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

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

Mr. Speaker, some careful listening needs to happen and that is what has been missing in this process. The government promised that it would listen to first nations women and communities and that it would ensure that first nations women and communities had a part in writing the legislation.

Certainly a women in distress should never be abandoned but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about listening to the solutions that were proposed by first nations people because they have a communal kind of reality. They have communal property.

The notion of individual property is alien in terms of how reserves operate and we need to respect that. The problem is that we have not been respectful. We have not listened. More housing is needed on and off reserve but budget 2008 contained nothing in terms of additional housing. It tinkered away at some projects for those who suffer from mental illness but there was nothing real and substantive.

We need a national, affordable housing strategy that addresses the need for decent and affordable housing on and off reserve for first nations communities, for other communities and for seniors, those who are struggling and living in poverty, but the government has not come forward with any of that.

The Conservatives talk about how concerned they are. I have heard a lot of talk from the government but all the talk does not amount to anything unless there is investment, unless there is action and unless there is respect for the people with whom we deal, and I have not seen that, which is what is missing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

First, she alluded to Wendy Grant-John's work in glowing terms, as have others. I am not on the committee so I wonder if she could give me more details of the recommendations that were ignored. I am not sure why anyone would hire someone and then ignore a huge number of the person's recommendations. I could see changing some things but some of the good recommendations were ignored.

Second, with women having the most to gain from this or being most harmed without it, one would think that the two groups that would be most in support of it would be the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council, which the member mentioned. I just wonder if she could explain to us what concerns they have about this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not an expert on all of the recommendations that Wendy Grant-John put forward but I know that the need for more housing was key and central to that.

As I said before, there were opportunities in budget 2007 and budget 2008 to invest in affordable housing and to bring back a national housing strategy that met the needs of Canadians but that was ignored. It was not there. Instead, we saw $14.5 billion going in tax cuts to profitable corporations, big oil and big banks, instead of the respect for the communal needs of first nations people.

First and foremost, the member makes an important point. The NWAC and the Women's Council of the AFN did reject the solutions arrived at by the government because those solutions were arrived at without their consultation or advice and will serve no purpose in terms of what we truly need.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to 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.

This act would basically establish a federal matrimonial real property regime, combined with the mechanism for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

Essentially, for the public watching who may not understand this, for people not on reserve whose marriage breaks up, in most of Canada, there are laws to protect them. There are usually provincial or territorial laws to protect each person in the breakup, so that there is a fair distribution of the assets and that the appropriate person has access to the house to live in. Other provisions can also be put in place, if there is spousal abuse for example, to ensure that the individuals do not both have to be living in the same building.

However, these rights do not occur on reserve, as was determined by the courts. The reason being that the legal provisions on reserve are a federal responsibility and most of these laws are provincial or territorial. So, for years, aboriginal spouses, women, in particular, have had the problem of not having access to these protections in a matrimonial breakup.

This has been brought forward for decades and there have been various attempts by various governments to work on this, to study this, and various studies have been outlined by previous speakers. It is somewhat of an intractable problem in that respect.

It is very complicated for the people watching who wonder why it has taken so long to deal with this and to come up with a debate on it, a debate where a number of concerns have already been raised. One of the reasons being is that there are three orders of government involved. We have the first nation or aboriginal governments, and there are different categories and different situations. They may be self-governing or not self-governing, or they may have a first nations land act. Then we have the provincial or territorial governments and the federal government. When we have all three governments having some role in this problem, then obviously it will be a complex situation. That is why today we have already had a number of concerns or issues raised.

Everyone supports the fact that the issue has to be dealt with. I think that will be unanimous in the House. But also I think most members will be outlining certain concerns with this particular attempt at dealing with the issue. I look forward to listening to the government speakers when they answer some of the concerns that have come from all the opposition parties today related to this bill. I will also be interested to hear how we can move forward in a positive manner.

I am going to outline some of the aspects of how the bill would work, some of the concerns that I have, and some of the specifics related to my particular riding. I will also mention some of the concerns that some groups have brought forward.

Obviously, there are a number of positive items in the bill. I do not have to dwell at length on those because we all agree and we can move on quickly and get this in place. However, if there are concerns, then we will be anxiously listening to the government speakers to hear how they will deal with the concerns, so that we know we are moving forward in the right direction.

This bill is a matter of human rights for women, and often children, quite often in single parent families in particular in the majority of cases. This will, of course, occur after a split up, where the woman is the one responsible for the children. We are making decisions here that are going to really affect the lives of children who are often with the women.

The Liberal Party, as the party of the charter, is in strong support of people having charter rights and of extending matrimonial real property rights to first nations people.

We support the intent of the bill, but we have concerns with the proposed process. If the process is not correct, then some of the content could easily be at jeopardy. That has been outlined, I think every eloquently, by the experts, the critics in each party, who have spoken to this bill and by the aboriginal people who have spoken to this bill to date, and I certainly do not have anywhere near their expertise.

The purpose of the bill is to extend this regime to first nations or to encourage them to develop their own matrimonial real property laws. Indeed, a vast majority of the House is totally in agreement with the concept that the ultimate solution to the best government for first nations people is self-government and I hope the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asks his usual question about owning property because I have a great answer.

I did not have a chance to answer him yesterday, but self-government is the answer. It has had all sorts of success stories that I could outline if I am questioned on it and it is a great step forward where people are taking care of their own lives. The strength of the bill is in the fact that it encourages that to occur and it encourages first nations to put their own lives in place, but it has a default federal law until the first nations put their own laws in place to cover this.

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

Since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling, the gap in law has had serious consequences and some members, I think even the minister, quoted some women and the harm that has been done to them in that situation. When a marriage or relationship ends, the courts have no authority to protect the matrimonial real property interests of spouses living on reserve. As a result, spouses living on reserve cannot ask the courts to grant an order for temporary or permanent possession of the family home even in a situation of domestic violence or when the spouse has custody of the children.

Without that protection what is a woman with children to do if she wants out or wants to break up from an abusive spouse, and where is she actually going to live with these children? In many situations she would not have any income and there are housing shortages which many members have already talked about in this debate, and this too must be dealt with.

There may not be a spot for her to go to and yet she does not have that protection today. The courts cannot be asked to order a partition and sale of the family home to enforce an order of compensation from one spouse to the other, so she could not even get 50% from her half of the house in order to carry on with her life. It precludes the spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home without consent of another spouse. That is in the common law in Canada and these women, in the majority, it could be men, on reserve do not have access to that particular protection. Someone could just go ahead and sell their house and they would not even know it. That is why this needs to be dealt with.

Approaches to addressing the legislative gap respecting this have been under consideration for some time. In recent years three parliamentary committees have recommended legislative mechanisms to resolve this issue. To carry out the consultations the department provided the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations each with $2.7 million and INAC also held consultations with and provided funding to a diverse range of aboriginal organizations not represented by the Native Women's Association or the AFN. It would be good to have a list of those other organizations for the committee when it deals with this.

I asked that question earlier and it is one of the major issues that will have to be dealt with at committee. Why, with $5.4 million minimally plus all of INAC's time devoted to consultation, are there concerns being raised by so many speakers today and key stakeholder groups about the consultation process?

Under this new legislation all first nations, with the exception of those first nations that have matrimonial real property laws under the First Nations Land Management Act or self-government agreements, would be subject to the bill's proposed provisional and federal rules unless and until such time as they enact their own laws.

Under the First Nations Land Management Act they have a time limit. They can put laws in place if they have not already done so. I think 10 out of 20 already have their own matrimonial laws, but they will have a certain amount of time to put laws in place so that the default federal law would not apply.

The provisional bill applies to approximately 50% of the first nations that use the Indian Act land allotment system, but the rules in the bill would not apply to the lands that have been allotted according to custom. However, the bill would apply in respect to matrimonial interests recognized by an agreement between spouses and first nations or by the courts. If a first nation does not recognize the matrimonial rights or interests, the spouse or partner can turn to the courts. I am going to comment on that a bit later.

Bill C-47 would provide spouses or common law partners with an equal entitlement to occupancy of the family home until the relationship ends. It also would provide spouses or common law partners with protection against disposition or encumbrance of the family home without their consent.

This is a list of the things that are available generally to other Canadians.

The bill would allow the court to order that a spouse or common law partner be excluded from the family home on an urgent basis. An urgent basis could be, for example, spousal abuse.

It would enable the courts to provide short to long term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of one of the spouses or partners.

Bill C-47 would ensure the proven value of a couple's matrimonial interests or rights in or to the family home and other structures. The lands on reserve would be shared equally in a relationship breakdown.

The bill would allow the courts to transfer, in some circumstances, the matrimonial interests between spouses or common law partners together with or instead of financial compensation.

When a spouse or common law partner dies, Bill C-47 would ensure that the survivor could remain in the home for a specified period of time and could apply for half the value of the matrimonial rights and interests as an alternative to inheriting from the estate of the deceased. There will be some debate in committee on the particular time limits.

The bill would allow for the courts to enforce a free and informed written agreement made by the spouse or common law partner that sets out the amount to which each is entitled and how to settle the amount.

The bill would provide for a first nation council, on application from a non-member, spouse or common law partner, to enforce on reserve a court order made under the act.

It would provide first nations with the jurisdiction to adopt laws with respect to matrimonial real property interests. Bill C-47 would require a community ratification process when first nations develop their own laws.

A rogue council with some particular interest could not secretly pass a law that would supersede the federal law. Just like in land claims or self-government agreements, there has to be a community ratification process.

Bill C-47 would provide for first nations to be notified when community collective rights are engaged with respect to a ruling. The first nation may then choose to make representation to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to the proceedings.

This element of the bill is a good news and a bad news story. People are starting to comprehend that aboriginal culture is a different type of culture. Aboriginal people have a different way of thinking, a different way of organizing themselves, and a different social organization than European culture and other cultures in Canada.

One of the primary differences is the sense of collective responsibility, collective management, collective rights, and collective culture, as opposed to some of our individual rights and how those supercede other rights in the European culture.

This was a great problem when we came to the human rights bill that was before Parliament, because there was no recognition by the government of that huge difference in the two cultures when the bill was brought forward.

However, in this bill that is recognized. That is the good news part of it. There is this provision, which I have just read out, whereby “the First Nation may make representations to the courts about the cultural, social and legal context relevant to the proceedings”.

When we are dealing with a major item of someone's culture, we cannot simply say that they are allowed to make a statement in court about it. Some first nations have said that this is not a strong enough provision with respect to those rights.

Before I get on to my other points, and before I run out of time, I want to tell my own constituents how the bill will affect them. In my area of Yukon, 11 of 14 first nations already have their land claims and self-government agreement. The agreement recognizes aboriginal jurisdiction over aboriginal lands, but jurisdiction over matrimonial property, real or personal, is not explicitly addressed.

As a result of the provisions of the agreements which address provincial-territorial laws of application and relationship of laws, provincial-territorial matrimonial property laws of general application will apply, although these may be superseded by subsequent aboriginal government laws respecting matrimonial rights or interests. The Nisga'a Final Agreement and the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement are examples of this approach.

For my friends back home, let me say that until they develop their own matrimonial laws, the umbrella federal law will apply after this bill. Of course, for the Kaska, the Ross River Dene and the White River First Nation, the federal law will apply because they do not have a self-government agreement in this area yet.

Some of the concerns that I talked about earlier I will now be looking for when the government puts up a speaker to address what I have already mentioned. There are the concerns of the Assembly of First Nations.

One of its concerns is related to the fact that Bill C-47 does not contain a non-derogation clause. The minister gave a very sincere answer, saying he does not think it is required because the Constitution, in sections 35 and 92, et cetera, covers all that territory and will ultimately trump anything else, so there is no need for the less powerful non-derogation clause. Yet it would give great comfort to some first nations people, so if there is no problem with it, then I think there will probably be discussion at committee about perhaps adding it.

The Assembly of First Nations of course raised the point I just talked about, which is related to collective rights. One of its other concerns is that the government's implementation plan appears not to contain any provisions to support first nations in developing its rules regarding matrimonial real property or to comply with the verification process.

Furthermore, it would appear that legislation will immediately apply to first nations as soon as it is passed, not allowing for a period of time for development and verification to take place. We had the same problem with the human rights bill, of course, and had hoped that the government would have learned from that bill. When we tell a government to put new laws in place, the people have to be trained to have the capacity and it is going to cost money. There needs to be time to implement the laws. The Assembly of First Nations notes a significant lack of all of that in this implementation plan.

I do not have time to go into the issues that Native Women's Association of Canada addressed. Needless to say, those issues will be covered at great length in committee.

I will close with the two philosophical problems that important stakeholder groups have. One is that the law in itself needs to be in concert with a whole bunch of other issues that would support and prevent family breakdowns, which is what causes the problem in the first place. Also, the underlying resolution lies in supporting communities and clearly emphasizing the need to keep families--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Alas, it is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. We will now have questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has the floor.

[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 any opportunity to get up and speak to this very important bill, which will finally extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations citizens on reserve, an opportunity they have not had in the past. When marriages break down, we will not see first nations mothers being removed from their homes in a way that no Canadian could see as being fair.

I have a question for the member for Yukon. In light of his party's support for the Indian residential schools settlement, which we ratified as practically the first act of the House when we first came to office, and his party's support for the Nunavik land claims agreement, Bill C-30, the independent claims tribunal, and of course for all the other important first nations aboriginal bills that we have done, is his party going to support this bill as it goes to committee and comes back to the House? We are hopeful that his party will continue to support this bill not just now but beyond committee.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question because it shows us one of the major problems that the Conservative Party has had since it became government. Asking if my party is going to support this bill after it comes out of committee shows an entire lack of democratic process. Then why would we even go to committee to find out from experts and stakeholders whether a bill is good? This happens time and time again with that party.

I am on the justice committee so that is where my experience lies. Those members go into committee, experts suggest amendments, and there are proposals that make no sense whatsoever, but what does the government do? It does absolutely nothing. We might as well not waste millions of dollars and taxpayers' time in going to committee and hearing from the experts and stakeholders about how to improve bills.

The government wants us to commit to something before all the thousands of dollars worth of hearings have taken place. Of course I will not commit to what is going to happen and thus say that the voice of the aboriginal people of Canada is worthless and that all the people coming to committee are wasting their time.

What I hope the member will do is deal with the concerns that have come up in today's debate on the bill. He seems to be in favour of the bill, so indeed, if he would deal with the concerns that have been raised all day instead of raising more, it would make it easier for all the parties to put it through more quickly.

He mentioned a lot of the recent aboriginal successes that were started during the Liberal government, in particular the residential schools agreement. I am delighted that he mentioned it, because I was there the day the agreement was made with first nations. It was a spectacular success for Grand Chief Phil Fontaine. There were many tears that evening. It was a wonderful move forward that we achieved for first nations people. I just hope we can deal with the unfortunate consequence of some of the payments that are coming out and the tragedies they led to. Hopefully we can provide more healing and counselling money to deal with some of those corollary difficulties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for a response from the member for Yukon to the letter from Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, in which she told the minister directly:

Despite...a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation...that does not have the support of...NWAC....

The minister responsible was well aware of this, she said.

Ms. Jacobs and other members of first nations communities suggested legislative and non-legislative solutions, one being a long term solution that enables women and children to access their treaty, membership and aboriginal rights regardless of their residency. This, according to first nations, would be a significant improvement, because it would result in women being able to access programs and supports delivered through their band councils based on their need for the services in an appropriate and communal way, rather than what the government has presented us with.

I would ask the member to comment on these long term solutions that involve access by children and women to their treaty, membership and aboriginal rights.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an excellent and substantive one.

Over and above the concerns she listed, and hopefully the government is taking this down so it can answer this, the Native Women's Association of Canada also had concerns about a complete lack of an implementation plan, a lack of provision of resources to develop plans to implement this, as I talked about earlier, the only 180 days that a widow is allowed to stay in the house, the lack of appropriate housing, which we all talked about earlier, and the reference to a court process, which I said I was going to get back to but forgot. The problem with the court process, of course, is this: how many aboriginal people, single women with children, can actually afford to go to court to get their remedies?

There were a lot of difficulties. Personally, of course, I am going to support the bill going to committee so that all these issues can be discussed, which is the purpose of committees. We can hear from experts and stakeholders. I am not a member of the committee, but I hope that together its members can come up with solutions for these concerns that will make the bill much more palatable to the very major groups that should be supporting this in the first place. Even after extensive consultation worth $5.4 million, the groups that should be the major supporters are still not supporting the bill. Hopefully the committee can smooth this out, this very intractable problem will be dealt with and there will be at least a relatively positive solution.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the hon. parliamentary secretary's question because I was a little disturbed by the answer I heard. I have had the privilege and honour to sit on this committee for quite some time to work on the issue of human rights for first nations communities and human rights for on reserve first nations people.

The member talked about the need to have it holed up in the committee forever. It is important that we understand his position and the position of his party now and also the direction in which they are going in the future. Quite frankly, I do not want to have to waste another year to a year and a half with those members trying to water down amendments on something that is essential structural reform for first nations communities. This follows the exact same guidelines.

Quite frankly, I think this is a very valid question. We need to know if the Liberal Party of Canada is going to do the same thing that it did before, which is to stand up in the House of Commons, pass it through to committee unanimously, and then sit and try to delay and deceive for at least year on the bill. We need to get real action for some of these communities.

I represent many of the people in these communities. They want to see the structural reform that this government has brought forward. For the first time in 15 years, a government finally has a vision for first nations communities. I think it is imperative that the opposition--if it is not going to stand up in the House and vote against it--get on side and support us on this vision.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely astounding. Just after the parliamentary secretary got a tongue-lashing for asking people to ignore aboriginal people when they come to committee to tell us what they are going to do now, the member has asked for the same thing. What is the purpose of the committee if the Conservatives do not want to have it? Why do we not just give the answer now?

I am delighted that the member brought up the human rights bill, which the government drafted so poorly. It only had 12 words in it, but I think took a year for the three opposition parties to put in I do not know how many improvements to it, to strengthen the bill, to make it realistic and to answer what all the stakeholders wanted so that the aboriginal people of Canada could have their human rights.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in this House today to take part in the 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 listened closely to my colleagues who spoke before me. I listened with particular attention to my colleague from Yukon, a person dedicated to protecting fundamental human rights and a tireless worker in his community on behalf of the most needy. I know that because he has often appealed to our generosity to help the members of his community, and I find that very praiseworthy. However, I was not surprised at the way in which my colleagues from Westlock—St. Paul and Winnipeg South responded to the comments by the member for Yukon, who was speaking on an issue he feels deeply about.

It has been said that a bill can change the lives of thousands of people and Bill C-47 can do that. If it is well articulated, well crafted and well presented this bill can make a real difference in the lives of thousands of people, especially in the case of aboriginal women, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration. They have to overcome difficulties that are much greater than anything we may experience outside aboriginal communities. Because this bill in large measure concerns women, if it is not carefully considered and crafted, it could also make women even greater victims than they are at present.

Several years ago we consulted with women from aboriginal communities on various topics, for various reasons and for various committees, both in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we wanted to learn about their experiences and profit from their knowledge so as to improve conditions for all women, as well as in our ridings in order to find out how we can learn more about their situation and their communities so that we can better work with them.

In the past, mistakes were made as we tried to do what was right and help aboriginal communities. We decided as white men and women—even though men were in charge at that time—what was best for them. I have the uneasy feeling that we are still trying to decide what is best for aboriginal communities, without having listened carefully enough to what they told us when we consulted them.

Of course, the consultations did not last very long. Communities had from September 29, 2006 to January 29, 2007 to hold their consultations. If I am not mistaken, that makes four months to consult on such an important bill. What is more, one month out of that period is the traditional holiday season, when people celebrate with their families. I do not believe the communities were very interested in discussing Bill C-47 at that time.

To take so little time to draft such an important bill shows what I would call a serious lack of judgment. Once again, this comes as no surprise, considering that the government is refusing to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It does not surprise me that this same government does not want to pay more attention to what women and men in aboriginal communities have had to say about Bill C-47.

Since I am from Quebec, I have a better knowledge of the communities in Quebec. I would therefore like to quote from a letter that Ellen Gabriel, the president of Quebec Native Women, sent all the members of the Senate and the political parties:

—we would like to express our concern over certain key issues that seem to have been omitted in Bill C-47, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act that has recently been introduced.

First, we do not believe that the negative gender-based impacts are “unavoidable and likely justifiable” as stated in the Gender-Based Analysis issue paper. As mentioned, courts may tend to provide caregiver spouses or common-law partners with exclusive occupation of the family home.

That is a key point.

Because women are more likely to be caregivers of dependent children and/or adults, men may be less likely to retain occupation of the family home on breakdown of a conjugal relationship. As a result, [under Bill C-47] more women than men may be required to financially compensate their spouse or common-law partner for their share of the family home. What is not mentioned is that because women act as the main caregivers of children and elders, women are often not, or at least not the main breadwinners for the family.

This is where things get tricky. This should be clear. It is true that this must not make much of a difference to a party that is not terribly concerned about women's problems.

Ms. Gabriel continues:

Also, [Bill] C-47 does not take into account the fact that there is a serious housing shortage on reserve.

Let us talk about housing. In a number of aboriginal communities people have had to move because their housing was uninhabitable and unsafe, with no water, heating and all the necessities. Housing is already uninhabitable and now the government wants to cause even more problems.

The letter goes on:

We wonder if any measures will be taken to find housing on reserve for the person against whom an emergency protection order has been made. The frustration that may result from such a situation can lead to even more violence.

As we know, violence affects women from aboriginal communities more so than women from other communities and that is too bad. Aboriginal communities are already going through enough. Women's shelters in these communities receive less funding than shelters outside aboriginal communities, which come under the jurisdiction of the various provinces. Women's shelters in aboriginal communities are subsidized by the federal government.

Ms. Gabriel goes on to say:

This is why we would like to caution ... [the] Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages on her comment.

The comment made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was:

This important new legislation will afford protections to women and children living on-reserve that are similar to those now available to women and children living elsewhere.

Ms. Gabriel continues:

We would like to remind [the] Minister ... that Aboriginal women and children living on-reserve do not share the same realities as their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

When drafting legislation, we have to be aware that it will have a major impact on many communities.

There are 600 aboriginal communities in Canada. They are all governed differently. They have different cultures because not all aboriginal peoples have the same origins, the same cultural backgrounds, or the same traditions. Their cultures differ according to whether they live close to the forests or the waters, are nomadic or sedentary. All aboriginal peoples have different characteristics and different cultures. It is important to remember that as we attempt to bring in legislation for such a diverse group of cultures.

In Quebec, our laws are worded differently. We are governed by the civil code. Quebec Native Women has pointed out that Bill C-47 would enact laws that might be difficult to apply in Quebec. QNW wanted the federal government to conduct more meaningful—not simply token—consultation, which would certainly have produced different results. QNW wanted the government

—to properly inform and seek the advice of aboriginal peoples before passing this important legislation.

QNW also had this to say to the federal government:

We also caution against pan-aboriginal legislation since the over 600 aboriginal communities in Canada contain a diverse cross-section of...realities—

Ongoing research into the needs of aboriginal peoples is happening every day, every week and every year. Research is being done into the impact on aboriginal peoples of the various laws we have imposed on them over the years and throughout history. Research gives us food for thought. It should also give the government food for thought. If the government does not think this through, if it acts only to please some of the voters, it will not be meeting the basic needs of the people it claims to want to help.

I believe that the government was trying to do the right thing by drafting this bill, because the government does not generally draft bills that try to do the wrong thing. They do not mean to do the wrong thing, but by trying to act too quickly, they make mistakes when it comes to setting goals and objectives. The Native Women's Association of Canada produced a report about the consultations that took place. The report repeatedly refers to the difficulties that aboriginal peoples are experiencing now. It says: “—we became non-persons. We couldn’t vote. Our women had no say whatsoever.” That is what we did to them in the past. We reduced aboriginal peoples to entities living on reserves.

I would point out that the term “reserve” is not one that is particularly appreciated by the aboriginal peoples. These are aboriginal communities, but people still use the term “reserve” in French. It is not particularly appreciated. When you go to Africa, reserves are for animals, cattle, lions, elephants, giraffes. That is what reserves are. They are wildlife reserves, various kinds of reserves. I too am opposed to using this expression when we are talking about the aboriginal peoples.

The aboriginal peoples were also forced into the schools. They were forced to betray their culture, their traditions, their history. The grandmothers used to gather the children around them and pass on their culture, which is so important. Perhaps today we would have fewer problems with young people in the aboriginal communities. We might have fewer suicides among young people if they felt the full pride that comes from belonging to a people that is this great and this strong.

For years, and even for hundreds of years, we tried to assimilate them completely into the society outside the aboriginal communities. For years, we have been trying to make them forget their roots. In spite of that, and in spite of how they are disappearing, little by little, every year, many members of these aboriginal peoples have still found the courage, the strength, the audacity to discover solutions to enable them to make their communities whole again. They have found the strength to be able to forgive what was done to them, to be able to keep moving forward.

And today, we are once again trying to lock them into something that would suit us: there are no more problems, we have legislated, we have made a law, let them make do with that, it is the best thing we could do for them, and we know best what they need!

That is not how we should be acting toward a people that has thousands of years of history, wisdom, culture and traditions, and who can probably show us much more than we can show them, if we just make the effort to listen.

So I would like this bill to be sent to committee so we can make the effort to listen to the people who have not been heard, so we can make the effort to listen to experts on what is happening elsewhere. What is being done elsewhere, where the fundamental rights of the aboriginal peoples have been recognized? Even if we do not want to do it here, we still have to know that it is being done elsewhere. Only three member states of the United Nations have refused to recognize them, and we are one of them. Shame!

But elsewhere, in other countries, these peoples have been recognized, their rights have been recognized—fundamental rights of human beings. As human beings, they are entitled to the same dignity and the same respect as everyone who lives within Canada's borders—the same dignity and the same respect for all the women, men and children of the aboriginal peoples.

We may get there, if the government agrees. This seems to be a major issue, since the Liberal Party—oh!—does not want to vote on the bill immediately. Beyond a doubt, should we have to vote on a bill without having the chance to examine it in depth? I am sorry, we may be in opposition, we may be the opposition parties, but we have more respect than that for the people we represent. This bill will pass one day, I hope, if we agree that it be sent to committee and if we agree that it be amended, not to water down its importance, but to maximize the results and the effects on the women and men who will have to live with this bill, until those women and men adopt their own law to govern matrimonial property.

I sincerely hope that this House, like the Bloc Québécois, will choose to vote to refer Bill C-47 to committee, so it can be argued, scrutinized, studied, evaluated and amended in committee and come back even better and stronger for all of the aboriginal peoples.

[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 submission by the member opposite.

Our party, our government, appreciates the support that the Bloc will be providing for this important bill. It is important that we extend matrimonial real property rights to individuals who are living on reserve. That is where I want to go with my question.

I know the member often brings up women's issues in the House, so I would pose this question. She referenced a number of leaders from aboriginal first nations communities in Quebec. Some of these leaders have put forward the argument that when a marriage breaks down on reserve, if the wife is not first nation, she should not receive any access to marital property. I personally disagree with that.

What does the member opposite have to say about that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg South knows, it is up to aboriginal people to decide how they will deal with questions of marital property, violence and individuals, aboriginal or not, who live on reserves. We, not as government, but as people first, decided that band councils would govern aboriginal communities.

If we are not happy with the decisions they are making, we have only ourselves to blame. Instead of remaining matriarchal communities, they have become patriarchal communities. Since that change, aboriginal women have had a hard time accessing band councils to make their opinions known.

That is the difference, and that is what the previous government decided should happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, Fisheries; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Ethics.