Status of Women Committee on June 22nd, 2006

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Have you worked with these groups?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Are you planning to develop new legislative measures, working in concert with the QNW and the AFN?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

We are indeed working together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you so much, and thank you for your announcement. This issue has been something that people on all sides of the House, around this table, have been very concerned about, and this year, in the status of women, we made it a top priority. So thank you so much for that announcement.

Minister, could you please address the timeline? I know this is an issue that's very much in the forefront of what you want to get accomplished. One thing that has been said around this table is that real property rights have been discussed for years and nothing actually happened. What is your timeline, and how committed are you to making sure that this is accomplished?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you very much, and I acknowledge the great work you have done on this cause as well, Joy.

This has been discussed a long time, ladies and gentlemen. It has reached the point where, as a nation, we have an obligation to deal with this. The law was changed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. That's a long time ago. Several years later in Manitoba--in 1988, as I recall--the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba called for legislative action on this; it hasn't happened. RCAP, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, called for legislative action; it hasn't happened. The standing committees of the Senate and the House have called for action on this, and it hasn't happened. So it behooves us to move forward and to be the Parliament that deals with it.

There have been various discussions about the length of the consultative process, and to address this question squarely, why is there a consultative process? There are several reasons. One is that it's good policy to do so. There is also the Supreme Court of Canada reasoning that would suggest that it is necessary, from a constitutional perspective, to do this. But it's not simply that. It's the process of building a consensus and support for matrimonial property rights, and that's why we're proceeding down this road.

I've asked Wendy Grant-John to come back to me in about December. She will be spending the next couple of months getting the process up and running. She will then be into a period of consultation through September, October, November, and December. We will take stock of where we are in December and determine if further consultation is necessary into January.

My hope is that we will be finished the consultation process at that stage and we will be in a position to introduce legislation into the House of Commons in the late winter or early spring. It's my hope that there will be a consensus around that legislation and that this Parliament will be prepared to act and to do so with integrity and dispatch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have a minute and a half, Ms. Smith, if you or your colleagues wish to use that.

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

I've finished. That is the main aspect.

I just want to say again, it's very hopeful to see these wonderful things happening. I think all of us are very grateful for that, because it's something that has been around this table, as I said, for a long time. So thank you.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I might just say, Madam Chair, I would encourage all of you to have Wendy Grant-John appear before your committee at some point. She is a remarkable Canadian, well respected, knowledgeable, and on this subject she is a very articulate spokesperson for the empowerment of women and advancing the interests of women and their families and children through some of the legislative initiatives that we need to undertake. She can speak more articulately than I ever could about why that's necessary in first nation communities and what it will achieve over the next generation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you. We'll make sure that we put that on our list to have that happen.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for your announcement and for how quickly you reacted. You can imagine how pleased we were that your reaction actually preceded the tabling of our report.

I have two quick questions. The first has to do with the announced extensive consultations--you've reiterated that here--with regard to the importance of resolving matrimonial property rights concerns. Of course, we're cognizant of the fact that a lot of the problem, how long this problem has continued, has a great deal to do with the lack of recognition of first nations and their abilities and right to deal with the issues.

What I want is an assurance from you, Minister, that these consultations are real, that legislation is not being drafted and will not be drafted before they are concluded, and that your ministry will absolutely listen to the solutions that first nations bring to this problem.

My second question has to do with your remarks. You said that a great deal of the problem of women and their children being forced off reserve has to do with the fact that there simply isn't enough on-reserve housing. Clearly, the money that was allocated in this year's budget only begins to address that issue. There's a great deal more to do. I wonder if you would be prepared to support future allocations of money in budgets beyond March 2007 to address what is a very significant problem on reserves with regard to the lack of adequate housing.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Let me try to address the first question about the reality of consultation and how we're going about this. I'll deal with it head-on.

I've asked one of the most respected aboriginal women in this country to be my ministerial representative on this. Wendy Grant-John is not a person with whom I have worked in a political sense in the past. She has never been involved in politics, to my knowledge, other than in her community. She is an independent, respected, strong person, and I've asked her to take this on and come back with her recommendation to me. I intend to reserve my judgment. Other people can draft as they will, but I intend to reserve my judgment until I see what she brings back to me.

I've been very clear with her as well that I expect her to.... I've asked her to consult with the critics of each of the parties that are represented in the House of Commons and to spend time talking with the critics to ensure that she hears your points of view on this. And I hope she'll come to the committee as well.

So all of that is part of a pretty extensive consultation process. Let me make one thing very clear. Consultation is a process on the road to decision-making. It is not a process to achieve unanimity, and I intend to act on this, with or without unanimity. When the consultation point has reached its logical conclusion, I will bring legislation to the House of Commons and I will fight to have it adopted by the House of Commons.

I don't want anyone to misinterpret consultation as a process to achieve unanimity on this subject. I don't think unanimity will be possible.

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

And can you answer my second question?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

With respect to housing, that's an issue we are working on. Obviously a lot of these issues are interrelated. I acknowledge that.

I met, as recently as yesterday, with National Chief Fontaine and discussed the whole subject of housing, and we have a working group that is working on that topic.

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

And the funding?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Did you mean funding for housing?

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

Yes. It ends on March 31, 2007. There's nothing for any housing beyond that date, and clearly the moneys that are in place will not meet the need. We need assurance that you will work to make sure those moneys are extended beyond that date.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

That's an issue we're working on. I'm aware of the circumstances relating to housing. As I've said, I had discussions with the Assembly of First Nations. We want to ensure that we follow up on some of the good work that's been done on housing and how to proceed forward and leverage public money with private money so we can achieve more housing.

I think it's worth pointing out that in the budget that was previously introduced in the House, there was $300 million allocated for northern housing and $300 million allocated for off-reserve housing.

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

Minister, thank you very much for being here today, and thank you for the process you've introduced. Thank you also for acknowledging the past work that's been done, because many people have been engaged on this for a long period of time. I agree with you that everybody around this table would like to see real progress made on it.

I have many questions and only five minutes, so let me follow up with questions on consultation. I appreciate your desire to move along and make something happen, and I understand that Ms. Grant-John will be guiding the process. My concern is--I think it's one shared by others--that the process be real and do justice to the issue and not be aborted. Like you, I don't expect there will be unanimity either, but I think the process is as important for the success of the outcomes. That was my comment.

Has INAC done any studies or had any materials prepared as to custom land allotment when it comes to matrimonial real property? I'm interested to know that. I'm interested to know what you're considering doing with section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, whether you're moving forward on that.

I am assuming from your comments—and maybe it's a wrong assumption—that you will not be looking at interim provincial legislation as an outcome for matrimonial real property. I would welcome some comments on that as well, and if we have time, I have more questions.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'll deal with two of the three quickly, and then I'll ask Sandra to deal with the custom land allotment studies we've done.

First, on interim provincial legislation, the point I would make is that I'm not prejudging any of the alternatives. That is one of the alternatives that has been discussed previously—

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

I'm aware of that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

—in reports. Properly, that should be part of what's in front of Wendy Grant-John, and I'll expect to hear back from her.

I really do not come to this with a legislative solution in my mind that I expect the process to ratify. That's not what's happening here. I want a consultative process, and I want a respected Canadian to bring back a recommendation following a fair process of hearing from as many people as she can.

On section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, again, I'm sure that's familiar to everyone in the room, but essentially, 32 years ago we passed a human rights act in this country and we exempted first nation citizens from its application. First nation citizens in this country are the only people who don't have the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of a large number of matters. The price being paid for that is largely being paid by aboriginal women, who are not in a position to achieve fundamental justice on a lot of issues that relate to their personal circumstances. That has to be changed. I think 32 years is sufficient time for everyone to get their heads around it, and I intend to deal with the issue.

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

You're aware that there was an effort to do that in earlier legislation introduced, with Bill C-7.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Fair enough. But we intend to deal with it. It didn't seem appropriate to roll that consultation process into what we're doing with matrimonial property. There was a fear it would become confused and more difficult; it would not simplify issues. So more to follow on that later.