Bill S-2 (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 S-2--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he has made any effort to read the report of the committee on the status of women from 2006 and perhaps take note of the draft report from 2010.

We talked to aboriginal women, and they were very clear, they said that the crux of this problem is a lack of decent housing, a lack of transitional housing, and nowhere for them to go.

If the government were truly interested in addressing the issues of violence against aboriginal women, it would not have trashed the draft report of 2010, and it would make sure that the resources were there so that women had a place in their home community to go rather than being forced out.

I am very suspicious about the motives of the government in regard to forcing first nations people out of reserves.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. That is a complete fabrication.

They are saying that we should ignore this inequality for first nations women and children of families that live on reserve. This has been dragging on for 25 years, and they have the gall to stand in opposition to the government's attempt to finally restore a fair system for aboriginal families in Canada.

I would ask them to reconsider their position and support the government's effort to finally restore equality in this country.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me as well that on the majority of reserves, most men, women, and children have no legal rights when it comes to their family home.

In cases of family violence, women victims can find themselves re-victimized by being kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go.

With new provisional federal rules and first nations laws, Bill S-2 will ensure that the rights of first nations people during the occupancy, transfer, or sale of their family home are guaranteed, where there previously was not a guarantee.

More important, Bill S-2 will grant them access to the emergency protection orders and these exclusive occupation orders, which would allow spouses and children the consistency and stability that they need in their lives. I cannot believe the NDP and Liberals would use procedure to vote against this important bill.

Could the minister please detail how the emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders would help protect aboriginal women and children?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, currently, as the hon. member alludes to and it is a fact, aboriginal women cannot go to court to seek exclusive occupation of the family home or even apply for emergency protection orders when living in a family home on reserve, a right which every other woman in Canada has.

Bill S-2 extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserves.

In situations of family violence, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home with the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days with the possibility of an extension.

These provisions would allow victimized spouses and common-law partners in abusive relationships to ask for exclusive occupation of the family home for a specified period of time, providing victims and their dependants with a place to stay. That in itself is a good reason--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are running out of time.

Questions, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this government has decided to move a time allocation motion to limit debate in the House of Commons. Imposing closure on Bill S-2 is simply an attack on our democracy.

This bill requires in-depth consideration by parliamentarians and continued debate. We are now debating this bill under a time allocation motion. We asked for true consultation of aboriginal peoples, and that is not at all what is happening.

Once again, the government is revealing its hypocrisy by, on the one hand, supporting a bill and, on the other, reducing the number of speakers to the absolute minimum. We are condemning the Conservatives' constant denial of democracy.

How can the minister justify such action?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can justify such action because, for 25 years, aboriginal families living on reserve have not had the protection afforded other Canadians. As my colleagues and I have said over and over, these families have been asking for protection for years.

A government has finally decided to take action. The government should have the support of the opposition parties in order for this legislation to go into effect as quickly as possible.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I cannot believe that anyone in this House would vote against this legislation to stand up for the rights of aboriginal women on reserves let alone members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I have sat here and listened to the NDP claim that women who fall into situations in their households on reserves should be sent to shelters. Well, here is a novel idea: how about they be allowed access to their matrimonial property, the same rights that every one of us in this House has today?

I also have to say, because the NDP is voting against every one of these things, that right now a spouse on reserve who holds interest in the on-reserve family home can sell the home without the consent of the other spouse, and can keep all the money. Apparently the NDP thinks that is okay. The spouse who holds the interest in the family home can bar the other spouse from their own family home. Apparently the NDP thinks that is okay. And in cases of domestic violence—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We are getting short on time.

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the indignation of the hon. member.

If we listen to members opposite, it is as if we are preventing a reasoned debate on this bill. However, once the bill has been debated in the House, and they will have the chance to debate the bill in the House, it will then go to the status of women committee where, again, the bill will be subjected to a long debate. If they have a brilliant idea to improve the bill, they can present it there. The bill will then come back here to Parliament where we will discuss it again and then, hopefully, it will become law.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was just waiting for the microphone to come on here and, yes, I am getting some feedback, I guess in more ways than one. I will probably get more as I go on.

I noted particularly in the comments from the Conservatives that they are talking about the substance of the legislation. However, the vote we are about to have is not about the legislation, it is about time allocation. It is about closure. It is about what the government is doing. It is about a top-down process.

The government does not want to listen to people. It does not want to consult first nations or people across this country about anything. The government wants to impose things, as it is trying to do on this chamber and on this Parliament with this measure of time allocation. The Conservatives have been imposing closure at a rate never before seen in this Parliament or even in this country.

How does the minister justify the rate at which the government has been imposing closure on bill after bill when it does not have to, as it has a majority government?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not as if hon. members do not have the opportunity or the right to talk about the bill. The bill is going to be debated in the House. However, there comes a time, especially in this situation where for 25 years first nation families on reserve have been deprived of basic rights that all other Canadians enjoy.

The bill has come here in the past in different forms. It has been improved. Surely it is ready to be passed, and this is what we propose to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This will bring to an end the period contemplated by Standing Order 67(1).

Before we proceed, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Public Works and Government Services; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.