Tina Keeper

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her participation in this debate, as her commitment to women's issues is well known. Not only is she an excellent speaker on issues pertaining to women's lives, but she speaks about particulars that we often do not address in the House, such as common sense and basic things like the dignity of human beings and the dignity that is integral to how people want to move forward in their lives. I really appreciate that.

I do have a question for her. She has just mentioned Bill C-47 on matrimonial real property. Something we heard very clearly was that in the end the government developed the legislation without input from aboriginal women and first nations women. In fact, I have heard from the Manitoba region that for the first nations family violence prevention program, the criteria also in the end were developed without participation by the first nations women who had been engaged in that process. They were told that would politicize the program.

I would like her to comment on this pattern we are seeing and on whether she thinks it impacts this issue in particular and women's issues across the board.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking that the member would infer that because we are both first nations we have the same priorities. I appreciate that the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is new and I congratulate him on his arrival here. It is encouraging for me as an individual to see aboriginal people in the House. However, to infer that because we are both first nations we should have the same priorities I think is a little unfair.

Because of his experience, he does know that first nations women and first nations families and, I would add, all of us, women and men, are challenged by the historical trauma, by the years of colonization and its policies and legislation, which have had a detrimental impact on our communities.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an excellent one. One thing that the NDP often either directly refers to or infers about the past Liberal government concerns the cuts that government made in the mid-1990s. I remind the House and Canadians that we Liberals inherited a $43 billion deficit from the previous Conservative government, and it looks like we are on the slide again with the current Conservative government.

However, we really do need to talk about housing. The Conservative government does not want to talk about housing, particularly on reserve housing. Just yesterday the minister was asked specifically about housing for Inuit people in Nunavut and there was no response.

Again, aboriginal people have been through inordinate circumstances through the processes of policy and legislation in this country. I think we have been making significant impacts in terms of our voices being heard at the federal level, which I attribute to our first nations leadership, Métis leadership and Inuit leadership insisting upon that and organizing our political structures over the last number of decades.

Also, however, what I believe is necessary is a conciliatory relationship between the federal government and aboriginal leadership. What is so critical about this is that the federal government needs to respond to the realities of what has occurred over this last century. One of the critical issues is housing.

I would like to clarify something about my riding, which is about two-thirds of the province of Manitoba, if not a bit more. We have about three dozen first nations in the riding. We have two safe houses for first nations women, both in remote communities, although one is easier to access because of a rail line. Neither safe house has funding for programs for the families. They do not have access to services in terms of supporting the workers and their own capacity development.

Again, we are talking about an enormous region in which we have two safe houses. As the member has discussed, if we are going to talk about just those two communities, both of those communities have a chronic lack of housing. Where are women to go? Numerous times I have heard Conservative members ask why they do not just move away, move to the city.

These are their traditional territories. Although we are in a process of transition, people lived on the land and these communities are where we have been for thousands of years. This is where these families have been for thousands of years. They have had a traditional lifestyle. This is their home.

We are in a transitional period in which we are developing this, but without safe and adequate housing for the women and their families, they are going to continue in this cycle. Also, we are without program dollars to help the families and the women in breaking these cycles.

As well, dealing with historical trauma is well known within the aboriginal community. I am sure we will adhere to the truth and reconciliation process, which is a matter directly related to the residential schools system. We have what is called an intergenerational impact. In regard to the children who were removed from their homes, a lot of families and individuals did not understand the concept of family. They were three years old or five years old when they were taken from their homes. Many of them were never allowed to go home again until they had finished school.

Again, not only was that a complete interruption in the family dynamic and the cultural dynamic for these people, but it was a complete alienation from understanding their role as family members and as parents. These are the types of challenges that people are dealing with in addition to the systemic inequities. What we are talking about, obviously, are cumulative effects. It is a critical issue.

This government needs to commit itself. The government says it is concerned about aboriginal women and children. Why are we not seeing concrete steps? Why have we not seen one penny for housing for first nations people on reserve in the last three federal budgets? Why have we not had an evaluation of our women's shelters? Why do we not have core funding? Why do we not have program funding?

We are not even talking about the first nations women's shelters that are provided for regions of my riding. We have two in two remote communities in my riding. That is grossly inadequate.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women presented on Monday, February 25, 2008, be concurred in.

I am especially proud to speak to this motion today because we have been trying to get the current government to find solutions to this recurring and difficult issue.

I would like to read part of the report to the House. It states:

It requests that the Minister for the Status of Women and the Minister for Indian Affairs:

--increase recurrent core funding for aboriginal women’s shelters, as is already the case for shelters in Quebec;

--put a stop to the delays in the evaluation of aboriginal women’s shelters, scheduled for March.

I represent the riding of Churchill, which is located in Manitoba, and I have dozens of first nations in my riding that are represented by a number of political organizations, one of which is a northern political organization referred to as MKO, a second political organization called the Southern Chiefs' Organization, and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

I mentioned those organizations because a lot of critical work has been done on this issue in conjunction with first nations political organizations and first nations women's councils within those political organizations. This is a key point in this discussion because one of the discussions we are having with the current government is on an issue that is specific to first nations women, which is the issue of matrimonial real property.

Earlier this week, the government introduced Bill C-47 dealing with the issue of matrimonial real property. The reason it is important for Canadians to understand why all three opposition parties want the bill to go to committee for further discussion and to hear from witnesses is that there was a process in place on that bill. The current government engaged in a process with the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada and, as we all know, the Assembly of First Nations represents first nations all across the country.

I would like to add that it is often inferred that the Assembly of First Nations is a male organization that is made up of men who represent women. However, the Assembly of First Nations and the first nations women's council are very proud of the fact that they have a high representation of women in politics and, in fact, a greater representation of women in politics than here in the House. There are over 120 women chiefs in Canada who feel that their voices are vital and that there is an equitable relationship at that political table.

It would be great if we could work with a government that respects those voices, as we saw in the process for the creation of the matrimonial real property legislation. The government communicated with first nations women and hired a fine representative, Wendy Grant-John, as the ministerial representative to undertake dialogue sessions across this country. It was encouraging because first nations women felt that they were participating in the process, which is what the House called for.

First nations women and aboriginal women across the country have called for development on this matter for 25 years. Since Bill C-31 in the mid-eighties, we have seen that first nations women and aboriginal women in Canada have felt it was critical that their voices be heard on these issues. We cannot have bodies making laws and policies without their input and participation because it will not work. We saw that with Bill C-31 and we see the impact of that today as that case moves to the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is now more than 20 years later and we do not want to be doing that any more. The role of parliamentarians is to represent Canadians and my role, as the member for Churchill, is to represent my constituents and ensure we engage Canadians in a process to responsibly make legislation.

I will go back to the process in which first nations women and aboriginal women across the country were encouraged by the process of developing MRP legislation. A comprehensive report was written by the ministerial representative and it had many recommendations. Lo and behold, the legislation was created without any participation by the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council. The legislation was introduced and a big press release went out from the federal government but neither of those organizations were informed.

It is discouraging and disappointing that the legislation does not take into account the numerous recommendations that were made. I think that is sort of the fundamental dialogue that has been happening in many of the departments.

Although we were encouraged by the process in the beginning, we could have been looking to other patterns from the federal government that might have indicated to us that we were being too hopeful.

On the issue of Status of Women Canada, it has been very clear from the time the Conservatives took power that there were serious concerns from the opposition parties and from women across this country because one of the initial steps the government took was to cut $5 million from Status of Women Canada. The government referred to that as an effective savings exercise. I think the former president of the treasury board, now the Minister of the Environment, used the crass term “trimming the fat”.

There still are great inequities for all Canadian women. In fact, the women in this caucus have made a commitment to undertake a gender equity study. We want to commit ourselves and continue to put pressure on the government toward women's equity. We know, after decades of discussion around women's issues, that Canadian women still only earn 70% of what men earn in this country.

When I talk about Canadian women, we need to be cognizant of the inequities. We have a gender inequity to begin with. What has happened to aboriginal women in this country has no comparison. Aboriginal women fall far below what non-aboriginal women have in terms of access to services. Myself and many members in this House have talked about the great inequity in services for first nations women.

When we talk about women's issues we need to talk about it in a holistic manner. There is absolutely no other way that we can talk about this issue around family violence, women's shelters and the critical need to deal with these issues. This is not an issue in and of itself. It is about all the root causes. When we talk about the root causes of inequity for Canadian women we need to talk about it for aboriginal women as well.

I have met with aboriginal women in my constituency over the last couple of years to discuss women's issues. Often, people would think that women's issues would deal with gender equity, but what the aboriginal women and first nations women have repeatedly said is that their priority issues are their families.

There is a cumulative effect of policies that have not worked for first nations people. For instance, yesterday we had the aboriginal affairs minister at committee and one of the things we were talking about was child and family services for first nations. This is grossly underfunded compared to services for Canadians, so we have that inequity.

We have education systems for schooling on reserve. The Conservative government tends to use this type of language that would make Canadians think that first nations schools do not follow provincial curricula, as if the tripartite agreements really are the only way in which there can be a relationship with first nations where they are educating their children with similar standards to other Canadians, but that is not so.

All first nations schools have to follow a provincial curriculum and meet provincial standards, yet their per capita funding for their students is significantly less than that for Canadian students. It may range per capita between 50% and 75%. Again, what we are talking about is underfunding for first nations children education, which is K to 12. That is not even post-secondary.

The other area of concern is health services. We have unanimously adopted Jordan's principle in this House. Jordan's principle originated from a family in my home community of Norway House Cree Nation and I am so proud of the family for being able to go public with their story because it was a tragedy.

For those Canadians who do not know, Jordan was a boy who had been born with a rare syndrome and had to be hospitalized for the first couple of years of his life. When the doctors said that Jordan would be able to go home but would require certain services, some medical devices and such, these were services that any other Canadian child would have. Any other child in that same situation would go home and provincial health care would pick up those services. That is normal.

In this case, because the child was residing on reserve, the provincial jurisdiction in Manitoba would not provide those services on reserve. The federal government, through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and through the First Nations and Inuit Health branch, said that it did not have a responsibility to provide those services.

It developed into an interdepartmental battle, even though first nations are under federal jurisdiction, and there was a jurisdictional battle between the province and the feds. So, when Jordan was ready to go home, there was no jurisdiction that would pick up the cost of his services, which any other Canadian child would have been entitled to. It is what we refer to as universal health care in this country.

Jordan was two years old and as this battle waged on between departments and between jurisdictions, two years passed and Jordan lost his life. He passed away at a hospital and he never did get to go home because the issue of who would pay for his services was never settled.

It is a tragedy beyond belief in this great country of ours, a country which is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that this would occur and yet these are issues that first nations families are dealing with on a daily basis.

There are systematic challenges in health because we do not have the same spectrum of health services under first nations and Inuit health grants. We do not have the ability to access provincial health services on reserve. So we are talking about health services. We are talking about chronic underfunding in education for first nations children. We are talking about chronic underfunding for first nations educational infrastructure and we are also talking about chronic underfunding for children and family services.

Last week the Auditor General released a report on the first nations child and family services program. One of the items which the government has been so proud of is that it is working on a new model in Alberta. We have heard about this model now for over two years. One of the things that I thought was really interesting in this report was that the current minister and the previous minister have said publicly that “money is not the solution to the problem”. I am paraphrasing but if the parliamentary secretary is going to insist on the exact wording, I will have that later today.

I found information within the Auditor General's report on the Alberta model. Although on the one hand Conservatives keep insisting that money is not the problem, even though all these systems are underfunded, on the other hand their Alberta model, the operation and prevention components, will have increased in funding by 74% when the new formula is fully implemented.

That is really significant because it says that we do need to look at equitable funding. Absolutely, we need the systems to be effective. When we talk about effective results, we are talking about the lives of children and that is a priority concern for first nations women. That has been inextricable from the discussions on first nations women's issues.

The reason I went into all of this discussion around all of these issues and this dynamic with the current government and the historical impacts that are affecting first nations women and their families is because it is really important.

There are two points. We have a government which has not increased funding on reserve by one penny in the last three budgets. Conservatives talk about the $300 million that they transferred to the provinces for off reserve housing, yet we can get no accounting for that money. In Manitoba that meant $32 million, so again, we have aboriginal women off reserve, on reserve.

Off reserve means we have no accounting for that money. On the issue of housing we have heard the Conservatives talk numerous times about the $300 million they committed to private home ownership on reserve. Again, we have no accounting for that money. We had the departmental officials at our committee yesterday and again no information was forthcoming.

The reason this is all so important is because all of these issues are contributing factors to the whole issue of violence. When people are frustrated, when people are challenged, when people are dealing with the residential school impact, what we refer to as historical trauma, then we are dealing with challenging situations. In my riding I have some communities that are so challenged for housing that they have two dozen people living in one home. They have no health services and no adequate education services.

It becomes an enormous burden on women and families. There is a need to address the issue of shelters at a time when they are so critically underfunded, as well as prevention and supports for families, not only in shelters but for child and family services. It is time the government commits itself to truly do work that will benefit aboriginal women.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some very eloquent points.

She talked about a number of elements in terms of Canadian policy that have had a detrimental impact on first nations, women, children and the lives of families and how they have been very vocal through the dialogue sessions with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council. They have insisted that there needs to be a new direction and a new process in which they could participate in terms of determining and being part of the process to create legislation that would impact their lives.

One of the statements they made in one of the publications in response to this was that Europeans have a different view of the role of women. They do not respect women or their contributions to society in the way that aboriginal cultures did. Canadian society came from Europe and it was very patriarchal and this has had a damaging impact on the families because of Canadian policies coming from that view.

Could the member articulate a bit more about how she thinks we can do better?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of the member for Yukon in the debate today, because he always ensures that he represents his riding in a very respectful way.

I would like to answer the question about the issue around the process. I will go back to the idea that there was a process in place, which was very encouraging. I have to wrap this up, so I will just say that I am really disappointed that we have not responded to or continued that process. I look forward to hearing from people at committee.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question reflects the frustration of many people, not just in this House but within the first nations communities as well.

I would like to remind the member, though, about one of the things that I think happens in this process. For over 100 years, first nations people have had their lives and their rights trampled upon through a process of colonization. As for what is important about the duty to consult, I disagree with the member. We cannot underestimate the importance of the duty to consult.

What first nations people are saying to us over and over again is that they need to be part of the process and they need to be ensuring that our aboriginal treaty rights, as entrenched in the Constitution of this country, are respected. I do not even understand this concept of entrenching them in the Constitution if we are not going to respect them. The duty to consult is paramount in how we move forward.

In fact, we have had over 100 years of colonization and the imposition of policies and laws that have devastated our lives, most recently as Bill C-31, which I know the member is really aware of in terms of the implications. That is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the woman whose rights had been abused through the process of Bill C-31. This is going to have a huge impact in terms of status Indian roles in Canada.

This is really critical. This is what first nations women are saying in the dialogue sessions. They are not just saying that they have issues like severe housing issues. One of the primary issues, and I have to make this statement, is that they are concerned about their families. Through every system for first nations families, whether it is health, education or child welfare, they are not being provided money for prevention to ensure that their families stay together. And then we have the housing crisis.

Yes, all those day to day issues are issues that we have to hear about, but we need to hear from the women themselves.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House is disagreeing with the fact that this is needed and is a necessary step. In fact, we all have stated in our speeches that this issue has come forward to Parliament, has been discussed and has been the subject of committee reports and Senate committee reports. In fact, the first nations organizations and the Native Women's Association of Canada have been participating in seeking a partnership toward solutions.

What is really important about what is happening on Bill C-47 and which we must never forget is this fact about the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, particularly the Women's Council of the Assembly of First Nations. Over 100 chiefs in Canada are women. In my riding, we have a first nations women's council that does a significant amount of work in the Manitoba region. What we must not forget is that everybody felt hopeful that they were being engaged in a process, not only a dialogue process that was set out. In fact, even in Manitoba, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the first nations women's council were really proud and really encouraged to host a region-specific information session on matrimonial real property.

However, here I would like to make two points. One is that this does not meet the legal obligation of the duty to consult, which the government must be engaged in. That is one thing. Second, this is not about first nations people or the opposition parties not wanting to move forward toward a solution for matrimonial real property on reserve.

As I said earlier, I think people were very encouraged. All members of this House were encouraged and first nations women were encouraged that there was a process under way toward a solution, toward true dialogue, consultation and creating measures that would meet the needs of first nations in Canada.

However, the government then decided to table legislation without informing the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations and its Women's Council, and it created legislation that did not reflect the initial dialogue. Nor did it decide to take the next step toward consultation before tabling the legislation. As a parliamentarian and a first nations woman, I find it really difficult to understand why the government took that step.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-47, 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. I am especially pleased to contribute to this debate as I am a Cree first nation woman of the Norway House Cree Nation on my paternal side and the Muskrat Dam First Nation in the treaty 9 area on my maternal side.

Matrimonial real property rights are a long-standing issue of great concern. Over 20 years ago the legislative gap was brought to the forefront by the Supreme Court rulings in Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul. The result of these rulings is that provincial and territorial laws relating to the division of matrimonial real property upon marital breakdown do not apply on reserve lands.

In the “Report of the Ministerial Representative: Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” which was delivered to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 9, 2007, ministerial representative Wendy Grant-John contextualized the importance of finding solutions to this ongoing issue:

The impacts of the lack of matrimonial real property protections have been greater for First Nation women overall than for First Nation men due to current social roles and ongoing impacts from past discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that excluded First Nations women from governance and property. The issue of domestic violence is linked to matrimonial real property issues. Protecting the interests of children is a central concern.

This is not the first time I am addressing this matter in the House. My hon. colleagues will recall Bill C-289, the private member's legislation which was introduced in the previous session of this 39th Parliament. While the bill before us today was introduced by the government, I understand that it is similar to Bill C-289, in that on neither was there a sufficient consultative process. The government thereby circumvented its legal duty to consult. The House does not need to take just my word on this. In a media release issued on March 4, 2008, the same day the bill was announced, the Native Women's Association of Canada said of the Conservatives' bill:

The Government of Canada has acted unilaterally in trying to resolve the issue of a lack of matrimonial real property laws that apply on reserve. Despite engaging in a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation, The Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, that does not have the support of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

In addition, on April 28, 2008 the deputy grand chief, RoseAnne Archibald, of the Women's Council of the Assembly of First Nations stated in a media release:

We are not convinced that the Bill as it stands is going to help First Nations women access justice. Let's be clear, First Nations women and families have waited too long already for equitable and workable solutions and this bill is at best a half-way measure.

First nations people deserve legislation that respects the Crown's legal duty to consult. They deserve legislation to reflect their interests, their customary laws, their traditional ways and their just place in this country.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada may have initiated a discussion process with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations as neutrally brokered by an appointed ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, yet the substance of the proposed legislation clearly indicates that the government in no way listened to the concerns or suggestions voiced by aboriginal women across this country.

As contained in the report by Wendy Grant-John, participants dismissed any legislative solutions that would infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, or be impractical to implement due to problems of harmonization and conflict of laws, nor did they support a concurrent jurisdictional model. Support was given to potential remedies which were based on first nations practice and legal traditions and first nations views of land and family.

If indeed it is the intent of the government to address critical issues facing first nations women and children, then I find it difficult to understand why it has failed to listen to the voices of aboriginal women who have spoken out on the issue of matrimonial real property.

The lack of consultation by the government is deeply troubling for Native Women's Association of Canada President Beverley Jacobs. As she clearly stated in a news release on March 4:

I promised Aboriginal women who participated in providing solutions to this issue that their voices would be heard. I worked hard to get their messages to government but those messages fell on deaf ears.

In summing up her critique, she added:

In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

In light of Ms. Jacobs' assertions surrounding the lack of consultation by the government in the formulation of Bill C-47, it is not surprising that the Native Women's Association of Canada and other organizations representing aboriginal women have expressed significant concerns.

The Native Women's Association of Canada does not support Bill C-47. In its estimation the legislation does not include non-legislative measures to address matrimonial real property, nor does it address the needs of individuals affected by matrimonial real property. Indeed, the Native Women's Association of Canada has outlined a number of issues of concern with the proposed legislation, a few of which I will briefly highlight.

First, it suggests that the proposed legislation lacks concrete information regarding the implementation plans and measures, including timeframes, resources for measures specified in the bill and resources for first nations to implement the legislation.

Second, the association believes there is a lack of information in relation to the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for matrimonial real property and to develop capacity to implement either the proposed legislation or their own laws related to matrimonial real property.

Third, the proposed bill is also lacking in compassion for newly widowed spouses. According to the Native Women's Association of Canada, Bill C-47 sets out a time limit of 180 days for a widowed spouse to vacate a family home after the death of his or her partner. The Native Women's Association of Canada calls for an extension of this limited time period.

Fourth, Bill C-47 is perceived by NWAC to not be a remedy for the status quo of women and children being forced to leave first nations communities following the breakup of a marriage or common law relationship. The lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities, which is not addressed in the proposed legislation, means women will continue to be forced off reserve to seek housing. In so doing, they will lose access to their family, social networks, their culture, language and the services provided to them on reserve.

Finally, NWAC is concerned that the proposed legislation will negatively impact aboriginal women who cannot access the legal system due to multiple factors, including poverty, lack of information and geographic isolation.

NWAC is not alone in its criticism of Bill C-47. The Assembly of First Nations Women's Council also sees significant problems with the bill as it stands. Specifically it outlines four areas of concern.

It asserts that the bill will ultimately force first nations women to seek remedies in provincial courts. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many first nations women in remote communities.

Aboriginal women asked the government to formulate legislation on matrimonial real property rights that reflected their cultural values and traditions. The proposed legislation does not reflect this desire and instead would compel first nations women to be subject to provincial and federal structures and rules that they had no part in crafting.

The AFN Women's Council also calls into question the constraints placed upon first nations in the proposed legislation. More specifically, it draws attention to the reality that the bill would impose a complex bureaucratic system with no support or consideration for implementation on first nations. In so doing, the bill fails to recognize the authority of first nations.

Finally, the AFN Women's Council is adamant that if matrimonial real property rights are to be meaningful for aboriginal women, the government must address the serious lack of adequate safe and accessible housing on reserve.

I believe the concerns of NWAC and the AFN Women's Council clearly demonstrate that the government did not meaningfully engage in a dialogue process with aboriginal women. Any claims to the contrary are clearly a misrepresentation of the facts.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is keenly aware of how disappointed first nations people are with the government's handling of the dialogue process leading to the formulation of Bill C-47.

In a letter addressed to the minister and dated April 8, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations wrote:

--the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively. Unfortunately, the advice and direction of AFN and First Nations has not been heeded and I must point out that the First Nations assessment of the proposed legislation will likely be that it is unconstitutional in law and of no value to First Nations individuals or governments in practice.

Bill C-47 reflects another missed opportunity by the government to truly engage first nations people in a meaningful process to strengthen their capacity for self-determination. Instead of working collaboratively with first nations people to produce a solution to the legislative gap in connection to matrimonial real property rights, the government has conceived legislation that will impose a system upon first nations.

The most significant opportunity this government missed to promote first nations self-determination was its dismissal of the Kelowna accord. The Kelowna accord was a first step that would have provided over $5 billion to address critical issues affecting first nations women and children, including the day to day urgent needs in housing, safe drinking water, education, health care and developing capacity in the health care field, economic development, and addressing governance structures, which is absolutely essential for aboriginal people to move forward in self-determination.

Another more recent example of the government's unilateral approach to first nations governance in Canada was its decision to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Time and time again, the government is claiming to improve the lives of first nations people in this country, yet it is doing nothing substantial to improve the capacity of first nations people for their own self-determination.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that Bill C-47 is legislation that was not created through consultation with first nations people. The government has circumvented its legal duty to consult first nations on the issue of matrimonial real property rights and any assertions to the contrary are false.

As Grand Chief Phil Fontaine wrote in a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

Real and lasting solutions must address the real problems...The quick fix approach does not work and, in fact, can harm First Nations collectively and individually.

I hope the minister will see fit to engage in consultations with first nations people in the future.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, could the member maybe speak to the practical issues a bit more in terms of the bill and what the report said? The ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, did a very comprehensive report. One of the issues, in practical terms for people in my riding, is the access to the justice system. Just that in itself makes the terms of the bill almost untenable.

Would the member comment on that?