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 bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.

Sponsor

Chuck Strahl  Conservative

Status

Second reading (House), as of May 25, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

May 25, 2009 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: “Bill C-8, 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 not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.”.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I wonder how he came to the conclusion that aboriginal women in Quebec and Canada would be satisfied to have their claims shelved. Their claims would not be acknowledged at all. If we adopt the amendment put forward by the Liberals, the committee will never examine the bill.

Aboriginal women in Quebec and Canada deserve to have their recommendations examined and acknowledged by Parliament. The only way this will happen is for the bill to be sent to committee.

I would like the member to tell me how he can think that aboriginal women in Quebec and Canada want to see their recommendations shelved.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. We need to get a bill to committee to hear the witnesses and work with this. However, the point is that the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada, in conjunction with the AFN Women's Council, have united together to say they reject this bill because it does not work.

It is not in the best interest of aboriginal women to bring forward a bill that cannot possibly pass at committee and spend all that time debating and discussing it. The important thing is to get the bill right and get the right bill to committee so we can deliver appropriate legislation.

I understand the member's concern, but there is no way to repair this bill at committee. Once it is passed at second reading with approval in principle, substantive amendments cannot be made at committee. Therefore, this bill cannot be fixed. I understand that. The AFN understands that, and the Native Women's Association of Canada definitely understands that.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the member about parliamentary procedure. He is knowledgeable about how that works. When we have bills we do not agree with, we need to provide a space so people can have their voice heard. I think we might be disagreeing on how to do that.

Many have said they do not agree with this bill. Sign me up; I am part of that group. However, to say we will not have an opportunity to discuss this bill is not the right way to go. I believe that women and other aboriginal representatives are very capable of going to committee. I remember very well that when we had the changes to the voting system, the hon. member's party heard from aboriginal people on changes to the voter ID. It did not listen to them. We put forward amendments. It did not listen.

I think it is an opportunity to actually hear from the aboriginal community. If the bill is not good enough, and it is a colonial attitude, and I agree with that, then we kill the bill. However, we want to open the space to let people be heard.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying, but he wants a bill that is going to be defeated to be the basis for discussion at committee. That makes no sense. The AFN, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the AFN Women's Council have all rejected this bill, for one reason.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

That was under a false premise. You told them something that was not true.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me put it as simply as I can. The reason I recommended that the bill not pass at second reading and go to committee for discussion is that the first nations have clearly and unitedly said this bill is flawed and it must be defeated and withdrawn. I accept their assessment. I have looked at the details. I am very comfortable that they have good arguments.

They have asked for appropriate consultation before the bill is crafted, and we, as legislators, must listen. That consultation did not happen. That is unacceptable, and that is why we have to defeat the bill. Let them have the consultations and we can participate in those consultations with the AFN.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Mississauga South would like to comment. Not only do we have a clear and principled objection to the bill from the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, we also have it from the Native Women's Association of Canada.

This is in response to the member for Laval, who participated in the debate. Yesterday, aboriginal chiefs in Quebec and Ontario issued a very clear statement.

We have a clear statement from the chiefs of Quebec, from the chiefs of Ontario, from the Assembly of First Nations and from the Native Women's Association, all saying that this bill should not go any further.

Would the member for Mississauga South like to comment further on those statements from the leadership of the first nations?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I have the releases as well.

One member said to me yesterday that the reason their party wants to get this bad bill to committee, which they said they would defeat, is because it will give them an opportunity to embarrass the government on each and every clause. In other words, it is a political stunt.

In my view, if we send this very important Bill C-8 to committee, we waste time and the bill will not be passed. We have to put the interests of aboriginal Canadians ahead of our partisan interests.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the House ready for the question?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Question.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Yea.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders

May 15th, 2009 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.