Bill C-47 (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

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for passing Bill C-30. It is one of those moments in a minority Parliament where we see a bill go through. I think Canadians will be pleased as well as first nations that have worked hard on the bill. It is the right thing to do at the right time, for the right reasons, and it is a delight to see it pass through the House. We hope the Senate will deal with it speedily.

I am also pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, which is a long title. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as well, as it offers a practical, balanced and effective solution to a complex issue that we believe needs to be corrected.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill as it offers a practical, balanced and effective solution to a complex issue.

In recent years on reserve matrimonial real property has been the focus of much study, consultation and discussion. Members of first nations and national aboriginal organizations, along with experts in law, women's issues, human rights, governance and other fields, have offered a variety of insights into relevant issues and commented on potential solutions. While nearly all expert opinion concludes that legislation is needed to rectify the problems associated with matrimonial real property, different viewpoints have been expressed on how the legislation should be structured.

There is no question, however, that the legislative vacuum represented by on reserve matrimonial real property, continues to affect many lives. Clearly, the time has come to put a stop to some of the injustices that are occurring day by day.

To appreciate the proposed legislation and the value of the solution it stands to bring requires a thorough understanding of the issues related to matrimonial real property, or MRP, on reserves.

While some members of the House possess such an understanding, particularly my colleague, the Minister of Industry, as well as members of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Status of Women who contributed to committee reports on the issue, I will to take this opportunity to provide some additional context.

Matrimonial real property is a term for a relatively simple legal concept. It refers to the fixed assets owned by one or both spouses and used for family purposes. For most Canadians, MRP includes a house and the property on which it sits.

When spouses separate or divorce, the division of MRP is often contentious, but legally straightforward. Under our Constitution, property rights fall under provincial jurisdiction. Laws exist in each province and territory to protect the matrimonial real property interests of married and, in some cases, common law spouses. This means that should a marriage break down one spouse cannot sell the family home without the consent of the other spouse. The laws also empower judges to remedy spousal disputes involving MRP. For instance, a judge can order an abusive spouse to move out of the family home.

Individuals who live in first nations communities, however, do not enjoy access to these legal remedies. The Indian Act limits the scope of provincial laws on reserve lands. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that provincial laws cannot alter any interest in MRP located on reserve lands. The Supreme Court ruled that since reserve lands fell outside provincial jurisdiction, only federal law could resolve this issue. However, the fact is there is no federal law on MRP on reserves. This gap means that spouses living on reserves have no legal protection for their MRP interests.

As a result, judges cannot deal with the real property of spouses on reserves. Even in the most extreme cases, those involving spousal abuse or physical violence, no court can order a change in possession of an on reserve family home. Furthermore, the courts cannot prevent a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home without the consent of the other spouse, regardless of the severe repercussions these actions might have.

Closing the MRP legislative gap has proven to be a challenge. Not all off reserve MRP remedies can be replicated on reserves because of the collective nature of reserve lands, our Constitution, the varied land holding systems and housing allocations and the inability of non-members to possess reserve lands.

The House endorsed a partial solution nearly a decade ago when it passed the First Nations Land Management Act. The act provides first nations with a mechanism to opt out of the land management provisions of the Indian Act and develop laws governing, among other things, MRP. The House has also approved self-government legislation that addresses matrimonial interests or rights on reserves. However, despite these actions, a strong majority of residents of first nations communities remain without protection.

In an effort to identify an effective solution, several studies, research projects, information sessions and consultations were undertaken. I draw the attention of the House to three reports that have provided significant insight into this issue.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights investigated relevant legal aspects and tabled an interim report, “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, in 2003.

Two years later, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development published its report, “Walking Arm in Arm to Resolve the Issue of On Reserve MRP”.

In 2006 the Standing Committee on the Status of Women reviewed the issue and presented its report, recommending a process and timetable to move the resolution forward. In addition, officials with my department have held dozens of information and consultation sessions with first nation communities and national aboriginal organizations in recent years. Although a mutually acceptable solution has not emerged from these efforts, they have helped to generate the collective will needed to design and implement an effective legislative solution.

Shortly after taking office, our Conservative government launched a new initiative to identify a solution. To direct this effort, a ministerial representative was appointed, Ms. Wendy Grant-John, to facilitate and oversee the consultation process and to ensure that a viable legislative solution was proposed.

During her noteworthy career, Ms. Grant-John has served as chief of the Musqueam First Nation, regional vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations and associate regional director-general of my department's British Columbia office. She is also a mother, a grandmother, an entrepreneur and former director of Four Corners Bank.

Ms. Grant-John spent many months facilitating consultations with aboriginal groups on the MRP issue. The consultation process included three phases: planning, consultation and consensus building. The government provided funds to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to work collaboratively with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in carrying out the consultation process.

From September 2006 to January 2007, consultations were held across Canada with aboriginal organizations and communities and provincial and territorial governments. There were 109 consultative sessions with aboriginal groups, providing a total of 135 consultation days at 64 different locations across Canada. In addition, 12 consultation sessions were held with provincial and territorial governments.

An intensive consensus building phase was held in February 2007 among Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the ministerial representative.

In March 2007 Ms. Grant-John released her final report, which was tabled in the House in April of last year. Her final report offered a number of recommendations for a legislative solution.

Bill C-47 responds to the majority of these recommendations, including: first, providing basic protections for individual residents on reserve during and after the breakdown of a conjugal relationship; second, balancing individual rights and the collective rights of first nations communities; and third, establishing a mechanism for first nations to develop their own MRP laws.

The legislation now before us was informed by the solid foundation built through these consultations and the reports I mentioned earlier. There were the consensus building phase, the report from the ministerial representative and the sharing of the draft legislative proposal with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and others.

Bill C-47 strives to achieve two goals: first, to establish an immediate federal regime to protect matrimonial interests that would apply to first nations without laws in this area; and second, to provide first nations with a mechanism to opt out of this regime by developing and adopting MRP laws of their own. These goals would satisfy two of the requirements identified most frequently during consultations.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to keep these goals in mind as they study the legislation and to recognize what Bill C-47 would accomplish and the balanced solution it would represent.

Under Bill C-47, spouses and common law partners living on reserves would be able to access a range of MRP rights and remedies similar to those available off reserve. At the same time, Bill C-47 would also provide protection concerning the collective interest of first nations. For example, non-members would be unable to use the provisions of the legislation to ever gain ownership of reserve lands. That is very important. Furthermore, first nations may make representations to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to many orders available under the legislation.

The bill also responds to an important concern commonly expressed during consultations, and that is ensuring that members of first nations have direct input into MRP law-making decisions taken by chiefs and councils. Bill C-47 would provide for a ratification process. In essence, for a first nations MRP regime to pass into law, it must first earn the support of a majority of eligible voters. This provision would promote accountability and encourage community members to play an active role in the development of laws, which are two crucial components of a strong democracy.

To support the proposed legislation, the government plans to provide first nation individuals, organizations and governments, as well as law enforcement officials, access to information about rights and remedies available on reserves to address matrimonial interests or rights and services and tools for responding to individual or community needs.

As my hon. colleagues know well, laws are much more likely to succeed when drafted with the input of the people who would be affected by them. Engaging first nation members in law-making discussions would also achieve another key goal, aligning MRP laws with community values and traditions. This was another concern expressed repeatedly during consultations.

Two other ideas often heard during the consultative process are also reflected in Bill C-47.

Many of the people consulted wanted legislation that would provide an immediate and effective solution. The majority said that they would reject a law that enabled the application of provincial laws related to MRP. This was echoed by both the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Bill C-47 will satisfy these concerns by instituting an effective federal regime, one informed by but distinct from legislation in place in the provinces and territories. At the same time, this federal regime will be an interim solution until such time as a first nation develops its own MRP law.

Drafts of the legislation were the focus of further discussions with aboriginal groups and officials from the provinces and territories. The results are now before this House in the form of Bill C-47.

I have no doubt that a further analysis of the issues surrounding on-reserve matrimonial real property will lead to one inescapable conclusion: the time has come to enact the practical, balanced and effective solution articulated in Bill C-47. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this legislation.

I have no doubt that a thorough analysis of the issues surrounding on reserve MRP will lead to an inescapable conclusion. The time has come to enact the worthy balance and effective solution articulated in Bill C-47. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this legislation.

If I could also take a moment to thank Ms. Wendy Grant-John and the many other people who, in the 109 consultative meetings, contributed their expertise to make this bill as good as it could be.

There will be accusations that the bill is not perfect; any bill that comes before the House will get that accusation. I do believe it is another one of those bills that deals with something that has been a gap in legislation for far too long. This is something that affects primarily women on reserve that may lose the matrimonial home in the case of an unfortunate marital breakup. Right now there is no solution for them. This legislation reflects the desire to help those people. It is time to do that. It also allows first nations to develop their own distinct MRP laws as they apply to the reserve. That is important because it reflects the constitutional reality in which we also live.

It is a balancing act, as I mentioned. It is a unique situation. Most Canadians would not realize that this gap in legislation means that many people, primarily women, do not have the protection that people take for granted every day off reserve.

I hope that we will have a good discussion and debate on this. I look forward to the support of hon. colleagues in this House.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations sent a letter on this and attached an analysis which said, “It is very important to note that Bill C-47 does not contain a non-derogation clause”. That type of clause occurs quite often in bills these days.

I am just wondering if the minister could outline why this particular bill does not have that clause.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question.

The non-derogation clause is in several other pieces of legislation and in fact was added in committee to Bill C-21, as the member knows, on the extension of human rights of general application to first nations living on reserve. The committee added it as one of its amendments.

I am not a lawyer, but the legal advice is that because the Constitution covers all Canadians, the non-derogation clause does not change the essence of the bill. It will always be interpreted in light of the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is clear about aboriginal rights and title. It is clear about what that means. The courts always will interpret legislation or interpret a court case based on constitutional reality. As the member knows, we have any number of cases that work their way through the legal system that might be challenged, and always the court will hold up the Constitution beside the document and make sure that it is consistent.

A non-derogation clause attempts to ensure that we pay attention to the Constitution when we look at the bill, but of course the courts do that anyway. In our opinion, it does not really strengthen the bill. There may be some discussion about that and I would be interested to hear what others may have to say, but the courts always must be cognizant of the Constitution, sections 35 and 92 and other sections that apply, and in our opinion, it does not strengthen the bill to add the non-derogation clause.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's speech, and in a few minutes, I will have an opportunity to reply to him with the Bloc Québécois' position.

I would like the minister to comment on one thing. Aboriginal women are very concerned about this bill. I believe that my Liberal Party colleague will also talk about this in her speech in a moment. One thing women have been wondering about is how Bill C-47 differs from Bill C-31. Aboriginal women got the short end of the stick, as they put it, with Bill C-31, which was passed and gave back some rights and other things. How is Bill C-47, which the minister is asking the House to adopt, any different? How will it apply on reserves? Of course, I will have a chance to talk more about this later.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is talking about two different issues. I realize they both may end up in the courts one way or another, but the effort in Bill C-47 is to extend some sort of a federal framework because of the Supreme Court rulings on the application of provincial MRP laws. They just do not apply on reserve lands. What we are trying to do with Bill C-47 is to extend some sort of a federal framework so that, and it is not just first nations women, but primarily first nations women will have the protection that others take for granted in a provincial court system.

Right now the unfortunate reality is if there is a marriage breakdown, or if there is violence against a spouse, frequently or mostly against women, someone needs to intervene to get a restriction, a court order or some sort of legal means to keep the house in the possession of the woman who is raising the kids and needs the protection of the matrimonial home to that. A restraining order or a way to restrict the individual from getting close to the woman is needed and we do not have the tools to do it.

This bill is for the protection of women, for the development of individual MRP laws on each reserve over time, but a law of general application in the meantime that would allow us to have a provision which says we have to look after those interests. Although some homes are owned by the band office, for example, they might be owned collectively, social housing perhaps, many other homes are built by and owned by individual first nations people. The trouble is if there is a marriage breakdown, no laws apply. The guy with the biggest, broadest shoulders wins the argument and that is not fair for first nations women.

This bill will not solve all problems and it does not address the Bill C-31 issues, but it does attempt to fill the gap that otherwise will continue until we do fill it. The system is quite hit and miss across the country. There are some good examples of good leadership on reserve under the First Nations Land Management Act, and there are examples of many first nations which have introduced their own MRP laws, but it is too hit and miss. It does not capture the rest of aboriginal women who deserve the same protection as others.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs for introducing this important legislation into our House of Commons. I know it will make a big difference in the lives of first nations people across our country.

Earlier today Bill C-30 finally moved on to the other chamber. I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre, as well as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for finally getting control of their caucus and bringing forward a resolution to that debate.

My question for the minister is, why is there a sentiment among some members opposite that because a bill is not completely perfect, or because a bill has not received unanimous support from all communities, it should not be brought forward? Could he explain the philosophy we want to employ to bring some resolution to this issue?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary has a passionate interest in this bill. He has spoken to me many times and has said that one of the reasons he got involved in politics was to try to bring in this sort of a measure to protect aboriginal women. I appreciate the work he has done on this.

Everyone will speak to his or her own reasons for opposing or supporting the bill. If there is a problem in the parliamentary system, and maybe it is accentuated by a minority government, I do not know, it is that the perfect does become the enemy of the good. We had 109 consultative meetings. Maybe we should have had 129, I do not know; maybe we should have had 299. There is always more we could do, granted, but my hope is that the bill will pass the House, go to committee and there will be more consultations in committee. I would encourage, of course, to have those consultations and broaden them again. That would be good and worthwhile.

As I mentioned on Bill C-30, there are certainly other good issues to raise about all kinds of things, but we should focus on the legislation that is before us, because it is part of a package of ideas that will improve things for first nations. It will not do it all. It is not meant to do it all, but it is meant to focus on matrimonial real property rights.

I think most Canadians have no idea that the laws they take for granted living in Toronto, Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie or anywhere else do not apply to first nations on reserve when it comes to matrimonial property. I know the government will take a pasting for who knows what else, but my hope is that people will focus on this bill, on this issue and get the bill to committee where there can be some more study.

My hope is that we will follow through and do the right thing because it is the right thing for the right reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-47. It is an important bill, one that certainly deserves consideration. It is a bill that is a matter of human rights for women and children living on reserve. Members of my party are the party of the Charter of Human Rights and we support the measure to extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations.

While the opposition supports the intent of the bill, we do not support the flawed process taken by the federal government to introduce the legislation. We will support moving the bill to committee so we can hear from many concerned stakeholders, many of whom we have heard from already, and legal experts.

I want to emphasize, just picking up on the minister's remarks, that we do not view the representations at committee as consultations. We view them as part of a process of improving legislation that has been brought before the committee.

We were instrumental in making critical changes to Bill C-21 to ensure that aboriginal Canadians would have the time and capacity they needed to deal with the changes. We will continue to push the government to address human rights in all its manifestations, to address the needs of aboriginal Canadians, issues such as education, jobs, poverty and health.

I will take the liberty to go over a little of what the minister has spoken to already.

As we know and have heard, the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship broke down on reserves, courts could not apply provincial, territorial family law because reserve lands fell under federal jurisdiction. We have also heard that, as a result, aboriginal women living on reserve have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserve. They are not entitled to an equal share of the matrimonial property at the time of marriage breakdown. Matrimonial real property refers to the house or the land that a couple lives on while they are married or in a common law relationship.

Since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling, the gap in the law has had serious consequences. When a marriage or relationship ends, the courts have no authority to protect the MRP interests of spouses living on reserves. As a result, spouses living on reserve cannot ask the court to grant an order of temporary or permanent possession of the home or to partition and sale of a home if it applies to enforce an order or preclude a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home if it applies without the consent of another spouse.

We know approaches to addressing the legislative gap respecting MRP have been under consideration for some time, and the minister has outlined some of the reports and phases. In recent years we know that three parliamentary committees have recommended a legislative mechanism to resolve the issue, and we support one, but we support one brought in appropriately.

Yesterday, we debated Bill C-30, the specific land claims bill, legislation that was done in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, a bill that was a compromise, albeit a good first step. Now we are here today debating a bill that the government claims was done in consultation. It said that it worked in collaboration to bring forward a bill. An INAC website states:

The Crown’s consultation process was comprehensive. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada consulted with the provinces and territories and other interested organizations and communities not represented by either Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada. The Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada facilitated input from First Nation representatives from across the country. Representatives from the Department accompanied the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women’s Association of Canada at sessions they facilitated.

It is one thing to conduct consultations, but it is another to put forward a bill that does not reflect the outcomes from that consultation.

The government will work in collaboration with first nations when a bill is a voluntary measure, like the specific claims bill, and we applaud it for that, but it will close doors when it is a mandatory measure and it will impose policies on first nations people without taking their input into consideration.

Early reaction to the bill would lead one to believe that the government had the bill drafted even before the consultations took place. When some of us raised that at the time, we were told it was not so, but one cannot help but be skeptical.

On the same day the on reserve matrimonial real property legislation was introduced, it was denounced by the Native Women's Association of Canada, one of the organizations with which the government conducted its so-called consultations. It immediately came out to say that the consultative partnership the government had boasted about was a sham. How could legislation, which was worked on in consultation with affected native organizations, be called a sham?

The president of the Native Women's Association went on to say:

—we have not experienced our relationship with the federal Department of Indian Affairs as being one of partnership or even consultation but rather it feels like another experience of colonialism, or at best piecemeal, individually based solutions that will not result in real equality for the women we represent.

The Conservatives appear simply not to get it. They have not learned from their mistakes in their introduction of Bill C-21. They continue to show disrespect. They continue to act unilaterally. They continue to be paternalistic. Even the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations expressed regret in the government's process. He said:

—the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty....the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively.

Both these two organizations have major concerns about the bill. The Assembly of First Nations has, in a letter to the minister, even commented that the bill may not survive a constitutional challenge.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak to Ellen Gabriel, president of Quebec Native Women's Association. It too has concerns with the legislation, concerns surrounding consultation, among many others, which I will address a little later on.

When the government first set out on its process to study matrimonial real property, we on this side of the House were optimistic. It seemed like the former minister had set out a process in a positive direction.

In June 2006 the Indian and Northern Affairs minister at the time, as we heard, appointed Wendy Grant-John as the ministerial representative to facilitate a consultation piece on matrimonial real property.

Ms. Grant-John is a most distinguished, respected aboriginal leader in her community. We have heard that she served three times as chief of the Musqueam First Nation, and was the first women elected regional vice-chief to the Assembly of First Nations. She had previously worked at Indian and Northern Affairs as a regional director general. She has had an honourary doctorate, and her list of accomplishments go on.

The report by Ms. Grant-John on matrimonial real property issues describes the result of a three phase consultation process, which we heard about from the minister. The primary objective of this process was to provide a recommendation to the minister regarding a viable legislative option to address matrimonial real property on reserves. The process was to comply with the Haida case.

No one expected all applicable parties would agree on everything. It was expected compromises would be made and if there was not a consensus, it would be the representative's mandate to make recommendations, informed by the discussions of the applicable parties. Fourteen key themes came from the discussions, and I will not go through them because I am watching the clock.

As I said earlier, we support the intent of the bill, but we do not support the process taken by the government in its introduction of the bill. We need to get it done right, and that is what I hope the committee will do. The bill does not reflect the ministerial representative's report. It does not reflect the will of aboriginal women. It is a flawed legislation and something that cannot be taken lightly.

The government introduced the legislation, in spite of recommendations of all aboriginal groups. Many problems have been addressed by aboriginal groups and by aboriginal women.

Some problems with the bill include, as indicated by the Native Women's Association: a complete lack of information about the implementation plans and measures that are in the proposed legislation, including timeframes, resources for measures specified in the bill and resources for first nations to implement the legislation; and a lack of information regarding the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for MRP and to develop capacity to implement either Bill C-47 or their own laws.

Bill C-47 would provide a widowed spouse with only 180 days to remain in a family home following the death of her partner, a time too short. The lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities means that the measures contained in Bill C-47 will not assist women and children to obtain alternative housing in the community following the breakdown of a marriage or a relationship. This will continue the status quo, which is many women and children must leave their first nations community following relationship breakdown to find housing and therefore lose access to their family, social networks, culture, language and the services provided on reserve.

The legislation refers individuals to court processes and will likely result in court cases to clarify ambiguous measures. This places remedies contained in the bill out of reach of aboriginal women who cannot access the legal system due to lack of information, poverty or geographic isolation.

NWAC's position is that properly addressing MRP requires both legislative and non-legislative solutions. Non-legislative measures are needed, NWAC suggests, to address the issues and underlie any legislative solutions such as housing, poverty, governance, access to justice and violence, the issues about which we all know.

Like the others, the Quebec Native Women Inc. also expressed concern with the serious housing shortage on reserve. Will there be measures to find housing on reserve for the person against whom an emergency protection order has been made? We know aboriginal women are at greater risk to become the victims of domestic violence. In situations such as these, the frustration can lead to even more violence.

The Quebec Native Women Inc. have also raised the fact that Quebec is a province that applies both the civil code as well as common law. The legislation does not reflect this and therefore does not reflect the interest of native women in Quebec.

As mentioned earlier, the AFN has said that the proposed legislation may well be deemed unconstitutional. It stated:

This is largely because of issues relating to the rejection of delegated power, the lack of capacity for First Nations to effectively use the limited law-making authority and the lack of access by individuals to the provincial court system.

AFN believes there is a need for a “broad and comprehensive approach”. It said:

Such an approach would deal with important related matters concerning land management, dispute resolution capacity, housing, child welfare, shelters, policing membership...and would be based on the implementation of section 35, Constitution Act, 1982 compliance measures.

This is not the first time the government has head these views proposed. It just simply has not listened.

In a letter to the minister, the national chief also pointed out:

The shared view among First Nations across the country was that certain principles should guide the search for solutions and the standard upon which the proposed solutions should be evaluated:

strengthening First Nations families and communities;

fairness

respect for traditional values;

protection of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights;

no abrogation or derogation of First Nations collective rights;

protection and preservation of First Nations lands for future generations;

recognition and implementation of First Nations jurisdiction; and

community basis solutions.

This approach falls short on all of these points. They were simply bypassed by the government.

This bill also will force first nations women to seek remedies in the court. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many first nations women in remote communities, as expressed by the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

Time after time we have heard aboriginal women's groups call for real investments in adequate safe and accessible housing on reserves. Still the government continues to ignore the will of first nations women. How can the government claim that it stands for the rights of these first nations women if it does not listen?

As mentioned earlier, in reading the ministerial representative's executive summary, many of the same issues were raised. First nations people expect the federal Crown to fully respect its fiduciary duties in respect to first nations land, treaty and aboriginal rights. In the discussions held, there was a very strong preference for recognition of first nations jurisdiction to fill the legislative gap identified, a minimal role for federal legislation and a virtual universal opposition to the introduction of provincial laws, by incorporating them in a federal law, to deal with this issue. Participants in both AFN and NWAC discussions have said that first nations people want to see matrimonial real property that incorporates first nations views of land and family.

There are so many points to touch on, but quite simply, the government has not listened to the first nations women, yet at the same time the government says it stands up for their rights. Why does the government think it knows best for aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal women?

The Liberal opposition believes matrimonial property rights should be extended to first nations communities, particularly to protect the interests of first nations women and children, but understand it has implications for the whole community. We understand that these rights should not be imposed.

When consultations take place, we know they should not be ignored. We also know there should not always be consensus, but we also know what it means to work in collaboration. After all, for 18 months the previous Liberal government worked with aboriginal people to bring forward the Kelowna accord, something that would address many of the issues that first nations, Inuit and Métis people face today. Notably, it would have addressed the issues related to housing. It offered hope, but hope was taken away when the government needlessly scrapped the accord.

Now the government professes to champion aboriginal issues. With actions taken with legislation like Bill C-21 and now Bill C-47, and little or no investment in three budgets, and with conditions in first nations communities worse today than they were a year ago, it is no surprise that we are about to see a second day of action.

I want to reiterate the position of my party. We want this legislation to go to committee. We believe that addressing the matter of matrimonial real property rights is important. We believe it is particularly important to do it in real collaboration, in real consultation with aboriginal women's groups, to listen to them, to hear their concerns, to incorporate their concerns into the legislation, not to tell them that we know what is best for them.

We want this legislation to go to committee. We want to hear from the experts. We want to hear from the stakeholders. We will take the opportunity to make this a better piece of legislation.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on this important matter. The government appreciates that her party supports sending the bill to committee. When it gets to committee, there will be some excellent commentary from a number of groups and we will do our best to make this bill better.

I want to put on the record that considerable consultation was done across our great nation. There were over 109 sessions over 135 days in 64 different locations. We heard a lot of commentary from across the country. One must remember that this bill provides for first nations communities to create their own legislation should they want to bring about modifications to the way property is dealt with when marriages break down.

There are a number of measures within the bill to alleviate the concerns of the member opposite. Nonetheless, we are appreciative that the bill will be going to committee based on what she has just said.

I have two questions for her. The first one is around what she mentioned in relation to how a shortage of housing on reserve within our country could be, in essence, an argumentative point in relation to this bill gaining support. Although there is no question that there is a shortage of housing on reserve, and that needs to be put on the record as it is clearly a fact, should that not be used as an argument for this important legislation? Though related, they are two different points.

The second question is, there are a number of first nations communities in Manitoba that are seeking to remove houses from a military base in her riding. Is she supportive of the first nations who are seeking to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that housing is an integral part of the problems that women deal with regarding marriage breakdown on reserve. There is an important need for additional housing. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, the Kelowna accord spoke to the housing issues. Had Kelowna been implemented, we would be well on the way to providing additional housing on reserve. I do not think one can separate the importance of adequate safe housing that is not crowded from the issues of marriage breakdown, domestic violence, et cetera. Housing is an integral part of dealing with some of the issues related to matrimonial real property.

The member opposite has raised the issue of moving the houses at Kapyong Barracks to first nations communities. I would say to the member that is not a housing policy. I would not be prepared at this point to give him a definitive response on whether those houses should be moved to first nations communities. It is important that an assessment be done of the quality of those houses. I know that some of them are not in great shape and some of them are in fine shape. One also has to measure the cost of moving the houses compared to the cost of building new ones. I know that an effort like this was looked at for the houses at CFB Gagetown and was deemed not viable because of the extraordinary cost of doing it.

Therefore, I have no definitive answer. I would need to get more information on that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague. To be certain that I understood her correctly, I even listened in English. Of course, I respect her party's position. I also listened closely to the minister earlier. I will come back to that when I rise to speak in a few minutes.

I have a question for my hon. Liberal colleague. There comes a time when we must start somewhere and I will come back to this later. I am wondering how we can integrate women's voices into our consultations, when everyone knows that most first nations are led by men and that the issue of matrimonial real property very often affects women.

Yes, problems exist in the communities—we will talk about them again—but I am trying to understand how to orient our work to ensure that Bill C-47 can go forward and help women. Indeed, we can all agree on this, this bill is about 90% intended for women. I would therefore like to know what direction our work should take. Does the hon. member have any ideas concerning how we should orient our work once the House decides to refer Bill C-47 to committee for study?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised a very important question.

Should we remain in Ottawa to conduct all of the consultations on the bill, we will certainly hear from representatives of aboriginal women's groups and aboriginal women leaders. We have heard some of their statements already on the bill.

I think it is a matter of discussion for the committee as to how we will hear directly from some of the women who have been affected by the loss of their marital home through relationship or marriage breakdown. I do not have an easy answer, but it is a discussion the committee should have so that we explore this issue in a full and comprehensive way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made a very good speech regarding some of the critical points that are important for the House, and subsequently, if the bill gets to committee, for the committee to consider.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that Bill C-30 was the product of a lengthy consultative and collaborative process involving key stakeholders. He went on to talk about the fact that Bill C-30 represents a tremendous collaborative effort between first nations and the federal government at achieving agreement on the design, composition and mandate of an independent specific claims tribunal.

The member talked about consultation in her speech, but I would ask her what she sees as the key differences between the process that happened with respect to Bill C-30 and the process that is currently under way with respect to Bill C-47.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, for example, has said that it does not consider this to be a full consultative process. Neither does Wendy Grant-John. She laid out in recommendation 18 a number of specific key points that need to be present in a consultative process.

I wonder if the member could address the differences.

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

I am smiling, Mr. Speaker, because what comes to mind immediately is it appears for the most part that the government listened in the collaborative process, not the consultative process, that went on with Bill C-30.

Wendy Grant-John oversaw a consultation process that went on across the country. For the most part, the recommendations that Ms. Grant-John put forward and that were integral to the implementation of matrimonial real property legislation have been bypassed.

The government worked collaboratively with respect to one bill and chose to bypass on another.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can only take a very brief question or comment.

The hon. member for Churchill.