I readily admit that I am not yet grounded enough in the concept to fully comprehend all of its ramifications, but I know that it is rather far-reaching.

The honour of the Crown concept is one that has been invoked by the Supreme Court in matters dealing with aboriginal communities to strike down legislation. The last time I heard it was used was by the aboriginal communities in British Columbia to basically tell the government that it cannot sell properties, as it was planning to. The department had this plan to sell nine properties, two of which were in B.C. and two of which were subject to land claims by aboriginal communities. Because the government had not consulted these communities, the Supreme Court essentially said that the honour of the Crown concept applied and it could not sell those two buildings. They were withdrawn from the package of assets of buildings that the Crown was selling.

The honour of the Crown concept is a concept that applies to all things aboriginal and beyond that. In this case, I would think that if we were to proceed with this bill in the manner we are proposing, which is to force it through the House at second reading so that the committee is restricted in its ability to give it shape, listen to the witnesses and give voice to their concerns in a constructive way, the bill would be subject to court challenges quite readily if it were to become law.

As legislators, we have a duty to try to prevent that. We have a duty to construct good law according to principles that were established in our Constitution. If we were to proceed this way, when we have heard that the consultation might not have been as thorough or as listened to as the aboriginal communities would have hoped, perhaps we would then be creating faulty legislation that would be subject to fairly serious challenges on this notion of honour of the Crown. This must permeate what we do as agents of the Crown. We are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The government is her agent. Together, we have responsibilities toward the Crown.

I am not sure that proceeding this way is the best way to fulfill these obligations or fiduciary responsibilities. We can call them what we will. As we continue the work in committee, I would hope that this concept becomes much more well understood by members of the committee and beyond. I think it is a concept that we will see coming much more to the fore as we try to honour the new spirit of working with aboriginal communities throughout this land.

I will sum up briefly because I only have a few minutes left.

My colleagues must understand that we are not trying to avoid taking action or to reject everything. We are telling the government that there is a more constructive way to approach a very delicate problem. I believe all parties agree that the bill attempts to resolve a very complex and delicate situation.

To draft a law that will be accepted by everyone, we must all put a little water in our wine and we must be prepared to hear from those most affected. Those people have been telling us for weeks that they cannot support this bill and they have asked the government to not proceed with it. That places us in a difficult situation.

I will come back to my basic premise: had the government truly wanted to give parliamentarians the latitude to work together and create a bill to reflect the collective will of all political parties and all aboriginal communities, it could have referred this bill to committee before second reading. It chose not to do so.

Earlier, I asked the parliamentary secretary why the government did not do so and chose instead to force a vote at second reading.

The government is therefore asking for approval in principle. It has chosen to limit the committee's power, after having listened to witnesses, to propose constructive amendments and—together—the government and the members of the three opposition parties—to develop a bill that we could all have been proud of. It could have taken another approach.

The members of the official opposition take their duty seriously. By proposing this motion, we are telling the government that it is not taking the right approach.

I will make a last appeal to the good will of my Bloc and NDP colleagues. What we are proposing today could be avoided altogether if we all told the government to refer the bill to committee before second reading. We must give the committee, which has already demonstrated its competence, the tools to do the work that is needed. We have a great deal of listening to do. We must listen to all those who wish to participate. We must take their grievances into account. When we find contradictions and disagreements, we must look for common ground.

As responsible parliamentarians, we must find a way to produce a bill that really reflects the government's responsibilities and our responsibilities as parliamentarians, our responsibilities under the Canadian Constitution and our responsibilities that arise from Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

This all could have been moved ahead by referring the bill to committee before second reading. I do not know why the government, a minority government, stubbornly refuses to refer any bills to committee. Many committees, such as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which I mentioned earlier, have a proven record.

The chair of that committee, a government member, is nodding his head in agreement with my assertion that the members of that committee have proven that they work well together.

Both bills we studied were fully supported by aboriginal communities. However, aboriginal communities are not in favour of the bill we are being asked to support here today, and that is a serious problem.

I implore the government to reconsider its approach and do its homework over again in order to come up with a solution that will be better for everyone.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned his contributions to the issues that Canada dealt with in respect to our charter. There is no doubt history will recognize that he made contributions in that regard.

However, our charter also speaks to important equality protections. Sections 15 and 28 compel the government of the day to ensure that it holds up these important rights and protections, especially protections that would provide, as the bill would, the same kind of rights and basic remedies for women and children on reserve.

Notwithstanding that one must respect the consultation and that the leadership in first nations communities must have a mechanism to evolve the laws and rules of their own, which Bill C-8 does, the government of the day must take actions to compel those equalities, such as essential protections for the rights and protections of women and children against violence.

Notwithstanding his eloquent comments, does the member not believe that we should, in this case, stand on the side of protecting women and children against violence and giving them the same rights and remedies as all other non-aboriginal families across the country?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to participate in this debate. It is an issue which is very close to my heart and my political past, present and future, if I may put it that way.

I had the good fortune to be a member of the House when the question of the patriation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was before the House. I realize, looking around at some of the younger members in the House, that may strike them as a remarkably long time ago.

I had the opportunity to be present when the historic amendments were presented to the patriation bill, which advanced the cause of aboriginal self-government, by recognizing that the Constitution that was being adopted by the House could not take away from or deviate from existing treaty and other relationships between Canada's aboriginal people and the Government of Canada. That was accepted by the House and became a very important feature that allowed patriation to take place.

Subsequently, I became a member of the provincial legislature in Ontario and, as such, was very proud to have been able to participate in discussions around very important first nations issues that were discussed at Meech Lake and in Charlottetown. When I had the honour of becoming premier, I spent the first year of my mandate negotiating with the aboriginal chiefs in Ontario a statement of relationship between the Government of Ontario, and the nation-to-nation understanding that we were determined to reach between the Government of Ontario, and the first nations and aboriginal people of the province.

I do not come to this debate without a certain degree of history attached to its importance. After listening to the comments that have been made about the bill, I wonder really where everyone has been because the whole direction of public policy, affirmed very strongly in the report of the royal commission which was appointed by Prime Minister Mulroney, has been to recognize that we need a new relationship between the first nations people and the Government of Canada.

That relationship has to be one based on a profound mutual respect. It has to be based on a different and renewed understanding of the importance of the principle of self-government, what that means and entails, and we have to abandon the paternalism that is entrenched, seeps through and permeates the Indian Act. We have to move beyond that to a new relationship.

We have been able to do that in a number of situations and circumstances where new treaties have been signed and negotiated, but it must be said that since the defeat of the Charlottetown accord we have not been able to make the kind of progress in self-government discussions, which certainly I would have hoped and argued for.

I want to say in all sincerity to the parliamentary secretary, who has presented this afternoon the case for the bill and against the hoist motion which has been proposed by the Liberal Party, that I do not look upon this as a partisan issue. I really do not. I do not see this as an issue which, as he says, he does not want to see become politicized.

The whole question that is being discussed is not one that can be subject to an easy formula. When he says, for example, that this is as a result of the government's determination to do something on behalf of the most vulnerable, it is the phrase “on behalf of” about which we have to think through its implications.

Everyone in the House has to understand that if we are to take government-to-government relationships seriously, and I feel this very strongly as a member of Parliament, it means that I do not have a right to pass legislation that applies to first nations people and to first nations reserves unless that legislation has the full support of the people on whose behalf it is being proposed.

We have to abandon the kind of paternalism that unfortunately underlies this legislation. It simply is not possible at this time in our history for us to take this kind of approach. I know it is difficult. I know it is frustrating. I know it is costly. The parliamentary secretary has spent some time focusing on how much money was involved in consulting with the first nations people.

All I can say is, I want to see clear evidence that the legislation has the full support of the first nations governments of this country, has the full support of the first nations, those who are responsible within the first nations community and those who have a strong position, those people who sat across the table from me at Charlottetown, and those organizations which were represented on an equal basis sitting with us throughout the negotiations on the Charlottetown accord. We did not pass the Charlottetown accord over the heads of the people who were at that table. We only passed it because it had their support.

Was it difficult to do? Of course it was difficult.

I just listened to the comments made by members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. Frankly, I am a bit surprised. I would have thought that it had long been recognized that the first nations have the right to govern themselves and take responsibility for their own affairs in the new Canada we want to have and are trying to build. It cannot be said that the proposed legislation reflects that absolutely crucial idea of our real Constitution and, I would say, our future as Canadians.

However well meaning the bill may be and however much the government may believe that it has found the answer to a problem, the simple fact of the matter is that this legislation does not meet the fundamental test, that it has the active support and approval of the people who are being affected by this legislation. If we were to take self-government seriously, if we were to take that principle seriously, we would have to recognize that the legislation should not proceed in its current form, which is why we have moved the hoist motion.

I am disappointed that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and in the Bloc Québécois do not take the same position. I am particularly disappointed because, knowing the history of those parties and knowing the position that they have taken on the question of self-government, knowing that it was the leader of the New Democratic Party in 1980 who moved the amendments to the patriation act that in fact ensured that treaty rights were recognized fully in the Constitution, knowing of the long history of Parti Québécois governments in the province of Quebec with respect to the importance of recognizing nation-to-nation relationships, and knowing the sensitivity of the Bloc Québécois to any notion of paternalism from those coming from outside, determining what is right and what is wrong, then I am doubly surprised, not shocked, but surprised.

I do not know what the fate of the hoist motion will be. Obviously, if the bill were to proceed to committee, we would do our very best. My colleague from Ottawa—Vanier made what I think was a very good proposal, which was that if the subject matter of the bill were referred to committee, we could have a without-prejudice discussion of some of the issues.

I want to emphasize one point. The parliamentary secretary made some comments about how people were prepared, perhaps, to come to the government who were not prepared to go to other native organizations because of what he referred to as the politics of the situation.

I have here a press release dated May 14, which is today, in which the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the AFN Women's Council united to express their opposition to the federal Bill C-8. It states:

The organizations are in agreement that Bill C-8 is a one dimensional approach to a complex problem that does not address the real issues in communities.

It goes on at some length to describe the reasons why they are opposed to the legislation, not that they have concerns about it, not that they want it to go to committee, but that they oppose it.

I have to say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that this will be the first time, certainly in my recollection, in which that party has voted to take a position with respect to an approach to legislation that is completely contrary to the leadership and to the membership of the organizations on whose behalf the legislation is being proposed. To put it mildly, I am surprised that would be the position of the New Democratic Party.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that we do have a responsibility as members of the House. We do have a responsibility to take self-government seriously. If we are to apologize for past errors, it is not enough to apologize for the mistakes that have been made in the past and then to say that despite that, we will still go ahead and pass legislation because we know better.

When the parliamentary secretary says that the UN says we should do it, then I am completely baffled. This, from a government which has refused to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is a complete contradiction. I have never heard a good word about the United Nations coming from across the way with respect to any of its approaches to human rights, and on this one issue he picks some kind of report out of context and says that this is what we are supposed to do,.

I sincerely believe that if we are to take self-government seriously, that means not simply that we consult and say, “Thanks very much for your point of view, but we will go ahead and do this anyway”, but it means that we have to respond in a different way. We believe on this side of the House, in the Liberal Party, very strongly that measures such as these can only be taken if they have the full support and approval of those who are responsible, in leadership positions, in the first nations and aboriginal communities.

The parliamentary secretary said that some of the reason for this opposition was what he called “politics”. If he is saying that the leadership of the AFN has some kind of agenda, which does not allow it to support the legislation, he should tell us what he thinks that agenda is. I do not believe it is necessarily the case. He says that someone has to provide the leadership, that it can only come from the federal government.

This again repeats the same kind of paternalist thinking that has so bedevilled the discussion about aboriginal rights and the position of aboriginal people in Canada. The question of aboriginal property, the question of matrimonial property is difficult. The first problem is there are not enough people who have housing on native reserves. There are not enough people who are sufficiently housed to cope with the existing situation.

The cost of going to a provincial court structure can be expensive. The cost of going to a provincial court mediation process can be expensive. That is why the ministerial representative, who put forward her proposals, made it very clear. She said:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures such as programs to address land registry issues, mediation and other court related programs, local dispute resolution mechanisms, prevention of family violence programs, a spousal loan compensation fund and increased funding to support First Nation communities to manage their own lands. Without these kinds of supports from the federal government, matrimonial real property protections will simply not be accessible to the vast majority of First Nation people.

When Wendy Grant-John made that statement, she was not simply saying that this was something that was by the way, or by the side. She was saying that unless the government came forward with a full package that was effectively negotiated with those people who were being effective, what the government wanted to do would not even happen. The people the government points to as “the most vulnerable” will not be protected. This issue has to be addressed by the government.

Now more children are being taken into custody by provincial authorities and taken off-reserve and out of their families. Today more of that is happening than even at the time of the residential schools question. With respect to what is happening to aboriginal first nations families on reserve, there is a greater crisis today than perhaps there was in the 1950s and 1960s.

I know there is a certain point of view that would say that by passing this legislation, the House will begin to address some of these questions. I do not believe that for one second and neither does the leadership of the AFN, neither does the leadership of the Native Women's Association and neither does the AFN women's council. They are right. Those issues require a comprehensive discussion, negotiation and resolution between the Government of Canada and the native leadership with respect to those issues.

The AFN is being forced to go in front of the Human Rights Commission in order to argue the case that there is discriminatory funding as between what is happening to families on-reserves and what is happening to families off-reserve. These questions need to be resolved. This legislation does not resolve it. Nor does it touch it.

For my friends in the Bloc and the NDP who say let us get this legislation into committee and we will deal with it, the answer is no they will not. They will have to deal with the measures in front of them. They will have to deal with the legislation which the government has presented, which has a certain approach, a certain philosophy and a certain direction. That direction is to go the provincial courts and get the issues settled there and give the provincial courts the mandate and the mechanisms to deal with the problems that exist on-reserve with respect to family breakdown and the matrimonial home. In the current circumstance I do not think that will work. It will not work without a much greater degree of thought and resolution of the question than has been presented by the government.

I am in support of the hoist motion. I hope it is successful. If it is not successful, the bill will go to committee. That is what the Bloc and the NDP have said they think it should do. However, in all seriousness, they have to think through very carefully the implications of forcing a bill into committee against the will of the AFN and the Native Women's Association. Those organizations were represented during the constitutional discussions. They were present and participated in those discussions.

This disturbs me a great deal. Effectively, they are breaking away from the previous pattern that was set by the governments of Canada with respect to how we would make legal changes of this dimension. We would make them not simply with the consultation, but with the active consent of the first nations people of our country.