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.

Bill C-56—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. President, we want to clarify something on this side of the House, as we have done for several other bills in recent weeks. What we want to tell this government is that some bills introduced many years ago have been delayed for reasons that are quite clear.

For example, in September 2008, the Prime Minister decided to call an election. At that time, no one was expecting an election. Obviously when this happened, everything slowed down and we were forced to start from scratch.

I will use the example of Bill S-2, which was first introduced as Bill C-47. The Conservatives were forced to reintroduce it as Bill C-8. What happened to Bill C-8? In December 2009, Parliament was prorogued, so we had to start again.

These are the kinds of delays caused by this government. This bill was then replaced by Bill S-4, and the Conservatives sat on their hands for seven months. In May 2011 it was reintroduced as Bill S-2. Two years went by while the Conservatives did nothing. Suddenly, in June 2013 it became absolutely urgent to pass this bill because it had been on the order paper for so long.

The fact is that this situation is a direct result of their delays—

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House to speak on behalf of so many of my constituents and first nations people across Canada who have vehemently opposed Bill S-2.

I stand here on a day, as was noted earlier, five years after the anniversary of the current government's apology to residential school survivors, five years after the government made the most serious commitment to the first peoples of our country in committing to a new relationship, a new way of doing things and a new tomorrow. Unfortunately, all first nations people in Canada have seen since that day five years ago are more colonialist policies, more paternalistic attitudes, more impoverishment and more marginalization.

Bill S-2 is one step along that way. Not only is it not part of a new beginning or a new relationship, but Bill S-2 is part of a pattern of colonial legislation put forward by the government toward first nations. There was C-47 and Bill C-8. Now we have Bill S-6. All of these bills first nations people, their organizations and their leaders have opposed. It was clear during the Idle no More movement. First nations people rose up against the omnibus legislation that would impact their treaty and aboriginal rights, but they also very explicitly indicated that they were opposed to the series of bills, including Bill S-2, the government is putting forward.

I will remind members of the government that the Idle No More movement was started by four women from Saskatoon, who, with many indigenous women across Canada, rose up and said, “enough”. They said enough to the colonial attitudes that have overrun their communities for far too long. They said enough to a government that has sought to impose their assimilationist views on their communities. They said enough to the status quo.

We have heard many references, in government members' feigned indignation, to the 25 years first nations women have waited. Colonialism has gone on for far more than 25 years, and first nations have had to put up with government after government, and the current government is no different, with the kind of attitude that is so unacceptable, so much against what Canadians want from their government, yet it continues on the same path.

The concerns around Bill S-2 are not philosophical. They are very real and very much based on extremely problematic elements of this legislation. First and foremost, there was the lack of nation-to-nation consultation. This is not a choice. According to our Constitution, there must be consultation with first nations.

Let us go further. The government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill S-2 breaks the commitment the government made to the UN declaration. Bill S-2 serves to attack treaty and aboriginal rights. Despite the fact that there are obtuse references to respecting first nations governance, we have not seen the government act on that notion in legislation after legislation. It is pretty rich to hear government members apply impassioned rhetoric when it comes to first nations people when, in fact, it fails to hear from the first nations people who are most directly impacted.

Let me get to some of the other major problems with this piece of legislation, and there are many. Just so we are clear, the NDP put forward reasoned amendments to this bill that involved a series of points, but I will list only a few. We noted that if these points were not recognized, in addition to our concern about the lack of consultation, we could not support Bill S-2. Again, it is not a philosophical discussion. Members will understand from the points I will raise that it is very real, based on factual points the government has absolutely ignored in its process of developing this bill.

Bill S-2 fails to implement the ministerial representative recommendations for a collaborative approach to developing and implementing legislation. The bill does not recognize first nations jurisdiction or provide the resources necessary to implement this law. The bill fails to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the community level. The bill does not provide access to justice, especially in remote communities. The bill does not deal with the need for non-legislative measures to reduce violence against aboriginal women. The bill would make provincial court judges responsible for adjudicating land codes for which they have no training or in which they have no experience. The bill does not address issues such as access to housing and economic security that underlie the problems on reserve in dividing matrimonial property rights.

It is clear that these points are not recognized in Bill S-2. There is no response to the serious concerns that first nations people raised both in our committee and in prior consultations regarding the bill. Also, it is not to say that this is the first iteration of the bill. The Conservative government has tried this on numerous occasions, and every time it has been clear that first nations people are opposed to the Conservatives' imposition of a paternalistic approach to matrimonial real property rights.

Certainly we heard tonight that, all of a sudden, the Conservative government has real concern regarding violence against aboriginal women, which are great words, but let us look at the actions.

It is no secret, and now we are entering a phase in our history where we are being shamed internationally for our lack of action in putting an end to the epidemic of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Over 600 aboriginal women in Canada have gone missing or have been found murdered in Canada, but the current government has done nothing but deflect the issue.

The Conservatives make these connections between missing and murdered aboriginal women in Bill S-2. Well, aboriginal people know that the current government is trying desperately to change the channel, and no one is buying it.

When we are talking about the issue of violence against aboriginal women, it is serious and it demands far more than a slap-in-the-face piece of paternalistic legislation. It requires real action. It requires sitting down with first nations and working with them. It requires making investments in non-legislative measures. It involves getting to the root causes of the violence that aboriginal women face.

We have heard that if the current government actually wanted to do something, it would respond to the calls for a national inquiry that have been going on for years in our country. Yet, it has not. If the government really cared, it would have responded to the calls for a national action plan to end violence against aboriginal women. But it has not. If the government really truly cared, it would do something about the excruciating levels of poverty that aboriginal women face in Canada. But it has done nothing.

Not only would I argue that the Conservative government has not done anything when it comes to the poverty facing first nations women, it has made it worse. The government has made it worse by the cuts it is imposing in terms of the services that first nations people need. The Conservatives are making it worse by continuing to apply the 2% cap that the Liberal government in the past imposed on first nations. They are doing it now by going after the advocacy organizations, including the tribal councils, that are involved in delivering direct services to first nations, and that make a real difference when it comes to housing and education.

Not only is there a ton of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative government, in that all of a sudden it cares about violence against aboriginal women, it is shameful that the Conservatives would stand in this House and turn to the NDP or whomever else and accuse us, instead of looking to their own business.

This is a perfect case of changing the channel. Aboriginal people have seen this before and they are seeing it in spades with the Conservative government. They saw it when the Minister for Status of Women was quoted in the media as blaming the chiefs and leaders for why the bill was not going forward.

I had the chance to raise that exact point with leaders who came to our committee and some of them were women leaders as well. I read to them the kind of messages that the government was putting forward. I felt so ashamed that a federal government and its ministers, ministers of the Crown, would treat first nation leaders with such disrespect when they were doing nothing more on a bill like this than speaking out on behalf of their people, when leaders, women and men, were speaking out on the very real needs they had to put an end to the violence that first nation women face.

Let us talk a bit about some of those challenges. I reference the extreme levels of poverty.

One of the most recurring themes that came up in our committee was the lack of housing on first nations. Now some members, actually, on the government side in our committee asked what the connection was between housing and violence.

I do not think a lot of the members on the government side have spent time on reserve. I invite them to come to northern Manitoba. I invite them to come to communities like Pukatawagan, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Gods River, Shamattawa, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Berens River Bloodvein. I invite them to visit the houses where there are 15 people living inside a house, no, maybe even 21 people living inside a house, mould-infested homes.

I invite them to see what is like, to hear about the social tensions that have developed because people simply do not have a place to live. Why do they not have a place to live? Because they live on reserve and because they are under a federal system and successive federal governments, I would note. Currently the Conservative government has sought nothing more than to further impoverish people, than to further fill inadequate housing up with more people, than to limit the kind of opportunities these first nation people have to access the outside world and opportunities that may exist outside their community. Then it turns around and tells us that a document, Bill S-2, would end the social conflict and social tension that they face.

This is beyond insulting. It is beyond reproach. This is the face of colonialism. It is the face of a colonial government that has sought nothing more, time after time, than to further marginalize the first peoples of our country.

The NDP takes great encouragement from the first nation leaders, from the women and the men and the grassroots leaders, I will note particularly, who have stood up and who have stood up through their Idle No More movement. They said that they had enough of the government's attitude toward them. They have had enough of great sounding commitments, like the commitment of five years ago, the new relationship that came directly from the current Prime Minister, only to be followed by legislation after legislation, rhetoric messages that seek to divide Canadians, that seek to pit Canadians of various backgrounds against aboriginal Canadians, that seek to divide aboriginal communities among themselves, that seek to change the channel, instead of actually having a government that would step up, work with first nations, consult on a nation-to-nation basis, work in partnership and make the investments necessary.

These challenges are not going away any time soon. The violence against aboriginal women is certainly not going to go away as a result of Bill S-2.

I think of Joan Jack, the counsellor from Berens River, who so passionately spoke in our committee. She said that the bill would not save one life in Berens River.

I would encourage members of the government to look at the Hansard to hear the messages that we heard in committee, to hear the kind of opposition that exists against Bill S-2.

While we are talking about committee, we have heard government members tonight make various references to consultation and how they have heard from people and all of these things. If they wanted to hear from people so badly, why did they bring closure in on this debate? Why did they cut off debate, not only in the House but also at committee?

We had two weeks to look at this fundamental piece of legislation. I will put on the record that in those two weeks the government made sure we got to hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples more than any other national aboriginal organization. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples clearly expressed in its presentation that it does not represent on-reserve aboriginal people. Therefore, the question is this. Why would an organization that does not represent on-reserve first nations people be seen as the ultimate authority on this very piece of legislation?

I will not leave the surprise any longer. It is because it read exactly the kind of messages that the government wanted to hear. However, when it came to organizations like the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and various band chiefs, various people with legal expertise, grassroots leaders who had real concerns with Bill S-2, who opposed Bill S-2, none of them got as much time to speak to it as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women's Association of Canada got eight minutes to speak to this bill with no questions and answers. It is truly shocking. The Assembly of First Nations got 10 minutes to present, and I am stretching it by saying it had maybe 12 minutes of questions and answers.

The government turns around and uses the word “consultation” and uses the sentiment of indignation. Those of us who are standing in solidarity with first nations who did not have their voices heard or who had their messages cut off because the government was so eager to shut down the debate, we are the ones who are shocked and angered by the government's colonialist approach to first nations.

First nations deserve far better than the current government, which has sought nothing more than to further impoverish, further marginalize and further assimilate them. They deserve justice and respect. They certainly do not deserve a bill like Bill S-2. They deserve real leadership. I end off on that point.

We have heard the government members call on us, hoping we might change course. I would ask them to listen to the many people who they have blocked from the House and committee, the voices of first nations who would be most impacted by this bill. I would ask them to change course and free themselves of the colonialist approach they have taken to heart and start a new beginning, like the new beginning their boss talked about five years ago. It is time.

Sitting Resumed

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to debate a bill and we are to debate a bill on its own merits, but the sanctimony and hypocrisy coming from that side of the House is mind-boggling.

The member said let us look at ourselves in the mirror. Let me remind her, this bill started off as Bill C-47. What happened to it? It died on the order paper because the Prime Minister called a sudden election in 2008. It came back as Bill C-8. It died again on the order paper. Why? Because the government prorogued in December 2009. It came back again, this time as Bill S-4. They had seven months and the Conservatives did not do a thing with it. It came back as Bill S-2 in May 2011. It has been there almost two years. What did they do?

But now we are in a big rush. What does the government have to say about the priority of the bill?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the speeches by my colleagues here in the House. I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-2 regarding family real property on reserves.

From a technical point of view, the bill provides that a first nations community is authorized to adopt legislation “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”.

The provisional federal rules set out in the bill would apply until a first nations group brings their own laws into force.

I acknowledge that the bill is well intentioned: it is meant to fill a legal vacuum in the field of matrimonial law and to grant equal property rights to both spouses in the event of their separation. However, we know what the Conservatives are like. They conducted consultations just to be seen to be doing something; they ignored many serious studies into the matter and they ended up introducing a defective bill that has been rejected by the main first nations spokespersons.

Earlier in the day in this debate, we heard a Conservative member put a price on the consultations. She told us how much the consultations had cost. However, the Conservatives retained hardly any of the recommendations that were made during the consultations, so they were obviously only a facade. It is an enormous mess as only the Conservatives can create.

Before going into greater detail about the reasons why we oppose the bill, I would like to tell the people who are listening to us about the problem we are facing.

Right now, when a couple divorces, the division of family property, such as the house and the couple's personal property, is determined by provincial legislation. Subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that property and civil rights are under provincial jurisdiction. However, under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Therefore, provincial laws are not applicable to the division of property on the reserves. In 1986, in the Derrickson case, the Supreme Court of Canada created a legal vacuum when it ruled that the courts could not rely on provincial law when determining the division of matrimonial real property on reserves.

The absence of provisions both at the federal and provincial levels with regard to the division of matrimonial real property on reserves is a problem, because the people who live on reserves cannot appeal to the Canadian legal system to resolve issues relating to the division of property when a marriage has broken down. It is usually our aboriginal sisters who bear the costs of this legal vacuum. As Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said so clearly, “the lack of a matrimonial property law regime is a denial of women's equality.”

Bob Watts of the Assembly of First Nations spoke about the problem that this poses for women. He said:

While the lack of a legal regime to govern the disposition of matrimonial real property on reserve is a serious human rights issue that must be addressed, this legislative gap merely represents the tip of a much greater iceberg. The legislative gap in matrimonial real property rights on reserve lands is exacerbated by chronic housing shortages that exist on most reserves and difficulties in securing financing to purchase or construct alternative housing on reserve upon marital breakdown, in part due to the restrictions in the Indian Act against mortgaging reserve lands. These factors play an equal if not greater role in imposing hardship on first nation families, and in particular on women and children, who are often forced to relocate to off-reserve locations upon marital breakdown, particularly if domestic violence was a factor contributing to the breakdown in marriage.

Most stakeholders who expressed their opinions in the various forums agree that the status quo is no longer an option. Yet, Bill S-2 does not meet the needs of the first nations, who are speaking out against the lack of consultation, the lack of recognition of the first nations' inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial law, and the need to improve access to the justice system and to alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.

In May 2009, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations published a joint statement to make known their opposition to the bill. The statement pertained to Bill C-8, Bill S-2's predecessor. However, in the end, nothing has really changed. I would like to cite an excerpt from that statement:

NWAC and the AFN (including the AFN Women’s Council), all agree that [the bill] ...will do nothing to solve the problems associated with Matrimonial Real Property (MRP) 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.

I believe that their point of view is fairly clear. Even though this is the fourth version of this bill and many studies were conducted in this regard, aboriginal people and legal experts who are interested in this issue are concerned that the Conservative government is trying to ram this bill through.

Pam Palmater, who teaches aboriginal law at Ryerson University, has criticized the government's haste: [Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada] appears to be rushing this legislation through the process by introducing multiple bills in the House and the Senate at the same time. This does not allow sufficient time for most first nation communities to become informed or to determine how best to advocate on their own behalf. It is therefore critical that this committee see the issue in its broader context and why first nations are making their right to be consulted such a priority in their submissions before you.

I would also like to remind members that, according to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada has agreed to honour, consultation implies the consent of the people consulted. This point is very important. Although Canada did undertake limited consultations, no consent was given by aboriginal representatives. I would like to emphasize this point. In our opinion, if Bill S-2 is passed without the consent of the principal parties, we will be violating article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires the free, prior and informed consent of the rights holders.

Aboriginal women in particular have spoken out against Bill S-2. They believe that it will only force families to resort to the provincial court. That is not a solution because it is too expensive for many families. Seeking remedies in provincial court, when accessible, can place another financial burden on members of first nations who divorce. The fact is that the bill could create additional obstacles for members of first nations who seek justice, and it will not provide effective recourse for people seeking compensation.

The Conservative members on the other side of the House may claim that they defend women's rights but, as we know, aboriginal women have already condemned this bill. I urge my Conservative colleagues to listen to those who are truly concerned and who will be affected by this bill.

The president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, Beverley Jacobs, is very worried. She believes that:

[The Conservatives' bill] will put women who are experiencing family violence at further risk by forcing them to wait long periods for justice without adequate social supports, services or shelters.

Need I remind the House that, according to Statistics Canada, 35% of aboriginal women have been victims of violence, and first nations women suffer three times as much violence as non-aboriginal women and are overrepresented among homicide victims? Those are very alarming statistics. I would note that the Native Women’s Association of Canada estimates that 510 aboriginal girls and women have disappeared or been murdered since 1980, and this is far too many.

I find the lack of political will on the part of the Liberals and Conservatives, when it comes to the housing problem facing the first nations, particularly egregious. We have to understand that the shortage of decent, affordable housing on reserves is closely tied to the division of property on divorce.

At present, because of a legal vacuum, women have no rights when their marriage breaks down. That means they have no choice but to leave their home. There is no vacant, healthy housing on the reserves. As a result, some women are forced to leave their reserve.

Like the first nations, we will again be opposing this bill. In fact, we will not support any legislation concerning matrimonial real property unless it is accompanied by non-legislative solutions to put an end to violence against aboriginal women, addresses the housing crisis on reserves and ends the systematic discrimination in funding for first nations children.

In closing, I would like to tell the House about recommendations made by the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. I hope my Conservative colleagues will listen to these recommendations.

A report entitled “Walking Arm-In-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property” was published in 2005.

It made five recommendations. It recommended that the NWAC and the AFN be consulted on developing new legislation or amending the Indian Act; that financial aid be provided to first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes; that any new legislation not apply to first nations that had developed their own code; that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to apply to individuals living on reserves; and that Canada recognize the first nations’ inherent right of self-government.

Clearly, the Conservatives did not listen to those recommendations and their consultations were a mere passing fancy. That is how the Conservatives do things: they introduce bills on which there has been no consultation whatsoever of the people affected by the measures in the bill.

I will be very happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll soon be making a proposal—I'll wait for my Liberal colleagues first—that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill be postponed to next Tuesday. I'll explain why later. I realize there are many people with us now and that is something I regret. I respect the witnesses, and they have only five minutes to make a statement concerning a bill that is key to their future, not ours, theirs.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, this process is beginning to weigh on me. I would like the witnesses to have the time they need to explain their positions. If ever we do not have time to ask them questions, we could continue Thursday during the first hour. The witnesses are here and I know that some of them have worked very hard to prepare for today. This is probably one of the most important bills we have debated, along with 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, and Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. So I think we can take another day or two. I'm ready to listen to the people here today; we have until 6:30 p.m. If we're not finished, then we can continue Thursday afternoon. Five minutes is not enough to discuss section 6 of this bill, C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs).

Mr. Chair, I am not questioning your good faith. I know you want to do the right thing. I have the utmost respect for that, but there are essential aspects. The members of the committee have questions and so do the witnesses. It is their future that is at stake here, and I say this with all due respect.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Wernick. It's good to have you and your officials here for the 20th time, and I'm sure you can look forward to a 21st at some time in the future.

To start off, I have a couple of questions. In your remarks, you mentioned Bill C-8, matrimonial real property, and you said it may come next year or sooner. Well, there are not many days left in this particular year: are we anticipating that this would come next week?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Dona.

I want to go back to you, Jean, in the context of consultation and Bill C-8, for any recommendations. There are obviously members around the table who will go back to their respective parties. What are your thoughts—and I realize it's your opinion, so it's as it relates to you—on what you've seen concerning the bill? Is it something you'd still recommend that we move forward on?

Speaking to Mr. Martin's point, is there a need for more consultation, in your opinion, on Bill C-8?

[Jean McKendry, Individual Presentation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of this committee. My name is Jean McKendry. I'm an academic librarian at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, in Surrey, British Columbia. It is pure serendipity that I am here today, and thank you for letting me speak.

I'm visiting Yellowknife for 10 days to do legal anthropology archival research at the courthouse in Yellowknife and at the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, but my doctoral research at the University of British Columbia is about homelessness. When I was listening to the CBC Radio this morning, I heard about this committee and decided that I would stop in on my way to work.

I can't speak at all about the poverty issues in the north, but I'm aware of homelessness in other areas of Canada. My doctoral research at the University of British Columbia in the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies is what to do for homeless men in public libraries from an architectural point of view. In my doctoral research I've learned that homelessness costs Canadian taxpayers about $6 billion per year. I've also determined that about 0.5% of every community in Canada is homeless.

There are three stages of homelessness. First of all, there are the hidden homeless, and they don't want anyone to know they're homeless. They can survive for about six months. They do not go near the shelters or other homeless people because they are so stigmatized that their life is at this crisis. After about six months, these people will move towards availing themselves of the services at the shelters.

In my community in Surrey, British Columbia, most of the shelter beds are now occupied by the working poor. They get up in the morning and they go to work, but they don't have enough income to support themselves and their food and daily living costs and housing, so they live in the shelters. But after about two years of living in shelters, a lot of the people become the absolute homeless, and they're the people who we see on the streets pushing the shopping carts. They don't live in shelters. In Vancouver they're lucky because the temperature is warm enough that they can live outdoors most of the year.

In my community, in South Surrey and White Rock, I am one of the people who sit on the community board that looks into the issues of homelessness and housing in South Surrey. A lot of people are amazed that there are even homeless people in our community, but 0.5% of every community are homeless people. So in my community, in White Rock, British Columbia, I determine that there are about 100 people who are homeless, even though there are only about three people visually on the street who are absolutely homeless. We have to take into account all of the homeless, not just the visibly homeless.

After about two years of living in shelters, the absolute homeless stop using these services because they realize that there is no housing strategy and they aren't going to get housing, and they give up. And most absolute homeless people do not celebrate their fiftieth birthday. They die. And they have nowhere to die. They die on the street or in the parks or along a roadway. The number of homeless people who are dying in Vancouver is more than the average for the mortality of that age of the population. That's a separate issue.

What I also know is there's a disproportionate number of aboriginal people who are homeless all across Canada. Four per cent of the Canadian population is aboriginal, approximately, 4% to 6%, but more than 25% of the homeless are aboriginal. I kept asking myself why is this so disproportionate, and I kept looking for reasons why.

What I have determined is that there is a problem with the matrimonial property rights on reserves in Canada. I realize in the north the Inuit people do not live on reserves, but here's what happens on reserves in Canada. There is a certificate of possession that has to be signed from the band office for anyone who lives in housing on the reserve. One signature goes onto that certificate of possession, and if a marriage breaks down, which is more common than off reserve, it is usually the mum and the children who leave the matrimonial home. The matrimonial home goes to the person whose name is on the certificate of possession, and the family members who are not on the certificate of possession are often evicted from the reserve and they leave the reserve with no child support, no equal division of property. There is nothing for them, and they are the next generation of homeless children. They go with their mums, and in the Lower Mainland, they end up on the downtown east side of Vancouver. Those are the aboriginal mums who end up as prostitutes. Those are the mums who ended up, a lot of them, the victims of the Pickton fiasco we had in Vancouver. I know this sounds a little bit embellished, but it's not.

The Indian Act also has a clause in it that says wages cannot be garnisheed, which means children don't get child support. So there is a mum, probably with no high school graduation, who is trying to look after maybe up to three children, and she is under age 21 in Vancouver trying to survive. It's a really tough life. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Nobody wants to be homeless.

Here's how this ties into my research. Literacy is fundamental for Canadian society to function. Being illiterate is a severe handicap, but it can be overcome. When I talk to people about my research, I don't tell them I am working on homelessness because it is so stigmatized. I just tell them I am working on a public health crisis, and that's what I believe homelessness is in Canada.

What has literacy to do with poverty and homelessness? I think it has lots to do with it. For example, without an address you can't get a library card at most public libraries in Canada. It's a fact that children who use public libraries do better in school and have a better chance of succeeding because they are literate. Public libraries in Canada are trying to be more inclusive and welcoming to the at-risk people in our communities, especially aboriginal children and families. But many communities in Canada do not issue library cards to families who live on reserves. This is true in my own community. The Fraser Valley regional library system, which serves from the Fraser River on the south side all the way up to Boston Bar, will not issue a public library card to a family that lives on a reserve because they don't pay property taxes. I think this is discrimination; if you can't pay property taxes, that shouldn't stop you from being eligible for a public library card.

To wrap this up, I would like to encourage everyone to encourage the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians in Canada, to please pass Bill C-8, the family homes reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. It has only had first reading, and that was last February. If that bill were passed, aboriginal women and children in Canada would have more opportunities to be independent and we would give them the same matrimonial property rights that the rest of Canada has enjoyed since the Divorce Act was enacted in 1968.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to go there, but I will.

In terms of partisanship, I was at the cabinet table when my colleague Andy Scott worked for a good 18 months to prepare the terrain to arrive at an accord that would see the Government of Canada try to address fundamental problems of health, housing, and post-secondary education for the aboriginal community at large. When 13 premiers and territorial leaders and the Prime Minister of the country and six aboriginal national leaders all agreed on a certain weekend in a certain community that indeed that was the way to go, they didn't get around to signing a document, because it wasn't yet drafted. It was agreed that it would be drafted and signed and that the government would include in its fiscal framework, over the next five fiscal years, an investment of $5 billion in additional money. That was called the Kelowna Accord. I would argue, with all due respect to Madam Glover, that it was bringing to the table and bringing forward some very positive action, which was supported. We had not only consensus but unanimity. Unfortunately, the government that was elected in 2006 decided not to follow up and not to respect that agreement.

If we're going to go that route, let's put all the facts on the table. I wanted to address—and it's a question I need to understand, if I may—a piece of legislation that's pending. We don't know what the government intends to do. They said that they wanted to bring it forward again. It's Bill C-8. You're aware of what I'm talking about. It is amendments to the matrimonial situation in the legislation. When we were debating that in the House, we were told that you supported that legislation. Then we were told otherwise. Could you clarify that? If you don't support it, tell us--perhaps not today, we won't have time in four minutes, but perhaps in future exchanges--what you would like to see. I think that would be very useful.

[Rick White, Executive Director, Canadian Canola Growers Association, Grain Growers of Canada]

Yes, thank you, Richard. And thank you to the committee for providing an opportunity to talk to you about some of these topics.

First of all, I would like to change the focus of the discussion here a little bit to the broader issue of competitiveness. As growers, we need an efficient, effective, and affordable rail transportation system to keep us competitive in the global market.

There are two components to rail transportation in general that affect our competitiveness as growers in that market. The first one is timely service. This has been a problem for a very long time. However, there has been some progress on this front with the passage of Bill C-8, giving shippers more negotiating power and options to hold the railways more accountable in providing service. In addition, there is a formal review of railway service currently being undertaken by the government. We fully support that initiative and look forward to its completion and the implementation of the recommendations that will emerge. We're optimistic on the service issue.

The second component of rail transportation that affects our competitiveness is the price we pay to transport our grain. If rail freight charges are too high, we cannot compete in the export market, or, at minimum, our competitiveness would certainly be reduced. We are fortunate to have a legislated revenue cap in place for the movement of western Canadian grain, and we certainly need that cap to remain in place in the future. The revenue cap is effective in allowing the railways to have pricing flexibility to reflect proper market signals, and at the same time, it protects farmers to some degree by limiting the overall yearly revenues earned by the railways from the movement of grain. While the existing regulation governs maximum railway revenues, nonetheless, it is still cost based, where the costs are historical railway costs. In fact, the current revenue cap is based on the costs of railways established by the WGTA way back in 1992, almost 18 years ago. We all know that a lot has changed in railway operations and infrastructure over the years, and we're talking about some of those changes even at this meeting today.

We believe the time has come for the federal government to conduct a costing review of the railway revenue caps to re-establish and update the base year to the current operational environment. This recalibration is required to ensure that the revenue cap remains relevant and fair to the industry, and to ensure our competitiveness in the future.

In very quick summary, we support SARM's proposal to amend the Canada Transportation Act to ensure that sidings go through a fair abandonment process. Secondly, we strongly support the level of service review that is currently under way and ask members of all parties to act swiftly to implement the recommendations when they come forward next spring. Last, we feel the time has come to conduct a costing review of the railway revenue caps, and we would encourage this committee to support us in that endeavour.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. We look forward to your questions.

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.

The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.

More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.

I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.

The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.

The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.

The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.

I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.

Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.

The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.

The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.

The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.

As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.

By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.

Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.

Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.

Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.

Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.

Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.

I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.

We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.

As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the assessment of the hon. member, that there does not seem to be good faith in this motion. I expect the press release to come out, saying that the opposition parties are not serious about doing work. That is just not the case and I think we can prove it.

When we start this place each day, we say a prayer. In it, we say that we make good laws and wise decisions. Good laws take important debate in the House and good work in committees. If the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary wanted, as they put it, to act in the best interests of the country, they would call Bill C-23 on the Colombia free trade agreement and let us deal with a tough bill. They would also call Bill C-8 on matrimonial real property, which I do not believe enjoys the support of the majority of the House and which, if defeated, would give the government an opportunity to go back and commence negotiations and consultations with first nations in Canada so we could deal with an extremely important matter for Canadians.

Would the member agree?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I have been saying from the beginning. On May 15, 2009, I publicly expressed my concerns about how thin the legislative agenda was. Once again, I see things exactly as the member does. There is no need to extend the sitting hours to reach this government's objectives. From what I understand, Bill C-8 and Bill C-23 were not part of the government's objectives to be met by June 23. Personally, I do not feel they are part of what we need to address before the summer break.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government laid out the bills that in the government's view were important to Canadians.

Bill C-26 on auto theft has been at the justice committee for some time now. Bill C-34 went to the justice committee yesterday. I do not know how the committee does two bills at one time. Bill C-35 was introduced on June 1. It has not even started second reading and I am sure second reading will take up a lot of time. Bill C-36 was introduced on June 5 and will ultimately go to the justice committee.

Bill C-6 is here in the House at report stage and can commence. That would certainly be one piece of legislation. Bill C-31, the tobacco bill, went to committee on June 3. The committee needs to call witnesses. We will not see that bill before June 23. Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, is the last one on the list in terms of government importance, and it would appear the government has no intention whatsoever of calling this bill because of the difficulties.

What the government has not included is Bill C-8, which I think is very important.

It appears to me the government has selected priorities which in fact are not the priorities of Canadians and do not justify extended hours for no progress whatsoever.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are open to talking about it.

That does not mean that we will automatically agree to any request the government might make to extend sitting hours, but if debate on a certain bill were about to end and we still needed a few more hours, of course we would give that careful thought.

I want to add something else. I took a look at what was tabled every Tuesday for the past month. We have covered nearly everything the Leader of the Government wanted us to, as I said. He wanted bills in the House to be ready for royal assent; he got all but one of them—Bill C-6—and that is expected to happen around June 10. He wanted four bills to be sent to the Senate. Two of them are in the Senate. There are two more to go. So that makes three. Bill C-20 is in committee and should be back here soon. The parliamentary leader wanted the committee's report to be done by June, and that is likely to happen.

We have a problem with Bill C-19. I would remind the House that Bill C-8 and Bill C-23 were not included in the government's agenda that ends June 23. I therefore assume that the government does not plan to address those bills before the fall. We will debate them in the fall.

I therefore do not believe there is enough material to keep the House busy for 11 days from now until June 23. Once again, if we need to extend the sitting hours occasionally, the government can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will be open to discussion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what has happened in the past with respect to extended hours is that it has been meant to bring certain legislation to a certain point of closure, like the end of second reading debate and referral to a committee or to deal with reports.

Many of the bills on the list are in the middle of second reading or they are at committee. Very few of them are actually ready to come before the House until they are either reported back from committee or debate is completed, like on Bill C-8.

Does the member believe there are enough of these items, or is this just a list like the other 10 justice bills that we had in the last Parliament that were never dealt with?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say with the utmost respect to my hon. colleague, the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that in his remarks he made my exact point of the need for the extension of hours.

He named the three bills that have been somewhat problematic to get agreement on from both sides of the chamber: Bill C-8, the matrimonial real property bill, to which my Liberal colleague referred as well; Bill C-19, investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions bill; and Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill.

He went on to say that he would like to see some debate in depth. That is exactly what can be accomplished by extending the hours. I say that with all sincerity and reasonableness. If those bills are problematic, then why not work a little bit harder for Canadians?

We all know that Canadians are hurting. Canadians are struggling right now. They want to see this Parliament work. As I stated throughout my remarks, by and large Parliament has been working. We have been getting legislation through the House.

As I say, he made the actual point that I have been trying to make in that we need to have the additional time with only some 33 hours remaining of debate time for government legislation before the House rises. I do not think it is unreasonable to extend the hours and have a few more hours to debate bills like those.

I also referred to the House leaders and the whips. Quite some time ago, weeks ago in fact, I said that we would be introducing additional legislation. In particular, the Minister of Justice has been doing that. We will also have other legislation that was not on the list, as I said, which we would like to see debated before the House rises.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that the government had introduced a number of bills. I have to say that the legislative agenda is not full enough to warrant extended sitting hours. I will explain what I mean later in my speech, but I want to express my opinion and ask the House leader a question. He had set a number of goals about a number of bills that he felt should receive royal assent by June, and he shared those goals with us at the meetings of the leaders and whips. All these bills, except one, are currently in the Senate. So from that standpoint, he has achieved nearly all his goals.

We had been told that certain bills had to be sent to the Senate by June before they could receive royal assent. Four bills had been identified. Two are currently in the Senate, while the House is still discussing the other two, but we could certainly come to an agreement on them. One bill was to be reported on by the appropriate committee, and that will be done. Three problematic bills remain. One has been mentioned, and that is 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 other two are Bills C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) and C-23, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. We disagree on these three bills, and we want to have in-depth debates on them.

Does the member think it would be reasonable for the opposition to agree to extend the sitting hours when the only bills likely to be debated during those extended hours are the bills that are the most problematic for the opposition? I think that that is not reasonable and that he will agree with me that we cannot agree to this blank cheque.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated, there are a number of bills before the House. Obviously I did not have the chance or I would have taken a couple of hours to go through all of them and the various stages they are at. I expressed my appreciation to the opposition for the co-operation we have had thus far.

To encapsulate what has unfolded since early February, we are currently at the point where we have introduced 41 bills in this Parliament, some of them in the Senate but the majority in the House. Nine of them have received royal assent, in other words passed into law thus far. Two bills are awaiting royal assent. Sixteen of the bills are in the Senate. Four of those 16 actually originated there. That comprises 27 of the 41 bills. That means 14 bills are in various stages on the House side. As I said in my remarks, we are still introducing additional bills.

On the specific question of Bill C-8, we understand there is opposition to this piece of legislation. That is why we worked very hard with the opposition to try to get agreement to send it to committee where it could receive a thorough review and witnesses could be called. However, for whatever reason, a minority of the opposition wanted to combine to try to defeat the bill by moving a hoist motion. Fortunately, that did not happen.

It would still be my intent to call that bill, have more debate and hopefully get it to committee where it could be studied thoroughly. We on the government side believe it is only right that we extend the same rights and protection to aboriginal women on reserve that other Canadian women have.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has laid out very clearly some of the background and opportunities that the extension of sitting hours brings.

He listed the bills which he recognized to be important legislation that we need to move forward. He emphasized important legislation. One of the bills that is not on the list is Bill C-8 regarding matrimonial real property. A hoist motion was moved on that bill. The hoist motion was not successful. However, that should have indicated to the government that this important matter relating to aboriginal Canadians was something that should be dealt with.

The member will know that the bill did not enjoy the support of any first nations group or aboriginal women's group. I would simply ask the House leader if it is the government's position that Bill C-8 is not an important bill, and if so, will he withdraw that bill and commence proper negotiations and consultations with first nations?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you for taking time to be with us today.

On the weekend I had the opportunity to sit in on a panel for women and on another day I listened to another panel. I must let you know that we will be a little bit happier with the fact that their idea and their results were that they really and truly felt that we had been making progress. That made me feel good, and I'm sure it will make all of our committee feel good. There is no doubt that we still have a long way to go, but we are making progress, and that is good to know. Sometimes we just keep thinking that we are not, and we get down on ourselves, but we are making progress.

I was glad to hear you say that progress is being made. Our committee and our government are working hard, as we all know, to make a difference and to see that it does happen.

My question today is for Clare Beckton. You spoke of the results at INAC and of how well they are progressing. You spoke about INAC and how effective it has been. You noted, too, that Status of Women Canada played a role in helping them reach that.

INAC also recently introduced Bill C-8, which supports matrimonial property rights on reserves, and since INAC has been so successful and has incorporated GBA into its policy-making structure, would it be reasonable to assume that GBA was used in developing this bill? Wouldn't the use of GBA have helped ensure this bill would be as responsive to, and representative of, aboriginal women's needs as possible?

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians are concerned and should be concerned about the issues of aboriginal women and disappearing aboriginal women. That is why the minister in charge of the status of women is engaged in discussions with the national organizations to decide what the best next steps may be.

However, one of the things we can do to help aboriginal women today is to move ahead with Bill C-8 to finally protect, for the first time ever, the matrimonial property rights that every other Canadian woman takes for granted. It is time to give those rights to aboriginal women.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very good point. I will not speculate on the technical reasons that the government has not signed it, but he talked about the values that are there.

As I said earlier in my response to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, if one follows those values that occur in the self-government and land claims agreements in the modern treaties, such as the social values and the ability of first nations, maybe there is another answer. Maybe they have ways of running their own local justice system, as they have successfully for thousands of years. Maybe they have a different way of self-determination. Maybe they have different matrimonial property rights. Maybe they have a different way of looking at governance, where everything is not the individual, but one has collective rights.

One of their biggest arguments against Bill C-8 as it is written is that it does not recognize collective rights as a way of governing another people. The United Nations declaration points out all these points. As the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, our pilot projects in Canada in the modern treaties that got certain first nations away from the Indian Act have been very successful.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Yukon, who I have known very well for many years, on the exceptional work he does on behalf of first nations. The member is always here and yet always gets home to see his family in Yukon on the weekends. I do not know where he gets his energy but it is much appreciated by the House that he is here to help with this important legislation.

My question for the member has to do with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. My understanding is that Canada is not a signatory. This came up in our discussions on Bill C-8 on matrimonial real property. The declaration includes such items as the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination; to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions; to not be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture; and, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions. The list goes on.

Those, to me, seem to be values that Canada should embrace and they should be reflective in legislation that we bring before this place as it relates to our first nations.

Does the member know why Canada is not a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and does he know whether or not the bill before us now, at least in spirit, reflects the principles underlying that declaration?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the obligation to consult has been defined in court decision after court decision. It is the obligation of the federal government to work with first nations.

Again, if we are going to move forward, it is the prerequisite for developing legislation, where we start to move away from treating first nations as somehow children or wards of the state who can be treated in an arbitrary fashion.

Bill C-8 looks to address some of the existing issues on how first nation laws are enacted. However, clearly we did not see a pattern of consultation. The government needs to understand that until it does consultations, until it works collaboratively, first, with the first nations and then with its partners in the House of Commons, it will be unable to force legislation through. It will also be unable to attack its opponents and say that we are against human rights and so on. The government can do it all it wants, but it will not get the legislation it needs.

I hope the minister would learn from this and reflect on it. Why waste the time of Parliament and why waste the time of Canadians? If he does not do the groundwork and consult, the bills will eventually fail. It is the obligation of members of the opposition to push back in those cases because without consultation, there is no legitimacy for developing first nation law.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the bill is not controversial and should get the support of the House at third reading, the subject matter seems to have drifted to the obligations of the Government of Canada with regard to first nation issues.

I want to ask the member about the minister's opinion on the actions taken by his ministry with regard to Bill C-8 and the representations he made in his speech to this place, that he consulted widely and had taken all the necessary steps to engage first nation communities. In fact, I refer to statements about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the federal government was required to consult, accommodate and obtain first nations' consent when it contemplated action that could affect first nation, aboriginal or treaty rights.

Even some of the questions that we have seen at question period, again, seem to deny the fact that there was no consultation in the form that was required, that informed consent was not there, that the accommodation was not there.

What assurances or what comfort level does the member have that the government in fact has appropriately consulted with these communities with regard to the important changes to the act under Bill C-28?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the NDP, who is also my neighbour on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I want to congratulate her too on her French. I used to be able to say anything at all about her so long as it was in French, but I cannot do that any more. She has learned a lot from the James Bay Cree. If we look at what has been happening in Vancouver since she found out about the Cree, first nations issues have been settled much more easily. She can use Quebec’s experience with the first nations and apply it to British Columbia. The parliamentary secretary realized this and was actually quite happy about it, given the way he reacts when our colleague stands and speaks in the House.

I am very proud of the determination and pride of the Quebec Cree. I cannot speak for the Cree of Ontario or other provinces because, apart from the witnesses who appear before us in committee, I have not had much opportunity to talk to them. Generally speaking, though, the Cree rely a lot on the comprehension and understanding shown by the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when they come to see us and try to make us grasp their problems and view of things, which is not necessarily our own.

For example, in regard to Bill C-28 before us today, we should not forget that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been in negotiation since 1973. Negotiations started as far back as 1973, under René Lévesque, in connection with the James Bay power project. After the project was developed on their lands, the Cree decided to claim some of the benefits. We well remember how hard they had to fight, even going to New York, if I remember correctly, to assert their rights.

Bill C-28 arose pursuant to the promises Canada made in the subsequent agreements. Its purpose is to implement these promises: the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975; the 1992 Oujé-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement, in which Canada promised to remedy the failure to include the Cree of Oujé-Bougoumou in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement; the Cree and Naskapi legislation; and the 2008 Agreement concerning a New Relationship between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, which reaffirmed the promise to give the Cree Regional Authority greater governance powers over the development of the James Bay Cree. I am very happy for the chief of Oujé-Bougoumou, whom I hold in high esteem. She is a very nice lady who has now become a very great lady.

As I just said, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been in negotiation since 1973. It comes from the Eeyou Istchee Cree, which translates as the land of the Cree of James Bay, Quebec. The association of Inuit of New Quebec entered into negotiations with the Government of Quebec, the federal government, Hydro-Québec and the James Bay energy corporation. At that point, they focused on the regions and the people in them, recognizing and protecting certain rights and benefits. The negotiations concluded with the signing in 1975 of the James Bay agreement, the first comprehensive land claim agreement in Canada, which today is protected under the Constitution as a modern treaty, pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In this agreement, the Cree gave up, transferred and dropped all claims, rights, titles and native interests to and in the lands in the area and in Quebec in exchange for clearly defined rights and benefits.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement recognized eight bands. This land regime defined three categories of land. I will not enumerate them. In the 1975 agreement, with Oujé-Bougoumou not yet a reserve or even a recognized band, it had to fight until 1992 for recognition and to obtain its own village.

The current agreement comes under the heading of local administration. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act establishes the eight bands as corporations recognized by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and establishes their powers in the following areas—making bylaws with respect to category IA lands under section 45; regulation of buildings for the protection of public safety; health and hygiene; public order and safety; the protection of the environment; the prevention of pollution; the taxation for local purposes of a broad range of local services; roads, traffic and transportation; the operation of businesses and the carrying on of trades; and parks and recreation.

Other sections concern band financial administration, residence, access and other rights on category IA lands, the disposition of interests in these lands, and policing.

Bill C-28 provides amendments for each of these parties, thus giving considerable autonomy. Unfortunately, it is not yet complete, but it is the most progressive in Canada at the moment. I offer the example of an agreement signed not so long ago with a first nations band from my colleague's area, which was also granted autonomy. It was obtained through negotiation, consultation and agreements.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary reminding us of Bill C-8. The government consulted some people, including women and the Assembly of First Nations. When this bill was introduced, we understood that the Assembly of First Nations acknowledged being consulted. The Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women also acknowledged being consulted. However, that is where the existing agreement between the department and these associations representing first nations stops. Consulting and taking nothing from the consultation contributes nothing.

This is why the first nations of Canada and of Quebec have spoken out against Bill C-8, as they did against C-44 and C-21, and as they will continue to do just as long as we do not recognize the philosophy and way of life, the culture and the needs of all first nations. When they ask for something in consultations, it is not enough just to listen but do nothing. Their needs must be taken into consideration. They are persons just as we are persons. Many more agreements can be reached, and I am proud of this for the James Bay Cree.

In committee, after our discussions, unanimity was reached on this bill with the exception of one minor change proposed by the government, which was to adapt the English version to the French in a certain clause, because the French definition was more accurate than the English.

The bill received unanimous support and I sincerely hope that the House will also support it when it comes time to vote. For its part, the Bloc Québécois supports the first nations, as it always has, for that matter.

The Bloc Québécois has made it our duty to support the first nations across Canada, not just in Quebec. We know that the first nations of Canada in general have experienced more or less the same difficulties, and the Bloc Québécois recognizes the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with the right to their culture, their language, their customs and traditions, as well as the right to direct the development of that unique identity themselves.

In so doing, it is respecting the direction taken by René Lévesque, a staunch defender of aboriginal peoples, who made Quebec the first government in America to recognize the aboriginal nations in its midst.

Bill C-28 is in fact the extension of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and of the Paix des Braves, which was signed under Bernard Landry and the Parti Québécois. Bill C-28 enables the federal government to fulfill its obligations to the Cree-Naskapi.

In 2004, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said the following:

The Paix des Braves ratified by the Government of Quebec and representatives of the Cree Nation has paved the way for these kinds of negotiations and demonstrated that major development projects have to be negotiated with mutual interests in mind. The Bloc Québécois supports the first nations in their fight for emancipation. That is why we are asking Ottawa to follow this example to negotiate a similar agreement with Cree Nation representatives.

In its 2008 report, the Cree-Naskapi Commission identified the negative outcome of the federal government's failure to respect the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement:

Consequently, the full potential of local self-government, with its dynamic and evolving nature, has not yet been realized nor achieved by the Cree and Naskapi First Nations because, as one principal constraint, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, after twenty-four (24) years, remains an inflexible, rigid instrument which has not yet been reviewed by Canada, the Cree and Naskapi for the purposes of determining appropriate amendments to enhance and improve Cree and Naskapi local government.

The commission issued a series of recommendations that I will not get into now because most of their demands have been acknowledged in this bill. That is the big difference between this bill and Bill C-8, which we will soon be debating.

I was listening to the member for Saint Boniface earlier, and she was saying that the government had held extensive consultations. That is true, but the extent of the negotiations has little to do with whether the government understood the demands put forward during the consultations. I would like the government to understand that. We could avoid all kinds of futile, useless discussions and debates if only we really listened to the people we were talking to.

I will end on that note. I really hope that all parties in the House will support this bill so that it can make its way to the Senate quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North on having an initiative around flavoured cigarillos adopted by the government. That is an example of how we can work together on issues.

With regard to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the difference between that bill and Bill C-8 is stark. With Bill C-28, the parties were at the table right from the outset. They had the Cree Nations and the Ouje-Bougoumou at the table along with the Department of Justice as the legislation was being drafted.

We know that did not happen with Bill C-8. There was a very tight timeframe for the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association to start a process. We discovered in hearing back from them that the process could not get to consultation because there was so much education that needed to happen. There was an education awareness process that took place with the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations. They did not get to the consultation process.

With the ministerial representative's report, which is very thick, her recommendations were largely disregarded. I quoted from her report in my speech around the elements of consultation she thought were important to truly get the kind of legislation that reflected the needs in the community.

As the member for Winnipeg North pointed out, this is often stated as the New Democrats being against women's rights. I would argue we are advocating strongly that whatever legislation comes forward actually protects women's rights and that we do not get a flawed piece of legislation like we have from the 1985 Bill C-31, which is now seeing people lose their status. We want a piece of legislation that reflects the needs of those communities, the women and their children.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague, who has worked so hard on this file, a question. This is further to the parliamentary secretary's question about the difference between the approaches with respect to Bill C-28 and that of Bill C-8, which has caused a lot of discussion in this place and a lot of controversy.

Unfortunately, because it is our understanding that proper consultation with respect to Bill C-8 was not done and that there is this differing viewpoint between the Assembly of First Nations and the government and between the Native Women's Association and the government, and because the government tends to interpret any opposition to Bill C-8 as being anti-women or anti-equality, I think we do need some clarification on the different processes that were applied. Where did the government fell amiss in terms of Bill C-8 and why it was successful with respect to Bill C-28?

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

Mr. Speaker, on matrimonial real property, Bill C-8, there is a difference of opinion between the government and the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. Both of those organizations do not support Bill C-8. They do not feel it reflects what they heard from the communities. In fact many of the recommendations that the ministerial representative and her team made, whose work I quoted from on the duty to consult, were not incorporated into Bill C-8.

The minister came before the committee this morning and talked about what he saw as being important in Bill C-8, which is the ability to allow nations to develop their own codes around matrimonial real property, and that the current state of the Indian Act prevents him from doing that. I would suggest that the government could withdraw Bill C-8 and reintroduce a bill that deals with the ability of nations to give the minister the authority under the Indian Act to have those codes developed. If that is the stumbling block, why not put forward a piece of legislation that actually addresses what he says is the real need?

Again, consultation has to not only meet the government's needs, it has to meet the needs of the people. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that is what Bill C-8 does. Well, Bill C-8 does more than that. Therefore, if the government would withdraw Bill C-8 and reintroduce just the pieces around the Indian Act and bands developing their codes, we might be able to have a different conversation around it.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and support Bill C-8, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

My concern in all the developments today on this bill is that we are losing sight of the objective. The objective is that we have a legislative vacuum. There are vulnerable people, families and children, who are not covered by any legislation. When there is a marital or common-law breakdown on reserve, this is a problem.

I very much appreciated the question posed by the member for Simcoe North just a minute ago to the Bloc member, because the bill encourages the development of marital breakdown laws at the band level, and it can be done without any requirement or need for ministerial sign-off. Right now, unless first nations are under a self-government agreement, this is very problematic.

As we know, there are 630 bands in Canada. So we need to be concerned about that. Somebody has to take leadership, and the government is taking that leadership. This is what concerns me so much about the hoist motion by the Liberal Party on this bill, because the adoption of the hoist amendment would have the same effect as killing the bill. That is simply inappropriate.

This legislation is the product of a comprehensive process of consultation, collaboration and compromise. Officials from key stakeholder groups, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the first nations' Lands Advisory Board, the provinces and the territories, actively participated in the process.

We keep hearing that there was no meaningful consultation. There was $1.7 million provided to the Assembly of First Nations regarding consultation on this issue. There was $1.7 million provided to the Native Women's Association of Canada for further consultation on this issue. There were moneys provided to other aboriginal organizations for consultations on this issue. There were consultations in more than 100 jurisdictions across Canada on the need for this type of legislation.

On the very same day, the aboriginal affairs committee heard testimony from witnesses who congratulated the government on its approach to drafting the legislation on the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, and by the way, we approached the drafting of this bill in the same way. We were given kudos for the way we handled it in the Cree-Naskapi amendments and we are being criticized for handling it in the very same way on Bill C-8, the bill we are talking about regarding matrimonial real property.

So I am finding the position of particularly the Liberal Party to be very inconsistent in terms of its approach in this Parliament. However, its approach is very consistent. It fought all the way on the human rights amendments to the legislation in the last Parliament by which our first nations brothers and sisters were put under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the same as other Canadians. That was firmly opposed by the Liberal Party in the House, and now it is doing, in my opinion, the very same thing.

This is an issue of human rights, of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society. We are trying to get there and the Liberals are trying to kill the bill.

The NDP and the Bloc are much more realistic in that they want to debate it and have witnesses at committee. I think that is most appropriate, and we would like to do that too.

Maybe it would help to explain a little bit of the complexity of what is going on, why Bill C-8 is so necessary in the context of people living on reserves and the legal complexities at play.

To begin, the bill only addresses interests or rights regarding family homes on reserves and other matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures or lands on reserves. It does not address other matrimonial property, including items such as furniture, cars and off-reserve properties, as provincial and territorial family laws apply to such property.

It is also imperative to have a basic grasp of one unique legal aspect of reserve lands, and that is the collective interest. Under the Indian Act, reserve lands are held collectively and are set aside for the use and benefit of a first nation. In the rest of Canada, land holdings are primarily based on individual ownership. Other legal concepts such as rights, title and interests, must be interpreted in light of the first nations collective interest in land on reserves. All these concepts can come into play when on-reserve couples separate.

Along with the collective interest in reserve land, many houses and other structures on reserves are often communally owned. According to most estimates, up to three-quarters of all on-reserve housing units are owned collectively. Occupants typically rent space in the units from first nation councils. In some cases, individuals purchase or build a house on first nation property. It varies greatly from one community to another. I know communities where 100% of the housing is actually individually owned.

First nation membership often adds another level of complexity. All members of the first nation have an interest in community-owned lands and properties. When married couples living on reserves separate, these and other factors complicate the division of property and interests, of course.

Bill C-8 proposes a clear set of rules to address this complex matter. Under this legislation, couples living on reserves would be able to access a range of rights and remedies similar to those available to couples living off-reserve, through a provisional federal regime.

The bill also contains provisions for first nations to create their own regimes, to adopt laws governing the use, occupation and possession of family homes, for instance, along with other on-reserve matrimonial interests and rights.

Members of the House know all too well that this legislative gap has continued far too long. Legislation in this area is long overdue. The provisional federal regime included in Bill C-8 addresses pertinent issues that, along with other changes, will grant spouses living on reserves an equal right to occupy the family home, prevent one spouse from selling or mortgaging the on-reserve family home without the consent of the other spouse, enable a court to issue emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders on an urgent basis, particularly in instances of domestic violence, and ensure that divorced or separated spouses share equally in the proven value of matrimonial interests and on-reserve properties, including family homes.

Furthermore, when a spouse or common-law partner dies, Bill C-8 will enable the surviving spouse to occupy the family home for a specified period of time and to apply for half the value of matrimonial interests.

Finally, in cases where both spouses have signed written agreements on these matters, the legislation will enable the court to enforce these agreements.

This legislation protects not only the rights of individuals, but also the collective rights of first nations. With the exception of emergency protection and confidentiality orders, whenever an application is made under the bill, the first nation may make representation to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to the proceedings.

Finally, the proposed legislation also includes provisions for the enactment of community-specific laws in this area. Consistent with the democratic process, the first nation members must support the proposed law through a community ratification vote before it can become a first nation law. As I explained earlier, this can all occur and is enabled by this legislation without ratification by the minister. The minister is not involved, assuming the bill is adopted.

The proposed legislation offers a thoroughly researched, judiciously balanced solution to a long-standing problem. Bill C-8 would have a positive and tangible effect in first nations communities. It would close a legislative gap that erodes public faith in our justice system and it would engage first nations in the development of laws that satisfy the needs of their members.

I am confident that once my hon. colleagues study Bill C-8, they will join me in supporting it. We will see about amendments. We have not closed any doors. I am sure this will be a long exercise but it is one that we should look forward to and embrace because we are doing something very important in terms of human rights and in terms of protecting the most vulnerable in society.

There is no area where the federal government has a bigger responsibility than to take leadership in these areas. If we do not take that leadership, it would be an abdication of our responsibility. I really do not know who else can provide a nationally organized effort in this regard. It is our constitutional responsibility.

We keep hearing members of the Liberal Party say that aboriginals are totally opposed to the bill. This is something that we must think quite seriously about because we know from the consultation process that many individuals with serious concerns would support this initiative. The vulnerable individuals in the communities, however, are very reluctant to support this important bill when their leaders and aboriginal organizations are taking an opposite view. However, those are the very people we need to be concerned about. We cannot let the objective of the legislation be lost because we are having a political discourse as opposed to one that concerns itself very directly with the well-being and welfare of individuals.

A submission was made in 2008 to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women from the Canadian Feminist Alliance that said:

While there is some disagreement among the Aboriginal women’s community... about how quickly the government should proceed on this issue...this is a straightforward issue requiring immediate action.

I would submit that this is a very important statement. It is much easier for women to go to a women's organization as opposed to aboriginal women going to an aboriginal women's organization if they know their position will be automatically rejected because of a political agenda. I think they made a very important statement.

Before today's press release, we had the Native Women's Association of Canada recommending that interim legislation be put into place that guarantees that first nations women will have matrimonial property rights equivalent to all other women in Canada. That is a very important statement and that is what this legislation attempts to do.

I will close on debating this hoist amendment that would have the effect of killing the bill. I believe we have ended up having discourse on the entire direction of the bill, but that is appropriate as well at this time.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member from the Bloc.

I wonder if he might speak briefly on the notion that has not been discussed too much here this afternoon. That is the notion that Bill C-8 does provide an ability for first nations communities to develop their own laws to deal with this legislative gap on matrimonial real property. The bill provides that mechanism, and in fact, encourages it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a press release that was released today. It comes from the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, including the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council. They all agree that Bill C-8 will do nothing to solve the problems associated with matrimonial real property on reserve. They agree that the federal government failed in its duty to consult with and accommodate the views of first nations and that as a result the bill is fatally flawed and cannot be fixed. They recommend that it should not proceed to committee.

I ask my hon. colleague, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the committee for a long time, why he thinks it will be useful to send it to committee when we know the major stakeholders strongly oppose the bill, they do not see it as having value for aboriginal women and they do not see it as respectful of aboriginal tradition and culture.

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 2006, Commissioner David Langtry stated, even before Bill C-11 was adopted, that full human rights protection was now being extended to all first nations people and that the commission would act quickly to open discussions with those communities on how best to implement this much-needed change.

To my knowledge, “discussions“ are not “consultations“. The government does not seem to have grasped the intent of this bill. I would like to quote a passage from a report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women:

The committee heard and acknowledged that “the lack of a legal regime to govern the disposition of matrimonial real property on reserves is… the tip of a much greater iceberg“ and that “the legislative gap in respect of the matrimonial real property rights on reserve lands is exacerbated by chronic housing shortages that exist on most reserves and difficulties in securing financing to purchase or construct alternative housing on reserve…“

Because of this, women will continue to be forced to leave their communities while waiting for an effective solution to the housing shortage and the full implementation of the right to self-determination. The government fails to recognize this and remains apart from other countries by refusing to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This situation has existed for two decades and has never been corrected.

In June 2005, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development tabled a report in the House. Its first finding recognized the importance of the matter of matrimonial real property to the residents of reserves, and, specifically, first nations women and children.

The committee recognized the great complexity of the issues. It also realized that, while immediate action was required, it was imperative that all recommendations be consistent with the government’s recognition of the inherent right of self-government by recognizing first nations’ authority over on-reserve matrimonial real property. The committee felt that any action needed to be taken in consultation and collaboration with first nations.

That was in 2005. Today, because the bill was neither developed in consultation with first nations as they wished, nor referred to the committee before second reading, the Assembly of First Nations considers that it has been so botched that it is practically impossible to put it right after this second reading. In addition, the impact studies conducted on the communities affected by BillC-8and the measures they contain to encourage the development of the communities' own laws on matrimonial homes have not been submitted to either the Assembly of First Nations or the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada want the bill to be defeated.

Like the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea of this bill, but not with its content or the way in which it has been put together. We feel that it is critically important for the communities and, for that reason, it should have been studied.

What difference is there between Bill C-44, which became Bill C-21, and Bill C-289, which is now Bill C-8? For me, there is no difference except that Bills C-44 and C-289 died on the order paper, and in all cases there were no prior consultations. They also have in common the almost unanimous protest against the method in which they were drawn up and the non-aboriginal view of aboriginal real property. I say “almost unanimous“ because the only person not in agreement at the time is now a senator.

This bill, like the ones that went before and the ones that will come after, should have been the result of consultations with first nations, as agreed by the Martin government and the first nations in May 2005. For this bill in particular, the provinces, the territories, the committees of Parliament and the report of Wendy Grant-John, the ministerial representative for matrimonial real property issues on reserve, all should have been consulted.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. The few consultations that were held left participants bitter. They saw them as charades at which they wasted their time. None of their recommendations were accepted, yet the implementation has to be done within their culture and under their administration.

This government should perhaps mention that this bill resulted from discussions with some first nations organizations, the ministerial representative, the provinces and the territories in the summer and fall of 2007. The government should not use the term “consultation“ at all.

Once more, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador oppose this bill because it is fundamentally flawed and practically impossible to correct after second reading. In June 2006, in its report to the House, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women wished to see concrete progress on the issues relating to matrimonial real property rights of first nations women, issues linked to violence against women. It quoted Beverly Jacobs from the Native Women's Association of Canada:

It's not just in first nations communities. We know it's happening all across the country. It's in Canadian homes where women are being abused. We are taking the brunt of it, and I'm tired of it. As a first nations woman, as a Mohawk woman, I'm tired of hearing this. I feel it's my responsibility to make sure it doesn't occur any more. My daughter is 23, and she also had to live through that. I have grandchildren, and I don't want them to live through it. I don't want them to see violence.

The housing problem is still not solved today. In 2001, the government introduced Bill C-289 despite recommendations to the contrary. Here we are again today with Bill C-8, once more with no consultation or collaboration with aboriginal groups.

Aboriginal peoples, particularly women, would be in favour of this legislation which will put an end to centuries of discrimination and inequities enshrined in the Indian Act and visited upon aboriginal women. They do not want to see these errors corrected by another that would be just as serious, if not more so, than the existing one. This error must be corrected on their terms and in a way that is consistent with their lifestyle and their culture. Above all this legislation must not be the outcome of a unilateral decision by the federal government, which has increasingly demonstrated its ignorance of aboriginal values and of the non-legislative measures inherent in the enforcement of any act or regulation.

There are many irritants. I will mention some of them. First, no non-legislative measure is mentioned. Second, there is a lack of information with regard to the implementation of an action plan. Third, there is also information missing as to resources available to the first nations to develop their laws or the regulations of Bill C-8. Fourth, as mentioned previously, there is a crying need for housing. This situation is in itself sufficient to make this bill's provisions unworkable. Indeed, how, in the case of marital breakdown, can one guarantee decent housing to each of the parties in question? Fifth, this legislation refers to legal proceedings that will lead to trials to clarify the bill's ambiguities. Most of the members of these communities cannot undertake such legal proceedings, because they cannot afford them.

Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald, Ontario representative to the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council, stated in June 2006:

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.

After all the consultations, and presentations and drafting of reports: the government didn’t listen to our women. In fact, I was one of those women they consulted. Yes they asked for our opinion, but the bill does not reflect what we told them. What they’ve drafted is very much a made-in-Ottawa Bill.” .

The Assembly of First Nations Women's Council sees four problems in the bill as it is drafted. It will in the final analysis force first nations women to seek recourse before provincial courts. For many women who live in remote communities, this solution will not be financially viable, among other things because of the time that this would take.

During the consultations, the first nations women asked that matrimonial real property rights be framed from the perspective of their own cultural values and traditions, and not from within the framework of federal or provincial regulations which they did not have a hand in preparing.

Rather than recognizing the authority of first nations, the bill sets out how first nations regulations should be developed, according to a complicated process that makes no provision for supporting first nations participation. In the final analysis, the bill will impose a complex bureaucratic system which will offer no support whatsoever for its implementation.

For matrimonial real property rights to be meaningful, the women told us that the government should see to it that accessible and safe housing be made available.

With regard to the situation in Quebec and Canada, Ms. Wendy Cornet, Special Advisor to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, stated, when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on March 24, 2005, that:

The common functions of provincial and territorial matrimonial property law are, firstly, defining what personal and real property of spouses is considered matrimonial property within a given jurisdiction; providing a system of rights and protections in relation to matrimonial property on a mandatory basis to married couples; and thirdly, establishing—as all jurisdictions do—a legal presumption of equal division of matrimonial property on marriage breakdown, regardless of which spouse owns the matrimonial property. This last function usually means that a compensation order can be issued by the court, requiring one spouse to pay the other an amount of money to achieve an equal division of matrimonial property—and the couple's assets and liabilities that constitute matrimonial property are taken into account in determining this.

However, in some important policy areas, provincial and territorial laws vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another, in particular regarding the treatment of the following subjects: common-law relationships; same-sex relationships; matters relating to rights upon death of a spouse; and family violence. Some jurisdictions have passed family violence legislation that provides a package of remedies, including interim orders respecting matrimonial real property. Other jurisdictions do not have specific legislation addressing family violence. And finally, another matter in which you find some variance is the treatment of matters relating to support and the matrimonial home.

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. However, the Indian Act is silent on the question of matrimonial property interests during marriage and on marriage breakdown. The Indian Act does not provide for, or recognize, a law-making power on the part of first nations in regard to matrimonial property, real or personal.

There are other issues that must be taken into account on reserves. For instance, many first nations do not use the Indian Act system of individual allotments of reserve lands, for example, by issuing certificates of possession, and instead use systems of custom allotment. An individual's status as an Indian as defined under the Indian Act makes them a band member and can affect property interest in and on reserve lands. For example, individuals who are not band members cannot hold certificates of possession.

It is clearly inconsistent on the part of the Canadian government to go forward with this bill, since it committed itself on May 31, 2005 to strengthening cooperation on policy development between the Assembly of First Nations and the federal government. Here is an excerpt from that agreement:

Whereas the Prime Minister, at the April 19, 2004 Canada - Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable, stated, “It is now time for us to renew and strengthen the covenant between us”, and committed that “No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later. The principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.”

Clearly the government is not keeping its promise.

It is not rocket science: there must first of all be discussions on the process whereby participation of the Assembly of First Nations in the development of federal policies that have specific repercussions on AFN members can be increased, in particular in the areas of health, skills development, housing, political or economic negotiations and results-based accountability.

Second, they have to address the human and financial resources, as well as the accountability mechanisms needed to encourage the Assembly of First Nations to become more involved in policy making.

That is pretty clear, and I encourage the members to read the remarks I have made in this House since 2006. It should be noted that I have to remind the government of that every time we discuss relations with the first nations. That is not normal.

To conclude, I will give the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, which is sensitive to what is happening in aboriginal communities. The Bloc, like aboriginals, believes that the government should take action. We also take into account the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The Bloc Québécois expects the government to respect the political agreement. It wants to remind the government of its obligation to consult. The Bloc will ensure that implementation of this new bill does not undermine the recognition of the first nations' inherent right to self-government.

The Bloc Québécois is aware that the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have not fully completed their own analysis of the impact of this bill on their communities. The Bloc also knows that the government has apparently not completed a new study.

We will support this bill at second reading for the sole purpose of trying to make the government understand that it has to undertake consultations and fix the bill so that it reflects the vision and culture of the first nations.

The House resumed 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 a second time and referred to committee.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to May 28 for the meeting in committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I presume the government House leader, before that date, will be proposing the same procedural motion governing the rules that would apply during the course of that debate. I see he is nodding his head and I welcome that information.

My final point is simply to provide a bit of information that the government House leader may not have in respect of the hoist motion that was moved earlier today having to do with Bill C-8. He may be comforted to know that every major aboriginal organization in the country supports the hoist motion.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that will not be on the agenda is what the Liberal leader is always asking for and that is tax increases. That certainly will not be on the government's agenda.

Today we are going to continue debate on Bill C-8, the matrimonial real property legislation. Earlier today the Liberal Party moved a six months hoist motion with respect to Bill C-8. The term “six months hoist” is a bit of a misnomer. In modern terms, the adoption of a six months hoist motion would essentially kill the bill. I am surprised at the Liberal Party. The Liberals are always saying they advocate for women's rights. This legislation is about aboriginal women's and children's rights on reserve, and yet they are trying to kill the bill.

Following Bill C-8, we will call Bill C-20, the nuclear liability legislation, and Bill C-30, the Senate ethics legislation. All of these bills are at second reading.

Tonight, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the main estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be considered in committee of the whole.

As was noted, next week is a constituency work week for members of Parliament when they will be returning to their constituencies to work hard.

When the House returns on May 25, we will continue with business from this week, with the addition of any bills that are reported back from the standing committees.

Added to the list of business is Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, and Bill C-19, the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions legislation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) I would like to designate May 28, 2009 as the date for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to point out that this morning we had the opportunity to meet with a first nations community which, for the first time since I was elected, underscored the fact that the negotiations between the government and their nation are being conducted in good faith. You had to see the satisfaction of these people and how pleased they were to accept this agreement. They do not think it is perfect; however, they were consulted and they contributed to the agreement. With this agreement, good faith and collaboration with the government they will achieve autonomy.

I am certain that we are seeing this approach for the first time. Unfortunately, it has already fallen by the wayside. We see this from studying the bill before us this morning. In this bill, the government has gone back to its old habits. It is developing something for the first nations that they do not want. They want to collaborate, to be consulted and to contribute to this agreement.

With Bill C-8, the government is making the same mistakes it made in the past. In January 2004, we debated Bill C-44, the forerunner to Bill C-21. Although it wanted section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed, the Bloc Québécois declared that it felt that the government had not sufficiently consulted the first nations about the impact of the repeal on the communities.

The Bloc was supported by the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 is inconsistent with first nations right to self-determination, which is recognized in our Constitution. It is contrary to first nations jurisdiction over family law, which was recognized by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

I would like to stress that it is up to first nations to identify gaps in laws and address them as they see fit in their own law-making initiatives.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about consultation. There was considerable consultation on the bill, with 103 different meetings and multi-millions of dollars spent. A lot of work was done with the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and with other organizations. Bill C-8 would address a big vacuum in the law, and everyone knows that.

Is the member aware that in 2008 a submission was made by the Canadian Feminist Alliance to the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women? It said that despite some disagreement in the aboriginal women's community about how to deal quickly with this bill, this was a straightforward issue and should be dealt with immediately.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I support the amendment of my hon. colleague.

Although September 13, 2007, will be celebrated as a day when indigenous people and the United Nations moved to reconcile painful histories and resolved to move forward respecting human rights, it will not be remembered so here in Canada.

The UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by an overwhelming majority vote of 144 to 4 member states, opposed only by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. It was the first time that Canada sought to be exempted from a human rights standard adopted by the General Assembly.

I am compelled to speak out against Bill C-8 as I strongly believe it is fundamentally flawed. It violates numerous provisions of the UN declaration, including control of membership in accordance with tradition, protection against cultural assimilation, and right to self-determination.

It is inconsistent with first nations' right to self-government, recognized in the Constitution, and is contrary to first nations' jurisdiction over family law, recognized in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The government must not interfere in first nations' right to self-determination and must not attempt to justify its intrusion in any way, in this case saying the Indian Act does not address matrimonial property and provincial legislation does not apply. It is up to first nations to identify gaps in laws and address them as they see fit by their own law-making initiatives.

As it stands there is tremendous concern that Bill C-8 will undermine grassroots action and increase the legislative gap, not eliminate it.

Wendy Grant-John, the ministerial representative, tabled a report in 2007 that stated, “Unilateral, imposed federal legislation was not the proper way to proceed”. Recent court cases support her conclusion, namely that the federal government cannot unilaterally enact legislation that has the potential to affect or infringe aboriginal or treaty rights' interests without first consulting first nations.

Although the consultation process consisted of a planning phase, June 2006, a consultation phase, September 2006 to January 2007, and a consensus building phase, February 2007, the process was considered largely to be information sessions rather than serious consultations by first nations who want to protect and preserve their lands for future generations.

A second concern is that most first nations do not have the capacity to develop the local bylaws referred to in Bill C-8. More disturbing, however, is the fact that these local bylaws can only occur under a federally approved verification officer, a throwback to the Indian agent of the 1950s and wholly inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government. One chief said to me that he feels as if he is living through the residential school system again, a system which destroyed his family.

A third concern is that Bill C-8 does not recognize traditional first nations governments and procedures related to matrimonial property rights, such as traditional forms of dispute resolution involving elders.

Domestic violence is another serious issue that must be addressed as part of the search for solutions to matrimonial real property issues on reserves. Family violence in first nations communities has been described as a consequence to colonization, forced assimilation and cultural genocide.

Bill C-8 would force people with matrimonial real property, or MRP, issues to hire lawyers and utilize the courts, which would undermine the cultural integrity of first nations, and increase family and community discord. First nations want to ensure that their children have an opportunity to live in their communities and learn their culture and language.

The bill creates the appearance of action while leaving underlying socio-economic problems such as inadequate housing, substandard education and unemployment unaddressed.

First nations estimated a housing shortfall of 80,000 units on reserves in 2005. The federal government estimated the shortfall between 20,000 to 35,000 units. Based on current funding levels, it could take anywhere from 15 to 60 years to resolve current housing problems. Chronic housing shortages on reserves have, in turn, resulted in overcrowding.

Just this past week, Sandy Bay Ojibway First Nation buried five-year-old Tristan Mousseau, who perished in a blaze that destroyed a three-bedroom residence, home to 11 people. Tragically, it was the second time in three months that a child died in a house fire on the reserve of about 3,000 people.

Unfortunately, when first nations couples separate, the lack of affordable alternative housing often further breaks families apart, as one spouse and some, or all, of the children are forced to leave their community to seek available housing.

Not only does Bill C-8 violate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but also the Constitution and the comprehensive recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Moreover, it is largely and strongly opposed by first nations.

Ontario Regional Chief Angus Toulouse wrote:

--the federal government reintroduced legislation on Matrimonial Real Property (MRP) on reserve. The text of the new Bill C-8 is exactly the same as the previous Bill C-47, which was condemned by Resolution 08/66 at the All Ontario Special Chiefs Conference on November 18, 2008. First Nations in Ontario have clearly expressed opposition based on the fact that the federal duty to consult and accommodate First Nations has not been met and further, that the Bill does not respect Aboriginal and Treaty rights as confirmed in the Constitution of Canada...the First Nation position is that the Bill should be opposed at introduction.

First nations organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario and Nishnawbe Aski Nation, have passed resolutions opposing Bill C-8.

On March 26, NAN Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald together with the NAN Women's Council and more than 80 women from 49 communities united in a peaceful demonstration to demand the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-8. Some of the women carried signs which read:

Residential School, Sixties Scoop, Now Matrimonial Real Property; Accommodat2on, Consultation, We Were Not Accommodated with Regards to Bill C-8; and Listen to Our Grandmothers and Elders.

I wish I had time to identify the over 20 recommendations made by the ministerial representative and the federal response to each regarding Bill C-8. The words “not addressed” would occur repeatedly.

In closing, I would like members to know that prior to my serving this House, I had the honour and privilege of serving on a first nations board. Each time I sat down with elders and band members, I learned so much. I learned to listen and not to talk unless I held the talking stick. I learned to smudge or brush smoke from burning cedar, sage or sweetgrass to my body to cleanse my spirit. I learned that elders are vital to any community and was glad to learn at their knees and partake in ceremonies. I learned that before any meeting, a chief would call upon the grandfathers and ask for help because we do not have all the answers.

It is time that first nations hold the talking stick and that government listens.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

I am pleased to speak to 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 bill was designed to create a regime to govern how property interests of married and common-law couples on first nation reserves would be divided after a breakdown of their marriage, but the government, when introducing the bill, misled the House by claiming that it had the approval or it consulted all aboriginal groups.

In my consultations with many native women's groups, both from Ontario and Quebec, they were appalled by the lack of consultation, the inflexibility of the consultation process and the fact that two large provinces that constitute over 50% of the aboriginal communities were left out of the consultation process.

We all know we do not question the need for legislation to address the very real problems when family breakdown occurs for Canadians living on reserves. However, the Conservative government failed in its constitutional duty to consult the aboriginal groups in the development of the bill.

I am appalled by the fact that NDP claims it will support the bill.

I come from the colonial era so I know what colonialism is and I can see the Conservatives moving toward that era. However, for a party that claims to support human rights, I am absolutely appalled when women themselves claim that this would violate the Human Rights Act and they have given me a litany of articles that have been violated.

I cannot understand why anyone would stand up and support the bill. If we leave this proposal on the table, there cannot be substantive changes or discussions because we limit the ability of the aboriginal communities to discuss or make substantive changes. The bill needs to be hoisted for six months and we are calling on the government to do it so that it can use its time to properly consult without forcing its own opinions on a community that has not been consulted.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has stated that this is not the right bill. As I was listening to the presentations, I heard the NDP say that this would allow the Native Women's Association to present. However, if it presents and there is a violation, 60% of the recommendations of the Grant report have not been addressed, it demands that these aboriginal women who are living on the reserves need to have those amendments made, how can the government claim that it will be able to amend this bad bill? A bad bill has to be thrown out. Therefore, it is important that we do consult.

Let us look at the history behind this. In 1986, during the era of the Mulroney Conservative government, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship breaks down on reserves courts cannot apply provincial or territorial family law because reserve lands fall 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 a marriage breakdown. Matrimonial real property, MRP, refers to the house or 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 the reserve. As a result, spouses living on the reserves 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, or order partition or sale of the family home to enforce an order of compensation from one spouse or the other, or preclude a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home without the consent of another spouse.

The Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have been highly critical of the bill. I would like to ask all parliamentarians to listen as they represent the majority of the groups. If we do not want to listen to them and impose a bill on them, then what are we here for? We are living in an ivory tower trying to impose laws on people who have not been consulted and this is a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of the aboriginal people.

They strenuously argue that the government failed to live up to its constitutional duty to consult first nations on a law that would directly impact their right to manage reserve lands. There is a concern for the first nations women and girls who are four times more likely to be physically or sexually assaulted than any other women in Canada. Their suicide rate is three times the national average as is their likelihood of contracting AIDS. They are less healthy, poorer and more likely to have addiction problems. There cannot be another group in Canada more vulnerable and with fewer alternatives than women living on reserves.

Why is the government and those who are supporting this bill supporting keeping native women in the back rooms, poorer and uneducated? The bill does not address their rights nor does it address any of the socio-economic problems.

In her report, the Auditor General stated that INAC, which did the consultation process, had no cultural sensitivity to the aboriginal communities and that the consultation that was done under INAC was not driven by consulting the larger groups of aboriginal communities. The “father knows best” is not an approach here. I think parliamentarians need to understand that when they bring in a bad bill they should have the will to apologize for the bad bill and withdraw it. Instead, they are putting themselves in a position of no return to the detriment of the aboriginal communities.

Many first nations communities have come to us to say that it is contrary to the RCAP, which is the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and that it violates their jurisdiction. They say that it is inconsistent with the inherent rights of self-government recognized in section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

First nations people have the right to exercise their jurisdiction and govern themselves without federal legislation. I heard from the NDP member that they would be given the right to put forward whatever bills they have, but the NDP misses the point. The first nations consent is also required. The federal government takes the position that it consulted with the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women's Association of Canada, however, the duty to consult cannot be delegated and the obligation rests with the federal government to consult the rights holders, first nations communities and their representatives.

The other thing aboriginal groups have told us is that the bill violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that Bill C-8 blatantly violates the following sections: article 3, article 5, article 8, article 21, article 22, article 27, article 33 and article 34.

With such a bad bill that has no support from any of the aboriginal communities, and I have the Grant report here, how does the government and the other opposition parties think that by sending the bill to committee they will be able to make any substantive changes? They will not.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is interested in women's rights no matter what their racial background, and I am sure he supports them very much.

Any bill that comes up for debate in a territory, province or country seldom receives unanimous support. As I mentioned in my comments, there has been wide consultation. Some of the native women I have talked to in my riding support the bill.

I would point out to the hon. member across the way that just because a bill does not receive unanimous support does not mean it is not a good bill. He should consider that when he stands up to vote, I hope in favour of Bill C-8.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of aboriginal women on two reserves in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I want to voice my support for Bill C-8, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

The bill offers a practical effective solution to the long list of legal and technical issues related to on-reserve matrimonial real property. These issues have been the focus of much study, consultation and discussion in recent years. A review of the many published reports reveals several common themes and recommendations for action. These ideas helped shape the legislation now before us and, taken in their entirety, are a compelling, even overwhelming, argument for voting in favour of Bill C-8.

While other hon. members addressing the legislation have focused primarily on technical issues, I will adopt a different approach. I propose to outline the key findings of recent matrimonial real property research and consultation and link them to Bill C-8. This approach will demonstrate the considerable value of the legislation now before us.

I will begin with the findings of several United Nations committees. Canada is an active participant not only in the United Nations itself but also in several UN conventions and organizations. A report published in November 2005 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee touches on the issue of matrimonial real property. Among the report's recommendations is one which suggests that Canada:

--should, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, adopt measures ending discrimination actually suffered by Aboriginal women in matters of reserve membership and matrimonial property, and consider this issue as a high priority.

A second body, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, issued a similar call to action. This group called on Canada to develop a solution in consultation with the communities concerned.

Of course, there is also a long history of calls for reform from within Canada. In 1988, for example, the province of Manitoba launched an inquiry into the justice system's treatment of aboriginal peoples. The inquiry's final report identified a host of issues, including the lack of an effective regime dealing with on-reserve MRP.

The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples also examined the issue of matrimonial rights. The report recommended that:

Aboriginal nations or organizations consult with federal, provincial and territorial governments on areas of family law with a view to

(a) making possible legislative amendments to resolve anomalies in the application of family law to Aboriginal people and to fill current gaps...

While all of these reports included calls for a legislative solution to the issue of matrimonial property rights, there was, however, no clear consensus on how such legislation should be structured. Various options, such as amendments to the Indian Act, stand-alone legislation and the application of provincial and territorial laws have all been advanced.

Three parliamentary committees considered the challenges associated with potential legislative approaches to on-reserve matrimonial property rights.

The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, for example, staged a series of hearings and published an interim report in 2003. The report, titled, “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, included a number of pertinent recommendations, including legislation that would validate matrimonial laws developed and implemented by first nations. The report also called on government to transfer money to aboriginal women's groups for the purpose of conducting thorough consultations on the issue.

Three years later, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development launched another study and considered the testimony of more than 30 witnesses. The committee's report, “Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”, determined that, to be effective, MRP legislation must be developed in consultation and collaboration with first nations. The committee also stated that any legislation must balance individual equality rights and collective first nations rights.

Recommendations for consultation and legislative change were echoed in the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in June 2006.

The guidance provided by parliamentarians expressed in the studies that I have cited forms the core of this government's strategy on matrimonial property rights. This government did in fact provide over $8 million to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to carry out a consultation process. A ministerial representative was contracted to work with these two national aboriginal organizations, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and additional stakeholders to help identify and analyze legislative options.

These consultations, along with the findings of the ministerial representative received in 2007, and further discussions, have all informed and provided a firm foundation for Bill C-8.

The solution before the House includes a mechanism for first nations to establish their own community specific matrimonial reserve property laws. This is particularly significant because it marks the first time that Parliament would recognize first nation laws in the area of matrimonial real property without qualification. There would be no ministerial powers on reserve and no opportunity for the minister to overturn first nation MRP laws.

Bill C-8 also honours calls to ensure that all first nations members have adequate input into the development of their communities' MRP laws.

Under the terms of the proposed legislation, a majority of eligible voters must vote on and endorse proposed MRP laws. This approach would also help to align each MRP law with community values and traditions.

The federal regime established by Bill C-8 would apply to those first nations that have not already established MRP laws through negotiated self-government agreements that deal with the administration of reserve lands or through the First Nations Land Management Act.

The federal regime would empower judges to order specific remedies, such as exclusive occupation orders. Under the legislation, first nations may make representations to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to most orders.

In accordance with what was heard during consultation sessions, the option of simply incorporating provincial or territorial laws regarding MRP to apply on reserves, which had been the subject of a private member's bill in an earlier Parliament, was discarded. Furthermore, non-members of a first nation would not be able to use the provisions of the proposed legislation to gain ownership of reserve lands.

Finally, Bill C-8 respects an opinion expressed repeatedly during the consultation sessions and featured prominently in the ministerial representative's final report, that the legislation must balance individual rights and the collective rights of first nation communities.

Bill C-8 proposes to fill an intolerable legislative gap that has existed for far too long. The solution contained in the legislation is both comprehensive and workable. It is the product of much research and consultation, and it responds to concerns and recommendations identified by the people likely to be most affected.

The proposed legislation offers a long overdue fix to an intolerable problem, and grants first nations the unprecedented power to develop their own laws in this area.

For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-8. I urge all my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that would certainly benefit native women in my riding and many ridings across the country.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, government ministers have repeatedly claimed that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is incompatible with the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However on May 1, 2008, a group of more than 100 Canadian lawyers, scholars and other experts published an open letter that described the government's claims as erroneous and misleading.

Could the hon. member comment on this inconsistency and how Bill C-8 fails to meet the criteria of the declaration?

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

Madam Speaker, we know the Native Women's Association of Canada is not supporting Bill C-8. We also know that the Native Women's Association of Canada has some of those concrete solutions I have been talking about. It has some very good suggestions around non-legislative options, for example. It is also fully aware that without housing, for example, the bill itself will not deal with some of the other pressures on families without the recognition of customary laws, without support for mediation and dispute resolution, without appropriate consultation.

Perhaps the committee would agree to put the bill on hold, and we have done this on other pieces of legislation, to do a more fulsome consultation process.

Fortunately we have the ministerial representative's report that lays out what a consultation process could look like. I think it could be a win for people, for first nations women and children, if the committee could recommend a full consultation process that would look at adequate changes.

However, by simply shelving the bill for six months, we do not get an opportunity to talk about any of that. We do not get an opportunity to have the Native Women's Association of Canada come before the committee to talk about what is wrong with the bill and how it could be improved and how consultations could be put into place that would be appropriate.

I welcome the opportunity, if the bill should get to committee, to have an opportunity to deal with these very serious human rights violations taking place in Canada as we speak.

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

Madam Speaker, the member serves as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, and I would like to compliment him on his fair and even-handed approach in that committee.

There is no question that there are some very serious problems with Bill C-8. The NDP's speaking against the hoist motion is not tantamount to full support for the bill; it is a statement that New Democrats believe the injustice against women and children and families on reserve has gone on far too long.

It is now 23 years after that court case in 1986, and we still do not have any resolution. I believe this is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House to attempt to deal with this. They were all deeply flawed bills. I believe we need to get the legislation to committee to consider some of those solutions we know are there in first nations communities.

When we talk about playing politics with the lives of women and children and their families, I believe it is time to put that aside. Perhaps all parties could come to the table to look at those solutions that will actually make a difference in the lives of women and children in their communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today to the motion to adjourn debate on Bill C-8 for six months. I, too, will recommend that the NDP not support the motion to amend and that we work toward getting the bill to committee.

It is a very difficult decision. I believe Bill C-8 on matrimonial real property is a deeply flawed legislation. However, it is well past time to work toward solutions. We simply cannot, in good conscience, continue to leave this matter unresolved. I want to explain why I say that.

We have a long, sad and sorry history when it comes to matrimonial real property rights in Canada. Sadly, it reflects on both past Conservative governments and past Liberal governments. This is an occasion where both governing parties hold full responsibility for not taking earlier action.

I want to review a historical timeline so Canadians are well aware of the fact that this issue has had debate after debate and report after report, and we have failed to move toward any kind of solution. It is largely women and children who are impacted by this lack of action, but men and women continue to suffer in aboriginal communities. They do not have any legitimate legal recourse to see an appropriate division of the matrimonial home.

When I talk about the historical timeline, there are a couple of key points. I think this is a good reminder. Prior to colonization, first nations' cultural norms, kinship systems and laws determined the outcomes of marriage breakdown. Matriarchal kinship systems and egalitarian values were common. We have a history where, prior to contact and colonialism, first nations had their own rules and regulations when families disbanded.

Part of what first nations have been demanding is a recognition of those laws and customs. First nations will say that they are fully intent on honouring charter obligations in every respect. However, there is a long history. First nations occupied this land for thousands of years. They had developed systems to deal with marital breakdown.

Many things happened during the colonial period. The notion of individual property rights and male domination in property and civil rights were introduced by colonial governments in an effort to assimilate first nations people, with the hopes of ultimate eliminating reserves altogether. One sees this transition from laws that had been in place for thousands of years to a colonial period, where first nations were severely impacted by a notion of male domination. Many of the kinship and matriarchal systems were disbanded.

Post-Confederation, we had Indian legislation. There was a whole series of things, but first nations women were not permitted to vote in band council elections. There was gender-based discrimination in wills and estate laws. Throughout this period, the notion of equality rights did not exist in Canadian law. Women on and off reserve had very few legal protections from matrimonial property and were at a significant legal disadvantage compared to men. The Indian Act does not address matrimonial property rights.

Finally, in 1986, people started to wake up. Again, this is in the context of why we should not abandon debate. Court cases that took place 1986 finally said that things had to change. Two cases concerning the extent to which provincial laws and matrimonial property might be applied to individual interest in reserve lands reached the Supreme Court of Canada. One of them was Derrickson v. Derrickson. The other was Paul v. Paul.

The Supreme Court decided that provincial laws could not apply in any way that would change any individual property interest that a first nation person may hold under the Indian Act. Further, it went on to say:

Silence of the Indian Act and the non-recognition of First Nation jurisdiction on the matter means many basic protections not available to male or female spouses on reserves; women are particularly negatively impacted by the legislative gap because they still are more often the primary caregivers of young children.

Twenthy-three years ago Supreme Court rulings indicated that the federal government was allowing provincial law to erroneously apply on reserve and that there needed to be a federal resolution to recognize the special status on reserve. This is one of the primary reasons New Democrats believe we need to get this to committee so we can talk about the availability of other solutions. What proposals are the men and women in first nations communities putting forward?

We have the national organizations, but there are other voices in these communities to which we need to listened. We know some customary laws are already in place. Let us take a look at some of those examples.

From 1990 to the present, and again this is the sad history, eight United Nations human rights bodies have expressed concern about the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves. Internationally we are being pointed to for this lack of movement on matrimonial real property. Litigation on lack of protection for matrimonial real property rights is launched by a first nations women's organization. Women's organizations have been saying they need solutions to this.

In 2003 the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights issued its first report calling for legislative action on the question, consultations with first nations and first nations organizations.

In 2005 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development issued a report calling for legislative action on the question and recognized the inherent rights of first nations respecting matrimonial real property.

In 2006 the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women took up the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves and it continues to monitor it.

In that context, with so many different bodies, both internationally and within Canada, calling for us to move towards some action, I believe it is important. The Liberal member talked about playing politics. It is important that we do not play politics with this matter and that we take the opportunity to get it to committee so we can call in witnesses from across the country, so we do not play politics with it.

I want to refer back to the government response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, this was AANO 38-1. It talked about the fact that since 2001, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has done significant research and has produced a number of publications on the issue of matrimonial real property, including a comprehensive discussion paper to better understand the issues from a sociological and legal perspective.

Since all of this work has already been done, it seems important that we look at it, that we look at the sociological and legal perspectives and that we look at some of the proposals that have come forward.

I want to turn to some international reports I had cited. I quoted from one within Canada. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a report on this, and this is the context for why we should debate this motion and the bill and get it to committee for a fuller review. It states:

The Committee notes with regret the lack of substantial progress made by the State party in its efforts to address residual discrimination against First Nations women and their children in matters relating to Indian status, band membership and matrimonial real property on reserve lands, despite its commitment to resolving this issue through a viable legislative solution...

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 organisations and communities, including aboriginal women's organisations, without further delay.

Once again, an UN report notes the lack of movement and the lack of action in Canada. I do not know how many more reports we need to have to say that we need to take action.

The Liberal member suggested that we put this in abeyance for six months. This is referred to as a hoist motion, which effectively kills the legislation. I have no faith that during the six months this bill is on the back burner, we will see the kinds of consultation required to ensure the bill will meet the needs of first nations women and men.

I want to talk about consultation. That is part of the challenge of the bill before us. The government claims that there was consultation. However, when we hear from the organizations tasked with doing the so-called consultation, their feedback has been it simply has not been consultation. It has been discussion and perhaps education. However, it does not meet the terms of what has been set out as meaningful consultation.

I want to refer to recommendation 18 that came from the “Report of the Ministerial Representative of Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves”. Her report was supposed to be the precursor to this legislation. However, most of her recommendations were not included in the legislation. It is not that New Democrats think this legislation will solve the problems. We think this is an opportunity to look at other solutions.

I want to quote from the report about consultation. It states:

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 by:

1) Ensuring First Nations have relevant information to the issues for decision in a timely manner;

2) Providing an opportunity for First Nations to express their concerns and views on potential impacts of the legislative proposal and issues relating to the existence of a duty to consult;

3) Listening to, analyzing and seriously considering the representations and concerns of First Nations in the context of relevant legal and policy principles including their relationship to other constitutional and human rights principles;

4) Ensuring proper analyses by the Department of Justice of section 35 issues relating to any proposed legislative initiative are thoroughly canvassed before, during and after consultations;

5) Seriously considering proposals for mitigating potentially negative impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights or other rights and interests of First Nations and making necessary accommodations by changing the government’s proposal

6) Establishing, in consultation with First Nations, a protocol for the development of legislative proposals.

That is a clearly outlined process of what consultation should look like, and we know that is not what happened in the development of Bill C-8.

Witnesses coming before a committee should not be constituted as consultation. The duty to consult rests between the government and first nations. It is not the responsibility of the aboriginal affairs committee to conduct the consultation on behalf of the government.

However, the committee can bring forward solutions and recommendations, which the government can choose to adopt. It does not prevent the government from withdrawing the current legislation and developing legislation that more accurately reflects the concerns and the proposed solutions, which we know first nations communities and organizations will bring forward.

I know we are debating the hoist motion rather than the actual legislation at this point, but part of the challenge we face with the legislation is the difficulties of implementing it in communities.

I want to again come back to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. People say that the legislation will solve the problems around matrimonial real property in communities, and that is simply untrue. What it will do is provide a legal mechanism to determine the division of the matrimonial home, but it will not provide solutions to the severe housing crisis that exists on most reserves across the country.

In its report of 2007, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women said that it remained concerned at the extent of the dramatic inequity in living standards still experienced by aboriginal peoples.

In this regard the committee, recognizing the importance of the right of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their lands, territories and resources in relationship to their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, regrets that in its reports 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:

In the light of article 5 e) and of general recommendations 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Committee urges the State party to allocate sufficient resources to remove the obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by Aboriginal peoples. The Committee also once again requests that the State party provide information on the limitations imposed on the use by Aboriginal people of their land, in its next periodic report, and that it fully implement the 1996 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples without further delay.

Again, in the context of this delaying motion, the reason it is important to talk about matrimonial real property is that it is urgent that at the committee we also talk about non-legislative solutions and what is really needed to support families on reserve, whether it is adequate housing, access to education or access to conflict resolution and mediation that could actually prevent family breakup.

In the report on the first nations child and family services program, the Auditor General talked about the fact that there is so little investment in preventive measures that children are being removed from their homes. The agencies have a mandate to remove children, but they do not have a mandate to support families, keep those families together and keep the children in their homes.

I would argue that rather than delay talking about these very serious issues, we should welcome the opportunity to talk about non-legislative options. We should welcome the opportunity to talk about what kind of housing is needed on reserve to support families. If a family does need to break up, the reality right now is that women and children can be forced to leave their reserve, their home community because there is not any housing for them.

I find it difficult to support the delay of talking about these very serious fundamental human rights issues. I would suggest that first nations communities from coast to coast to coast do have some solutions that would be welcomed by all members of the House.

I am running out of time, but I want to touch on a couple of other issues. Several first nations organizations across this country are working on issues around citizenship. That is fundamental to what we are talking about. Who gets to determine who has citizenship in a particular nation? I know that Six Nations and NAN are working on citizenship codes. This would be an opportunity to bring forward those citizenship codes to the committee in the context of matrimonial real property. Fundamentally, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about who has a right to live on reserve, who has a right to the house, and who has a right to that citizenship.

Perhaps it will also give us an opportunity to talk about the 1985, Bill C-31, which reinstated the citizenship of women who married non-aboriginal men and lost their citizenship. But of course there were not the non-legislative solutions to deal with the housing issues these women were facing.

This is an opportunity to have a much broader discussion on human rights, on the aspects that are impacting on families, on the more creative solutions, the more respectful solutions, the more traditional solutions that would serve first nations and their families in a reasonable fashion.

I believe it is important that we get the bill to committee for a full discussion.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I found it very interesting considering that this is such a flawed piece of legislation.

I believe he, more than most in the House, understands how narrow and how prescriptive amendments to a particular piece of legislation can be. There have been other examples of a piece of legislation in the House being scrapped because it was fundamentally flawed. Sometimes a piece of legislation is referred to committee after first reading to allow for greater and broader amendments. None of that was agreed to.

I have talked to aboriginal people and organizations. The AFM had a resolution. I spoke to the AFNQL and the AFN Women's Council in Quebec. All have said they oppose Bill C-8. Not one of them said the bill should go to committee to try and get some amendments. That is what they wanted. We tried to respond to the wants and needs and aspirations of aboriginal people. We are telling the government that it has time to work with them to do something better and bring it back to the House.

We cannot give the government six more months because not much will be done and then keep the bill in committee for a year. It is time to listen to aboriginal people and stop playing politics with this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Bloc member, who is a member of the standing committee, that the Conservative Party is not going to take the Bloc position for granted. I want to also assure my colleague that the government is committed to this legislation. The minister made this very clear when he spoke to the bill recently.

My colleague made statements about the ministerial representative. I would like to ensure that people are well aware that the ministerial representative's final report contained 64 conclusions and recommendations, many related to broad issues and non-legislative matters, while 33 recommendations related specifically to the content of the proposed legislation, and 30 of those 33 recommendations are addressed in the bill in a manner consistent with her recommendations.

I noticed that the member talked considerably about collective rights and individual rights. He made a very significant point. Does the member believe that the most vulnerable individuals in the community, mainly women, will come publicly and individually to support Bill C-8 when their views are contrary to their leadership and their political groups?

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

Madam Speaker, we are discussing an extremely important bill. I, too, am somewhat surprised by my Liberal colleague's position. I do not think that his is the right approach just now, particularly when it comes to the matrimonial rights of aboriginal peoples. This bill has gone by several numbers, of which I will list just two. Bill C-47 died on the order paper last year when the election was called, and now we have Bill C-8.

The Bloc Québécois believes, and I hope the NDP will agree, that this bill should be studied in committee. It is of utmost importance that this bill be debated, analyzed and closely examined with witnesses by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Allow me to explain.

I am aware of the rules of Parliament. By presenting an amendment to delay study of the bill for six months, the Liberal Party knows full well that the bill will die on the order paper. I am absolutely certain that that is not what aboriginal women want. They want respect, and the Bloc Québécois believes that aboriginal women will get respect if we study the matter of matrimonial rights respectfully once and for all.

I hope that my Conservative Party colleagues will not take it for granted that our support for Bill C-8 is firm and unconditional. I want to say right now that we really do not like Bill C-8, not one bit. It does have some good points and measures, but some things in the bill are just not well thought out. If the government is serious about this, and I hope that it is, it will understand that we want to take as much time as we need in committee to properly study this bill, pick it apart and amend it as necessary. This bill must meet the needs of aboriginal women, first nations and aboriginal peoples across the country.

The government will have to explain why it set aside the main recommendations made by Ms. Grant-John, who did an exceptional job of examining this issue. The issue of matrimonial rights has been around for a number of years. With all due respect, the Liberals do not have a leg to stand on when criticizing the Conservatives at this stage regarding Bill C-8. It was the Liberals who introduced the famous Bill C-31 on women's matrimonial rights, the 1985 bill that erased women's rights in their entirety in one fell swoop. They should remember that the bill languished. Although the Conservatives adopted the bill, it originated with the Liberals some time before that.

It is odd because the Liberals know this. An extremely interesting ruling was just handed down by the Court of Appeal. It concerns the rights of aboriginal peoples, especially women's rights. This ruling was handed down on April 6, 2009.

The government will have to take it into account because the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling overturns several decisions and forces the government to recognize that it imposed a law that discriminated against aboriginal peoples.

In the matter at hand—and we will come to an agreement rather quickly—it is clear that 90% to 95% of the matrimonial rights cases concern women and children in native communities. It is equally clear that the rights of women have been violated. In my opinion, moving forward and adopting the amendment would kill the bill. With all due respect for my colleague from Labrador, and based on my extensive experience, I know that unless the government is forced to act it will not do so. In this case, it is not true that there will be further consultations if we give the government six more months. That is not true. I do not buy it.

We in the Bloc Québécois prefer to move forward, and I hope that my NDP colleagues will feel the same way. I hope that what I am about to say will be well translated and that our friends opposite will understand me clearly. I have just one hope, and that is that they do not seriously believe we are going to pass this bill in a rush and study it quickly in committee. It will take months. I hope they realize that, because if they do not, then there will be trouble. But that is very clear.

I have a few questions. Why is it that Ms. Grant-John's entire report was set aside?

Why is it that none of the recommendations made by the rapporteur, Ms. Corbett, were acted on?

It is odd, because I was looking for support for this bill among aboriginal women in Canada and in Quebec, but both groups said no. I spoke this morning with Grand Chief Picard, who also has problems with this bill. But I will give it a chance.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois, probably with the support of the NDP, will be willing to refer this very, very important bill to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development so that it is studied properly in the interest of the rights of women living in aboriginal communities. This problem has existed in aboriginal communities for too long, and we must find solutions. For my part, I believe, with all due respect, that having a minority government is not a bad thing.

We have seen evidence of this. I will give my colleagues opposite the chance to respond. I will quickly give a brief history of Bill C-21, which was passed during the previous session. This bill repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. As a result, aboriginal communities will now be accountable, and complaints can be filed against them with the Human Rights Commission.

Our Conservative colleagues opposite were opposed to all the amendments we had made to the bill. The original bill consisted of just one clause. When it came out of committee, was reported in this House and was passed, it included 12 or 13 clauses. I was very closely involved in the study of the bill, and I can tell you that it was thanks to the aboriginal communities and all the members of the committee that we were able to seriously amend Bill C-21 so that it respected the rights of aboriginal peoples.

I have a problem with hoisting this bill. In my opinion, we need to study it and make amendments, and we need especially to heed the protests of the aboriginal women who were not consulted.

There is a Supreme Court decision about consultation with respect to Supreme Court rulings. If this is the case, I do not believe, with all due respect for my colleagues across the way, that such consultation has taken place. They could have taken a few more months. We will set the process in motion during those months and it will take the time it needs to take. The Bloc Québécois wants to see this bill amended to take the rights of aboriginal women on reserves into consideration.

The situation can be easily summarized. An aboriginal couple marries, has children and accumulates assets on reserve. They might, for instance, own a convenience store, a service station or some other business. The couple separates. The woman leaves the marital home, as usually happens, unfortunately, and leaves the reserve. She settles in town or somewhere else. Then comes the issue of who owns the convenience store, the garage or the business. They are located on the reserve and thus on federal territory. The situation is not clear.

The Bloc Québécois wants to examine this bill. A lot of work has been done on it by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and they have sent recommendations to us. I have read them and I believe that they need to be taken into consideration because a number of Mohawk communities, and probably some others as well, have what is called a matrimonial property rights tribunal. These are in place in the communities and we must respect what is being done in the communities. We need to take steps to ensure that we respect what is already in place, but the bill as it stands is not clear about this. What is more, the government seems to want to have a degree of control over the settlement of matrimonial property rights on the reserves, but I must admit this is not clear. If the regulations do not work, the federal government could change them. I believe I read that. If the government wants to go ahead with this, there is going to be a serious problem.

However, I want to point out that matrimonial rights have a huge impact on communities. Often, the women and children wind up with nothing and are expelled from the reserve, while the men keep everything. I do not want to generalize, but I would say that this is what happens in 80% or 90% of cases. I know, because I live in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and I have a good idea of what is happening in my communities. We must not be blind or ignore what is happening. We need to pay attention and take into account individual and collective rights.

There will be a serious debate about collective versus individual rights. This bill is not clear. It deserves to be debated and examined in greater detail. I will say to my Liberal colleagues, as I said at the start, that the worst that could happen would be that, if the committee is not happy with the responses and if the amendments we propose are not incorporated, we kill the bill. The three opposition parties can kill the bill, obviously. The government will have to understand that it is in its interest to respect what aboriginal communities want, which is not to be pushed around. They want to be heard. The main groups want to be heard and want to have a chance to speak.

I have asked that they propose amendments. We will have to look at the clauses. I know that aboriginal communities and groups, the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations of Canada may be opposed to the bill as it currently stands.

In life, it is not enough just to be opposed to something. You have to come up with solutions to the problem. When a party is opposed to the bill, I respect its position. But what solutions does it have? What amendments does it propose? This bill also raises the whole debate about incorporating provincial and territorial laws. The problem of respecting women's rights has never been easy to solve, and it will not be easy to solve with Bill C-8.

But if we do not make the effort to sit down all together at the same table to discuss, amend and adapt this bill so that it respects women's rights, we will miss the boat and pay the price. I especially do not want to be pushed around on this issue. I want us to take our time and study this bill carefully, and I want us to listen to the groups that propose amendments that we will study and analyze. I hope that the government does not think that this bill will be passed before the end of the current session. If it does, then we will have a serious problem.

This is a very important bill. Bill C-21 repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. We took the time we needed, and we did things properly. We also passed a bill about specific claims. We took the time to talk to aboriginal communities and aboriginal association representatives. This is a good bill that should satisfy aboriginal communities.

This morning, the committee—and I am in a position to know—passed Bill C-28 without amendment, or rather, with a small amendment concerning syntax. The bill should be back before the House when we return from the Victoria Day recess or, in our case, the fête des Patriotes. We passed the bill, and the Cree people are satisfied. It took 10 years, but now it is done. I am not suggesting that it will take 10 years to pass Bill C-8, but I think that it will take a few months. We have to take the time to listen to aboriginal community representatives. Important things, such as federal legislation on matrimonial property and recognition of the jurisdiction of first nations, must be taken into account. How will we do that?

I will end with a discussion of a principle that I believe in: if one wants what one has never had, one must be prepared to do what one has never done.

We are about to do something that we have never done: respect aboriginal women. That is what we will do as we study the bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the next few months.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, we can only look at what the consequences have been of a colonialist, paternalistic, assimilationist approach: poverty and health outcomes. There is not one outcome where aboriginal people are ahead of the rest of the Canadian population. They have substandard housing, high unemployment, high suicide rates and a massive number of children in care. Some estimate it to be 27,000 people in care with first nations and non-first nations agencies.

This is what the imposed approach, the colonialist, assimilationist approach has done. On June 11 of last year, there was an apology. The apology was supposed to mean something: a way of doing business differently and a way of approaching our relationship with aboriginal people differently.

All of the comments I have heard around Bill C-8, the first nations people say that this reminds them of when they had Indian agents decades ago. It reminds them of the imposition of legislation that has caused this poverty, this breakdown in families and the lack of housing.

My hon. colleague is right. It is about content but it also about process. If we do not get the process right, the content means diddly-squat, to be quite honest. We need to get both right in order for it to be effective.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, centuries ago, with the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, the devastation of our first nations, the indigenous people, began.

Many of those first nations are no longer with us and those who are often live in horrible conditions. Even in the last century, under the guise of enlightenment, we put in place paternalistic programs, such as the residential schools program for which we finally tried to make amends a year ago in this House of Commons.

I would like to thank the member for Labrador. In many ways he is a conduit for the aspirations, for the very hopes of our first nations people in Canada. He provides tremendous first-hand insight into the feelings of our first nations and the fears they have. Today he is sounding the alarm. He has stated that there is alarm among our first nations that Bill C-8 has not been a cooperative and inclusive approach, that we are harking back to those days of paternalistic approaches.

If we do not take the time to embrace a consultative process, what, in his opinion, would be the consequence to our first nations?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, this motion is firm. It is rooted in the discussions and in the consultations in the broader sense that we have had with the first nations women and first nations families. Not one individual or group has come forward to support sending Bill C-8 to committee. If we are going to be honest about how we go forward with aboriginal people, if we are going to walk that path together, we must honour their voices and the direction they give to us as parliamentarians.

I can say to the member that it is fine to talk about human rights. Last year the government used aboriginal women, and I will say this very clearly, and put them in the window and said that it wanted to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the exemption.

When that came into force, there was a case brought to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against the Government of Canada by first nations. What did the government do? It said that the Human Rights Tribunal had no jurisdiction. It talks about rights but it does not put it into practice.

I have no responsibility to give notice but when I spoke with people in the department and in the minister's office I have indicated to them that we did not support Bill C-8. They asked if Bill C-8 would go to second reading and I said that there was no assurance today that it would go to committee anytime soon.

We have listened to what the first nations people have told us and we have respected what they have told us. We look forward to the government's response to moving now to put the right processes in place to make the changes that are necessary to fill the gap we all want filled.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-8 concerning matrimonial real property on first nation reserves. This is the second time the government has brought the bill forward. Its previous iteration died on the order paper in 2008 when the Prime Minister broke his own policy and called an early election. It certainly undermines the government's position on this and other bills when it claims the importance of its legislative agenda only to pull the plug on Parliament.

This is not to suggest that the issue of matrimonial law and family law in particular on first nations communities is not important, far from it. There is a significant gap in the law and it is important that the gap be filled. It is fair to say that there is broad agreement by the department, by all parties in the House, by first nations governments, by women's equality groups and by members of the family law and first nations bar that something must be done. We can all agree that work has to take place to put a legal framework in place to protect the interests of women, of families and of children when there is a breakdown in a domestic relationship involving matrimonial real property on first nations reserve land.

Where our party differs from the government is on the approach to this complicated question. This is unfortunate. We saw only last week in the case of the Cree-Naskapi act amendments what difference a cooperative and inclusive approach can make. In that case the Cree nation whose interests were directly involved were able to work with government on a bill that received immediate support. It was a matter of intensive negotiation involving those most affected every step of the way.

I realize that reforming matrimonial property law in all first nations reserves is a question that is different and it is unique. It is unique in the sheer number of first nations involved that make the need for consultation and cooperation that much more important.

The minister claims that first nations groups were involved in a comprehensive consultation on this bill, but that is not what I am hearing on the ground. The minister may think he consulted, but the people he should have consulted tell me otherwise. It is incumbent upon government to be inclusive and transparent in its dealings with aboriginal peoples. It has to act in a way which is consistent with the honour of the Crown. The process leading up to Bill C-8 fails this test.

Since Bill C-8 was introduced for a second time at first reading, I have had meetings and other communications with numerous stakeholders. These include first nations women's organizations, first nations governments, regional and national assemblies of first nations, and individuals. The sheer number of representations made to me on this bill far exceeds the number I have dealt with on any other piece of legislation. Not only is the number of contacts striking, so is the virtual unanimity of what they are telling me.

Anyone who has been involved in aboriginal policy for as long as I have can say that we do not often hear many first nations leaders singing the same tune. The diversity of opinions can be stark. The differences of opinion can be animated. But on the question of Bill C-8, I have heard absolutely no one from first nations communities in any capacity speak in favour of the substance or the approach of the bill.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is opposed. Like others, including myself, while we recognize the need for a change to the legal framework, there has to be a recognition of broader issues associated with family law in first nations. There are issues of access to justice, violence prevention and the balancing of individual rights and the collective rights of first nations peoples which are left unaddressed. In fact, NWAC has argued that Bill C-8, far from protecting the rights of women, diminishes them.

The Assembly of First Nations has passed policy resolutions supporting a reconciliation of first nations, provincial and federal jurisdictions over matrimonial real property; a reconciliation, not an imposition.

The AFN also supports a broader approach, including both legislative and non-legislative approaches to family law issues. The AFN Women's Council has also rejected the government's matrimonial real property approach, both in this bill and in its former incarnation.

The government defends this bill by invoking the language of rights. I cannot say that I accept that argument, not from a government which continues to drag its heels on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, it is an embarrassment to Canada on the international stage that the Conservative government has so actively opposed that important international document.

Article 3 of the declaration states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 5 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions...

Article 20 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions...

Not only is the approach in Bill C-8 inconsistent with international consensus on the rights of indigenous peoples, it is inconsistent with what Canada heard during the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The royal commission recommended that:

Aboriginal nations or organizations consult with federal, provincial and territorial governments on areas of family law with a view to (a) making possible legislative amendments to resolve anomalies in the application of family law to Aboriginal people and to fill current gaps...

I would ask people to note the language that aboriginal nations consult with government, not that government imposes top-heavy legislation of its own. It is troubling that despite being rejected by the very people whom it purports to protect, the government forged ahead with the bill anyway.

Not only that, Bill C-8 also flies in the face of what the government's own ministerial representative recommended. Many of Wendy Grant-John's recommendations were ignored, including those concerning certificates of possession and the registration of spousal interests, the enforceability of first nations dispute resolutions and a statutory review of the legislation after three years.

Legislation on its own, without looking at the broader picture and without taking a holistic approach, may well do more harm than good. Imposing federal legislation is not a positive approach in the new era of relations with aboriginal peoples that should have been opened up with last year's historic residential schools apology. Things have to be done differently.

There may well be a place for federal legislation but only in a way that respects and encourages appropriate and holistic first nations law and non-legislative approaches to family law issues, domestic violence and matrimonial law.

Another issue which has to be addressed as part of a broader solution is that of on-reserve housing. The questions of matrimonial real property, domestic violence and access to recourse on the breakdown of a domestic partnership are intimately tied to the availability of housing on first nations land. That is true both for short-term housing solutions such as family shelters or safe houses and long-term housing, making an adequate number of homes of adequate quality for the needs of first nations populations.

The minister says that Bill C-8 would allow for first nations solutions. However, first nations have not been given the time or resources that would allow them to develop and implement their own family law and other support structures consistent with the diversity of first nations cultures.

The government's approach is one size fits all. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the present or in the future. Canada learned that lesson the hard way through the residential schools experience.

There are legitimate questions about the verification process and the ratification rules set down which first nations would have to abide by in order to have their own law recognized.

To first nations people, this hearkens back to the days of the Indian agent, when they had an overseer, someone who would say what was right or what was wrong, what was appropriate or inappropriate in first nations communities. It flies in the face of the inherent right to self-government and the nation to nation relationship. It is a colonialist approach, an assimilationist approach, a paternalistic approach, and believe me, I use those words deliberately.

I ask, what about the first nations cultures, traditions and legal customs which are based on matrilineal descent? Many first nations have their own matrilineal or other customary law concerning marriage and families passed down through the generations. There are cultures with matrilineal descent, others which place special emphasis on extended families or family relationships which go beyond the western emphasis on the nuclear family. These aspects of first nations culture, in many cases, form customary law.

Similarly in Canada, outside Quebec which has its own unique civil code, we have customary laws too. They are no less laws because they stem from custom. They stem from an old English custom with an old English name. That customary law is called the common law. These first nations laws can be used to fill the legal gap, which Bill C-8 attempts to do so clumsily. First nations need the time and resources to do so, time and resources which the government, in Bill C-8, fails to give.

All parties need the time for full and transparent consultation. First nations need the time to develop and plan their own solutions, solutions which respect and promote their own cultural values, customary law and particular social and economic circumstances.

Government can and should be a partner in that process with the first nations. Government can and should provide the necessary support, including assisting first nations and first nations women and families to address access to law, law enforcement and enforcement of orders.

Government must act more concertedly to address the broader social and economic issues that are intimately tied up with family law on first nations reserves, including violence prevention, health care, addictions and housing. None of these social ills is unique to first nations. Unfortunately, that is far from being the case.

Government must give first nations communities and their governments just that additional window of time to develop solutions which can be built from the ground up, instead of being imposed from the top down.

A better approach would be to work productively and transparently with first nations; work with first nations governments to develop their own laws and the administrative support for their operation; work with first nations governments and citizens on the full spectrum of approaches, legislative and non-legislative, to family law. Where federal legislation is required, first nations should be brought to the table to help in the drafting of a bill that can obtain a much broader consensus. The government should engage in that intensive consultation that is required.

To that end, I would like to give the government the time it needs to work cooperatively with first nations on the complicated issue of matrimonial real property. That is why I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“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 not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence”.

The House resumed from May 11 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.

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

In the agreement you had, there was something about Washaw Sibi, but I do not remember all of the details. I do not know if we are the ones who asked a question in that regard. We nevertheless know that the Washaw Sibi issue generated the same kind of debate as the Oujé-Bougoumou file at the time, and that this is still ongoing as far as the Kitcisakik issue is concerned. Oujé-Bougoumou serves as a model and is putting pressure on the federal government to resolve the Kitcisakik issue. In the case of the Washaw Sibi file, have the talks begun?

It was stated earlier that Quebec always served as a model for Canada. Quebec also had close relations with the First Nations. Indeed, Quebec's fate is the same of that of First Nations: the issue is the recognition of one's autonomy.

This question I am putting to Harold: what is going to happen to the billion dollars in 15 years? I hope that between now and then the Cree will have become an autonomous and self-sufficient nation, capable of making its own decisions, making its own regulations, and that it will be on a even footing with the other peoples of the world.

For example, are you affected by bill C-28, 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, or are you excluded, given the agreement you have?

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-8, Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

We have before us in Canada, an inexcusable and intolerable situation that has gone on far too long. Before I discuss this bill, it is important to have a sound understanding of matrimonial rights and interests.

An inexcusable and intolerable situation has gone on for far too long in Canada. Before I discuss the main planks of the bill, it is important to have a basic understanding of matrimonial rights and interests.

Matrimonial real property, or MRP, typically refers to the family home where both spouses in a marriage or common law relationship live on reserve. For almost all Canadians, provincial and territorial laws protect the MRP rights and interests of both spouses in the event of separation, divorce or death. These laws address a wide range of circumstances. If the family home is sold, for instance, both spouses must share in the proceeds. These laws also authorize a judge to order a spouse to temporarily leave the family home, particularly in cases of domestic violence and physical abuse.

Shamefully, these same laws that all Canadians take for granted do not apply on reserve. Spouses who live in communities governed by the Indian Act are afforded no such protection. This is because the Indian Act does not address the issue, and past governments have failed to remedy this glaring omission through legislation. As a result, relationship breakdowns in first nations communities often lead to homelessness and poverty, particularly for women and children.

Although each victim's situation is unique, we can all envision the following type of unfortunate and sad scenario: A husband and wife and their family live together in a house on first nations land. The marriage breaks down, who knows why, and the husband forces his wife and children to leave the family home. The woman has no legal recourse. She must find another place for her and her children to live. Often she has no choice but to leave the community. She is homeless. She is impoverished. Meanwhile, no court in the land can prevent the husband from selling the home and pocketing the cash.

It is unacceptable that this scenario continues to play out in Canada in the 21st century. Parliament must act. This bill would quickly remedy this legal void.

In highlighting the importance of this Parliament passing Bill C-8, I want to stress four important aspects of this legislation.

First, our Conservative government fully recognizes that first nations are best placed to make choices about the balance between the rights of first nations and the collective property rights. They are in the best position to develop those laws. That is why Bill C-8 describes a process for first nations communities to develop and enact their own laws in this area. That is the first thing. Let us allow first nations to develop the laws that apply in their situation on reserve. I think all sides of the House recognize that.

Second, while first nations develop their own laws, a remedy for vulnerable citizens living on reserve is urgently required. Bill C-8 proposes the immediate application of interim federal protection on reserves similar to those enjoyed by all other Canadians.

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

Finally, Bill C-8 complements this government's larger initiatives to protect the rights and interests of first nations people. Again, I would point out that Bill C-21, which we passed in the last Parliament, was supported by all sides of the House. For the first time it brought the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to bear on people living on reserve.

The first element of Bill C-8 provides an enabling process for first nations to establish MRP regimes of their own, regimes based on the cultural and social norms of their communities. To create such a law, a first nation most hold a fair and democratic vote on its proposed MRP legislation that must be approved by the entire community.

Laws that meet these conditions are not subject to review, consideration or rejection by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or by the department. In other words, as first nations develop those laws based on their community customs, they bring them forward and have them endorsed at the community level. I cannot intervene, nor should I, in making sure that those would be the laws of application for that particular community.

The next element of the proposed legislation goes hand in hand with my first reason for supporting Bill C-8. It sets out a federal regime that will immediately protect the MRP rights and interests of first nations spouses and common law partners. The regime would provide residents of first nations communities with access to legal recourse similar to that available to all other Canadians. This would close the unacceptable legislative gap that currently exists. It will protect some of the most vulnerable Canadians who right now have no protection in case of that marital breakdown.

Our outright support for Bill C-8 is also based on the fact that the proposed legislation is founded on a sizable body of sound research and an exhaustive consultation. There are multiple standing committee reports with all parties voicing support, having recommended a swift and enduring legislative solution. International groups, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, reached similar conclusions.

A comprehensive consultation process also informs the legislation now before us. In 2006 a collaborative process facilitated by the esteemed Wendy Grant-John and involving the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations saw 103 consultative sessions held at 76 different sites across the country. In fact, over $8 million was provided to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to carry out a consultative process. We wanted input and we got it.

This government also went to great lengths to create a legislative solution that would satisfy all stakeholders. Our proposal was largely based on the results of the consultations and many of Wendy Grant-John's thoughtful recommendations. A draft legislative proposal was then shared with key stakeholders, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the First Nations Lands Advisory Board and the provinces and territories. Their input resulted in significant improvements to the legislation before us today.

I would also point out that Bill C-47, this bill's predecessor, has been in the public domain for all to see and review for a full year now. It passed at second reading in the 39th Parliament. I think members on all sides of the House wanted to get this into committee for further evaluation and study, knowing that we need to address this legislative gap. That is why it passed in the last Parliament with all-party support.

The proposed legislation incorporates the ideas put forward and addresses concerns expressed during many years of study, analysis and discussion.

Virtually every first nation group in Canada that spoke to this issue during the consultation strongly opposed the application of provincial laws, so that option was discarded. To respond to those who demanded that any solution address the cultural values and traditions of first nation communities, Bill C-8 provides a process for first nations to develop their own culturally specific laws on the issue.

At the same time, the national approach taken in this bill will ensure that the immediate protection provided will be consistent for first nations across the country. In other words, it will apply immediately, but first nations are encouraged to bring in their own laws, and I am sure many of them will do so quickly, developed in their own communities that under this legislation will supersede the national standards in this act. It will have the stand-alone, community based, community endorsed, community ratified solution for that particular first nation. That is as it should be, in our opinion, and that is why this deserves broad support.

Some groups also raised concerns about the implementation of a federal MRP regime. There are two answers to this.

First, as I have mentioned, this legislation takes the minister and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs out of the picture regarding first nations MRP laws on reserves. Instead, this bill recognizes that first nations, not the federal government, are best placed to make these decisions related to MRP.

We have taken many measures to ensure that even during the time when the interim federal protection applies, collective interests are well balanced with individual needs. That is important for first nations. They need to know that the reserve property that is owned collectively is not going to be sold out from underneath them. This cannot happen under this legislation. No one ever intended that and we were careful to make sure that the protection and balance is in this legislation. Again all of it was done with the intent that first nations will develop their own MRP laws that will be community specific and ratified in the local community.

Given that implementation concerns cannot be readily addressed in the legislation itself--we cannot answer all these questions that way--the Government of Canada plans to establish a centre of excellence to support first nations and to deliver training and information sessions to law enforcement and court officials. It will be a place where best practices are maintained. A repository of information and research material will be there for first nations that are in the midst of developing their own laws for their own communities.

These actions touch upon my final point.

Bill C-8 is part of a much larger strategy to improve the quality of life experienced by residents of first nations communities. This strategy involves working in collaboration with first nations organizations and other willing partners to identify and attack the root causes of injustice and inequity.

This strategy has already produced tangible results on a variety of issues and a comprehensive plan developed in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. A good example is the specific claims legislation that this government brought in. It addresses the unacceptable backlog of hundreds and hundreds of claims. First nations have been looking for some 40 years for laws to give some assurance that these will be settled in a timely fashion.

We worked with first nations. We brought in that legislation. That plan was endorsed by Parliament to establish an independent tribunal to adjudicate these claims. I mentioned earlier Bill C-21 and the issue of the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is another good example of how that kind of application on reserve, specific claims on reserve and a record number of treaty land entitlement resolutions that we have had especially on the Prairies, all point to addressing those long-standing issues in order to address other inequities and inequalities in the system, and certainly that is what we are eager to do.

As I mentioned, this will be, in my opinion, the flagship human rights legislation introduced in this Parliament, certainly by me. It deals with something that has been a legislative gap for far too long. It is something that other Canadians take for granted. It is time we addressed that gap. Some people and some communities talk about human rights. Some other countries talk about the importance of human rights; Canada certainly does, but we are acting on this basic human right.

I believe Bill C-8 offers another historic opportunity to better protect the basic rights of first nations people.

The legislation asks the members of this House two fundamental questions. First, should this country extend the legal rights, recourses and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians, and should we extend that, with this legislation, to first nations communities?

Second, should first nations have the power to develop MRP laws that reflect the cultural and social traditions of their communities? That is the flip side of the same coin.

In my opinion, the answer is yes, we must move to protect the most vulnerable in society, to fill that legislative gap as quickly as possible, to ensure that first nation communities, and especially the vulnerable in first nation communities, have the access to rights that all other Canadians enjoy.

Equally as important, the flip side of that same coin is that we on this side of the House support first nations developing their own MRP laws to address that gap. When they address that gap, it will be approved in their local communities. They will address it in a way that is sensitive to their local situation and their social norms and their cultural traditions.

Once that is done, passed and ratified, then the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs cannot interfere in first nations' proper exercise of their authority to develop that MRP law of their own. That is essential to the flip side of this important coin.

It is my hope that hon. colleagues here today and in the days to come at committee will do the right thing and will do the honourable thing, which I think is to stand up for the most vulnerable in society and support Bill C-8 through all stages in this House and in committee so that first nations can enjoy the same rights as every other Canadian.

When we went through the debate on Bill C-21 in the last Parliament, there was concern about trying to achieve perfection. We talked about whether it was the right time to do this, whether we could have done something more, and whether we could have consulted more. In this case, we have consulted at over 100 different community meetings.

I suppose we could always say we could more. We could spend more money on consultations. We could extend it indefinitely into the future. But at some point we have to come down solidly and say, enough is enough, it is time to extend this right that every other Canadian knows in their heart and has experienced, sometimes unfortunately has experienced it in the courts, but at least they have a way to address this longstanding issue in their community.

I would just ask people to wrap their head around this. What would one say to that first nation lady who is looking for some access to the matrimonial real property that she and her husband have built over the years? She might say, “Unfortunately the marriage has broken down, but I could get off to the next step by getting half of the assets of the matrimonial property and move forward, maybe into another home or into another situation, looking after my children”.

We need to say to that lady or that man, “We are there for you. We will do the right thing in this Parliament of Canada. We will extend to you the same rights as every other Canadian.” We are going to do it starting today, and we are going to do it as quickly as we can.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions and the suggestion from my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition.

For today and tomorrow, we will continue debate on Bill C-27, the anti-spam bill, which is at second reading. If we complete Bill C-27, it is my intention to call Bill C-20, the nuclear liability bill and Bill C-8, the matrimonial real property bill. All of these bills are at second reading.

On Monday, we will begin debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill, to which the member just referred. Once that bill is completed, we will continue with the unfinished business that I mentioned earlier plus Bill C-30, the Senate ethics bill.

It is my intention to give top priority to any legislation that is reported back from committee next week.

Finally, in response to my colleague's question about committee of the whole, I would like to designate Thursday, May 14 as the evening the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are considered in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4).

I will be announcing the date of committee of the whole study of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at a later date.

As to the member's suggestion about debating all stages and moving Bill C-29, which is so important for our agricultural producers heading into the spring planting season, I would note that one of the reasons we are not debating it today is because there was a request from his critic, the member for Malpeque, who will be returning to the House on Monday. Therefore, we have scheduled that for Monday.

In trying to continue in our spirit of working together with all opposition members, I would certainly be open to his suggestion. I know the Minister of Agriculture would be eager to work with the three opposition parties to try and move Bill C-29 through the House at all stages and get it down the hall to the other place as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Chair, I had asked that we start preparing for the appearance of representatives of the Assembly of First Nations to discuss education. Once we have completed our study of Bill C-5, and before undertaking our study of Bill C-8, I think it would be a good idea to do that. The Assembly of First Nations has written to us on several occasions. The First Nations Education Steering Committee would like to meet with us.

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

The minister may only be here for an hour, but he will have to understand that committee members will be extremely frustrated. This is especially true in the case of the current minister, Mr. Strahl. I know that he likes to appear before the committee and I know you'll mention to him that we would like to keep him here for two hours, since we do have a number of questions for him. Of all the ministers, he is the one who has done his homework best so far. In fact, he has just tabled two bills and he will certainly need to explain them to us. So then, let's invite him initially to answer questions about the estimates, and then invite him back for one and a half, or two, hours to talk about bills C-5 and C-8.

Admittedly, ministers have not spent a lot of time testifying before the committee since 2004, but Mr. Strahlhas gotten into the good habit of regularly spending up to two hours with us, and I'd like to see that continue.

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 for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)