Status of Women Committee on May 9th, 2013

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

When we did clause 5, we voted on it and then we did the amendments, but we didn't vote on clause 7 yet. Are we doing that after the amendment?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Yes.

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

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

No problem.

Those who are in favour of the amendment LIB-3, please indicate.

(Amendment LIB-3 negatived)

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

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

Madam Chair, I think the power to enact first nation laws is important. However, we did hear some testimony that the government can't grant that power to first nations, because in a nation-to-nation relationship, first nations already occupy that territory. The reason I wanted to speak to this particular clause, though, is that it's an issue of resources. When the acting Human Rights Commissioner came before the committee, there was a reference to a tool kit that has been developed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There were resources allocated to that tool kit and a number of nations were involved in developing it.

There is no such support for first nations. I know the members opposite will talk about the centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, but if this act remains unamended, it will go into force within a year. For any nations currently interested in developing matrimonial real property codes that they hope to have in place prior to that one-year transition period, it's not feasible without additional resources. It's fine to have it in the legislation that there is a power to enact. But there is no support for doing that, and it takes time. It takes time to do an appropriate community process. It takes time to develop those laws. It takes time for the community to approve them. Without those resources, it doesn't seem very realistic.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Before we continue, I have a suggestion that the committee can accept or refuse.

Since I received no amendments for the subsequent clauses, up to clause 55, I suggest that we group clauses 8 to 54 together and deal with them as a whole.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I see that not everyone agrees.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's a great idea though, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Since that is what the committee wishes, we will continue the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

(Clause 8—Submission to members)

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

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

Madam Chair, with your permission I'd like to clarify something with our witnesses. In clause 8, it indicates that every person who is 18 years of age or over and a member of the first nations, whether or not resident on a reserve of the first nation, is eligible to vote. Then later on it says that at least 25% of eligible voters must participate. I'm reading this to say that, if the 25% threshold is not met for voters on and off reserve, the first nations will not be able to enact their MRP codes. Is that correct?

[Andrew Beynon]

Yes, I think you're reading that right. All of the section covered by clause 8 has to be read together, so it's 25% of the eligible voters, and then you look back to subclause 8(2) in terms of age requirements. It is possible to have one vote, and if it's defeated the first nation could also, at a later time, propose a slightly different MRP law and move to another vote as well.

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

I have another point for clarification, Madam Chair.

Is this a standard clause in any bylaw or code that a first nation passes?

[Karl Jacques]

Usually there are such requirements for FNLMA bands for first nation land management. They also have the requirement to have a community vote with members on and off reserve. The threshold in that case is 50%, so depending on the type of.... If it's an agreement, a supplementary agreement, the threshold could be higher or lower, depending on the circumstances. This is basically a standard process, but the percentage could vary, depending on the type of—

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

So the 25% threshold was deemed appropriate in this particular case.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The reason I raised that was because, of course, we heard from the Iroquois Caucus that there were some concerns raised because this is dealing with matrimonial real property on reserve. They said there may be challenges with having off-reserve members who have no interest in the property, although sometimes off-reserve members do still have certificates of possession. Because of the complexity of the land claim, they may not occupy the land but still have that certification of possession. There were concerns raised with that threshold on the eligibility, so I wanted to clarify that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 12—First Nations with reserve lands)

Ms. Crowder.

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

I have a point on the First Nations Land Management Act.

There is a recognition under the legislation that the FNLMA is in a different category, but again, we heard a couple of things from witnesses who were currently operating under the FNLMA. One was that there is a significant number of nations interested in participating in the FNLMA, which would then put them in a different category when it comes to matrimonial real property. It's a thread throughout this piece of legislation that there simply aren't the resources available in order to do the work.

I think it's an important piece, because on the one hand people are being told that this legislation in and of itself is going to provide protection and rights that many other witnesses have disputed on the grounds that without the adequate resources, that simply won't play out.

I wanted to raise the issue, and I will deal with it later, but it's important to point out that there is a different transition period for the FNLMA. My understanding from the witnesses is that the three-year transition for the FNLMA, to allow them that three-year period of time to put their codes in place, is an important recognition that it does take time to develop these codes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to)

(On clause 15—Consent of spouse or common-law partner)

We have a speaker on clause 15.

Madame Day.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair.

We know that Quebec's unique characteristics are not taken into consideration in this bill. A lawyer from Dionne Schulze said that, under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not have a right to property in Quebec; that is well known.

I have some serious concerns about this clause. When we heard from the witnesses, I specifically asked the representatives from Quebec Native Women to tell us more about the potential lack of legal clarity and the gaps that would result from implementing Bill S-2 in Quebec. We know that Quebec uses civil law, not common law. Their testimony is clear and should be reflected in this bill. Among other things, Viviane Michel said:

A number of Aboriginal women are also in common-law relationships with non-Aboriginal partners. If this law is enforced and a verdict is reached, given all the problems facing our communities, including high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, and if a woman experiences those problems and her partner is a Quebecker, he will have the right to live in the house.

So the Quebec man would get the house and the children. The woman would lose her children and live in a community. Do you see how that could be a threat to Aboriginal communities? Those are the facts.

And I am not just talking about Quebeckers. It could involve people of other origins. In fact, women are more and more frequently in common-law relationships with partners of different origins.

So that can lead to gaps in our communities. Women can lose as much as their homes and even their children. The differences between the Civil Code and common law are particularly worrisome for Aboriginal women in Quebec, since Quebec's Civil Code does not give common-law partners the same rights as it gives people who are legally married.

It is said that the bill will not be consistent with Quebec's Civil Code for spouses in terms of the division of matrimonial property in the case of separation or death. Since 40% of women are in common-law relationships in Quebec, implementing this bill could create a lot of problems.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mrs. Day.

Since no one else seems to want the floor, I call the question on clause 15.

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(Clause 16—Order of designated judge)

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to speak to clause 16 on emergency protection orders. This is obviously a very important issue but unfortunately one that the government side has used to mislead the public, certainly, when it comes to this bill.

Many witnesses, and certainly those who have spoken out outside of this committee, have raised real concern regarding general enforcement of this bill, but even more specifically on emergency protection orders. We've heard repeated references to the lack of police and policing capacity that exists on first nations, and policing capacity that is able to cover first nations as well if they're not based on them.

We also know that emergency shelters are involved in emergency protection orders and certainly link women and men who are fleeing abuse to access these orders. However, as we do know, only 40 first nations out of 663 have a shelter on reserve that could help access this service. I want to indicate that subclauses 16(3), 16(5), 16(7) and 16(8) in clause 16 refer to a peace officer and the work that a peace officer would do.

As we do know, in many first nations there is not only a lack of police officers, but the band constable programs have been cut by this federal government. Certainly partnering with first nations in the provinces around policing capacity on reserve has been reduced by this federal government, meaning that access to peace officers who could actually implement all of these sections is not just tenuous but often impossible.

I want to read some analysis from the Ontario Women's Justice Network, which has done some excellent work on emergency protection orders. They indicate that: The short-term orders are emergency orders that can be obtained 24 hours a day, by telephone or by appointment, from a trained Justice of the Peace. In most cases, the police or Victim Services workers are the ones who seek these orders on behalf of the victim.

As well, in first nations communities:The First Nations' community case workers, for example, can apply for protection orders by calling the police on behalf of a survivor.

Madam Chair, we have heard very clearly from a number of witnesses that there is no trained justice of the peace on reserve in many cases, that there are no victim services workers on reserve in many cases, that there are no police on reserve in many cases, and this idea of a first nations case worker begs the question of who exactly that is, when we know that community after community after community has no person who could handle the capacity that already exists in the community, let alone deal with the aftermath of Bill S-2 in this case.

This is not to say that emergency protection orders are not important. They clearly are. But why is the government skirting the issue of enforcement? It's fine on paper, but as we've heard, if there is no enforcement of emergency protection orders, and there is no police officer, justice of the peace, victim services worker or a first nations community case worker, as exists in the rest of the country—excluding the community case worker, off reserve—then these are just words on a paper that will stay words on a paper.

I also want to indicate that the Ontario Women's Justice Network indicates, in the context of speaking to the provinces: It is also crucial that new legislation be followed by extensive training of enforcement bodies, lawyers and judges, and increased resources and access to legal representation and social services.

Madam Chair, I want to be clear. This is not in reference to Bill S-2, but what we've heard from many witnesses is that Bill S-2 involves no inclusion of non-legislative measures. It certainly provides no resources to provincial bodies, to legal aid, and certainly something could be given to the provinces to be then given to legal aid or to first nations to be able to implement this.

Protection orders that are not adequately enforced have the effect of providing a false sense of security instead of much-needed prevention and protection against violence. More women would likely seek protection orders if they could do so through community-based services such as women's shelters and not just through the police.

Again, Madam Chair, this is in reference to provincial legislation, but it is very clear that if we apply this to Bill S-2 without enforcement and without the resources, emergency protection orders remain three words on a paper and a lot of misleading rhetoric from this government that this will actually protect women from violence.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

I see that Mr. Jean wants the floor.

Go ahead.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to say, as a lawyer who practised in this area in one of the roughest towns in Canada—Fort McMurray during the 1990s—I saw it first-hand. I have many aboriginal family members up there—many who live on reserve, many who are treaty—and I've dealt with those family members as well as many others.

What shocked me, bluntly, was to see that somebody could send an aboriginal to jail but they couldn't protect them on reserve. What was happening was that women and children were fleeing reserves, leaving everything they had. They needed protection, but they couldn't get it from the courts. I clearly saw that on a continuous basis.

I find it shocking and astonishing to see so many groups come forward and identify that there's a problem, but see no real suggestions of solutions by the opposition—or in fact the Liberal government for the 13 years before, when they were in power.

In fact, aboriginals have the highest incarceration rate among all Canadians, and disproportionately fill our jails. We have a situation where they have marital breakdowns and serious forms of abuse on reserves, and yet here we are, talking about....

Everybody knows there's a problem, and yet the only people coming forward with a practical solution that I think, bluntly, after practising in the area, will work, is the Conservative government.

All they seem to do is oppose. I'm suggesting to Ms. Ashton and the rest to come forward with some positive suggestions in relation to this instead of trying to just block it and stand up for the people they are. Instead, they should stand up for the people who are the most vulnerable in this country, the aboriginal women and children who need the protection of this country and this government.