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.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

moved that Bill S-2, 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, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act .

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, a very important piece of legislation for aboriginal women.

I want to focus today on a key element of the bill, namely the provision that allows for emergency protection orders in situations of family violence affecting aboriginal women on reserve.

Court order protection from domestic violence has long been available to Canadian women living off reserve. It has long been recognized, by law enforcement and those working to address violence against women and girls, as critical to the safety of women.

Simply put, access to emergency protection orders saves lives. Extending these same rights to aboriginal women living on reserve will save more of them.

I draw the attention of the House to what the latest addition of Statistics Canada's Women in Canada report states with respect to spousal violence against aboriginal women:

Previous studies have shown that higher proportions of Aboriginal women experience spousal violence compared to non-Aboriginal women....

In 2009...15% of Aboriginal women who had a spouse or common-law partner reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. In the case of non-Aboriginal women the proportion was 6%....

The report goes on to state:

There is evidence that many Aboriginal women who are victims of spousal violence experience severe and potentially life threatening violence.

In fact, the Statistics Canada report stated that:

In 2009, 58% of Aboriginal women who experienced spousal violence reported that they had sustained an injury compared to 41% of non-Aboriginal women.

It goes on to state:

Almost half (48%) of Aboriginal women who had experienced spousal violence reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a gun or knife. A similar proportion...[just over 50%] of Aboriginal women who had been victims of spousal violence also reported that there were times when they feared for their life.

All of us have heard the statistic that aboriginal women are five times more likely to be murdered than non-aboriginal women. Those are the cold, hard, ugly facts about the situation aboriginal women face day in and day out with, at the very least, the same protection afforded to women who live off reserve.

It is no secret that many of these women are forced to flee their homes and communities to escape violence. Many end up homeless, alone and even more vulnerable than before. They become vulnerable to trafficking and further abuse and violence.

If it is possible to enforce emergency protection orders, abusers can be ordered to leave the home and women can stay in the home. The ability to remain in their home would ensure that aboriginal women on reserves could continue to care for their children, could access the support of the community around them, but most importantly, could escape violence.

Let me be clear. Today there are no protections for aboriginal women living on reserve. This means that, in the case of domestic violence and physical abuse, a court cannot order the spouse who holds the interest in the reserve home, which is almost always the man, to leave the home even on a temporary basis. The spouse who holds the interest in the on-reserve home, which is almost always the man, can sell an on-reserve family home and keep all of the money. As well, the spouse who holds the interest in the on-reserve home, which is almost always the man, can also bar the other from the on-reserve family home.

The proposed legislation in front of us would provide basic rights and protections with respect to the fair division of the family home to on-reserve aboriginal individuals facing the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse. The legislation would also provide protection for women in the event of family violence. These rights and protections are available to all other Canadians through provincial and territorial laws, which of course cannot be applied on reserves.

It is unacceptable that first nations people, especially women, do not have access to the same protections simply because of where they live. This proposed legislation would offer protection to more than 100,000 individuals who are currently living without legal matrimonial real property protection. This is a very important change, but it is also a very big change, so it is planned that the implementation of this legislation would also include education and training for key officials, including police officers on reserve and judges. It is also planned that there would be a public education and awareness campaign.

I would like to take a moment to look at the history of women's property rights, because historically a woman's property was under the control of her father, or if she was married, it was under the control of her husband. This issue first began to be discussed in the 1850s in both England and France. In Europe, of course, the law sided with men, who provided women protection but not equality.

In the United States at the same time, women themselves began to speak out about the most important civil rights challenges that were facing women in that day. In Canada at the turn of the century, where marriage is a provincial matter, of course, most women still saw their property rights transferred to their husbands when they got married. However in 1911, the provinces began to examine the issue of a woman's right to property ownership after marriage dissolution. Married women in Manitoba, P.E.I. and Saskatchewan were finally permitted the same legal capacity as men with regard to their property.

I have to say that, in my role as Minister for Status of Women, I find it difficult to accept that 100 years later aboriginal women living on reserve have not yet achieved the same rights. More than 25 years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling on two cases that are very important to this issue: Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul.

In its 1986 landmark decision on Derrickson v. Derrickson, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that courts cannot rely on provincial law to order the division of matrimonial real property on reserves. In doing so, the court underlined a legislative gap that has since meant that women residing on reserves and facing the breakdown of a relationship have not been able to access the Canadian legal system to resolve matters concerning their real property.

In other words, aboriginal women who live on reserve do not have rights to property or protection on reserve. They are frankly being denied their very basic human rights, and we believe this must end. Without access to the same rights shared by other Canadian women, these women have been left vulnerable for far too long. Until on-reserve matrimonial real property laws are in place, aboriginal women who are living on reserve will continue to face the reality that in the event of spousal violence, separation, divorce or death, the law does not protect their property. It does not protect their interests. It does not protect their rights, but most fundamentally, it does not protect their safety.

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling did spark a dialogue and a larger effort to identify, develop and implement an effective solution. Over the years there have been a number of respected institutions, both in Canada and abroad, that have completed studies and analysis of relevant issues in this subject matter. Since 1986, a host of both domestic and international human rights bodies have studied, referenced and called for action on this matter.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is one of them. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have all studied this issue. The overwhelming conclusion of these reports was that legislation is the only effective solution and the only course of action.

With this bill, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, I am proud that our government is moving to tackle this critical issue. It is not just for aboriginal women and children on reserve but also as an important part of the continued fight for equal rights for all women. This legislation would finally eliminate the longstanding human rights gap and in doing so contribute to the end of the suffering of many women and families who live on reserve.

I do want to acknowledge that there have been some efforts to address the issue of matrimonial property rights already by first nations. The First Nations Land Management Act does require first nations to develop laws related to matrimonial property rights and interests as part of their own land codes that they are developing. However, while these solutions have helped a handful of first nations, Bill S-2 would ensure that all women and individuals living on first nations reserves would have access not only to emergency protection orders to ensure their safety and security but also to equal matrimonial real property.

In 2005, the Government of Canada initiated preliminary consultations on this issue. In 2006, we announced a national consultation process to find a solution to fill this legislative gap. This consultation process was conducted in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, so that they could engage and consult with individual aboriginal communities across Canada.

Along with these sessions, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada held consultations with and provided funding to a wide range of other aboriginal organizations. This is an important point because aboriginal women have waited for 25 years to see this type of protection, and it is a big change. The government has recognized this. There has been opposition to it by some parties. However, let us remember that, in total, to date, 103 consultation sessions have been held at 76 different sites across Canada. Hundreds of people have participated and expressed a wide range of opinions.

To prepare a report and make recommendations for a legislative solution, the government also engaged a ministerial representative, a respected entrepreneur and former first nation chief.

Due to the complexity of this issue and of course the diversity of views, consensus could not be reached on every aspect of what the legislation should entail. Consensus did emerge, though, on the key elements of a legislative solution. These elements, I am happy to say, are all part of the legislation that is being introduced to Parliament, which is Bill S-2.

One of these elements is a two-part solution that is both practical and sensible. First, the bill would allow for first nations to develop and implement their own laws to protect the matrimonial real property rights and interests of community residents. These laws could be based on the community's tradition. The content of the laws would be entirely between the members of the first nation government, and must be approved by a community ratification process. The second part of the solution is a provisional federal regime that would apply, once in force, until the time the first nations develop their own laws.

I want to emphasize the point that these provisional rules would apply to first nations unless or until they enact their own matrimonial real property laws under this legislation. This would ensure that laws exist to protect the rights and interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live in Canada.

As well, parliamentary committees reviewing these bills have considered the testimonies of a long list of witnesses and proposed a series of improvements. All of these amendments are also in Bill S-2.

The simple fact is that the legislation now before us represents the culmination of decades of work to find an effective solution. Now is the time to implement this solution. Aboriginal women who have lived on reserve have waited too long.

Bill S-2 also includes additional improvements that were made to the bill prior to its introduction in September of 2011. These improvements respond directly to concerns that were raised by stakeholders.

Bill S-2 also features another improvement over previous versions, a significantly lower ratification threshold. Several witnesses who appeared before committee expressed serious concerns about the ability of some first nations to engage enough voters to secure a meaningful result under a double majority, which requires that a majority of eligible voters must vote and that a majority of those who vote must vote in favour. Now, with the changes that we have made, a first nations council would be responsible for informing its members of the content of its laws and secure the approval of a majority of voters. It must also inform the minister of the results and provide a copy of the approved law to the minister, any organization that may be designated by the minister and the respective attorney general.

More important, I think the changes we have made to Bill S-2 are consistent with the direction this government is taking in terms of diminishing the role of the federal government in the day-to-day administration of first nations and handing those responsibilities over to first nations, where it belongs.

Finally, when the Senate adopted Bill S-2, it did so with two additional changes that would allow judges to extend emergency protection orders beyond 90 days. This would allow judges to exercise discretion on the duration of the order upon the rehearing of the case or when changing or revoking emergency protection orders. This is very important for the safety and security of aboriginal women living on reserve.

The Senate passed Bill S-2, as amended, on December 1, 2011. Bill S-2 is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. The proposed legislation builds on previous attempts to enact similar legislation. It incorporates a series of amendments adopted by parliamentary committees in response to stakeholder testimony, and was substantially altered before its introduction into this Parliament to further strengthen the bill and to facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area.

I believe it is our duty to adopt Bill S-2 and finally put in place a legislative solution, which is long overdue, to support aboriginal women on reserve.

I also want to point out that some of the criticisms raised of the bill are based on false information. For instance, some people believe that the proposed legislation could take away the property rights of first nations. The view that a non-member of a first nation could gain ownership of reserve lands is completely false.

The bill, in clause 5, explicitly states:

(a) title to reserve lands is not affected by this act; (b) reserve lands continue to be set apart for the use and benefit of the First Nation for which they were set apart; and (c) reserve lands continue to be lands reserved for the Indians within the meaning of Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The legislation is very clear. At no point would the collective ownership of first nation lands be jeopardized under Bill S-2.

Another criticism refers to what is actually not in the bill, namely that Bill S-2 does not include specific funding to improve access to the courts, to emergency family shelters and to on-reserve housing. Bill S-2 is not about policy or funding levels. It is about eliminating a cause of injustice and closing a legal loophole that creates inequality and leaves aboriginal women vulnerable. It is about ensuring all Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve, have similar protections and rights when it comes to family homes, matrimony interests, security and safety.

Consider the testimony provided by one aboriginal leader before committee during its review of Bill S-2. This is what Betty Ann Lavallée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, had to say. She said:

[Bill S-2] is addressing the real human issue of an aboriginal person, something taken for granted by all other Canadians.... A spouse within an aboriginal relationship should not be denied, or put out on the street alone and without any recourse, because of a family [or marital] breakdown.

That has been happening in Canada for far too long.

National Chief Lavallée recognizes that Bill S-2 is ultimately about preventing abuse and discrimination. Her words are informed by her knowledge of the often harsh realities of day-to-day life faced by many women residents of first nation communities.

I agree completely with Chief Lavallée's eloquent words and I believe that Bill S-2 strikes an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

Here again I must return to my role as the Minister for Status of Women. We also know that this issue is critical to future generations of aboriginal children. We are working hard to advance equality for women and to remove the barriers to women's participation in society and eliminate violence against women. This includes aboriginal women.

As the Minister for Status of Women I am very concerned with the pattern of violence against aboriginal women and the impact it has on the families and the communities who suffer from it. Today we have a chance to make a change. This issue is a responsibility that we all share and by working together we can better address it.

I call on my colleagues in the House to support the legislation. For more than 25 years women living on first nations communities have had to live with this human rights gap. For most Canadians that protection exists. For women on reserve, that protection does not exist.

I call on all of my colleagues in the House to move this forward and end this human rights gap once and for all for aboriginal women living on reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps to correct the record, aboriginal women in Canada have actually been living with discriminatory practices since colonization. This is not just in the last 25 years. I think that is an important note.

Where we would agree with the minister, of course, is that discriminatory practices around how matrimonial real property is divided need to be addressed. The question is around how that gets addressed.

The minister mentioned this in her speech but I would ask the minister specifically about it, since the government has been well aware of the problem over a number of years and since there have been consistent calls for non-legislative measures to help address some of this. Could the minister tell us specifically how much money has been invested in the land and housing situation to help with property division?

How much money has been invested in legal remedies and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms? How much money has been invested in community legal aid and mediation services? If the minister is truly concerned about violence against aboriginal women, when will she initiate an inquiry on murdered and missing aboriginal women?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member's comments mean that she will support an end to this human rights gap and she will support Bill S-2 to ensure that aboriginal women living on reserve will finally have protection under the law, as do other women who live off reserve.

I know the hon. member is a woman who believes in women's rights, as I do, so I cannot imagine that she does not share my concern that, for this many years, since the Supreme Court ruled 25 years ago, this legislative gap has existed. I cannot imagine that she will not support Bill S-2.

There have been attempts to go the non-legislative route. The hon. member knows that. There have been attempts to encourage and in many ways to work with first nations to ensure that matrimonial property rights are addressed on reserve. Unfortunately, there are very few first nations that have achieved that.

We are now at a place where I think we have to act. There are women, as the hon. member well knows, who encounter severe violence on reserves every day. These aboriginal women need us to act.

This is a legislative gap that has been identified by not only domestic but international human rights bodies as something we have to address. As a woman who believes in equality for women, it is unacceptable to me that aboriginal women do not have the same protections on reserve as women who live off reserve. It is time that ends.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the status of women committee's appalling record of going in camera and that in the last study on violence against women it refused to put anything to do with aboriginal women in the recommendations because it said its mandate was restricted to just those things directly under the responsibility of the minister's department, will the minister agree that the bill be referred instead to the aboriginal affairs committee, where it can be studied properly by people who understand aboriginal rights, understand legislation and will do the proper thing in calling the appropriate witnesses?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard the hon. member correctly. I hope I did not. She suggested the members of the status of women committee, who have an interest in seeing equality rights for women across this country, will not do an appropriate job studying the bill.

I disagree with the hon. member. The bill has been studied by many committees over the years. I think the members of the status of women committee are very well positioned, considering this is inherently an issue of discrimination and equality. This is inherently an issue of discrimination against aboriginal women living on reserve.

I think the status of women committee is perfectly positioned to study the bill.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to ask the Minister for Status of Women a question that would help vulnerable women on reserves, not only in the London area but all across Canada. I have heard from women in my riding and they have told me that the bill is needed now more than ever. I am proud of the many women's groups in my city of London that work tirelessly to promote and strengthen women's rights. This bill would accomplish both.

Can the Minister for Status of Women please explain to the House why it is so important that we move ahead with Bill S-2?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, who has done an incredible job championing the rights of women. I know that she will do an excellent job working with her committee colleagues on all sides of the House on this issue.

The legislative gap that Bill S-2 will close has hurt families and entire communities, but most specifically it has hurt aboriginal women living on reserve. It is our position, as a government, that it is unacceptable that on-reserve residents, particularly women who are the most affected by this legislative gap, are deprived of their rights and protections because of where they live. That is unacceptable. For most Canadians undergoing the breakdown of their conjugal relationships or marriages, or in the event of the death of a spouse, there is legal protection to ensure that their rights, including property rights, are protected. In this situation, there are no laws that protect the rights of aboriginal women living on reserve. Their interests are not protected and, in the case of emergency protection orders due to family violence, their safety and security are not protected.

This has been a long time coming. I hope that all members of the House, especially women, see fit to see the bill finally through so that aboriginal women would have the protections they deserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the matter with the hon. minister of the route the bill has taken. First, it is odd that it started in the Senate. Second, it is odd it is going to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women instead of the committee on aboriginal affairs, which would have the expertise. Third, I am troubled by the lack of consultation with first nations before having the bill come before this place.

Will the members of the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women insist that everything that goes on in that committee be restricted to the mandate of the Minister for Status of Women, as it has done in the past, or will that committee expand its mandate to include aboriginal issues? I think it is going to the wrong committee. I will be blunt about that.

I ask for the hon. minister's comments and perhaps her assurance that the committee will not restrict its mandate solely to the matters within the minister's portfolio.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will be happy to find out that we are working very closely with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We understand the member's concerns but again it is very important that she recognize that this issue affects women living on reserves more than anyone else. The status of women committee is perfectly positioned. This is an issue about equality for aboriginal women living on reserve. It is about safety and security and by all means it is about addressing a legislative gap that affects violence against women, especially women living on reserve.

This is an issue that all women should champion. This is a legislative human rights gap that has existed for far too long. We will work and are working closely with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. As I said, over 100 consultations have been held with first nations in 76 locations across this country. We will be open to any witnesses who would like to appear before committee. That is, of course, the purview of the committee to decide. However, at the end of the day this is inherently about discrimination against women living on reserve.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned consultations, particularly with aboriginal organizations. It is obvious that these consultations were not productive because groups such as the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada have very serious reservations about the implications of this bill. She talked about sending the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and not the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

How can the government introduce this bill knowing that the main aboriginal groups have very serious reservations about it and do not want it to move forward?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have been disturbed over the years about this issue. This has been an issue that has mattered to me for many years. I know that there are some male chiefs who have not supported this and have exerted all kinds of pressure behind the scene to see this bill not go forward, and that is not appropriate. I hope the member is not insinuating that he in any way sides with that kind of pressure.

We are not going to set the bill aside or set aside the interests of women living on reserve to consult and consult again. We have consulted for 25 years. This is the fourth time that this House has tried to pass this legislation. There are all kinds of people who would like to see it undermined, but we are not going to allow that. We are going to be on the side of aboriginal women.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before the House Bill S-2, 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 minister who just spoke talked about this being an act to address inherent discriminatory practices against women. However, it is interesting that the title of the bill does not mention that.

The bill deals with matrimonial breakdown, which generally speaking is between a man and a woman, although same sex relations are legal in this country, so it could be between a same sex couple. One of the challenges we have before the House in dealing with the bill is the need to balance the rights of women and men who are involved in a marital breakdown against inherent rights within first nations. It is a very difficult balancing act, and I want to lay out some context on how we got to this place today.

Others in the House have noted that the bill was introduced in the Senate and is now referred to the status of women committee. Although this is a very competent committee with very capable members, there are questions arising, first of all, about why the bill was introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons, where one would think it legitimately should have been introduced. The second is why the bill was not referred to the aboriginal affairs committee, which is the committee that has the mandate to deal with matters within the Indian Act and other matters facing first nations, Métis and Inuit in this country

We hear the member opposite positioning the act to deal with discriminatory practices against women. However, arguably it is an act that deals with a much broader matter facing first nations communities.

In terms of context, I want to turn briefly to the “Report of the Ministerial Representative Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” by Wendy Grant-John and her colleagues, who did this report for then minister of aboriginal affairs, Jim Prentice. She included a lengthy laying out of the history. I will not start with the pre-colonial period and work through to the modern day, but she included a quick summary of 1990 to present.

In her summary, she indicated there have been several commissions of inquiry in Canada drawing attention to the issue and that eight UN human rights bodies have expressed concern. There has been litigation. There have been Senate and House of Commons committees, and there have been various pieces of legislation. However, here we are today, in 2012, still dealing with this matter.

In terms of the broader context, there have been many reports, but I will refer to the “Discussion Paper: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, which is an excellent report. It lays out both the context as well as many of the challenges facing any government in terms of coming up with a legislative approach to this matter. I mentioned a couple of the reports, studies and conventions that have been cited, but this particular report cites:

The lack of remedies under federal law for married women on reserve that are typically available to married women off reserve under provincial law has been characterized...as a violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights....

It has also been cited in a 1998 report from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which noted concern with:

...Canada's failure to ensure equal protection of the law as between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women in respect to matrimonial real property:

It also notes the final report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, AJIM, which recommended that:

The Indian Act be amended to provide for the equal division of property on marriage breakdown.

I will not read the various statutes in the study, but the report indicates that:

A few words must be said about the larger historical and policy context in which the issues of matrimonial rights on reserve is situated.

Prior to European colonization efforts, many First Nation societies were matriarchal in nature. Missionaries and other Church officials discouraged matriarchal aspects of First Nation societies and encouraged the adoption of European norms of male dominance and control of women. According to the customary law of the Mohawk nation for example, the matrimonial home and things in it belong to the wife and women traditionally have exercised prominent roles in decision-making within the community.

It is interesting, as I noted earlier in a question to the minister, that these discriminatory practices are long-standing in this country.

The minister also noted the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in her speech. First of all, I want to note:

Section 91(24) [of The Constitution Act] therefore would appear to allow federal legislation applicable on reserve to provide remedies on separation or divorce such as interim possession of the matrimonial home or forced sale of the right to occupy. While rights of ownership to reserve land cannot be created under the Indian Act...individual rights of possession in relation to parts of reserve land can be transferred or sold among band members. Individual band members can own homes or other buildings on reserve.

This is an important context. When we are talking about division of property, we are dealing with a different land regime than we are dealing with off reserve. It is important to note that in this context. When we are talking about division of matrimonial property, often the occupants of that home will not have title to the land. There are some anomalies there with certificates of possession and other matters, but it is an important note. This is noted in the Constitution.

The royal commission also noted this:

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) recognizes existing inherent powers of Aboriginal peoples as an aspect of a right to self-determination within Canada, and as a constitutional right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The (RCAP) analysis includes jurisdiction over marriage and property rights in respect to First Nations lands (such as Indian Act reserve lands) as part of the core area of First Nation inherent jurisdiction that can be exercised without negotiation of agreements or other forms of recognition by federal or provincial governments.

This is an important point. At the outset, when I talked about the very difficult challenge of balancing discriminatory practices against women and the need for remedies—again, I believe all members in this House would agree there is a need for remedies—there is also this other jurisdictional aspect that first nations have. It has been cited in many court decisions.

The royal commission continued:

In the context of matrimonial real property issues on reserve, such an analysis would recognize how First Nation women historically have experienced racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination as a result of the Indian Act. For example the imposition of non-Aboriginal concepts of private or individual property rights combined with numerous forms of patriarchal bias have led to First Nation men being the primary holders of Certificates of Possession on reserve. This in turn contributed to the displacement of many First Nation women from their traditional roles as women, negatively affected their gender relations with men and the relationship of First Nation women to First Nation land. With respect to matrimonial real property, the collective impacts of colonialism...have resulted in many women finding themselves in a disadvantageous legal position when their marriage or common law relationship breaks down.

The royal commission report went on to say:

In addition, many women in submissions to the RCAP and other processes have drawn attention to the problem of women being affiliated automatically with the bands that Indian Affairs records show they were connected to in the past through their fathers or husbands. Many women now apply for membership in their husband's band. On breakdown of the marriage, women can encounter difficulties resuming their affiliation with the band they were born into, and asserting residency rights there. In this regard, Indian Affairs has acknowledged that “[r]egistrants would much prefer to be affiliated with a band closer to their domicile or to a band with which the mother or wife in a marriage is affiliated”.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report did make a number of recommendations, and I want to touch on a couple of them. They summarize it as follows:

Family law falls within the core of (inherent) Aboriginal self-government jurisdiction and as such, does not require negotiation of a self-government agreement to be exercised.

The recommendations of the RCAP clearly favour a recognition of Aboriginal inherent jurisdiction to adopt laws addressing family law issues generally, and see the exercise of this jurisdiction as the most immediate way of ensuring culturally appropriate legal responses are developed as quickly as possible. The exercise of this jurisdiction is seen as the best way to take the immediate action required to address the serious areas of legal vacuum respecting matrimonial real property on reserves. This exercise of inherent jurisdiction would take place pending the negotiation of broader self-government arrangements...

One of the RCAP recommendations was:

working out appropriate mechanisms of transition to Aboriginal control under self-government;

In 1996 there was a clear road map laid out for how to deal with the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve. Here we are, in 2012, continuing to have this conversation. Most of the recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples were never implemented. In fact, a couple of years ago there was a report from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which gave, not just the current government, but any government since 1996, a failing grade on moving forward on what was seen with many first nations, Métis and Inuit as a good faith exercise. We continue, I would say, to talk out of both sides of our mouths. On one hand in the House, we commission very important reports, and on the other hand we simply do not act on them.

With regard to case law, what happened previously was that there was an application of provincial laws to reserve lands on matrimonial breakdown. There is a well-known case, Derrickson v. Derrickson, in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial family law could not apply to the right of possession of Indian lands. More specifically, the court determined that provincial laws entitling each spouse to an undivided half interest in all family assets could not be applied to land allotments on reserve. The court stated:

The right to possession of lands on an Indian reserve is of the very essence of the federal exclusive legislative power under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It follows that provincial legislation cannot apply to the right of possession of Indian reserve lands.

The court was able to make an order for compensation, taking into account the value of the land allotment for the purpose of adjusting the division of family assets between the spouses under the relevant provincial family law.

In the case of Paul v. Paul, the court said that even if this were the case, the provincial legislation being relied on was in conflict with the Indian Act provisions and, applying the doctrine of federal paramountcy, the federal provisions would prevail.

There were a number of other court decisions. The summary stated:

The overall result of the case law is that provincial and territorial family law legislation does not apply to reserve land in any way that can affect individual interests in unsurrendered reserve land. Such legislation is considered to be in conflict with the provisions of the Indian Act....

A number of court decisions have said that provincial law does not apply. Now we have a piece of legislation that is supposed to be an interim measure that will allow provincial provisions to apply on first nations lands where the first nation does not have a code in place to deal with matrimonial real property. I want to talk about ability to look at some of those codes in one moment.

Some questions have arisen out of this. Of course, we know that the provinces and territories all have different provisions around division of assets for people living within the province off reserve. It then becomes that we have a federal government that in some ways is abdicating its responsibility in developing legislation that would apply across the country from coast to coast to coast and abdicating its responsibility to the provincial governments in the matter in which, previous cases state, provincial legislation does not apply. It is an interesting question in terms of what the federal responsibility is versus provincial jurisdiction. We have seen the government rely increasingly on provincial jurisdiction in matters facing first nations, Métis and Inuit.

Currently there are first nations that have custom codes in place and there is a provision under the First Nations Land Management Act where first nations can develop their own codes. I will go back to the report that was commissioned a number of years ago on matrimonial property. It outlined the following:

In order to clarify the intentions of the First Nations and Canada in relation to the breakdown of a marriage as it affects First Nation land:

(a) First Nation will establish a community process in its land code to develop rules and procedures, applicable on the breakdown of a marriage, to the use, occupancy and possession of First Nation land and the division of interests in that land;

for greater certainty, the rules and procedures referred to in clause (a) shall not discriminate on the basis of sex;

The reason I am raising that is because there are mechanisms right now where first nations can develop these codes.

The First Nations Land Management Act has a waiting list of nations that actually want to participate in this process. Therefore, one of the doors that could be opened to first nations to develop their own marital property relations codes is closed due to a lack of resources. If the government were serious and committed to a respectful nation-to-nation relationship with first nations, it would put additional resources into the FNLMA to assist first nations in taking part in that regime and developing those codes.

I do not have a lot of time left, but I want to quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that affect them.

Article 44 states:

All rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals.

After enormous pressure, the government finally did endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and indicated that it would take the next steps to move forward on it. Of course, we have seen no action since that happened.

However, this declaration that speaks of free, prior and informed consent is at the heart of much of the opposition to Bill S-2, because although the minister claims there were all kinds of consultations, the reality is that appearances at committee do not constitute consultation.

The Hon. Jim Prentice, the then minister of the day, did set up a process wherein there was a ministerial representative who developed an extensive report. A lot of the recommendations in the report were simply ignored in developing the legislation, and I want to touch on a couple of them.

In one of the recommendations, Wendy Grant-John outlined a preamble and what the sections of the act should include. She included things like acknowledging the importance of the principle of reconciliation in respect to existing aboriginal and treaty rights and the sovereignty of the Crown; the need for co-operation and reconciliation between first nations and the Crown on matters relating to matrimonial property on reserves; the importance of including women at all levels of decision-making as equals; and the need to take into account the interests of other family members and first nations' cultural interests.

In part, the legislation does talk about the interests of other family members, but does not specifically address the other cultural interests.

There was a case regarding the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination. It issued a report back in February or March 2012 with regard to the division of property on a marital breakdown and made some very specific recommendations. It is interesting what those recommendations included.

The recommendations to the state were to provide housing commensurate in quality, location and size to the one the applicant was deprived of; provide appropriate monetary compensation for material and moral damages commensurate with the gravity of the violations of her rights; recruit and train more aboriginal women to provide legal aid to women from their communities, including on domestic violence and property rights; and review its legal aid system to ensure that aboriginal women who are victims of domestic violence have effective access to justice.

Despite the long-standing recognition that there are serious problems facing aboriginal women in this country, we have not seen the kinds of measures put in place that would help women and their communities deal with the violence against aboriginal women, and their lack of adequate housing and access to remedial measures and conflict resolution.

It is one thing to put a piece of legislation in place and another to not then put the resources in place to help women, their communities and families deal with this very serious problem.

Based on the concerns that we have, the New Democrats will not be supporting this legislation.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on a careful balance between individual rights, specifically the need for spouses and common-law partners on reserve to have access to rights and protections similar to those existing off reserve, and the collective interests of first nation members in the reserve lands.

The bill clearly states that it is not intended to affect the title to the lands or change the status of the collective reserve lands. It also includes provisions to ensure that first nation councils may make court representations.

Under the bill, notice of applications for orders, except emergency protection and confidentiality orders, must be sent to the first nation council so that they can make representations to the court on the cultural, social and legal aspects of collective rights regarding the land. The bill states that first nations must have an opportunity to provide evidence on their collective rights and lands during court hearings. In response to the testimony of witnesses, government amendments were made to extend this opportunity, for example, to court hearings to change or revoke an emergency protection order.

Why does the member opposite not want to support women on reserves and help them get the emergency protection they deserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the member with another question. Why does the member and her government not put mechanisms in place to help aboriginal women, first nation, Métis and Inuit, when they are facing domestic violence and a lack of adequate housing? There are no resources around things like dispute resolution mechanisms.

In a report on matrimonial real property on reserve by the Scow Institute, it concluded with something that is very important for all of us in the House to take to heart. It says:

The lasting solution is one that comes from the community and builds on Aboriginal traditions. These traditional values of caring, nurturing, supporting, and respect are the proper way forward, not just for Aboriginal women but for everyone, young, old, male and female. The community is the solution.

When will the government put the resources into the community to help it develop appropriate codes and the non-legislative measures required to help families in crisis?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party critic has mentioned the importance of ensuring that all of the different stakeholders feel welcome in participating at the committee level. Would she want to comment on how important it is that all of the stakeholders feel they are empowered to participate in public hearings? In fact, some might even suggest that the committee go beyond the Ottawa bubble. It might be an appropriate issue for us to go into the communities on. Would the member support the Liberal Party's idea of maybe expanding these hearings outside of Ottawa so that we can ensure that different stakeholders are able to participate in the dialogue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely correct. Indeed, when we talk about non-legislative remedies, one aspect that we need to look at is what happens in a community where there is a marital breakdown and one person ends up with housing and another actually has to leave the community because there is no other housing. There are significant waiting lists in most communities. There is the problem of not having available non-legislative remedies for housing, dispute resolutions, and safe houses.

The other issue is that this is being portrayed simply as an issue of discrimination against women. There are absolutely serious problems with discrimination against women in the way that property is divided in a marital breakdown. However, there is a larger context to this.

Part of what the Liberal member asked was why this was not being referred to the aboriginal affairs committee. Here I would say that the larger context of this is around land regimes on reserves. They are not private property. There are issues of certificates of possession and inherent treaty rights, and all kinds of other complicating factors that it would seem the aboriginal affairs committee would be seized of.

Therefore, to respond to the member, I agree that it is very important that the committee goes out to communities and looks at the reality of what happens when there is a marital breakdown there, but second, it should also look at the larger context around aboriginal rights and title.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, as I know that she is well versed on first nations issues.

I want to bring to light the view of one of my chiefs. He talks about the fact that first nations' inherent right to self-government needs to be recognized, just as it is by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act 1982, which includes independent jurisdiction with regard to family law and real property on and off reserve. He goes on to talk about the fact that his community has actually adopted a matrimonial real properties act, which is working very well. The issue is not that first nations cannot do this.

He and his community continue to maintain that the proposed MRP package interferes with fundamental property and other rights, and that the federal government cannot therefore proceed without seeking the prior, full and informed consent of individual first nations, who are the actual rights holders.

Again, I want to raise the issue that there are opportunities for first nations to put these matrimonial property acts in place, and that these do actually work. I am wondering if the member can elaborate on the fact that those tools are currently there for first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for that very good question, because she is absolutely right. Many first nations have developed codes. They are in place and functioning effectively.

Part of the challenge before the House actually concerns the heart of the relationship between the federal government and first nations. If one's starting premise is that there is a nation-to-nation relationship, then there are different approaches that derive from that relationship.

The minister admitted that the government has known for years that these discriminatory practices are happening. One thing that could have happened over these last many years is that resources could have been put into working with the first nations communities who were interested in developing their own codes. There could have been a tool kit put together around best practices and then some resources for the community to help develop their own code that would reflect their own practices, customs, traditions, cultural values and language.

We did not see that happen, so now we have a piece of legislation being imposed on nations that did not have the resources to develop those codes and practices. The hon. member is absolutely correct: there are some very good codes already in place.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I think that anyone watching at home today would appreciate that we are having a debate about women's equality rights taking place primarily among female parliamentarians. I think that is something to be celebrated.

The reason we are able to do this is that a legislative change was put in place that allowed us to stand in this place and have these types of debates, given our gender as women. Sometimes we need to have legislative change in order to effect real change.

Kofi Annan once said:

Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.

Sometimes we need legislation to do that.

After all the consultations that have taken place, the millions of dollars that have gone into the consultation process, with over 103 sessions in 76 sites, I would simply ask my colleague this: why will she not support common sense legislation that stands up for the rights of aboriginal women and their property rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about consultation. Yet the culmination of that consultation was a 2006 report entitled, “The Report of the Ministerial Representative: Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves”, a significant number of whose recommendations have been disregarded by the government.

The question then becomes this. The government carried out what it calls a consultation process, got a report, and then ignored it. Then the government went back and said that it had consulted, but did not say it would actually take the consultation to heart and develop legislation based on that legislation. One cannot call something consultation and then not do something about it.

If the government were serious about consultation, it would go back to this report and rewrite the legislation.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my question to the minister and again insist that the bill needs to go to the aboriginal affairs committee, not to the status of women committee.

Regarding the record of the status of women committee, including its recent study, “Improving Economic Prospects of Canadian Girls”, I would refer the members to the dissenting report of the Liberal Party, including the hon. member for York West. We were appalled that despite all of the evidence gathered from people such as Vivian O'Donnell and Susan Wallace, the committee refused to include any recommendations in the report, stating that it would exceed the mandate of the Minister for Status of Women. It thinks its mandate is the 40-year old written mandate for status of women committee, as though it were the responsibility of the current Minister for Status of Women.

It is clearly an issue, as my colleague from the NDP has said, for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Given the complexity of dealing with property and aboriginal rights, those can only be properly studied at the aboriginal affairs committee. I cannot repeat that strongly enough. It is totally inappropriate that this go to a committee not used to studying legislation, and which has, in its very last study, refused to deal with the issue of aboriginal girls and young women, stating that it is not the specific responsibility of that minister or her department.

The Liberal Party does not question the need for legislation to address the legal gaps and other problems surrounding family breakdown for first nations living on reserve.

Many national and international reports have called on Canada to address the legislative gap with regard to matrimonial real property on reserves, and a number of parliamentary committees have examined this issue.

However, the bill would not effectively deal with the problems associated with the division of matrimonial property on reserve and would fail to provide first nations with the tools to implement appropriate measures for families to resolve disputes safely and in a culturally appropriate way.

Bill S-2 would not improve gender equality for aboriginal women, as claimed by the Conservative government. Instead, it would create the potential for new open-ended interests for non-first nations individuals on reserve and would fail to address the root causes of family breakdown and domestic violence, namely the lack of housing, inadequate funding for child welfare and inadequate access to legal aid for aboriginal women.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that all legislation, or policies concerning aboriginal peoples, requires the government to work with, nor for, aboriginal peoples, as we promised to do in the original treaty relationship and as expressed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It commits Canada to uphold indigenous rights and ensure first nations enjoy the same quality of services and care as other Canadians. It explicitly says that there must be free, prior and informed consent on any issues dealing directly with first nations in Canada.

We also must recognize and affirm aboriginal or treaty rights as laid out in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Canadian courts. As well, it is imperative that we provide sufficient resources so as to guarantee that aboriginal communities have the capacity to implement the legislation and our policies on which we have worked collaboratively. Unfortunately, yet again, the government has failed to meet any of these criteria in the approach to matrimonial real property on reserve. It is raining down legislation in “thou shalt” kinds of ways without the resources and the support to actually achieve the objectives of the legislation.

Yet again, consultation has been inadequate. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and the government to listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what it hears into its approach. Although consultations were done on MRP in general in 2006-07, consultations were not done specifically on Bill S-2, in particular prior to the introduction of the bill.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is not confident that the legislation will solve the problems associated with matrimonial real property on reserve and has been clear that the current bill fails to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time the legislation has been brought forward. NWAC held meetings with first nations women from its provincial and territorial member associations and produced several reports that included their views to address MRP. Bill S-2 still neglects most of those recommendations.

The Conservative government failed in its constitutional duty to consult the first nations when drafting this bill and did not take into consideration the serious problems identified by stakeholders when the Senate examined Bill S-4, the previous version of this bill, in the last Parliament.

The non-derogation clause in Bill S-2 does not sufficiently affirm constitutional rights to self-government, that is nothing in the act shall be construed “so as to abrogate or derogate from...aboriginal or treaty rights recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. This is not acceptable.

As my colleague from the New Democratic Party has said, the resources are inadequate to achieve the objectives of the bill. As I said In the letter I sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs a year ago August, it is completely unfair to legislate when the resources are not there to implement the objectives of any legislation.

This afternoon we will see the same thing on the water act, that “thou shalt have clean drinking water” and there are no resources to make sure it happens. This is exactly the same thing. In the objective of the bill on matrimonial real property, there are just not the resources to actually give women real choices with their families for them to remain safe in situations of violence.

Any proposed measure must be based on a holistic approach designed to address family breakdowns and domestic violence in aboriginal communities and tackle the problems of poverty, the housing shortage and the tragic legacy of the residential school survivors and their families.

In 2006, then INAC minister, Jim Prentice, announced that the nation-wide consultation on MRP reserves would take place, and appointed Wendy Grant John as the ministerial representative.

The report of the ministerial representative proposed establishing new stand-alone federal legislation that would be based on recognition of first nations jurisdiction and respect for aboriginal and treaty rights, while establishing interim federal rules that would apply until the first nation had exercised its jurisdiction and enacted its own laws on MRP.

The report of the ministerial representative also noted:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures...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.

At the time that report was tabled, the time we were able to see it, everybody who we spoke to said it was imperative that the government of the day not be allowed to cherry-pick this report. Yet cherry-pick the report is exactly what the government has done.

The government has not provided any additional resources to help first nation governments build the capacity needed to address the underlying issues, meet their new obligations under the bill, or allow their citizens to have access to the legal system or develop new community-specific laws regarding matrimonial real property.

The provisional federal MRP rules are based on a provincial court system and require first nations and their citizens to take on additional costs to access the court system.

In many rural and remote communities, the cost of legal access, including transportation, can be prohibitive. Yet there is also no commitment to provide funding for alternatives to the court system, like community-based dispute resolution, which would be more cost effective and culturally appropriate.

Further, Bill S-2 was tabled without a plan and without resourcing to address the myriad issues that contributed to family breakdown on reserve and the disproportionately high levels of domestic violence against women.

Witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee mentioned the chronic shortage of housing on reserve, the underfunding of child welfare and the lack of shelters and temporary housing. These are substantive issues that must be addressed as part of the federal government's MRP approach.

The government has made no commitment to provide resources to help first nations move past the provisional federal rules and develop their own MRP code, other than to promise to create a centre of excellence, subject to further future Treasury Board approval.

The government's approach to developing the bill has been misguided and the resulting legislation is totally inadequate.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the bill clearly states that it does not affect the title to reserve lands or change the collective status of reserve lands and it does not allow non-members to make claims of ownership to reserve lands. The provisional federal rules will not lead to non-Indians or non-members acquiring permanent interest in reserve land because exclusive occupation orders and emergency protection orders are temporary.

Input obtained during the national consultation process indicated that an appropriate balance was needed between the individual rights of on reserve residents and the collective interests of first nations in their reserve lands. The legislation achieves the objective of filling the legislative gap on reserves for first nation members and non-members, while respecting the principle and non-alienation of reserve lands.

The provisional federal rules also include provisions to ensure that first nation councils can make representations to the courts, for instance, to highlight the collective nature of the land. This does not apply, however, in the case of emergency protection and confidentiality orders.

I find it insulting that the Liberal member, who voted against establishing the Canada Human Rights Act on reserves, refuses to give women on reserves the same rights she has.

Why will she not help aboriginal women?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave that alone. It is totally insulting and inappropriate in the House. Those of us fighting for the rights of aboriginals everyday are on this side of the House and the aboriginal people in Canada know that.

It is totally ridiculous for that member to stand and read something that was hopefully prepared by someone who does not even understand that the aboriginal affairs committee right now will receive the part of the bill on fee simple that would put in question everything that member just read. She clearly does not understand.

It is really important that the bill come to the aboriginal affairs committee where somebody, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who at least understands the issues around real property on reserve, can speak to it. That member and her committee can just leave the bill alone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very clear defence of the rights of aboriginal women. I am particularly interested in her concern regarding the bill going to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. As a five-year member of that committee and a former chair, I too have some very real concerns.

When I was a member of the committee in 2010-11, we embarked on a study of violence against aboriginal women. We went from community to community and we heard from aboriginal women. At first, they were reticent because they did not trust us, but as time went on they came to believe we would truly help. They believed the women of Parliament would truly help.

Unfortunately, the report that eventually came out of the Conservative-dominated committee was a travesty. It was an absolute aberration in terms of its glossing over the evidence we had heard and coming up with a report that had absolutely no real remedy.

Very clearly I share my colleague's concern. Why on earth we would ever trust anyone in the Conservative government?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and a veteran of the status of women committee who has witnessed the really disappointing reports coming out of that committee, that softly recommend or suggest instead of taking hard lines that would actually defend the status of women in Canada.

It is because of the complexity of this issue and the failure of that committee to deal seriously with any legislation, other than a couple of clauses in estimates occasionally, that it becomes even more inappropriate that the status of women committee would study a bill of this importance. It is also because that committee and the minister continue to say they cannot deal with anything outside the mandate of the minister and her department.

When we are fighting for the kinds of things we are in terms of resources on reserve, when we are fighting for more affordable housing and for the things that need to underline the purpose and the objective of the bill, it is even more important. As my colleague from the New Democratic Party has said, this law should be removed from the status of women committee and moved to the aboriginal affairs committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, someone who obviously cares very passionately about our first nations community. I look to her to provide some leadership on the important issue of getting and engaging the different stakeholders throughout Canada that have a vested interest in ensuring this is done properly.

One of the suggestions she has eloquently spoken about is the importance of the bill going to the right committee. Could the member provide comment on those stakeholders and the valuable role they play in assisting and determining and ultimately maybe even providing leadership for having good sound policy coming out of the House of Commons?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important, from the research analysts to the membership and the knowledge of the people on the aboriginal affairs committee, to be able to not only receive witnesses here in Ottawa, as perhaps my colleague has suggested, but to go out and listen to the people.

We need to hear from the chiefs on how difficult this is when there is a situation of domestic violence where, again, someone gets the house and someone has to leave the community. This is very difficult and really goes against the whole collectivity and the self-governing interests of allowing communities to resolve things in an equitable way.

That means they must have the resources. It means the aboriginal affairs committee is the only place that can push, almost in a pre-budget consultation kind of way, to be fighting for the kinds of resources around housing, child care, legal aid and the kinds of things that would allow people to resolve this is in a fair and just way for first nations in Canada.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, for the average Canadian listening to this debate, we are talking about basic human rights for aboriginal women living on reserve.

We are not talking about any special rights that any other Canadian man or woman does not enjoy. We are talking about basic human rights.

My question to the women in the opposition parties, both the Liberal and the NDP, is: When will they stand up to the men in their party, to their male leaders, and say this is the wrong thing to do? We need to support the rights of aboriginal women to have basic property rights.

This bothers them, but it is a fact. We are talking about a very basic right, and I am just asking when my hon. colleagues will look at their male leaders and say we are on the wrong track here.

Even the opposition parties have to recognize that it is a basic human right for a woman on a reserve to have access to the property that she should have in the face of a divorce. All women who have gone through divorces in Canada have rights to their property and they have rights to support. Aboriginal women do not have this right.

When are the opposition women going to stand up for aboriginal women in this country?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this a completely specious argument. We believe there is a legislative gap.

I would say to the member that I will take any man on this side to stand up for the rights of aboriginal women, including the brilliant Irwin Cotler who has been standing up for human rights for all his life—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member knows it is inappropriate to use the name of a sitting member of this House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House as part of the official opposition to raise our position, which is very much founded on true consultation with partners, aboriginal women, aboriginal organizations and the voices in this country that are seeking real justice and real leadership from the federal government.

Today we are talking about Bill S-2, but as we know from what we have heard in this chamber, there is a lot involved in this debate and in the debate around standing up with aboriginal women in this country. I am amazed at how the federal government is making so much noise on the issue of the human rights of aboriginal women when, in fact, time and again, it has done nothing but let aboriginal women down.

We all know the painful history of colonialism and the kinds of situation that aboriginal people have lived with for centuries. We know this has left a mark on the kinds of lives that so many aboriginal people in Canada are living today.

As the MP for Churchill, I have the honour of representing 33 first nations. All of them have signed historic treaties with the Crown and all of them have seen the treaties and their treaty rights broken and disrespected by government after government, and that has certainly been a hallmark of the present federal government.

Some years ago, we had an apology from the Prime Minister that so many residential school survivors took very seriously. It was an apology that so many of us were proud of and that our former leader, Jack Layton, was very involved in shaping. However, after that apology, we saw a complete reversal of the very sentiment that the Prime Minister and Parliament shared with aboriginal men and women.

We saw massive cuts to organizations, some of which deal directly with the healing residential school survivors need. We saw organizations that deal with the intergenerational impacts of residential schools be cut by the current federal government.

I would like to point out that nowhere is the intergenerational impact of residential schools more evident than in the national tragedy of missing and murdered aboriginal women. It is chilling for every member of the House to know that we are part of a Parliament that could take action on this national tragedy. However, instead, we see a government that not only ignores the problem but actually cuts the very organizations that were there to support a solution.

The Native Women's Association of Canada put together a world-renowned initiative called Sisters In Spirit, which was cut two years ago.

The First Nations Statistical Institute, which gathered statistics on aboriginal women, was cut. It was done away with completely in the last budget.

The National Aboriginal Health Organization, which maintained a particular focus on the health of aboriginal women, was completely eradicated by the present federal government.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation offered state-of-the-art community-driven healing programs, many of them run by women who worked with female elders and women who live on the margins of their communities and societies. Every single one of those community-based programs was cut by the current federal government.

The Women's Health Research Network, a network of academic and grassroots women working in health and security, whether on the streets of Winnipeg or in communities in northern reserves across the country, was completely eliminated by the current federal government.

There are countless examples of organizations that deal particularly with aboriginal women to establish the kind of statistics we need to know the scope of the problem, not just in terms of murder, but in terms of violence, poverty and health challenges. They are gone. The programs are gone that gave services of healing, counselling and support for learning a language that has been beaten out of generations of aboriginal people. Programs are also gone—thanks to the federal government—that were there to support women, to engage them in research and to engage them in job opportunities, that allowed them to look at their own challenges and their own aboriginal communities.

When we hear that the federal government cares about the rights of aboriginal women, I say that is wrong, as we look at every single one of the Conservatives' actions including the fact that this weekend in Winnipeg there will be a national provincial-territorial symposium on aboriginal women known as NAWS. My question to Canadians is: I wonder if they know which level of government has refused to play any part. The answer is the federal government.

The past two historic gatherings of NAWS were recognized at the international level and were co-hosted by the federal Government of Canada. So little is its care for the status of aboriginal women in this country that, in an age where violence against aboriginal women has gripped people, has gripped the imaginations of so many Canadians like those in my home province of Manitoba, it is not even willing to co-host a discussion among levels of government and the grassroots to be able to come to a solution.

When Conservatives tell us about the equality and rights of aboriginal women, I would like to see their actions, and their actions have spoken for themselves. They are nowhere to be found and they are gutting the very foundations of a system where people have tried to come together and stand with aboriginal women for a better today and a better tomorrow.

That brings us to Bill S-2, a bill that I and my colleagues have clearly said we cannot support. It has fundamental problems. After decades of work to be able to establish a true partnership with first nations, whether it is recognizing the duty to consult, whether it is recognizing the government-to-government relationship and what the NDP wants to see as the nation-to-nation relationship, one would think the federal government would understand how important the duty to consult is, but it does not.

Bill S-2 is a bill we have seen in other forms, over five different parliamentary studies conducted on matrimonial property rights. As one Senate report found, women face real challenges when they have to leave their homes, and that is a point that we do not discount at all. It is a fact. I know it from the communities I represent. I hear it from the women with whom I have the honour of working.

However, the Senate in its conclusions made five key recommendations, and these are the recommendations that are fundamentally disregarded by Bill S-2: that the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations be consulted; that funds be provided to help first nations draft their own matrimonial rights property codes, something that first nations have indicated an interest in working on. Let us hear from those first nations. It recommended that legislation not be applicable to first nations that come up with their own code. One of the recommendations was that there be amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to apply on reserves. The Senate stressed that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations inherent right to self-government. That reference to the inherent right is a critical one, because the federal government, through its disrespect of treaty rights and aboriginal inherent rights, has built a very dangerous kind of discourse when it comes to engaging Canadians.

The government makes it sound as though aboriginal peoples' rights are the same as everyone else's rights, but what it disregards is that aboriginal people, being the first people on this land, have what are called inherent rights and have treaty rights.

None of this is a hidden fact. People in my constituency know very well the writings of Tom Flanagan, one of the Prime Minister's former and maybe even current top advisors, who wrote a book entitled, First Nations? Second Thoughts, which is essentially focused on the concept of assimilation. Obviously, that is an unutterable notion to discuss in Canada in 2012, as it should be, because the concept of assimilation is not only racist but is a dark part of our history. We have moved on.

However, if we scratch the surface, the ugly head of that notion of assimilation appears and reappears in the current federal government's dealings with aboriginal people. That is a fundamental injustice to aboriginal people and to all Canadians, when we know that our nation was built on the idea of respecting that treaty relationship between first nations and the Crown.

In 2003, a legislative gap was identified that affects the rights and needs of first nations women. Nearly a decade later, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, Parliament has failed to solve the problem. As I noted, five separate parliamentary studies have consulted first nation organizations and women, and four bills have sought fit to ignore several of their most crucial recommendations.

Bill S-2 is no exception. That is why we stand opposed to the bill. Until the government understands that it requires aboriginal peoples' full consent to amend the Indian Act, New Democrats will continue to oppose this kind of legislation.

Let me point to some of the things that are problematic. Bill S-2 would address property shared between spouses, including common law partners. We have heard that it seeks to address gender discrimination. However, we note that the government has failed to do so in previous attempts across a broad range of areas with respect to aboriginal women.

Bill S-2 lowers the ratification threshold. It has a 12-month transition period, something we believe is too short a period to address issues. It eliminates the requirement for a verification officer to approve a first nation's own laws on matrimonial property rights.

Based on the kinds of agreements we have come to as Canadians, have we not learned that it is absolutely critical to consult with and allow first nations to decide how they want to address what they know is such a critical issue in their own communities?

First nations would have to re-ratify their pre-existing processes if Bill S-2 is passed. They would have to notify the minister and the provincial attorney general. The first nation's laws, based on consensus or traditional processes, would not be accepted. It is ridiculous.

Bill S-2 goes against treaty and inherent rights.

Finally, I want to note that consultation requires consent. It is quite clear the government does not understand that concept. It is not about having a meeting with a few people or getting a sense of what somebody says. It is about a true consultation process where the people who are consulted provide their consent to do that very same thing. That is nowhere to be found in the process leading up to shaping Bill S-2.

Bill S-2 connects to the Indian Act, which is firmly rooted in colonialism, racism and misogyny. According to principles of sovereignty and human rights, to negotiate such laws instead of redefining the relationship between Canada and first nations is the wrong path to take.

Inherent gender discrimination written into the Indian Act is responsible for the problems we now face with matrimonial real property. The worst thing we could do right now is to write new laws that commit the same mistakes as the old. We must not act paternalistically toward aboriginal woman. We are bound ethically and by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to incorporate not some but all of their recommendations. It is not a selective project.

Bill S-2 unfortunately fails to do that.

The Assembly of First Nations does not support it. The Native Women's Association of Canada does not support it. The majority of aboriginal women do not support it. We as New Democrats are listening to their voices and we stand in solidarity with them. We do not support it.

We do not claim to know what is best, but Bill S-2 is not only ethically problematic, it is also logistically impossible to implement for various reasons. Let us go into those reasons. It is all fine and well to talk about legislation, but I know many of the members across the way are familiar, in part because some of them represent first nations, with the very real challenges that first nations face.

There is a lack of financial resources to support first nation governments to implement law. Let me give an example on a slightly different note that truly indicates the lack of resources first nations have.

I was visiting Bunibonibee Cree Nation in northern Manitoba, also known as Oxford House, two weeks ago. It is a community that has struggled with young people living on the margins, young people who drop out of school and who engage in activities that involve violence and abuse. Leaders in that community want to provide ways for young people to live healthier lifestyles.

They wanted to apply for a grant offered by Public Safety Canada to get money for a recreation program for these young people. They heard about this grant quite late because they do not have enough staff in their office to be able to go through all of the messages and memos they receive from the office in Winnipeg. They do not have enough staff to fill out the application and the letter of intent.

After it was filled out, just because bad things sometimes happen in threes, there was a power outage in Oxford House, Gods River, Gods Lake Narrows and the Island Lake area. The storm that knocked the power out was so bad that the people from Manitoba Hydro could not come in and fix the power. For two and a half days, people were shut out of their offices, the two and a half days prior to when this application was due. A community that needs this grant more than so many others, and along with so many others, was unable to do the very basic task of submitting the application.

We can blame it on weather when it comes to the power outage, but we cannot discount the fact that the community has said time and time again that it does not have the resources to hire people who can help them get the kind of programming and support it needs.

There is a lack of funding for lawyers. There is a lack of funding regarding limited geographic access to provincial courts. I represent 22 isolated communities. Bands have barely enough money to make do, as I noted, with basic services, let alone travelling out to access lawyers and provincial courts.

Fundamentally I would like to end with perhaps the greatest injustice. If we really wanted to address the kinds of violent situations that aboriginal women face in terms of unsafe housing and the kind of marginalization that they face in their communities, we would talk about the lack of on-reserve housing and the land mass that exists today on first nations across this country.

These are third world conditions, conditions that day in and day out shape the lives of aboriginal women and provide immense challenges to their moving forward and to Canada moving forward.

I would ask that the government be genuine in its attempt to stand with aboriginal women, look at getting rid of Bill S-2 and truly make a difference for aboriginal women in Canada.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very surprised and somewhat saddened during this debate. It seems that we are having a discussion about or at least the opposition is putting forward that in order to establish equality in Canada for all Canadians, fundamental human rights and gender equality, which are things we all believe strongly in, we should consult first. They say we cannot have equality without consultation.

I think that is profoundly wrong. The fact that an aboriginal woman does not have the same matrimonial real property rights as any other woman in this country is something we should all hang our heads in shame about. It is fundamental equality we are talking about.

We do not need to consult or negotiate or have a summit, or any of the other things that they would propose over there, to simply come to the understanding that equality is the right thing to do and inequality is wrong. That is what they are standing up for. Perhaps the hon. member would like to say why.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would venture a guess that the hon. member is not reading from his speaking notes. To even utter the words that consultation is not important when one is working with aboriginal people is an affront to the kind of system that Canada is built on. It is a very dangerous statement to make and it really flies in the face of the kinds of agreements we have committed to.

Aboriginal women are also aboriginal. That the government does not want to consult with them, with the organizations that represent them, with the bands in which they live and in many cases in which they are councillors and leaders, is frankly shocking. I am sure first nations and all Canadians who hear this will see this as not just shocking but really turning back the clock on the kind of Canada we would like to build.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat insulting to hear the members opposite talk about equity, equality and consultations. I will not go into the details, but all the Conservatives have been doing since the 41st Parliament began is infringing on human rights. As a result, when they talk about basic principles related to human rights, it is really insulting. The members opposite have no respect for equity or equality.

That being said, I would like to come back to what my colleague was saying in her excellent speech: why are consultations important and why do we want the first nations and the public to be consulted? It is a question of equality. We want to speak with these people as equals. It is only by consulting them and respecting their culture and demands that we will be able to agree on bills that respect the elements and principles of equality. We must build a nation-to-nation relationship.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who did an excellent job of presenting the NDP's position. The NDP is the only party that really stands in solidarity with first nations. The NDP has a vision of this country where first nations are respected on the basis of a nation-to-nation relationship. We are not simply paying lip service; we truly believe that this is what is right. And this is how we will proceed.

First nations needs to be recognized as nations and this relationship must be expressed in everything we do. When we talk about the rights of aboriginal women, we in the NDP do not regard these women as the same as every other woman, like the Conservatives do. Aboriginal women have certain rights that are recognized in our laws and in the UN declaration, and we recognize them as such. Let us be clear.

The Government of Canada apparently already has its own position. Let us proceed based on our vision, if the Conservatives do not wish to present theirs.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, both parties are indicating that they do not think Status of Women Canada should end up with this bill and that Aboriginal Affairs should. I have a report in my hand from 2006, which I would like to share. It is a report from the Standing Committee on Status of Women, which states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee reviewed matrimonial real property rights on reserves. Your committee heard evidence on this matter, the result of which is contained in this report.

This was one of the recommendations:

Whereas immediate solutions, not further study, are required to move this issue forward;

The member opposite indicated that aboriginal rights are not the same as everyone else's rights and that aboriginal women have rights too. We know that. That is what Bill S-2 is about. We are trying to give aboriginal women the same rights we have. I would like to ask the member opposite, will she give aboriginal women rights?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that the government has lowered its standard of debate; although, I am not surprised because we see it everyday on that side of the House.

I take encouragement from the other side that Conservatives are looking at recommendations that have been made by parliamentary studies. I wish they would look at all of the recommendations made, which are ones that New Democrats have referenced as the reason we cannot support Bill S-2.

Let me be clear on the concept of consultation. This is not a new concept. It is a concept that is enshrined in our Constitution and our commitment to the UN declaration. It is absolutely shocking that the government wants to discount the commitments we have as Canadians. That is the very problematic point.

I would really love to hear from the government as to the full extent of the action plan it has to work with aboriginal women, so that they are not the most marginalized people in Canada and they do not face the levels of violence and poverty they are facing. Let us look at the bigger picture. Could the government answer why it has cut aboriginal women's organizations to the point that some of them do not exist? Perhaps it could spend its energy on that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member for Churchill, was spot on in saying that consultation must lead to consent. When we look at how several groups have reacted to this bill, we see clear opposition, particularly from the Native Women's Association of Canada, which does not agree with this bill, the Assembly of First Nations and the Aboriginal Women’s Summit. Ellen Gabriel, the former president of Quebec Native Women's Association, and Dr. Palmater, a lawyer and professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson University, are also opposed to this bill. These individuals have very prominent voices, and they are very familiar with the housing problems in aboriginal communities.

With this bill, the way that the government is reacting and the arguments it has presented, I can see that it wants to force an inadequate legislative solution down the throats of the first nations, without actually solving the problems.

I would like the member for Churchill to comment in more detail on the fact that consultation must lead to consent; otherwise solutions are forced on people, which is a completely inadequate way of addressing the problem.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing the list of organizations, aboriginal women and leaders who oppose Bill S-2.

This government is perpetuating a colonial and paternal relationship in which it wants to impose its own vision instead of respecting aboriginal women, instead of respecting the fact that they are the ones who must take the lead, and instead of respecting and focusing on the consultations.

We, and Canadians, I am sure, think that the government is being old-fashioned by trying to introduce a bill without consultation, when we know that aboriginal women and organizations are opposed to the way it is being presented.

We have moved on. They should move on with the rest of us.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

As we have heard in a number of speeches delivered today, Canada's aboriginal women are in an extremely tough situation. Statistics show that, compared to the rest of the population, first nations women suffer more spousal violence and are at greater risk of living in poverty.

The many legal voids with respect to reserves leave aboriginal women even more vulnerable. In family law in non-aboriginal regions, when a married couple divorces, the division of family, real and personal property is determined by provincial legislation, which is not at all the case on the reserves, since they are under federal jurisdiction. In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the courts may not enforce provincial law on reserves. That decision by the highest court in the land confirmed the legal void, and many reports since then have emphasized the need to find a solution in the interests of first nations peoples.

A solution to this legal void is very urgently needed. Currently, aboriginal women who get separated or divorced lose everything. They have to leave the home and are often deprived of their children, and if their name does not appear on the title of ownership, judges cannot rule that they may keep the house or retain any part of their matrimonial property.

Where they are victims of family violence, the court cannot issue an order for exclusive possession of the family home or a restraining order, that is to say an order prohibiting the abusive spouse from approaching or communicating with his spouse. A number of protective mechanisms have been put in place over the years to protect women from spousal violence, but they cannot be enforced on reserves.

Note that, according to Statistics Canada, aboriginal women suffer violence three times more often than non-aboriginal women. It is therefore really necessary to take action, as everyone will agree.

In 2003, a Senate committee emphasized that measures previously taken by first nations to resolve this issue had to be acknowledged.

In 2005, a report by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development underscored the importance of acknowledging first nations' inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial real property and of authorizing aboriginal people to adopt their own regimes, which is not at all recognized in Bill S-2.

By virtue of the inherent right to self-determination acknowledged by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada has signed, the federal government must obtain the consent of aboriginal peoples before adopting legislation that will alter any matter directly affecting aboriginal lands. Unfortunately, as has been repeated many times today, this is not at all what Bill S-2 contains, any more than previous bills.

The opinion of the first nations, the main parties concerned here, has not been considered. They may have been consulted, but there has been no consent by the parties concerned, which means this bill is an affront to the principles of self-government and self-determination. What is the problem?

In 2006, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development held nationwide consultations on the issue of matrimonial property. The goal was to find a solution to the legal vacuum and to ensure that the rights of first nations women were taken into consideration, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was respected and that there was an acceptable balance between first nations individual and collective rights. The consultation process involved planning, consultation and consensus-building. The parties consulted did not reach a consensus, which means that, in introducing Bill S-2, neither the Senate nor the Conservative government is being respectful of aboriginal peoples. Both are imposing their way of thinking and their way of doing on the first nations.

The consultations also shed light on substantive problems, such as the lack of access to courts for those living far from major urban centres, the acute shortage of housing on reserve and the lack of financial resources to arrive at fair solutions in divorce cases.

The Senate bill provides no solution to any of these basic social issues. However, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development clearly recommended that financial assistance be granted to the first nations so that they could develop their own code for matrimonial real property and that any new piece of legislation would not apply to the first nations who had developed their own code.

It is worth reminding the government of the deplorable living conditions on the reserves. A study by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ranks the reserves 63rd among the nations of the world in terms of quality of life, that is, among the third world countries, according to the United Nations human development index.

According to Health Canada, 12% of first nations communities must boil their water before drinking it, and about one quarter of water systems on the reserves present a high risk for human health. Housing density is twice as high as it is among the general population. Nearly one in four adults lives in an overcrowded home. Approximately 423,000 people live in substandard and overcrowded housing that is deteriorating rapidly.

Since this government came to power, it has done absolutely nothing to address the lack of social housing. The United Nations have called on Canada to act on a number of occasions, but this government prefers to discredit the UN and its representatives. There is no point in passing a bill that cannot be implemented. Even if matrimonial property is divided up, where will the spouses who leave the family home go to live if there is a shortage of housing?

Here is a statement that clearly describes the misery experienced by aboriginal women:

An aboriginal woman committed suicide earlier this year after the authorities apprehended her children. The woman, who had five children, was forced to leave her reserve due to a chronic housing shortage. However, she could not find affordable housing off the reserve. Due to her financial situation she was forced to live in a rundown boarding house with her five children. She sought assistance from the authorities to find affordable housing for her and her children. The authorities responded by apprehending her children. At that point, the woman, sadly, lost all hope and took her life.

According to the Native Women's Association of Canada:

The 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.

Bill S-2 has other major flaws. Its community approval process does not respect aboriginal traditions of consensus. Bill S-2 does not require a majority of people to participate in the vote; it only requires a participation rate of 25%. This is not very democratic, nor is it representative of all band members.

The bill constitutes a one-dimensional approach to a very complex problem. The chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, believes that Ottawa is acting unilaterally by introducing this bill, and that aboriginal peoples should solve the problem. Why is this government incapable of listening to and working with first nations? Instead of working with them to solve problems, it prefers to impose trusteeship on aboriginal governments, as it did in Attawapiskat. In 2012, this paternalistic approach should no longer be acceptable. This is not the colonial era.

The federal government must treat first nations with respect and recognize their right to self-government. Members of the official opposition believe that this bill should not be passed. This is a shoddy bill and it does not respect the rights of aboriginal peoples whatsoever. It should be replaced by another bill, ideally a good bill that addresses the lack of financial resources to help first nations governments apply the law, provides legal aid and better access to courts in remote areas, and provides financial assistance to build housing on reserves.

A western-style legal approach is not the only solution. In fact, first nations people have their own traditions when it comes to conflict resolution. A good bill should reinforce traditional aboriginal institutions. In order to find lasting solutions to social problems on reserve, aboriginal governments expect the federal government to recognize their right to self-determination. I would like to quote Ellen Gabriel, a former Quebec Native Women's Association president:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation that seriously impacts the collective human rights of indigenous peoples without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of aboriginal peoples. While it is understood that legislation is not accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement laws, these bills will create further financial hardships on first nations communities.

Some first nations have adopted a proactive approach and have worked with their communities to develop rules and policies related to matrimonial property. Bill S-2 flies in the face of the values of first nations and only does more harm to first nations families. We simply cannot support such a bill, because it completely disrespects Canada's aboriginal people.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have a basic question for my hon. colleague.

I am not sure if she is married, but I will say that if any married woman in this House went through a divorce, she would have the absolute right to the property and assets she had acquired during the marriage. That is the law, and we all know it. When we go through a divorce, we get to have at least half of the assets that had been acquired during the marriage. Is the member aware that aboriginal women do not have this right at all? I am not exaggerating; this is a fact in Canada.

All Canadian women have basic rights to the property they acquired during a marriage, and should a divorce occur they would get half of those assets, as it should be, unless she is an aboriginal woman. Then she has zero ability to get any property. She has no right to the assets that had been acquired.

Can my hon. colleague tell me if she thinks that is fair or right? Is that a just society? Do the women in the NDP caucus support this kind of segregation and prejudice toward aboriginal women?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so insulting that the member is asking me such a question. Clearly, I am aware of the fact that there is discrimination among aboriginal people with regard to certain rights, particularly in the case of divorce. Everyone is aware of this and wants the problem to be resolved. But even representatives of aboriginal women are against this bill because consent was not obtained from the first nations.

The government held consultations, but it did not take into account the recommendations made by the first nations. Aboriginal people's self-governance is not being respected. Many lawyers are saying that this is not just a matter of discrimination but of giving first nations the resources they need to have decent living conditions.

We must tackle the problem of affordable housing and housing in general. We must tackle the problems of health and poverty. We must improve access to legal recourse. We must resolve the lack of basic justice. Bill S-2 is a complete botch-up that does not address any of these issues. It is very insulting that this government is not able to recognize that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech on Bill S-2. This is an extremely important perspective that the House must be made aware of. We must take the time to listen to what members are saying in their remarks.

My colleague said something that is very interesting. Many recommendations were made and many studies were conducted in the parliamentary system, but almost none of those recommendations were included in the reports produced by the Senate and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The government is cutting back on its consultations with the groups involved and is not taking into account the recommendations made. Does my colleague believe that this is becoming too much of a habit for the government when introducing bills?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Alfred-Pellan, who was spot on with her comments. The government has a habit of imposing its way of doing things and its vision without respecting the traditional and cultural rights of aboriginals. The government tries to impose all of its decisions without any consultation or consideration of the opinions of experts and partners.

Here, the government is forcing a transitional measure spread out over 12 months down our throats. The first nations do not agree with that. They say that 12 months is far too short and that they would need a two-, three- or even ten-year transition period.

Furthermore, this does not address the underlying issues that are at the source of a lot of the violence. Many issues are being addressed on the surface only, but they would have us believe that they are addressing the problem of violence and are helping women. Women want more financial resources so that this can be done properly.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House on behalf of my constituents of Kanesatake who have outwardly expressed their opposition to this. I have consulted with the band and spoken with Ellen Gabriel, a member of the band of Kanesatake, and can clearly and without reservation say that first nations do not agree with this legislation.

Bill S-2 makes changes to the Indian Act that will allow provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or a partner. While the intention of the act is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of a separation, the problem is that the bill cannot be implemented and that the government completely ignored any consultation when preparing the legislation. Otherwise, it would have known that the bill could not be implemented.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserve due to the jurisdictional divide between provinces and territories, who have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within provinces, and the federal government, which has a jurisdiction to legislate regarding “Indians and lands reserved for Indians”.

The Indian Act does not provide for the division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nation jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada in this area. This is a problem. However, anyone who is paying attention to the situation and issues facing first nations in Canada knows that it is the Indian Act that is flawed beyond repair.

New Democrats support the will of the Assembly of First Nations and the many individual nations that have explicitly called on the House to scrap the Indian Act of 1876. We need to begin anew. We need to do this through a broadly consultative process with equal partners. That is key. We need to understand that we are talking about equal partners in Confederation. That is the only way we are going to move forward out of this existing colonial structure.

We need to write laws for indigenous peoples that are not founded on colonialism and racism, like the Indian Act is. We need to do it while recognizing that first nations have an inherent right to their land and to govern themselves. That would be the way to move forward, through collaboration, consultation and in good faith. I believe that Canada can take effective steps toward de-colonialization of aboriginal peoples in this country. The Indian Act is not the road map toward de-colonialization; it is a template through which Canada colonized indigenous peoples in the first place.

The legislative gap surrounding matrimonial real property, MRP, is a problem created by the Indian act, which neglects to account for the division of property in the event of a matrimonial breakdown. It is a function of the Indian Act to place all reserve land and care for status Indians under the fiduciary responsibility of the Government of Canada. I do not think it is a matter of opinion at this point in history that Canada has not lived up to its responsibility and that it continues not to provide equality for first nations, as exemplified by the fact that first nations child welfare and schools continue to be grossly underfunded compared to non-first nations children by about 30%, according to the Auditor General.

When it comes to matrimonial real property, the obvious problem that arises from the jurisdictional gap created by the Indian Act is that an aboriginal woman is often not entitled to the lands or home she once shared with her spouse. Therefore, it would seem logical from a very shallow perspective, like the government has, that we should simply write a law that gives women on reserves the benefits of provincial matrimonial laws, thus neatly filling a legislative gap. However, this simply does not work in reality for the women living on reserve. First nations people do not own the land they are on. They cannot simply sell or divide the land in way that a non-first nations person can own, sell and divide land.

Even if the band council wanted to give a woman her own property on reserve, it would not be able to do so, as there is not enough land. We are seeing this problem in Kanesatake. The government is constantly causing problems and delays and changing the rules of the game while Kanesatake is trying to move forward. It is trying to have jurisdiction over its land for future generations. The government is not doing that for them; it is just continuing to cause problems.

We cannot talk about land without actually addressing the problem that first nations do not have jurisdiction over the land, or do not have the ability to control what is going on with their land, and cannot access the lands that are traditionally theirs.

As I was saying, the trouble with Bill S-2 is that, practically speaking, it is impossible to implement. Therefore, Bill S-2 has become an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a very complex problem caused by the Indian Act.

There are obvious gender discrimination problems with MRP on reserve, but the reason we cannot implement it is the lack of financial resources to support first nations governments actually implementing laws, including a lack of funding for lawyers. This is a problem, again, in Kanesatake. It is resulting in more and more debt whenever it has to defend its land from a mining company.

There is also a lack of funding to address first nations' limited geographic access to provincial courts. First nations, particularly aboriginal peoples living in remote areas, cannot necessarily easily access a provincial court, where they would have to go to defend MRP.

Moreover, there is a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserve. In a sense we would be doubling the amount of land needed for some people. The land just is not there. The housing is not there. There is the difficulty of getting more resources to maintain and build more homes on reserve, let alone the lack of space to put them on.

The government would know all of this if it actually took the trouble to consult and actually do the consultation required. By the way, consultation does not mean the government receiving a letter from first nations indicating what the latter want and then ignoring it. It means actually having a real discussion and coming to solutions together on equal footing.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, consultation requires consent. Canada has conducted limited consultation, but no consent was given. Therefore, Bill S-2 is in violation of UNDRIP, something to which we are a signatory, although it was difficult to get us on board. The Government of Canada, in all its previous forms and its current one, does not actually want to address meaningfully the problem of colonialism and racism toward first nations people. UNDRIP requires free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands and welfare of rights holders—not to mention the fact that we are basically continuing to ignore the Constitution Act, which states that first nations have jurisdiction over their own internal affairs.

Accordingly, New Democrats are not going to support this legislation. We need to have non-legislative remedies to problems that are occurring in the government's relations with first nations. We need to actually address violence against aboriginal women. What we have been doing up until now has not actually been addressing that. If the government were on the ground, if it had consulted, it would know this. If it had not ignored the testimony given at the status of women committee, it would know this.

We also need to address the housing crisis. We need to end the systematic underfunding that is perpetuating discrimination across generations.

The Conservatives just want to put a law on the books and say that they have solved the problem without actually dealing with the underlying problem. They continue to ignore first nations women's voices that are calling for us to have a meaningful discussion, to stop managing first nations like colonial subjects and to truly understand that they are partners in this confederation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns for women's issues. We have actually participated in events encouraging women to run for politics. I appreciate her enthusiasm and keen interest to ensure there is equality for women across the country.

As some of my colleagues have pointed out this morning, aboriginal women lack a fundamental right that the rest of the women and my colleague in the House share today, which is if we are in a relationship that ends, we receive or have the right to receive 50% or more of the property that was part of that relationship. This is a fundamental right. If any of us stood in the House today to share a story where that was not the case, there would be shared outrage and concern for a lack of equality.

Why does my colleague, who I know shares these concerns with me, refuse aboriginals the same rights that we in the House today have to our property.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is ignoring the rights of aboriginals to have their own ability to control these things.

Ellen Gabriel is a member of Kanesatake, which is within my riding. She is a former Quebec Native Women's Association president. She said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. While it is understood that legislation is not accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement laws, these Bills will create further financial hardships on First Nations communities.

While no one will argue against the fact that solutions must be found on the issue of gender discrimination in regards to MRP or that we must work together to find ways to help First Nations communities to have access to safe drinking water. Sharing equal responsibility requires the means to effectively implement measures that do not create further burden upon communities; financial or otherwise.

The thing with this bill is that it will require more financial resources and actual consultation so we can implement rights for aboriginal peoples, not—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, my colleague most certainly has some insight into the situation.

Interestingly enough, as an MP in an area that contains a reserve, the member will also be very aware of the fact that the resources are quite limited in terms of land mass, educational opportunities and of federal investment.

Regarding the fact that there has, for a number of years, been a 2% cap on investments or financial resources given to first nations, despite the fact that is an exploding population and the fastest population growth in Canada, I am interested in her ideas and comments, as a member with a reservation in her area.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has recently happened in Kanesatake is having its NCBR funding cut, unexpectedly. It just did not come in and it normally comes in every year. After attempting to find out what was going on, finally there was a letter from AAND saying that it had cut the funding, it was over and Kanesatake was not getting any, final decision. This is extremely frustrating. It took about six or seven months to get the letter to understand what was happening.

NCBR funding went toward youth centres where children would go after school if they did not have anywhere else to go, and that had programming. The funding also provided lunch programs at the schools. There are so many kids who cannot afford to have lunch and will not have a meal that day unless the school provides it for them. We are talking about serious problems. Ignoring these problems and implementing bills unilaterally that would cause more financial problems is worse for aboriginal rights than supposedly solving MRP.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will proudly be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I have been listening to the debate this morning, starting off with the Minister for Status of Women, who kicked it off. My analysis of what I have heard so far is that the minister and the Conservative members of the House, who stood to speak to the bill, are being paternalistic. Members may wonder how that can be as they are women. It is still possible for women to be paternalistic. That is what we are hearing in the House.

The minister made a comment in one of her answers about the opposition saying that we should consult, consult, consult, that we have had enough with consultation and it was time for action. What does it mean if the government consults when it actually does not take those recommendations? Is that actually consultation? I do not think it is. It is bogus consultation to gather everybody in a room together, nod thoughtfully, with the appropriate tsks and yeses, and then totally ignore everything that was said.

The Conservatives have put together a bill that is not based on consultation. They stand here all sanctimonious saying that the opposition will not stand up for women, aboriginal women and first nations people. We are standing up for women. That is what I am doing right now. I am standing up for human rights in Canada. What the Conservatives did is not consultation. It is disrespectful and paternalistic.

The intention of the bill is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of separation. We know that same sex marriages are legal in Canada, that is something I am really proud of, but in the majority of cases we are talking about on reserve and, in this case, historically that is generally a man and a woman. What the bill tries to do is effect equal property rights distribution. However, we do not believe it can be implemented for lots reasons, many of which have been enumerated by first nations stakeholders.

Parliament has heard these concerns time and time again, but the Conservatives keep ignoring them. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically and practically problematic. It ignores their inherent rights and sovereignty.

If I were drafting a bill about matrimonial property rights on reserve, who would I consult? I would probably consult widely, but put a lot of weight on any testimony or any opinion that the Native Women's Association had, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.

The Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations both demand better legislation because the consequences of passing this legislation are so dire. Therefore, we oppose this bill, along with those two key groups and many experts across the country.

I mentioned that the Conservatives were ignoring that consultation. What exactly are they ignoring? The Assembly of First Nations facilitated a dialogue around matrimonial property rights and found the following three broad principles that would be key to addressing matrimonial property rights on reserve: first, recognition of first nations jurisdiction; second, access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and third, addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security. That is what came out of the AFN-facilitated dialogue. Bill S-2 does not deal in a meaningful way with any of those issues.

What else do we know the Conservatives are ignoring? There is a 2004 Senate report called "Still Waiting”, which highlighted the need for action on matrimonial property rights. It also recommended that the issue be referred to the aboriginal affairs committee.

We have heard lots of folks in the House talk about the fact that this will go to the status of women committee and not the aboriginal affairs committee. There is another solid recommendation that has been ignored.

We also had an aboriginal affairs committee report in 2005 called “Walking Arm-in-Arm”. This was the first study to consult with the Native Women's Association and the AFN, along with other first nation stakeholders. That is a positive step.

These were their recommendations: first, that the Native Women's Association of Canada and Assembly of First Nations be consulted in order to draft legislation, or Indian Act amendments; second, provide funds to help first nations draft their own matrimonial property rights codes; third, legislation should not apply to first nations that draft their own codes; fourth, amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to apply on reserves; and fifth, stress that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations' inherent right of self-governance.

Not all of these recommendations are being taken into account in Bill S-2. That is what is being ignored. The bill is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify what is really a complex problem that is brought about by the Indian Act.

I am not, contrary to the minister's accusation, saying to continue to consult and consult needlessly. I am saying that we should listen to the consultation, take the ideas that came from it and use them, because it would be impossible to implement Bill S-2. It looks nice on paper, but it would be impossible to implement because of a lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law. It would be impossible to implement because of a lack of funding for lawyers and legal advice. It would be impossible to implement because of a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts. It would be impossible to implement the bill because of a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on the reserve.

What does it mean when it is printed on paper and is passed and enacted? What does it mean if we cannot realize these rights in first nations communities?

We have heard from a number of my colleagues, and I agree with them. The NDP will not support any changes to matrimonial property legislation that are not accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems. That would include ending violence against aboriginal women, addressing the housing crisis on reserves and ending systematic funding discrimination against first nation children. Those are the key things that need to be present if we are to look at the issue of matrimonial property rights.

I have stood in the House and listened to the debate. I have listened to the heckles from the sideline. I have listened to the member from Portage—Lisgar saying that we should be hanging our heads in shame over here. I have listened to her heckle from the other side saying that it is really important to recognize aboriginal rights and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for standing in the way of that. Well, if she will not listen to opposition members, if she refuses to do that, maybe at the very least she will listen to Ellen Gabriel, former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association and AFN grand chief candidate. She said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. While it is understood that legislation is not accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement laws, these Bills will create further financial hardships on First Nations communities.

While no one will argue against the fact that solutions must be found on the issue of gender discrimination in regards to MRP or that we must work together to find ways to help First Nations communities to have access to safe drinking water. Sharing equal responsibility requires the means to effectively implement measures that do not create further burden upon communities; financial or otherwise.

Should Ms. Gabriel hang her head in shame? Should she be ashamed for refusing to acknowledge women's rights?

Maybe the Conservatives will listen to Dr. Pam Palmater, who is a practising lawyer and professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson and a member of the Mi'kmaq Nation on the east coast. She talked quite a bit in committee about why the legislation was bad, why it should not be brought forward and why it should not be passed. Should Dr. Palmater be hanging her head in shame for not standing up for first nation women's rights? I hardly think so.

If the Conservatives refuse to listen to the opposition on this, at the very least they should have the respect to listen to the men and women who testified at committee, who have spoken out loud and clear on this issue and who are the real experts about how this will play out in their communities.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the opposition has had this paternalistic stand, saying that aboriginal women do not deserve the same rights as all Canadian women across this great land of ours.

I am particularly surprised because, as a member who has worked in the downtown east side of Vancouver, I have seen the ramifications of the fact that women do not have these rights on reserve. I have seen the women and their children on the streets. I have seen the women and their children having no money. I have seen the women suffer because there is this legislative gap that our government wants to correct.

I have also worked on the other side, with the YWCA in Vancouver to create social housing, to put a roof over heads, to put breakfast programs in place so that those children and those women can have what is a basic right.

To sit here today and hear that the opposition is saying these women should not have the same rights as every other woman across Canada is shocking. That means the spouses will not be able to have a house; they will not be able to have access to financial supports. I find that shocking.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how shocked she is. I am shocked at how little this member actually knows about this legislation.

First of all, it applies to on-reserve housing and matrimonial property rights on reserve, not women in downtown Vancouver.

If the member is so concerned about women having access to housing on reserve, then she should stop for a second and look at this law, look at the fact that it is saying we would create a legal regime here that actually would leave people homeless. There are no resources on many reserves to be able to actually have the housing there for men and women who do separate. This law has been written in a vacuum with absolutely no eye to how it would actually play out on reserve.

Back to Dr. Palmater, she herself said that if the minister actually listened to the voices of aboriginal women, he would have heard that aboriginal people do not want this bill as it is currently drafted. He would have also heard that what they do want is gender equality addressed in all of Canada's legislative initiatives.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her excellent speech.

She also gave an interesting overview of the situation and of what is presented in Bill S-2. She pointed out that the government did not listen at the consultations and did not pay attention to the recommendations in some of the reports tabled in the House.

I also think she touched on a very interesting point, which is that the first nations currently receive inadequate funding.

I would like to hear my colleague speak more about the fact that we should have listened to aboriginal women's groups on this subject, and that we should have examined other important issues for the first nations, such as providing adequate funding but also scrapping the Indian Act.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will paraphrase the Native Women's Association of Canada's testimony about this bill.

They talked about holes in the quilt that were going to happen because of the creation of this bill. There actually is not funding in place to enact this legislation. They talked about the fact that they needed more time. They talked about a long-term plan—two years, five years, ten years—and that this sort of twelve-month turnaround is not sufficient for their communities to react.

This legal regime would be created with absolutely no resources on the ground to implement it or to uphold it. The Native Women's Association actually said these are not the types of plans they need. They need plans that are developed in co-operation with first nations and not just have government design it and then have this patchwork input from first nations.

My hon. colleague is absolutely bang on in her analysis.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Halifax for a speech that was well said, and as usual, she is bang on.

Bill S-2 is an act concerning matrimonial real property on first nations reserve land. It makes changes to the Indian Act to allow for provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of matrimonial breakdown or on the death of a spouse or common-law partner. While the intention of this act is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of separation, the bill cannot be implemented for many important reasons enumerated by first nations stakeholders. Parliament has heard these serious concerns again and again. The Conservatives have ignored these concerns in the drafting of Bill S-2. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically and practically problematic and ignores their inherent rights and sovereignty.

The federal Conservatives went to the trouble of consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association on matrimonial real property, but ignored the results of the consultation when preparing the original legislation. While this iteration of the bill removes some of the most onerous parts of previous legislative attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent rights and jurisdictions in this matter.

The Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations both demand better legislation because the consequence of passing inadequate legislation is so dire. New Democrats oppose this bill along with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and many nations and experts across the country. Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008. The NDP has opposed these every time they come up for debate.

The Assembly of First Nations facilitated dialogue and found three broad principles are key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves. One is the recognition of first nation jurisdiction; two is the access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and three is addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security. Bill S-2 does not deal in a meaningful way with these three key principles.

There are two kinds of property: real and personal. Real property includes lands and things permanently attached to the land, such as a house. Personal property includes things that can be moved, such as furniture and money. Bill S-2 deals with matrimonial real property on reserves, property shared between spouses in a conjugal relationship or between common-law partners. There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserve due to a jurisdictional divide between provinces and territories, which have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the provinces, and the federal government, which has jurisdiction to legislate Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

The Indian Act does not provide for the division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nations jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada. This has led to major legal cases, which were dismissed by provincial courts because the provincial law cannot apply to lands on Indian reserves. Thus, a legislative gap was identified. Five different parliamentary studies have been conducted on MRP.

In 2003, “A Hard Bed to Lie In” identified the legislative gap and the fact that women have no rights in marriage breakdowns and that resulted in the fact that they have no choice but to leave their homes. It recommended that provincial civil law be applied on reserve.

In 2004, “Still Waiting” highlighted the need for precipitous action on MRP and recommended that issues be referred to Aboriginal Affairs and that consultation be conducted in a timely manner. It identified the lack of clarity for the rights of women on reserves as a human rights issue that was incurring reprimand from the UN.

“Walking Arm in Arm”, in 2005, was the first study to consult the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations, among other first nation stakeholders. Among its recommendations were, one, that the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations be consulted in order to draft legislation or amendments; two, that funds be provided to help first nations draft their own MPR codes; three, that legislation should not apply to first nations that draft their own codes; four, that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to apply on reserves; and five, it stressed that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations inherent right of self-governance.

The Status of Women report, 2006, identified the barriers to the solutions proposed by MPR legislation, including insufficient funding to implement it, chronic housing shortages on reserves and lack of high-level consultation. Again, the need for consultation and funding was a recommendation.

In her ministerial representative report in 2006, Wendy Grant-John stated that no consensus had been found regarding legislation that could apply to MPR. The report recommended, among other things, that the current jurisdictional model be used where first nations law was paramount and that the government needed to identify the real costs of implementing provincial legislation on reserves.

All the previous bills, and now Bill S-2, neglect almost all of the recommendations made by all of those reports.

In this version of the bill, a first nations own matrimonial real property law would have a lower ratification threshold. In the past bill, a majority of band members had to vote in favour of the law, 50% plus one. Now the law must be approved by a simple majority of those who have voted, with set participation of at least 25% of eligible voters.

The bill would introduce a 12-month transition period. This period would be too short to deal with many issues that need to be addressed, such as lack of housing and lack of funding to access provincial courts and lawyers.

This version of the bill would eliminate the requirements for a verification officer to approve first nations own laws on matrimonial real property.

First nations with pre-existing processes would have to re-ratify those processes, if this legislation passes, and notify the minister and the provincial attorney.

Laws based on consensus or other traditional processes would not be accepted. This goes against the treaty and inherent rights.

After hearings in the Senate, the bill was amended to extend the period of time for which an exclusive occupancy order could be made to over 90 days.

Bill S-2 is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a complex problem brought about by the Indian Act. While there are obvious gender discrimination problems, the MPR on reserves bill, Bill S-2, would not be possible to implement because of lack of financial resources to support first nations government to actually implement the law, lack of funding for lawyers, lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts and lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserves.

According to a 2001 press release from the Native Women's Association of Canada, the problem requires a comprehensive response led by first nations and the federal government. This approach must address family support services, more on-reserve housing and shelters, police support services, building first nations capacity to resolve disputes, solutions to land management issues and resolving of matters relating to citizenship, residency and Indian status.

According to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory, consultation requires consent. While Canada has conducted limited consultation, no consent was given by rights holders. Therefore, if we enforced Bill S-2, we would be violating article 32 of the UN declaration, which ensures free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands and the welfare of rights holders.

Finally, New Democrats will not support any MRP legislation that is not accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems, including ending violence against aboriginal women, addressing the housing crisis on reserves and ending the systematic funding discrimination against first nation children.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard someone in the opposition party talk about our party being paternalistic. However, the definition of paternalistic is: behaviour by a person, organization or state that limits some persons' or groups' liberty or autonomy for their own good.

Aboriginal women do not have the right to access their marital property. That is a right that we should all be standing up for in the House. That truly is what it means to fight against paternalism in the House.

I listened to my colleague's speech and other speeches this morning about how there is a lack of support for aboriginal funding. In fact, in 2009, our government allocated over half a billion dollars for infrastructure on aboriginal reserves as well as funding in excess, I believe, of $200 million on top of annual funding.

Do we always have to be talking about what more can be done? Yes, but I simply ask my colleague this. Will he support the right of aboriginal women to have the same rights that I do standing here in the House?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that paternalistic is a perfect description of the Conservative Party.

We will support native women by not supporting the bill because it would harm them. It would not help them, but it would harm them. The bill certainly would not help native women accomplish what white women have accomplished in Canada. We have to do more for native women and if that includes more funding, then so be it.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the same question when my colleague from Churchill gave her speech earlier. I think this question warrants another look.

She talked about the fact that consultations were held with aboriginal groups, or at least that is what this government claims. In a situation that should involve a nation-to-nation relationship and the right to self-determination, those consultations were completely ignored. They did not lead to any recommendations, and the Conservatives did not take any of the priorities set by aboriginal groups themselves into account.

The Assembly of First Nations, the Aboriginal Women's Summit, the Native Women's Association of Canada and aboriginal women like Ellen Gabriel, a former Quebec Native Women's Association president, have all said they do not agree with the government's approach, which involves shoving inadequate legislative measures down their throats—measures that will not help the overall situation.

I wonder if my colleague from Nickel Belt would agree that the government's consultations absolutely must culminate in the unanimous consent of first nations in order to move forward?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this excellent question.

Consultation is exactly what the Supreme Court said the government must do. It must consult with first nations and reach a consensus.

The government can consult all it wants, but if it does not listen to what first nations are saying, then what is the point? A consensus cannot be reached if one merely consults, but does not listen. Both of those things need to happen. Clearly, the Conservative Party, and therefore the Government of Canada, did not do this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today.

Earlier, when the minister introduced the legislation, we suggested that it would be nice if, as the critic for the Liberal Party said, the minister would have the bill go to the aboriginal committee. Obviously, the minster decided against that.

Further, in a question for a member from the New Democratic Party I asked about the benefits of taking the issue outside of Ottawa and having it go into different communities.

I think what we need to acknowledge right at the very beginning is that when the legislation passes the impact will be quite significant.

With respect to the importance of first nation issues, on a number of occasions I have had the opportunity to stand to speak to many of those issues and how important it is that our first nation communities feel they are directly involved. Many, including me, would suggest that they should be playing a leadership role in the development of the legislation. I am not convinced that the government has done a good job in terms of going into our first nation communities and working in good faith with those communities.

When we talk about respecting and working with first nations, the government, in this particular case, has failed to meet that marker and as a result I believe that the legislation has some fundamental flaws in it.

The government has decided to move forward with the legislation and, as has been pointed out by the Liberal Party critic, has made the decision that, after second reading here in the House, the bill would not go to the aboriginal standing committee but to the status of women standing committee.

I think this is interesting. There was a study brought to that particular committee with respect to women and young girls and the issue of social and economic well-being, and the suggestion was that aboriginal women should be incorporated and taken into consideration. It was actually the Liberal Party's seniors critic from York West, who ultimately, through a minority report, said that the status of women committee did not do the study justice, at least in part, in not recognizing the importance of the needs of aboriginal women. Now we have the minister responsible saying that when the bill passes, it is going to that committee.

From my perspective, we have nothing against the fine work the members do at that particular committee. However, I do believe, as the critic for the Liberal Party talked about in her speech, that it is not the most appropriate committee for the bill to go to. The most appropriate committee is the aboriginal standing committee.

We say that because we want to ensure that all the interested stakeholders, and there are good number of stakeholders, have the ability to come forward, provide witnesses and comment on the bill. We ultimately believe that the aboriginal affairs committee is the best committee to ensure that we are doing the best job we can.

Further, we would suggest that if the government were genuine in its beliefs and recognized the importance of our first nations, it would recognize that given the very nature of this legislation there is merit in taking those committee meetings outside of Ottawa. Many, including me, would suggest that having that committee go into provinces such as Manitoba and others, where I know there would be a great deal of interest in being able to present and attend these committee hearings, would be of great value. It would show that the government is prepared to work with our first nation communities.

I think the worst thing we can do, and it appears to be the direction we are going, is to say that we know best. Yes, there has been some work done. I have heard a recital of the history of the bill, where it has come from and why it is here before us today. However, I do not believe we have seen the type of engagement with our first nations communities that would empower them to provide good, strong leadership so that there would be more universal support for this important legislation.

Going into these rural communities would be of great value for us because I think the legislation could be improved upon. Ultimately, it would have that much more credibility if in fact it did reach out into the communities.

I mentioned Manitoba, but I suspect it could go into a number of different provinces. Obviously I have a bias for the province of Manitoba because I believe there is a huge amount of interest there on this particular issue. That is the reason I am calling upon not only the minister responsible but also the Prime Minister to recognize the importance of this issue.

As I pointed out, the issue goes beyond splitting up assets and so forth, to the manner in which we treat first nation issues here in the House. That is why I would suggest the Prime Minister would do well to recognize that and to see Bill S-2 as a piece of legislation that could go a long way to assist in that sense of cooperation and empowerment, by at the very least taking the committee and going into these different provinces.

I would ask that the Prime Minister and the minister responsible take the Liberal Party up on the suggestion that they have the committee meetings outside of Ottawa.

Over the last few decades we have seen first-hand how laws and norms in society have changed significantly in regard to family breakups. For the most part, one will find that it has been very progressive in its changes and in ensuring there is a sense of fairness. Whenever there is a family breakup, the turmoil that is caused has a huge financial impact on everyone having to endure that breakup. It also has a significant impact, both emotionally and socially, in terms of everything from living conditions to friends who are gained or in most cases lost.

It is the lead-up to a family breakup that ultimately causes a great deal of harm. In many situations, and this is a point that really has not been emphasized this morning, because of uncertainly, quite often family situations remain intact because of the threat of the unknown or what is going to happen with the house or living conditions. That is, if people were to leave a relationship, what would be the ramifications of that decision?

That tells me there is a need to provide clarity and for us to look at ways in which we can improve the situation. If we were to work with the first nations and the leadership within first nations, we would find they too have answers and solutions to many of the problems that are caused within family units when a family unit has to break up. We have to be sensitive to the differences, for instance, between reserve property versus property that is outside the reserve.

From a personal point of view, we have to ensure that women and children are protected to the nth degree when it comes to family breakups. All members of the House support taking measures that ultimately ensure there is a sense of fairness and that ensure people are out of abusive relationships. There is a sense of equality, but there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I would suggest that the government has missed the mark on it. Therefore, I know the Liberal Party is not going to support the bill, for a number of reasons. The government has not been able to get the type of support for the legislation that one would have expected it to get, in particular from first nations.

The other point I want to pick up on is the issue of government policies and the types of things government does or does not do that have a significant impact on the family unit. Over the years, I have experienced different types of government policies and their impact. When sufficient resources are not provided for housing, that will have an impact. If we do not provide or encourage sufficient economic development in certain areas, it does have an impact on the family unit. We have to ask what impact government policy is having on keeping families together with regard to the types of policies we develop and programs we provide. Are they helping or are they hurting? Whether it is keeping a family together, or in the case where a family does break up, to what degree is the government supporting families that have to break up?

I would suggest that the government can do more. One of the more common issues I have had to deal with in the past is an excellent example, and it is the issue of gaming and the profound impact it has had on the province of Manitoba. When gaming first came to Manitoba, which was one of the first provinces to get into the whole gaming industry, the province was totally amazed at the amount of revenue it started to generate.

Through that revenue, it seemed to get a lot of public support. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and the government was more than happy to take in that money. However, what the government did not recognize was the negative impact of gaming policy. The reason I use “gaming policy” is because this is 100% government policy. When we talk about government policy and the way it impacts people in a real and tangible way, this is a great example. The government gets addicted to the revenues but fails to recognize the social costs.

I had the opportunity to be the critic for lotteries in the province of Manitoba many years ago. We would hear of cases which would ultimately involve families breaking up. We would have people becoming addicted to gaming. As opposed to providing food for their families, they would spend their money in the LT machines. We had young children in the parking lots of large casinos and the parents were inside the casinos spending money. The social costs involve everything from suicides, to breaking up of families to individuals ending up in jail because they steal in order to feed their addiction. One might ask how that relates to this particular bill. I suggest that we would have a lot more family unity if there were a more progressive way of looking at government policy and how that policy affects our communities.

The aboriginal community, in this situation, has been profoundly affected. I have had the opportunity to gain first-hand experience of how that policy has ultimately led to family breakup. I see governments taking action in what would appear to be an arbitrary fashion, taking it upon themselves because we have not seen the leadership coming from our first nations. We know the first nations want to be engaged, but we do not see the government seeking that engagement. The first nations leadership, even though I am sure it would welcome some of the issues this bill would deal with being resolved, is equally concerned about some of those other issues. That is why there is great value in having more of those stakeholders involved. It is not just one focus.

This legislation is focused purely on the breaking up of families and how the government is prepared to assist in that. It fails to recognize there are other things the government could be doing that would assist families, whether keeping them together or allowing them to break up. At the end of the day, I am hopeful the Conservatives will recognize that the government has a strong role to play in both situations. This particular piece of legislation does not have the type of support that is necessary to go to committee because the Conservatives do not have support from our aboriginal community. Unfortunately, because they have a majority, I believe the bill will ultimately get to committee, and even though it is the wrong committee, we ask that the Conservatives seriously consider going into the communities so they can hear about the family breakups and some of the government policies that ultimately contribute to that.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion we are having today. I am proud to be part of a government that wants rights for all women, not just some women.

I am concerned by the comments that were just made by the hon. member opposite. I am concerned he is not aware there was a national consultation process that informed the development of the legislation we are dealing with today. The consultation process involved 103 sessions, in 76 sites, across Canada. Over $8 million was spent on that process and it involved multiple organizations, including Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, each of which received $2.7 million for their participation in those consultations.

These consultations were held because this is a government that cares about the rights of all women. The consultations and development of the legislation itself responds to domestic and international studies. I am very concerned that my hon. colleague is not aware of this investment. I think it is very important.

I want to ask the member whether he is aware that these many organizations have each received $2.7 million as part of the consultation process. We have consulted for 25 years and it is time to act for all women. I want the member's perspective on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I was hoping to do was to touch on something a little different regarding the concept that government does do many things in terms of policy that has an impact on the family unit.

I do appreciate what the member is saying. Having said that, we are looking for the government to go to the first nations of our country and empower them, not only to be able to contribute to the debate on this very important issue, but also to challenge them to provide the leadership on this debate. I believe the leadership from within our first nations communities is there, and there is a great deal of good will to deal with the issues this piece of legislation is attempting to deal with.

The proof is ultimately in the pudding, I would suggest. I would ask for government members to provide us, for example, with letters or correspondence from first nations leaders, in particular chiefs and others, saying this is a piece of legislation that the first nations are behind and they want the House of Commons to support it.

Even in that sort of a situation, I am sure we would find they would love to see this go into the rural communities outside of Ottawa where they could make a presentation to the committee itself.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member.

When we look at what was just said and the question that was asked by the Conservatives, we can see they are putting a dollar figure on consultation that shows how they are really not in touch with the issues of first nations. They should consider what colonialization has done to the first nations, Métis people and Inuit people.

I want to bring attention to the fact that Chief Shining Turtle from the Whitefish River First Nation has sent over 11,000 emails and letters to the ministers over the years on this specific issue. He says that Whitefish River First Nation has the inherent right to self-government. All first nations have the inherent right to self-government, as recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, which includes independent jurisdiction with regard to family law and real property for their citizens.

Then he goes on to say that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples described the family, in chapter 2, and that the solution is obvious: aboriginal communities should be able to legislate in the area of matrimonial real property, and federal and provincial governments should acknowledge the authority of aboriginal governments to adopt laws with regard to the matrimonial home and to establish family law regimes compatible with their culture and traditions.

This is a first nation that has implemented a matrimonial real property act. Does the member agree that if provided with the proper tools, first nations could actually take this on and tackle this themselves?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and even the reference to the 1982 constitutional accord. We could talk about other accords of social significance, like the Kelowna accord.

The bottom line and one of the reasons I challenged the Prime Minister is that we need to recognize this as substantially a first nations issue. As such, we should be looking at ways to empower and enable first nations to demonstrate leadership in dealing with issues of this nature. That means legitimate engagement of first nations. I am not at all convinced that the government was successful at doing that, which is why it does not have the type of support it needs from first nations for this legislation.

If the government had reached out or attempted to legitimately engage them, the situation would be quite different and we would have seen that strong leadership that I know is there within first nations, but was never allowed to come to the table on this particular bill.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of speakers ago, one of the members opposite mentioned that the bill would allow provincial laws to be applied on reserve. That is actually false. The legislation would not incorporate provincial and territorial laws relating to matrimonial real property on reserve. The bill only provides that either the provisional federal rules or first nations laws would apply on reserve.

On another note, I would point out that in January I was honoured and privileged to have been married for 25 years. However, rest assured, the people who know me know that I would certainly go after my assets, or 50% of my house, if anything ever happened to my marriage. It is not fair that aboriginal women do not have that choice and chance to go after their assets.

Will the member opposite not support aboriginal women so they too will have these rights?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I really and truly do support women of all ethnicities, including our first nations women, having equal rights. That is important in today's society.

However, we have to look at this legislation. Again, I challenged the Prime Minister to look at the legislation. If he really wants to make significant progress in this area, the best way to do that is to empower and work with first nations to demonstrate the leadership they have from within to resolve this issue.

If the Prime Minister really were interested in doing that, we would see a far more effective piece of legislation. The very rights the parliamentary secretary is referring to, women's rights, would then in fact be better protected. If the government tries to do it on its own and just say that it held some consultations and is now ready to move forward without allowing first nations to demonstrate their leadership, it is selling those rights short.

It is still not too late. There are things the government can do to approach our first nations. If it did that, it could ultimately bring forward legislation that could receive much better and broader support. No doubt, however, there would have to some changes to it.

At the very least, let us encourage and provide the opportunity for first nations leaders to come to the table and provide the leadership on this very important issue.

[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.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, women on reserve are estimated to be five times more likely to be killed than other women in our country. Without this law, judges cannot use emergency protection orders to order the abuser out of the house in situations of domestic violence. This means a woman in an abusive situation on a reserve has to leave her house.

If this were me in that situation, or any of my female colleagues standing in the House today, we would all take up arms to support this cause.

We are here to support those without a voice. This law gives them a voice. Why does my colleague refuse to support giving a voice to aboriginal women in this regard?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

On the contrary, the Conservatives are the ones who refuse to give aboriginal women a voice and who refuse to consider the recommendations made by groups that represent aboriginal women.

I would like to repeat what Ellen Gabriel said. She is the former president of Quebec Native Women's Association and she is a candidate for the position of grand chief of the AFN. She said that it is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation that seriously impacts the collective rights of indigenous peoples without adequate consultations which require the free, prior and informed consent of aboriginal peoples. She added that, since this legislation will not be accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement this legislation, these bills will create further financial hardships on first nations communities.

I urge the hon. member to listen to the people involved and to consider the opinion of aboriginal women.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her very informative and well-thought-out speech. I would like to talk more about the consultation that did take place.

One of the flaws in the bill before us is that there is a lack of consultation, particularly consultation of aboriginal communities. I remind the House that in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, pointed out there are criteria for effective consultations. There must be a mutual commitment, based on mutual respect, to ensure that the consultation results in sound decisions, and that the consultation process is transparent.

We have heard aboriginal communities tell us many times that the consultation was insufficient—especially in light of the criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Could my colleague speak to the ineffectiveness of the consultation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that this is common practice for the Conservatives. In fact, they often say that they have held consultations but then do not take into account any of the resulting recommendations. They do not listen to Canadians. They do not listen to the first nations or to visible minorities, the people who are often the most marginalized in our society. My colleague raised a very important point.

I would also like to quote a witness who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Assembly of First Nations regional chief of British Columbia, who indicated that the Conservatives' approach poses a number of problems. She said:

The third area identified during our dialogue sessions is the need to address the underlying issues that led to the disputes in the first place. Providing better prevention support as well as adequate emergency and second-stage housing has been identified as a requirement. This reiterates the need for a holistic approach driven by the community to sustain effective remedies. Without attention to the implementation, and supporting safe and strong communities, legislative reform in and of itself cannot significantly improve the lives of our communities and our people.

I therefore urge the Conservative government to take steps to truly improve the lives of aboriginal people instead of holding consultations that are really just for show.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government orders has expired. The House will now proceed to statements by members.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This legislation proposes to fill a legislative void that has harmed women, men, children and families living on reserves for far too long. Bill S-2 would provide individuals living on reserves the similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as other Canadians living off reserve. Recognizing the diversity of first nations, it would empower communities to develop their own culturally-specific matrimonial real property laws.

The proposed legislation is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. It builds on previous attempts to enact similar legislation and was substantially altered before its introduction in Parliament to further strengthen the bill and facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area. Bill S-2 would provide an opportunity to finally put in place a legislative solution to a very real problem. Each delay in its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on reserves.

I now move:

That this question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the parliamentary secretary. I think there may be some need to continue having some dialogue. She made reference to the updating of the legislation and how important it is. Whenever we are dealing with the concerns of first nations in particular, we in the Liberal Party try as much as possible to encourage consultation prior to the actual drafting of legislation. I do not believe the member made any reference to anything she might have done prior to the drafting and introduction of the legislation.

It would be very beneficial for House members if the parliamentary secretary could provide some details on which first nations she might have consulted and, in particular, which leaders in the first nation communities she consulted. It would be very appreciated if she could elaborate on that.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Government of Canada embarked on a consultation process in partnership with national aboriginal organizations.

To promote transparency, the government provided the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada with $2.7 million each to facilitate consultation, and more than 100 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across the country. In total, more than $8 million were spent on the consultation process. Hundreds of people, most of them residents of the first nations communities, took part in this process. Their feedback directly influenced the content of the legislation now before us.

Some claimed that there was not enough consultation but, frankly, this issue has been discussed for more than 25 years and it is now time to act. How much more time does everyone want? Every delay is an injustice that negatively impacts women, men and children living on reserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary talks about the amount of consultation that happened across this country, I would refer to the ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John that was done for the former minister of aboriginal affairs, Jim Prentice, back in 2006.

As the ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John talked extensively to first nations from coast to coast to coast and found that there was no consensus regarding the legislation that could be applied to matrimonial real property. She did make a number of recommendations. We closely examined the legislation that was before the House. When we compared the old legislation to the new legislation, we found that the bulk of Ms. Grant-John's recommendations had not been included in the new legislation.

When the government talks about consultation, it forgets that a vital piece of that is to not only go out and do a consultation but to actually incorporate those recommendations into the legislation that is before the House.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to address specifically how Ms. Grant-John's recommendations were incorporated into this legislation before us.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of Bill S-2. Many witnesses testified, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

An excerpt of his testimony in November 2011 reads:

The time has come to solve this issue once and for all. We all agree the status quo is not acceptable. It has not been acceptable for 25 years, yet here we are. Without legislation, the legislative gap continues to impact individuals negatively. Most of these individuals are women and children—already among the most vulnerable of all Canadians—and no court can help them.

This statement neatly summarizes why I believe we must lend our support to Bill S-2. We already have more than 25 years' worth of research, analysis, consultation and engagement. I cannot imagine how more consultation would deepen our understanding of the essential issues or influence the positions taken by various stakeholders.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for London North Centre, the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, for her remarks and for moving this important legislation.

I, too, support Bill S-2, not simply because I am on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women and not because I am a woman, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

There are a number of reasons why I support it, two of which are as follows. First, the proposed legislation would eliminate the inequity that is currently on reserves that causes so much hardship to the women who are currently within our first nations communities.

Second, it would support first nations that wish to develop and implement community-specific matrimonial real property laws on their own reserve lands.

Those are just some of the reasons why I personally support it. I am wondering what the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women feels would be the important benefits of Bill S-2 to first nations women.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would ensure that individuals living on reserves have similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as those available anywhere in Canada. That is the same benefits that we have here in the House and outside of the House. We have benefits and rights but women on reserve do not have rights.

Some of the benefits that Bill S-2 would provide are: safety for children and their caregivers in instances of family violence; stability for women and their children through continued access to the family home; continued connection to the community and extended family; access to services, children's programs and education facilities in the community; the equitable distribution of matrimonial real property assets; and that is just to name a few.

The legislative gap that Bill S-2 would fill has hurt families and entire communities. Moving forward with Bill S-2 to provide individuals living on reserve--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There are other members who still wish to pose questions.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member has failed to address in her comments is that there is not one red cent for housing on reserve.

A recent decision at the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination Against Women cited a case in the north where a woman's relationship split up and she lost the right to housing on reserve. CEDAW recommended two important things: first, that there needed to be some remedy around housing, which this bill does not include; and second, that there needed to be some remedy around access to legal services, which this bill does not include.

I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that there is absolutely not one thin red dime to do anything about the housing shortage or the lack of legal services.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my view, they are trying to deflect attention from the critical need for this legislation to address the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves. Interested groups have unanimously agreed that this legislative gap needs to be resolved on an urgent basis. It should not be stalled because of the fact that someone should have a broader discussion on the concept of inherent rights.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill S-2 offers a recourse to a spouse or common-law partner and his or her children who have been kicked out of the family home. The individual should not continue to be denied basic rights that people living off reserve take for granted. This is why we need to pass this legislation without further delay.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation because I think, as does the group I represent, all women in this country should have the same rights. I am proud to be associated with a party that believes that, no matter where one lives in this great country, all people should have the same rights.

I would like clarification on one point from the parliamentary secretary. In her remarks she mentioned that over $8 million had been spent in consultation just since 2006-07 and that organizations, like the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, each received $2.7 million to do this consultation. Could that item be clarified for me?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Senate amendments to Bill S-4 , changes were also made to the bill before it was introduced as Bill S-2. These changes encourage and assist first nations in developing their own laws. The verification process, including the role of the verification officer, has been removed. First nations are still required to ensure voters are informed of the first nations proposed law and when and where the vote will take place. The ratification threshold for first nations matrimonial real property laws has been lowered to a single majority with a set participation rate of at least 25% of all eligible voters. The lower threshold will help first nations approve their own laws and a 12 month transition period before the federal provisional rules come into force.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, 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 Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Investment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

In a continued effort to raise the cultural subtleties that should be weighed and examined during the review of a given legislative initiative, I think it is important to emphasize the highly questionable nature of importing statutory measures that are incompatible with parallel tribal mechanisms that better respond to the uncertainties associated with life on reserve. I stress the word “importing” because I would like to use comparative law to illustrate that sometimes transposing into another reality certain rules of law that apply indiscriminately across the country can become a problem. That is what I want to illustrate here.

As I have indicated in many of my previous speeches in the House, life on reserve—and I mean no disrespect—is like living in another galaxy. I spent some of my formative years in my native community on the Uashat reserve. I often tell new visitors that life on reserve is like living in another galaxy. I say this so that people are not surprised at what they see and are prepared for this type of reality. When I say that it is another reality or another galaxy, I mean that life is different there. I will explain what I mean.

I am a lawyer. I am a criminal lawyer first, and I deal with psychiatric cases, but I have also taken on a few civil law cases having to do with, among other things, the division of property and the division of acquests in aboriginal communities. This was extraordinarily complicated.

Under Quebec civil law, in the event of divorce or the dissolving of a civil union, there are required steps that are outlined in the Quebec Civil Code and related statutes. Certain rules apply, particularly to the family home. Often a declaration of family residence is filed. The declaration is meant to protect the rights of the former spouses and their children and, ultimately, the occupancy rights concerning a given home. I would remind the House that the bill currently before us has to do with real property.

These provisions and rules apply equally to everyone across Quebec. However, they can be contentious; there is a reason these matters often wind up before the courts. Courts dealing with matters of family law can spend days hearing a single divorce case. In Quebec, these are big civil law cases.

In aboriginal communities and on reserves, things are different, because the very concept of property is regarded from a different angle. I would point out first of all that, in the vast majority of cases, the houses belong to the band council. At least, that is the case in my situation and in Innu communities on the north shore. People's houses usually belong to the band council, because it is often difficult for family units to obtain credit on native reserves. It is a question of the possibility of seizure. More often than not, ownership of all residences on the reserve lies with the band council.

Let us look at a very personal example: my own family unit. A deduction for the mortgage is taken every month from the allowance that my father receives. Let us say that the mortgage on the home is worth $175,000. For 25 years, a monthly deduction is taken to pay that mortgage or to pay the band council for the house. The band council retains ownership of the house until the final payment is made.

The band council also makes decisions about and coordinates who occupies homes on the reserve. I worked for my own band council for two years and I was often called upon to go to court. The band council gave a directive that it would recognize all civil judgments made regarding custody and child support. As a result, when a judgment is made and grants custody of a child or children to one former partner or spouse, that individual has the right to occupy the house.

That is why it is rather ill-advised and uncalled-for to try to import external principles into a reserve.

People are already coming to their own arrangements. They have gotten together and have come to an understanding. The entire community comes to a consensus. I think that there is some friction related to that. I have seen it when someone dies and it is time to find out which family members will ultimately live in the house. However, we must also consider that our culture is a fundamentally oral one. People have come to a consensus and agreed on something that satisfies each of the interested parties.

I must also point out that although the problems related to sharing real property and the occupation of the family residence following a separation must be considered directly, it is up to this country's aboriginal communities to come up with measures that are culturally adapted to their own particular circumstances.

I will insist on the fact that imposing provincial laws on first nations without their consent is problematic ethically and practically, and it also disregards their inherent rights and their sovereignty. However, that is nothing new. In fact, in the past year and a half, the Conservatives have imposed measures unilaterally, especially in aboriginal affairs.

I am an expert in this area and, as the critic, I often talk about such matters. In this case, the Conservatives are just trying to prove that they have brought forward measures— albeit in a hasty, uninspired and rather disorganized manner—simply to take some credit and to say that they have dealt with the matter head-on.

I submit that it would be preferable to take a reasoned and slow approach, and one coming from and implemented first and foremost by the communities. Then government input could perhaps be added into the mix. However, above all else, these measures must originate with the members, the grassroots, the people in the communities, if we do not want this to be a stillborn initiative.

The government will have to realize that the people who live in these communities, in these sometimes contradictory conditions, are in the best position to evaluate which legislative measures could be implemented.

I submit this respectfully.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite has indicated that he is a bit of an expert in this area and obviously has worked in it. It is my understanding that, when there is a situation of abuse, a judge can order an injunction to remove the abuser from the home until the situation can be resolved.

This law would allow aboriginal women to have the same rights as the rest of the women in this country, so if there are situations of abuse, abused aboriginal women do not need to find their way on to the streets; a judge can intervene.

Given his experience in this area and his obvious concern for his band, how would he justify his comments that it is awkward or inappropriate to transpose these principles in a situation of property rights, when it clearly affects abused aboriginal women?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

It is important to pay close attention and to make a distinction. Criminal cases and civil cases are two separate things. Sometimes there is interference between the two, meaning that, in the end, decisions will be rendered in the civil court.

It is a shame, but nearly half my caseload involved cases of domestic violence. I am not proud of it, but that is the reality in our communities. Often this element comes into play.

When the criminal court delivers a ruling, when these cases are dealt with and a person is charged, the court imposes a restraining order and the offender is prohibited from contacting certain individuals. What we see most often is that, when judges—not civil court judges but criminal court judges—sentence an offender, that person is forbidden from contacting their family and from returning to the family home, even if the offender is technically a tenant or even the owner of the home. I have seen it before. If the woman stays with the children, the offender has to find another place to live.

Everything changes when the case is dealt with by the criminal court.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's background and comments on the issue, and I listened quite attentively through interpretation. Could he give us a sense, from his perspective, in terms of what he would see as a potential alternative? Are there some answers? Has he been able to have some discussions with individuals? How would he like to see it go?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Generally speaking, it would be nice to see some real involvement in Canada's political scene. There are seven Indians here in this House and some of them have never or almost never given a speech in public. I suggest that we forget about having token representatives and stop keeping Indian MPs around just for show. Instead, we should really get them involved in the decision-making process. I also suggest inviting first nations community members to get involved and really listening to them.

The Conservatives will say that they held consultations with the first nations in this particular case, but there is no point if they are holding those consultations just for show and they do not take into account any of their comments or concerns. That is what happened in January. The Conservatives put on a big show complete with fireworks, but in the end, it was meaningless. There are still problems with education, and living conditions in first nations communities are still deplorable. That is because the Conservatives are all about smoke and mirrors and make-believe.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the speech by the member for Manicouagan, he raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if he could comment on whether he has any knowledge about whether the federal government actually even talked to the provinces, because of course this is another example of naming the provinces as having some jurisdiction here. I would suspect that the government has not actually talked to them about what it would mean to their own current caseload. Could he comment on that matter?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. I am not aware of any real consultation with the provinces. However, if provincial standards are imported across the country, this will cause a great deal of upheaval.

I would like to address this because I read somewhere that provincial standards do not apply on reserves. That is not true. Almost all provincial standards, provided they do not violate the principles set out in the Indian Act, also apply on reserves.

When I say it is another galaxy, that is more or less what I mean. That is the image, the idea in terms of mentality and lifestyle. Provincial standards do indeed apply to all Indian reserves, provided they do not violate the Indian Act.

No, I have no idea whether there were any discussions with the provinces in this particular case.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciated the speech from the member for Manicouagan and his direct experience with the first nations' life and living conditions. It adds a lot to this debate.

I also want to take time to acknowledge our critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has done excellent work in the past and also adds a lot to this debate and this discussion.

Today we are talking here about Bill S-2, an act concerning matrimonial real property on first nations reserve lands. It makes changes to the Indian Act to allow for provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserves due to the jurisdictional divide, wherein provinces and territories have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the provinces, and the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” under section 91.24.

The Indian Act does not provide for a division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nations jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada. This has led to major legal cases, such as Derrickson v. Derrickson, 1986, and Paul v. Paul, also 1986, which were dismissed by provincial courts because the provincial laws cannot apply to lands on an Indian reserve. Thus, there is this legislative gap.

Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008, and the NDP has opposed every time it has come forward for debate.

There have been five parliamentary studies that have been conducted on MRP: A Hard Bed to Lie In by the Senate in 2003; Still Waiting by the Senate in 2004; Arm-in-Arm by the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee in 2005; the report by the status of women committee in 2006; and a ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John in 2006.

I just want to mention the latter, which stated that no consensus has been found regarding legislation that could apply to MRP. Among other things, it recommended that concurrent jurisdictional models be used where first nation law was paramount and that the government needed to identify the real costs of implementing provincial legislation on reserves.

All previous bills, and now Bill S-2, neglect almost all of the recommendations made by all of the aforementioned reports.

The Conservatives are trying to say that the recommendations from the 2006 ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John are being implemented, but that is absolutely not the case.

There is no question that this issue needs to be addressed. However, the Conservatives are trying to pass a law that appears to be in favour of first nations women's rights while ignoring the voices of first nations women themselves. They are fast-tracking legislation without addressing all the relevant non-legislative problems that first nations women and families have identified.

The Conservatives are not interested in a fulsome discussion of the bill or any first nations issues. They want to hastily enact a bad law just so they can say they have done something.

The problem requires a comprehensive response led by first nations. This approach must address family support services; more on-reserve housing and shelters; police support services; building first nations capacity to resolve disputes; solutions to land management issues; and resolutions of matters relating to citizenship, residency and Indian status.

Bill S-2 is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a complex problem that was brought about by the Indian Act.

The Assembly of First Nations facilitated a dialogue, which identified three broad principles that are key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. I will identify those: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and finally, addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security.

Based on these principles, I would like to take a closer look at two important themes that underpin the position of the New Democrats on Bill S-2: the absence of meaningful consultation with first nations; and the need to address the non-legislative problems surrounding the issue of matrimonial property rights.

I will turn to what others had to say on this in elaborating on meaningful consultation and non-legislative problems.

Ellen Gabriel, the former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association and AFN grand chief candidate, said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples.

This is a growing trend of the Conservatives thrusting legislation upon Canadians without first consulting.

For example, the fisheries and oceans committee studied several clauses of Bill C-45, including a clause relating to the definition of what constituted an aboriginal fishery. There was an absence of consultation with first nations. It was only a one-way dialogue.

I will offer another quote from Stuart Wuttke from the Assembly of First Nations. He said at the fisheries and oceans committee:

—we feel if there's consultation and accommodation with respect to first nation interests, there may be a balanced approach. We would definitely prefer that, and we would recommend that consultation and accommodation take place in order to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future.

Consultation allows a legislative to find a balanced approach that serves the best interests of all stakeholders and to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future. For example, if the government had properly consulted on Bill C-38, it probably would not have found itself making so many amendments now in bill C-45.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory, consultation requires consent. While Canada has conducted limited consultation, no consent was given by rights holders. Therefore, if we endorse Bill S-2, we will be in violation of article 32 of the UNDRIP, which ensures free, prior and informed consent of any matter relating to the lands or welfare of the rights holders.

I will further add what other first nation women are saying. The Native Women's Association of Canada says:

NWAC is being told by its members that the MRP legislation is too prescriptive and does not adequately support Indigenous legal systems. As well, no financial resources will be allotted to support First Nations Governments to actually implement the legislation, if it were to get passed.

The NWAC testified at the Senate hearings on Bill S-2 and said the following:

—our women and population and constituents have repeatedly told us 12 months is not a sufficient transition period if this bill were to go ahead. First Nations are dealing with governments that are already overloaded with many socio-economic issues.

We are looking at a longer-term plan: two years, five years and ten years. Those are the types of plans that need to be developed in cooperation with First Nations, not government designing it and having patchwork input from First Nations. You will have a holey quilt, if you will. Too many resources will also be spent, and it will not be a satisfactory result for anyone.

We would rather take the time, do it right and stop pushing ahead in a rush to have a quick resolution that might not be a good one for anyone.

The image of a holey quilt is a good one and identifies the need for co-operation with first nations that the government should have.

About Bill S-4, which was a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, Pam Palmater, a professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson, said:

The Minister also said that Aboriginal women are in need of “immediate protection”. If the Minister actually listened to the voices of Aboriginal women, he would have heard that Aboriginal women do not want Bill S-4 as it is currently drafted. He would also have heard that what they do want is gender equality addressed in all of Canada's legislative initiatives....

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very big concern. I hear the member talk about not being interested in having fulsome discussions with the communities that are going to be affected by this legislation. I am not sure whether the member actually knows, but consultations on this issue began back in 2005 and consisted of four phases. The Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women actually indicated the amount of money that has been invested in helping first nations go out to their communities and find out what the best decisions are for their own people. In fact, I think the number provided was $2.7 million in funding for both the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. Funding toward this piece of legislation totals $8 million. I wonder if the member is actually aware of that.

The second thing I heard that I could not believe was that the member said 12 months was not a long enough process for first nations to enact this legislation. Going back to 2005 when consultations began, is seven years enough? Seven years this has been in the works. We are finally at this point to protect women—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Sorry, I do not mean to cut the hon. member off, but I know other members may have questions.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I did reference four previous studies over a period of time that identified a number of recommendations and that has been quite a problem. Those recommendations, as I pointed out in my speech, have actually not been implemented. They have not been listened to and the first nations women who were part of previous testimony have commented about how they are not feeling listened to and that their recommendations are not being heard.

I referenced those four reports. What was concluded was that if the government had actually listened to the consultations it would not implement Bill S-2, this incarnation of the legislation, because of a lack of financial resources to support first nation governments, a lack of funding for lawyers, a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts and a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give spouses separate homes on reserve.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his overview and for reminding us of the trajectory of this initiative. One of the things that frustrates us on this side of the House is that the government is bringing forward an initiative such as this when it has not dealt with the fundamentals. The fundamentals are actually about funding for first nations. A year ago we dealt with the crisis in Attawapiskat. We have seen that young people do not have access to education. Those are the real issues.

When my colleague talks to first nations people who are working on these issues, what are the priorities for them? Is it about the processes that the government comes up with or is it about getting results for everyday people?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an excellent point about what first nations face on reserve and even off reserve, which goes to the heart of the matter. In terms of on reserve, it is basic fundamental principles and conditions that are at stake here. What has been addressed, whether it is education, housing, clean water or infrastructure, are basic common issues that are related to the underpinning of what we are talking about.

Further, the efforts to remedy the serious problem of matrimonial property rights must be guided by the three principles that I previously mentioned: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice dispute resolution and remedies; and addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security, which my good friend mentioned.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel also rose to speak. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move:

That the member be now heard.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of 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.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #508

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to the bill. When I read the title of the bill, an act respecting family homes situated on first nations reserves, the word “respecting” strikes me because what is absolutely missing out of this legislation is respect for the independence and sovereignty of our first nations people.

I have sat here and listened to my colleagues across the way say that they have been consulting for years. However, if we consult but we do not hear, do not absorb and do not adapt to what we are going to do, then it is not listening.

What we have here is a total side-stepping of the key issues facing our first nations communities. It is just so the Conservatives can go to the United Nations and say that they have done something. As we know, the United Nations has been urging the government to take action to address the matrimonial rights on first nations lands for years and years and it has failed.

This reiteration of legislation fails once again on fundamental values that we hold dear and that the government committed to when they met with the leaders from the first nations communities. One of them is consultation. Consultation does not just mean getting to speak and then going home and then doing exactly what one intended to do all along.

Second, there is that fundamental right that has been recognized in Canadian Parliament of our first nations to self-governance and the right of sovereignty over their own land. This legislation shows utter disrespect for those values and disrespects the very people the government says it will try to help.

If I were a woman living on first nations lands, I would ask what I need the government to address. First, I do not need a patronizing piece of legislation. Second, what I need is for the government to address the issues and to help to fund programs in order to build strong families and strong communities.

I hear the mantra over and over again from my Conservative colleagues about how the fundamental core of Canadian society, and especially of their platform, is the family. I agree with them because I think there is nothing as important as family. When we have strong families we have strong communities.

However, when we get legislation like this that does not even address the key issues facing our first nations communities, we begin to realize that my colleagues across the way have one set of rules for their own families and another set of rules for families, whether they are first nations, newcomers or the hundreds and thousands of Canadian families separated from their loved ones because of the government's policies and living in many different countries.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

Bill S-2--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to S-2, 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before this House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will be a 30-minute question period, and, as has been customary in the past, preference is given to members of the opposition to put questions in the course of this 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks an inauspicious day for the government. It is a record that no government would ever seek to have, because today breaks the all-time record for the invocation of closure, the shutting down of debate, the use and abuse of the powers, the guillotine. The Conservatives may clap for this, but Canadians will not because they have also done it at a pace exceeding the previous Liberal government, which they used to criticize.

The Prime Minister, the House leader and the Minister of Foreign Affairs used to criticize the Chrétien government for shutting down debate time and again. The current government is doing it almost every seven sitting days of the House, five times faster than even the worst abuse of power previously.

Parliament exists for two fundamental reasons. Members of Parliament are elected to do two central things. The first is to speak on behalf of those we represent with all the capacity and ability that we have. The second is to hold government to account. However, how can we perform the roles that members of Parliament are meant to do if we have a government sitting in majority that consistently and without shame abuses the power that is given to it under our system?

Time and again the government has to justify not only muzzling its own MPs, shutting down debate in Parliament, but ignoring the wishes and hopes of Canadians. There will be a time of judgment for the government for the abusing of the powers that were given to it under our system. The government has no shame, has no recourse and Canadians will decide its fate come the next election.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member fails to mention or consider is that there is an important part of the Canadian population that happens to be aboriginal people, first nation mothers and families, that for years have lacked the same degree of protection and rights as all other families outside of reserves have in our country.

I know opposition members do not care about aboriginal women and children, but we do. After 25 years, the time has come for action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it is believable that the New Democrats do not support aboriginal women and children. We are consistently in the House day after day speaking up on those issues.

Our House leader has ably pointed out that this is the 31st time the Conservatives have shut down debate, and it is a very sad record in Canadian history. This time we have Bill S-2 on matrimonial real property and once again it is an example of the government unilaterally imposing its legislative agenda on first nations without allowing appropriate debate. The bill has been before the House a number of times, but on this occasion it has been barely debated in the House and it has never before made it to a parliamentary committee.

Why does the minister not want all the members in the House to perform their duties as parliamentarians and have an honest, legitimate debate on this very important legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that since 2005 to 2007, this matter has at times been before the House and unfortunately it has never passed to become law. During all this time, it is the aboriginal families living on reserve that pay the price of inaction. After all those hours of debate that have taken place in the last few years, we simply want to render justice to that segment of the Canadian population.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to make note that this is now, as has been pointed out, 31 times in which the government has chosen to use time allocation to try to get legislation passed through the House of Commons. It is, indeed, unprecedented.

I would look to the government House leader to respond to the question as to why his government has failed in its ability to negotiate a way in which legislation could pass through the House in a more timely fashion that would ensure that members of Parliament would be afforded the opportunity to contribute to debate, not to be constantly limited in terms of how much time they would have to spend on very important legislation.

As I say, there have been 31 occasions now where the government has brought in time allocation with respect to things such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the pooled pension plan, the copyright bill, back-to-work legislation, financial systems review, budget legislation and the list goes on.

The question I have for the government House leader is why the government has failed to sit down with opposition parties? Why has it not be able to negotiate in good faith a time frame that would allow for adequate debate on the many pieces of legislation that need to pass through the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if we look at the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act and we look at the hours that it has been debated and studied, five hours in the House on a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, in the Senate for another number of hours—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The Senate?

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

That is where it originated. Again, there were more hours at the committee level. I know those members like to speak for the sake of speaking, but there comes a point where we must take action.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians undergoing a breakdown of a conjugal relationship or the death of a spouse or a common-law partner, there is legal protection to ensure that the matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably. For couples living on reserves governed by the Indian Act, sadly this is not the case.

For more than 25 years, since the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson, aboriginal women and children living on reserves have not had the same rights to matrimonial real property. For them, the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse or a common law partner could mean insecurity, financial difficulties or homelessness.

Now is the time for action. I do not know why the members opposite do not support women having rights on reserves.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-2 would help fill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to justice for first nation communities and, in particular, for aboriginal women?

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

Mr. Speaker, matrimonial real property, or the family home, is without question the most valuable piece of property that a couple on a reserve owns. Upon the breakdown of a marriage or a common law relationship, the division of property affects all involved, both spouses, their children, their families and, by extension, the broader community.

In this case, time allocation is necessary to ensure that women and children living on reserve do not have to wait any longer to benefit from the same rights and protections that people living off reserve are afforded. They deserve and expect no less.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister deals with the government's constitutional obligations in this case in particular.

The minister must know that the government's constitutional obligations to consult and to accommodate go hand in hand. Will the government meet its obligations in this case?

From what I see and based on the correspondence on this issue, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations are complaining that they have not been heard in this case.

Can the minister answer the following question: has the government met its constitutional obligations to consult and to accommodate as it addresses the concerns that have been expressed?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, the member should know that aboriginal rights are protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

What we are talking about here is a flaw in the Indian Act. Based on two Supreme Court decisions, it prevents aboriginal couples on reserves from enjoying the same matrimonial rights as other people in the province they live in.

Broad consultations were held for almost two years. There were some 100 gatherings in 76 locations across the country in order to consult with first nations on the issue. To answer his question, yes, there was ample consultation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 31st time allocation motion. The motion we are debating is not about the merit or the lack of merit of the bill; it is about limiting debate. It is an affront to democracy. If there is anything the government is becoming infamous for, it is its undermining of democracy, everything from the omnibus bills to 31 time allocation motions.

We have seen some legislation go through this place that did not have proper review and has now been turned back by the courts. We will likely see more because this place is not allowed to function properly under the Conservative government. The backbenchers over there are not allowed to speak most of the time. We are seeing some of that these days. They jump up and down like they are trained to do, which is a sad affront to democracy as well.

What does the minister have to fear about allowing proper debate and proper hearings, so the good and the bad points of legislation can come out, so this place can pass legislation that will stand the test of time? What does the minister have to fear?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this. It is unacceptable that people living on reserve have for decades been deprived of the same rights and protections afforded Canadians living off reserve simply because of where they live. This is not the first time this has come before the House. This year our government is determined to see this legislation pass so the injustice that aboriginal women and families on reserves have suffered for 25 years will be finally corrected. That is why it is important that we act now.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, this is the fourth time that we have discussed this issue in the House. One of the key recommendations in the ministerial representative's report on on-reserve matrimonial real property issues, which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 20, 2007, was that the legislative measure include a way for first nations to exercise their legislative power in this area.

In response to those recommendations, Bill S-2 provides for two ways in which on-reserve matrimonial real property rights and related protections can be guaranteed. First, it allows first nations to enact their own laws to reflect their culture and traditions and, second, it provides for provisional federal rules.

Could the minister describe how the ability to enact their own laws would empower first nations and what role the centre of excellence for matrimonial real property plays in the implementation of Bill S-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for her excellent question.

As the member said, under the proposed legislation, first nations can choose to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights and interests— legislation that would address their own specific needs and respect their customs—or to apply provisional federal rules.

By allowing first nations to enact their own laws, Bill S-2 respects their diversity. As a result, they could pass laws that are aligned with the needs of their communities, enabling them to take a different and effective approach to matrimonial real property rights issues on their respective reserves.

The bill also provides for an implementation period so that first nations have the information and time they need to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights.

That is why we made a commitment to create an independent centre of excellence for matrimonial real property that will help first nations either to enact their own laws or to apply provisional federal rules.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members that there are still a number of members who wish to pose questions, so I ask that they keep their interventions to no more than a minute and the same for responses.

Questions, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it puzzling because we remember not that long ago this government was against the Liberal government when it brought in closure.

However, what is really troubling is the fact that the minister says that there has been proper consultation. The bill came from the other place. No one in the other place was elected to represent Canadians, let alone first nations. For him to say that it is okay not only to bring in closure, but to suggest that the bill, which comes from the other place, is legitimate—and we have about 14 of these bills coming to this place from the other place—is very troubling. How can the minister get up and say that it is okay to bring in closure when Bill S-2 came from the other place? It is a form of closure on our very democracy in terms of representation for everyday Canadians. That is not correct in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the hon. member aside, the fact remains that the department undertook an extensive two-year national consultation process. It included over 100 meetings in 76 sites across Canada, at a cost of more than $8 million.

More importantly, the legislation responds to calls for action over the past 25 years by first nations and groups such as Amnesty International, the United Nations, women's organizations, and parliamentary committees to Canada for the resolution of this long-standing inequity.

Since the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests right act was first introduced in 2008, more than 39 hours have been dedicated to debate and study of the bill in Parliament. More than half of this time occurred during committee on study of the bill, with 60 appearances from first nation organizations, individuals, and federal and provincial representatives among others. Now, almost five years later, it is time for action.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain just what he means by extensive consultation? Those affected by this issue were not consulted, community members were kept in the dark about what this entails, and this bill was enacted behind closed doors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to review his files to avoid making such far-fetched statements in the House.

As I said earlier, improvements have been made to this bill since 2007, and it has been introduced a number of times.

The provinces and first nations across the country were consulted. Groups everywhere asked the government to take action to restore equality between aboriginal families living on and off reserve.

I am still wondering why anyone would want to oppose restoring this fundamental aspect of equality.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #658

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 22, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 motion that this question be now put.

Second Reading

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to the piece of legislation before us, Bill S-2. This bill marks the fourth attempt by the government to address a serious problem in the first nations community, a problem created by the Indian Act itself. Sadly, like the first three attempts taken by the government, it simply misses the mark.

Bill S-2 is a very simplistic attempt to rectify a very complex problem that stems from the Indian Act.

On reserves, gender discrimination clearly exists when it comes to matrimonial real property. However, Bill S-2 will be impossible to implement for the following reasons: a lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law; a lack of funding for lawyers and legal advice; a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts; a lack of on-reserve housing; and a lack of land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserves.

There are no measures in the legislation to address the systemic problem of violence that faces so many women and that leads to divorce. According to Statistics Canada, first nations women are 3.5 times more likely to be victims of violence than non-aboriginal women, and 35% of aboriginal women have already been victims of violence.

Overcrowded housing has been linked to a number of health and social problems, including higher rates of respiratory infections as well as mental health and domestic violence problems.

In 2006, 14% of aboriginal women and girls were living in overcrowded housing—a proportion three times higher than among non-aboriginal women. On reserves, 26% of women and girls were living in overcrowded conditions, compared to 6% of those living off-reserve.

All the statistics I have just read into the record show that we have a serious problem before us. Those problems require a serious, well-thought-out solution. That is not what the Conservatives have brought before us today. They are once again fast-tracking legislation without addressing all of the relevant non-legislative problems first nations women and families have identified. They are showing that they are not interested in a fulsome discussion of this bill or any other issue affecting the indigenous peoples of this land. I am left with the strong impression that all they want is to quickly enact a bad law, just to say that they have done something.

The problems we are facing require a comprehensive response that is led by first nations communities first and foremost. The Conservatives did do some consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, but then in typical Conservative style, they ignored the results of the consultation when preparing the original legislation. As a result, both the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations are demanding better legislation, because the consequences of passing inadequate legislation are so dire.

One of the basic problems with this bill is that while it removes some of the most onerous parts of previous legislative attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent right and jurisdiction in this matter. As a result, we again have the government telling first nations how they should run their lives, their communities and their systems rather than respecting their laws, their traditions and their inherent right to self-government.

This is the ultimate “daddy knows best” approach taken by the government, and it does nothing to make life better for women who live on reserve.

The Assembly of First Nations determined that three broad principles were key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and addressing underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security.

Bill S-2 does not take any of these three principles into account in any meaningful way.

My province, Quebec, is a good example of the problems this bill will create. According to lawyer David Schulze, the particularities of my province have been overlooked in Bill S-2. Under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not hold any rights to property, but they would under Bill S-2. For example, a first nations member would have rights to his spouse's home on the Uashat reserve, but she would not have any rights to his home in Sept-Îles, across the street.

The lands covered by the most recent treaties, such as the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which applies to large portions of my riding, are excluded.

Under this bill, a Naskapi would have rights to his Innu spouse's home in Schefferville, but she would have no rights to his home 80 km away in Kawawachikamach, which is part of the Category I-N lands under the CN Commercialization Act and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

These examples show the new problems this legislation would cause in my home province alone, and they highlight another glaring problem with the bill: the imposition of provincial law on reserve. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically lacking and practically problematic and ignores the inherent rights of first nations citizens. By taking this avenue, the Conservatives are trying to make a quick fix, the equivalent of slapping a band-aid on an injury that requires major surgery. This approach is lazy and disrespectful toward those women who they claim to seek to help.

This proposed bill also runs afoul of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Conservatives finally endorsed in 2010. According to the declaration, consultation requires consent as well. While Canada has conducted some limited consultations, no consent was given by the rights holders to have provincial laws applied in their communities. Therefore, if the House passes and moves to enforce Bill S-2, we will be in violation of article 32 of the UN declaration, which ensures free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands or welfare of the rights holders.

Given the government's view of the UN declaration, I doubt that it sees that as a problem. Maybe that is why, after 14 months, we are still waiting for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to reply to the request of the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights to study Canada. This approach shows why a bill like Bill C-469 is so important and needed today.

We have a big problem before us. It will require a comprehensive approach to arrive at a solution, one that must be led by first nations communities and be respectful of their own laws and traditions. Simply forcing provincial laws that were not written with those traditions and laws in mind will only make matters worse.

Part of the reason many first nations find themselves in this legal position today is that past governments took the “daddy knows best” approach, telling first nations how they should act, behave and govern themselves without giving any thought to their wishes, their needs, their desires or their rights. Today we know that this approach was wrong and a mistake, yet the Conservative government is determined to force us down the same failed path.

We cannot have true reconciliation and build that better tomorrow for all Canadians until we throw that failed approach into the trash can of history, where it belongs. We must renew a nation to nation relationship that begins with working with first nations communities, not dictating to them.

The Conservatives obviously have a great deal to learn about this. They seem more interested in being seen to do something while doing nothing, which is something they do with great skill. Now is not the time for pretending. It is the time to act and do this correctly right now. I hope that the government will take my words to heart, agree, and start to work with us to get this right, right now.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I have the honour to table, in both official languages, documents entitled the government's responses to questions on the order paper numbers 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210 and 1211.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what members opposite were saying about the matrimonial rights issue. I find it really sad. Women's rights are being negated in the House. We need to support this issue. I have worked with many aboriginal women who have had so many challenges. They want to have these rights. They are so important. That has to be known to members opposite.

Why would the member deliberately shut off, just cut out, women's rights on reserves? That is exactly what is happening.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of aboriginal organizations have spoken against this bill. I am including in these organizations the Native Women's Association of Canada. If the member is suggesting that the Native Women's Association of Canada is against women in first nations communities, she is wrong. The Native Women's Association of Canada is right.

When we talk about respect for women, telling women what to think and what to do is not respect, for me at least. We have to listen to what they are saying. We have to act on the advice they are providing to the members of this House, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the position he is taking on this bill. It is completely in keeping with what I have been told by the aboriginal community where I come from.

What deeply concerns me is the superficiality of the action taken by the government, and we see this over and over again. It is one thing to pass a bill in theory that gives a right to an aboriginal woman to go to court. However, how many of those women are living in isolated communities where there is a dearth of safe housing for anyone, including men, women and children? They cannot afford the bus fare, let alone have an available bus to go to town to hire a lawyer, let alone have the resources to hire a lawyer to fight these matters in court. Can the member speak to that and elaborate on the fact that the offer of the extension of the right is an extremely superficial one?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very pertinent to our debate and our discussion about this bill.

In fact, there is much to be desired, even when it comes to contemplating how to apply and implement this bill. In our system of justice, the rule of law is part of our constitutional system. In this case, the rule of law is the government's constitutional obligation to consult the first nations and to make accommodations reflecting the concerns expressed during the consultations.

It is not enough to say that 100 organizations were consulted for hundreds of hours. It is not enough if the first nations are not heard or if the concerns they express during those consultations do not result in accommodations. That is the constitutional obligation that we have towards the first nations, the aboriginal peoples of this country. The government seems to be forgetting this.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I stand for victims today. I stand for those victims who are afraid, who have been kicked off reserve, who have begged us as a government to provide them with the same rights as all other Canadian woman. I stand for those victims who were kicked off reserve, who were sent into cities, who became exploited in the sex trade, whose children were taken away, and who will not come forward because of the fear of people on reserve who do not agree with giving them rights. Those victims are who we care about. That is what this bill is about.

I am ashamed of that side for not supporting it.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the women in particular have begged for is to do things right. They did not do it. That is the problem. That is what we are trying to fix. That is what the representations that were made were about. That is what the consultations were supposed to be for, and that did not happen. The Conservatives did not listen to them.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Let me start by affirming and stating quite clearly that it is completely unacceptable that men, women and children living on reserve have for decades been deprived of the same basic rights and protections afforded Canadians living off reserve simply because of where they live.

Through this legislation, our government is addressing a long-standing legislative gap and ensuring that women, children and families on reserve can live in safe, stable home environments. I believe that the bill offers a practical, balanced and much needed solution that I wish to insist has been informed by national consultations with stakeholders, numerous reports, in-depth analysis and reasoned debate. I say now is the time for action.

I cannot emphasize enough the urgency of the issues that Bill S-2 proposes to resolve. Every day that passes until a solution is in place is one more day that women and children living on reserve do not have access to the same protections offered those living off reserve. Without the rights to matrimonial real property that other Canadians enjoy, more and more individuals and families, primarily aboriginal women and children living on reserve, are left defenceless, and in many cases, homeless and destitute. They are ostracized from the only community they have ever known and are forced to start life all over again elsewhere.

Bill S-2 offers an effective solution that would provide individuals with the rights and protections they need to ensure that they have access to the family home no matter which spouse is listed as the owner. The effect that the absence of legislation has on the lives on many individuals and families is a compelling reason for the members of the House to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and to pass Bill S-2.

Currently, and no one can dispute that, there is no law in place addressing matters related to on-reserve matrimonial real property and interests.

More than 25 years ago, two Supreme Court of Canada rulings clarified that provincial laws pertaining to matrimonial real property rights and interests do not apply in first nation communities. Given that no equivalent federal law exists, these interests and rights are not protected for individuals living on reserve in the event of a breakdown of a conjugal relationship or the death of a spouse or a common-law partner. This situation is unacceptable and should make endorsing Bill S-2 a top priority for the House.

Individuals who live off reserve have access to the protections and legal recourse set out in the provincial or territorial laws. However, individuals living in first nations communities, with few exceptions, do not benefit from such protections. No judge, police officer or court representative is authorized to intervene if someone throws his or her spouse out of the house or sells the family home and keeps all the proceeds from that sale. In other words, our justice system is not currently in a position to be able to end the harmful discrimination faced by an identifiable group of Canadians.

Canadians should not tolerate this fundamental injustice. The fact that this has been going on for 25 years is shameful.

It is true that a small number of first nations have developed laws pertaining to matrimonial rights and interests under the First Nations Land Management Act or self-government agreements. However, these options are not currently available to most first nations. As a result, over 100,000 Canadians do not have any legal protection in this regard. This has been harmful to many people, families and communities. These injustices have a negative impact on the lives of all Canadians, without exception. The only way to move forward is to enact an effective legislative solution, which is what Bill S-2 seeks to do.

Earlier, I heard the member opposite going on about consultations. Bill S-2 is based on extensive national consultations and Parliament's study of this issue. This work produced a wealth of high-quality information in the form of reports, studies, testimony and analyses. Bill S-2 is the result of all these contributions and analyses. The facts show that previous attempts strengthened the bill—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

You have one minute left to wrap up your speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the consultations in 2010. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights studied an earlier version of the bill. The committee heard from more than 30 witnesses and adopted 12 amendments to improve the bill and reflect the input and comments received from stakeholders, including first nations and provinces. That version of the bill died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament, it but serves as an example of how previous studies and testimony have strengthened the legislation now before us.

In 2011, Bill S-2, the current iteration of the legislation, was introduced. It included not only the 12 amendments but also three additional changes that were suggested and made to the bill.

Therefore, I would say that we have spent enough time on it. This is the time for action. Let us pass this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #659

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Quickly, because I do not want to interrupt the vote, and I may have heard it incorrectly. Did Mr. Penashue second the bill?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is right, at second reading.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can he second a vote, historically speaking?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is correct. At the time, he was both a member of the House and a member of cabinet. The motion at second reading was properly before the House.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It remains in his name even though he has been sent from the House?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is correct.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #660

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for Bill S-2, the previous question, I believe that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound arrived after the question had been read. I do not think his vote should have been recorded.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was on the very first vote. I was here for the last one. I did walk in; it was like walking into a parade or being a spectator, and I just joined the parade. My apologies.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Just to be clear, the hon. member's vote will not count for the previous question, but on the second reading vote he was in his place on time.

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

Yes, I was there for that one.