Bill S-2 (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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has the floor. I am sure there are many who would like to hear what the hon. member has to say. If members have other things they wish to discuss with their colleagues, they may wish to take that out of the chamber. When we are in the House of Commons, when one member has been recognized, he or she has the floor and other members should be quiet so they can hear what he or she has to say.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I get too far into my notes, I should indicate for both the House and your sake that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

As I was saying when I started my speech, it is obvious from all sides of the House that this is an issue of passion. It is an issue that has been debated for many years, and it is interesting to listen.

I will not pretend to be an expert on the minutiae of the bill. I do not sit on any of the committees that have dealt with it, nor am I deeply enmeshed in some of the details, as some of my colleagues are.

However, I have been here for a few years. It is coming up on nine years now, and I do know that this is government legislation that has been before us a few times.

However, I want to give credit that the ideas behind it, the theme, were private member's legislation. My former colleague for Portage—Lisgar, Brian Pallister, took it upon himself to introduce this legislation as a private member's bill. It was the basic theme or idea we are dealing with tonight. I remember hearing him speaking about it here in the House. He was passionate about it.

That constituency is bedrock Conservative. This is not exactly an issue on which swing voters or political self-interest would particularly come into play, but Brian met a personal friend who had an experience on a reserve. He had been involved in a situation that this legislation would deal with. It was because of that passion that he got involved in this issue and began to drive it forward.

I congratulate him. He is now the leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives and was the inspiration behind getting the unanimous consent of the Manitoba legislature—Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and I believe one Liberal—to call upon this House to get moving with the legislation.

It is one of the things we need to do, because when Brian went forward on this, it was not for political gain and not because a major constituency needed the legislation, but because it was the right thing to do. He was inspired because of a real case and he needed to serve his people.

That is why I am asking all members of this House to look at this legislation seriously, to look at the underlying principles involved, because this legislation is about helping those who do not have the power to defend themselves.

Every politician comes to this place with an underlying philosophy, an underlying set of principles. What is government about? What is the purpose of government?

I believe the purpose of government is fundamentally to defend a few basic things. Government should be limited. Government should be restricted, but it should be about defending people's lives. The right to life is fundamental. It should be about defending their liberty and it should be about defending their property.

These are three rights, three fundamental things that intertwine, and it is for that reason and because of those principles that I will be supporting this legislation.

What is more fundamental to human life, particularly in a country like Canada, with our severe winters and our tough climate? We take pride in it and we brag about it, but if we did not have a place to live in winter in Canada, our very lives would be at stake. That is why we need to deal with this fundamental legislation.

When a family situation breaks down, it is almost always the female member of the couple—the woman in the household, often with children involved—who is deprived of a place to live. Then it is a matter of fundamental survival. It is not about wealth, privilege or prestige; it is about whether or not the person lives.

The bill also deals with basic liberties, because if something goes wrong—if there is a dispute, if there is some issue that cannot be resolved—a woman could be turfed out of her house. She is then restricted in her freedom and in what else she can do in her life. She lives in a constant state, in some respects, of being in her own little prison.

This is a bill about matrimonial property. This is about who owns, possesses and controls the physical aspects of life.

This legislation is fundamentally on the basic principles of why a government should be involved in something. That is why I support it. It is about fundamental justice. It is about the reason many of us got involved in politics, which is not to provide and protect those who are wealthy. Those who have money, property and connections can afford lawyers and another place to live. This piece of legislation seeks to help those who are weak and do not have the strength to always fight for what they need.

Some of the critics of this bill have criticized it and said that other things are needed. Absolutely. I am not here to argue that there are other things needed, whether programming, justice or police services. However, under no circumstances should we ever permit the perfect to be the enemy or the opposite of that which is good.

I do not think there is a single member of this House who thinks the underlying sentiments and the desire to do things in the bill are not proper and just. Members may disagree with aspects of the bill. There is dispute about who was consulted, who was listened to and who was not. However, I think every member of this House can fundamentally agree that when we seek to do something to provide and protect women and children who are being thrown out of their houses, we are doing what we should as parliamentarians. We are not here to look after ourselves. We are here to look after the needs of those who most need us in this country.

As I said earlier, I am not the greatest expert on this, but having listened to a few of the remarks, I will deal with a few issues according to the notes I have been given about things that can be done to help and I will answer some of the criticisms.

One of the criticisms I heard earlier from an opposition member, and I am assuming it was well meant, was that there would be difficulties accessing justice in remote communities. That is true. I have worked in the north in my career as a geophysicist in our three territories. In many places in remote communities, it is difficult to always have justice immediately on the spot.

However, the underlying intent of this bill is to provide legal certainty to make it easier for couples to come to an agreement so that they do not have to go to court. There would be regulations that would include provisions concerning applications made pursuant to federal rules to increase access to justice.

There are aspects concerning emergency protection orders for spouses or common-law partners who could apply for exclusive occupation of a home. There is a provision that should a spouse or common-law partner not be able to apply for an emergency protection order, a peace officer or other person may apply on behalf of that spouse or partner.

In remote communities, where it is difficult to have judicial access, lawyers etcetera, this bill makes provisions for them.

As was also said, this bill is not sufficient. We on this side of the House agree. There are other things to be done. I will just note that the economic action plan of 2013 provided $24 million for a family violence prevention program, and there is other programming and funding.

As my time winds down, let me urge this House to think of the fundamental principles we need to look after and who we are here to support. This bill is ultimately meant to look after those who are weak. It is a noble bill. There are disagreements about whether it is a perfect bill. I understand that, but let us not have the good and the perfect be at odds on this legislation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that has arisen over and over again in the consultations on this bill and has been raised by first nations governments, aboriginal women's organizations and, in many cases, aboriginal lawyers, is the problem that we are dealing with a matrimonial property regime that involves communal property. The solution put forward in this bill is that the provincial courts would be given responsibility to resolve these disputes, where it is not really clear. It is not as if the house is in the common-law husband's name only, or in the name of the two of them together. In most cases, the land is held communally.

That is one of the reasons why the majority of first nations, including first nations leaders, have been saying they need some other options. They need to have the government work with them so that they can develop the systems within their jurisdictions that fit within the legal regimes of their communities.

A number of amendments were proposed and all were rejected. When the government says it is open to additional solutions, could it respond to the issue of how we address the fact that we are talking about a completely different system of land regime on 99% of the reserves?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, I am not an expert, not having sat in at all of the meetings of this committee. However, having read some notes in preparation for this debate tonight, a few thoughts come to mind.

First of all, it was noted that there would be educational packages for provincial judges to make them familiar with the context and other issues involving this. There would be an educational and integrative approach. Another thing that I noted, having listened to the debate tonight, is that reserves, particularly those that are more developed, advanced and interested in seizing the initiative, could take legislative initiatives of their own. They could apply their own decisions and cultures and shape this. That would also be done partially in the regulations, as is my understanding.

Having read and researched this, my understanding is that there would still be elements for flexibility. This piece of legislation is going to go forward. The majority of the House has indicated support for it, but there would still be ways to shape this going forward through education, regulation and dealing with the reserves that individually take their own initiative to expand matrimonial property rights for their membership.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard New Democratic members of Parliament tonight suggest that they favour matrimonial property rights in principle but they just do not support this particular bill. I find that a bit peculiar and ahistorical, because I have been a member of this place for 16 years and I recall various private member's bills and various government bills to extend matrimonial property rights, all brought forward by Conservatives or members of the Conservative legacy parties during that 16-year period.

There have been many different bills, with different specifics and different features, but they all had one thing in common: they sought to extend matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women. They were all opposed by the NDP. In those 16 years, I do not recall a single New Democratic member of Parliament ever having risen in this place to propose a bill to extend matrimonial property rights.

Would my colleague not agree with me that this suggests evidence that the NDP is not really practically in favour of matrimonial property rights? Is it not analogous to its position on free trade? It says it is not against free trade, except it is opposed to every single free trade agreement.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague and I would tend to agree with him. However, I would encourage opposition members to prove both me and my colleague wrong by actually taking one of their private member's slots and introducing their ideal legislation.

If they do desire to make this change, with all these years, perhaps the members there could provide their piece of legislation and their changes in a private member's bill and let the House debate those changes. The government bill will pass. If they think there are improvements, perhaps later on in this Parliament we can look at those improvements.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-2. When the time comes to vote on the bill, I intend to vote in favour of it and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

No one can dispute the fact that the bill is in the best interests of individuals living on reserves and that it creates a more fair and just Canada. Currently, very few laws exist to protect the matrimonial real property interests and rights of people who live on reserve.

Bill S-2 proposes to fill a gap in legislation that continues to affect the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nations communities. For most individuals, the problem begins with a relationship breakdown, or the death of a spouse or common-law partner. In many cases, this results in a woman, or her children, being kicked out of the family home and the law is powerless to help them. Many end up homeless, impoverished and isolated from their home communities.

As difficult as these circumstances are for those who are directly impacted, the suffering extends even beyond them. Grandparents may be denied daily access to their grandchildren. Siblings and friends may be forced apart. As a result, the negative impacts of these events can often be felt through the entire community.

It is hard to believe that we as parliamentarians have allowed this inequity to endure for more than 25 years. It is in our power, and so it is our responsibility, to eliminate causes of inequity such as this one. Moving ahead with this legislation now before us is clearly in the best interests of all Canadians, most particularly those likely to be affected by this legislative gap.

Bill S-2 proposes to fill the gap with a two-part solution. One part establishes a legal authority that first nations can use to design, ratify and implement laws governing marital property interests and rights on their reserve lands. This means that first nations could develop their own laws to meet the community's cultural and social needs and that the courts could apply these laws. The second part of Bill S-2 is a set of provisional federal rules that would, once in force, provide protection for individuals living on reserves unless, or until, first nations have ratified their own laws in this area.

The proposed legislation and the issues it addresses are quite complex. There is little doubt that these complexities confounded previous attempts to enact legislation. However, if we remain focused on the crux of the matter, that the legislative gap hurts individual citizens and perpetuates injustice, the path forward becomes perfectly clear.

Bill S-2, like any legislation touching on complicated and emotional issues, has critics. However, what is often overlooked is that the legislation now before us is the product of a comprehensive and collaborative national consultation and engagement process.

Many critics deride the consultation effort as inadequate, but the truth is that two national aboriginal organizations helped stage more than 100 consultation sessions at 76 sites across the country. Hundreds of people actively participated in these sessions. Over $8 million was spent to facilitate the process. In addition, there was an extensive study of the previous version of Bill S-2, Bill S-4, when more than 30 witnesses appeared before the committee. Further, study by committee in the other place on Bill S-2 offered more opportunity for review and comment, as did the study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in the House. In total, 93 witnesses have appeared before committee. There should be absolutely no doubt as to the amount of consultation that has taken place. The changes that were made to Bill S-4, and now to Bill S-2, demonstrate that the government has heard the comments and responded.

I want to spend some time today explaining the degree to which Bill S-2 responds to the views expressed. The consultation sessions shaped the original bill in several significant ways. For example, as a direct result of the consultations, the bill rejects the application or incorporation of provincial family law. Instead, Bill S-2 proposes to enable first nations to design and ratify their own laws related to marital real property and interests. These laws would reflect a first nation's particular traditions and culture and could be applied by the courts.

Bill S-2 also proposes an interim solution to help first nations develop laws in this area.

Despite the best efforts of many talented people, at the end of the process full consensus on a legislative solution could not be reached due to the complexity of the issue. For further clarity on this point, I call to members' attention the final report of the ministerial representative. This wide-ranging document of more than 500 pages is a comprehensive resource for anyone who wishes to fully understand the issues in play. Point 213 of the report reads as follows:

The inability of the parties to articulate a link between the matrimonial real property initiative and the larger policy development processes that AFN and NWAC respectively are interested in, and that they have mandates to pursue, ultimately constituted a barrier to consensus.

This sentence goes a long way toward explaining why the effort initiated in good faith by this government, and funded by more than $8 million in public funds, failed to produce a full consensus. The parties could not separate the need to eliminate specific causes of inequity from other policy development initiatives. In other words, instead of focusing on a specific problem that this legislation was intended to address, debate on the bill became a proxy for a much broader discussion whose scope goes beyond the intent of this bill.

Ultimately, the legislative gap continues to affect individuals living on reserves, as it has for more than 25 years. As many may recall, in the last Parliament a previous version of this bill was before us for consideration. At that time, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted a thorough review of the bill and, as I have mentioned, heard from more than 30 witnesses, including representatives of national aboriginal organizations. First nations chiefs and other stakeholders were included. This review led to the adoption of 12 amendments to the bill in the other place. Unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper before it could be considered by this chamber.

Before introducing this bill in this new Parliament, three further improvements were made: the verification process was eliminated; a 12-month transition period was added; and the ratification threshold was lowered. I am convinced that all three of these measures strengthen the bill and that all three would facilitate the development of a first nations law in this area. They also respond directly to criticisms that the previous version was paternalistic and that the process for the ratification of a first nations law was too onerous.

Bill S-2 would finally fill this gap with a balanced and effective solution. It would authorize first nations to establish laws in this area based on their unique cultures and traditions, and after a 12-month transition period, Bill S-2 would establish a provisional federal regime to protect individuals living on first nations reserves that have no such laws in place. However, even after the provisional rules were in effect, first nations could still, at any time, develop and ratify their own laws. At the end of the day, it is Parliament's responsibility to make decisions about legislation that affects Canadians and, in particular, to ensure we protect our vulnerable citizens. That is why Bill S-2 is before us today.

I believe that Bill S-2 would effectively balance the rights of individual citizens and the collective interests of first nations. It would eliminate inequity that continues to affect some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens. I urge all members of this House to set aside unfounded criticism and to endorse this legislation without delay.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that when we bring a bill to this House we consult with the parties who would be stakeholders and who would be affected by it. I have seen it over and over that the Conservatives will consult the stakeholders, but it is another thing to actually listen to them and take in some of the advice they might have to improve the bill. I have see this not only in this House but in the committees. There are numerous reports and studies that have been generated over the last number of years in regard to dealing with this particular matter.

If they are not going to listen to the people they have consulted, what is the use of consulting them? Here we have first nations groups wanting to make changes to this bill, and also a number of women's groups have objected to this particular bill, so why consult when they are not going to listen to them?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that 25 years of consultation is fairly sufficient. Setting aside the rhetoric from my hon. friend, we have listened and we are acting. We will not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”.

This is a move forward. It is about equity. It is time to move. Twenty-five years is far too long.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the tone of the government. It is extremely aggressive in places. The member was a little less aggressive than some of his predecessors speaking in the House.

However, the reality is that the recurring theme from the government has been that it consulted, that it worked with the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada and that this bill was the result of those consultations.

As the member for Surrey North just pointed out, the Assembly of First Nations is opposing the bill. The Native Women's Association of Canada is opposing the bill. Aboriginal organization after aboriginal organization is opposing the bill because the government did not get the job done effectively. It did not get it right.

It saddens me that the government is trying to ram the bill through now, when there are so many first nations organizations, some of whom they are citing, saying that the will bill will cause more problems than it will actually resolve.

The reality is, as members well know, when we are negotiating and discussing with first nations organizations, we have to listen.

My question for my hon. colleague across the way is very simple. Why did the Conservatives not listen to the aboriginal organizations that have voiced real concerns about the bill?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to sit in on the special committee for missing aboriginal women, where there is a legion of groups that have been consulted. Far many more of these groups are interested in what we are doing. They are backing that.

I am saddened by the fact that, as the Minister of Immigration has said, and he has been here for 16 years, never once has the NDP had the courage to do what is right for the people living on reserves who are being abused. It is time to move. It has been 25 years. If there is anything that is sad, it is the inability of the NDP members to understand their dilemma.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing members of the government saying that the NDP has not brought forward legislation on first nations issues. That is because what needs to be done is to consult and work with first nations. We do have one bill about that. It is Bill C-469, presented by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It would enact, in this Parliament, that we would have to respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires us as parliamentarians free, prior and informed consent.

I have constituents from Kanehsatà:ke. Ellen Gabriel, a very well-known native women's rights activist, was telling me she was not and they were not, consulted. They have not agreed. This issue is more complex and should not just be legislation rammed down our throats.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there, but why should we talk about the United Nations.

Charity starts at the home. Here they are in Canada, on the reserves, asking for our help and the NDP is unable to lift a hand to feel their pain, to do what is right to right this inequity.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House to speak on behalf of so many of my constituents and first nations people across Canada who have vehemently opposed Bill S-2.

I stand here on a day, as was noted earlier, five years after the anniversary of the current government's apology to residential school survivors, five years after the government made the most serious commitment to the first peoples of our country in committing to a new relationship, a new way of doing things and a new tomorrow. Unfortunately, all first nations people in Canada have seen since that day five years ago are more colonialist policies, more paternalistic attitudes, more impoverishment and more marginalization.

Bill S-2 is one step along that way. Not only is it not part of a new beginning or a new relationship, but Bill S-2 is part of a pattern of colonial legislation put forward by the government toward first nations. There was C-47 and Bill C-8. Now we have Bill S-6. All of these bills first nations people, their organizations and their leaders have opposed. It was clear during the Idle no More movement. First nations people rose up against the omnibus legislation that would impact their treaty and aboriginal rights, but they also very explicitly indicated that they were opposed to the series of bills, including Bill S-2, the government is putting forward.

I will remind members of the government that the Idle No More movement was started by four women from Saskatoon, who, with many indigenous women across Canada, rose up and said, “enough”. They said enough to the colonial attitudes that have overrun their communities for far too long. They said enough to a government that has sought to impose their assimilationist views on their communities. They said enough to the status quo.

We have heard many references, in government members' feigned indignation, to the 25 years first nations women have waited. Colonialism has gone on for far more than 25 years, and first nations have had to put up with government after government, and the current government is no different, with the kind of attitude that is so unacceptable, so much against what Canadians want from their government, yet it continues on the same path.

The concerns around Bill S-2 are not philosophical. They are very real and very much based on extremely problematic elements of this legislation. First and foremost, there was the lack of nation-to-nation consultation. This is not a choice. According to our Constitution, there must be consultation with first nations.

Let us go further. The government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill S-2 breaks the commitment the government made to the UN declaration. Bill S-2 serves to attack treaty and aboriginal rights. Despite the fact that there are obtuse references to respecting first nations governance, we have not seen the government act on that notion in legislation after legislation. It is pretty rich to hear government members apply impassioned rhetoric when it comes to first nations people when, in fact, it fails to hear from the first nations people who are most directly impacted.

Let me get to some of the other major problems with this piece of legislation, and there are many. Just so we are clear, the NDP put forward reasoned amendments to this bill that involved a series of points, but I will list only a few. We noted that if these points were not recognized, in addition to our concern about the lack of consultation, we could not support Bill S-2. Again, it is not a philosophical discussion. Members will understand from the points I will raise that it is very real, based on factual points the government has absolutely ignored in its process of developing this bill.

Bill S-2 fails to implement the ministerial representative recommendations for a collaborative approach to developing and implementing legislation. The bill does not recognize first nations jurisdiction or provide the resources necessary to implement this law. The bill fails to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the community level. The bill does not provide access to justice, especially in remote communities. The bill does not deal with the need for non-legislative measures to reduce violence against aboriginal women. The bill would make provincial court judges responsible for adjudicating land codes for which they have no training or in which they have no experience. The bill does not address issues such as access to housing and economic security that underlie the problems on reserve in dividing matrimonial property rights.

It is clear that these points are not recognized in Bill S-2. There is no response to the serious concerns that first nations people raised both in our committee and in prior consultations regarding the bill. Also, it is not to say that this is the first iteration of the bill. The Conservative government has tried this on numerous occasions, and every time it has been clear that first nations people are opposed to the Conservatives' imposition of a paternalistic approach to matrimonial real property rights.

Certainly we heard tonight that, all of a sudden, the Conservative government has real concern regarding violence against aboriginal women, which are great words, but let us look at the actions.

It is no secret, and now we are entering a phase in our history where we are being shamed internationally for our lack of action in putting an end to the epidemic of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Over 600 aboriginal women in Canada have gone missing or have been found murdered in Canada, but the current government has done nothing but deflect the issue.

The Conservatives make these connections between missing and murdered aboriginal women in Bill S-2. Well, aboriginal people know that the current government is trying desperately to change the channel, and no one is buying it.

When we are talking about the issue of violence against aboriginal women, it is serious and it demands far more than a slap-in-the-face piece of paternalistic legislation. It requires real action. It requires sitting down with first nations and working with them. It requires making investments in non-legislative measures. It involves getting to the root causes of the violence that aboriginal women face.

We have heard that if the current government actually wanted to do something, it would respond to the calls for a national inquiry that have been going on for years in our country, yet it has not. If the government really cared, it would have responded to the calls for a national action plan to end violence against aboriginal women, but it has not. If the government really truly cared, it would do something about the excruciating levels of poverty that aboriginal women face in Canada, but it has done nothing.

Not only would I argue that the Conservative government has not done anything when it comes to the poverty facing first nations women, it has made it worse. The government has made it worse by the cuts it is imposing in terms of the services that first nations people need. The Conservatives are making it worse by continuing to apply the 2% cap that the Liberal government in the past imposed on first nations. They are doing it now by going after the advocacy organizations, including the tribal councils, that are involved in delivering direct services to first nations, and that make a real difference when it comes to housing and education.

Not only is there a ton of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative government, in that all of a sudden it cares about violence against aboriginal women, it is shameful that the Conservatives would stand in this House and turn to the NDP or whomever else and accuse us, instead of looking to their own business.

This is a perfect case of changing the channel. Aboriginal people have seen this before and they are seeing it in spades with the Conservative government. They saw it when the Minister for Status of Women was quoted in the media as blaming the chiefs and leaders for why the bill was not going forward.

I had the chance to raise that exact point with leaders who came to our committee and some of them were women leaders as well. I read to them the kind of messages that the government was putting forward. I felt so ashamed that a federal government and its ministers, ministers of the Crown, would treat first nation leaders with such disrespect when they were doing nothing more on a bill like this than speaking out on behalf of their people, when leaders, women and men, were speaking out on the very real needs they had to put an end to the violence that first nation women face.

Let us talk a bit about some of those challenges. I reference the extreme levels of poverty.

One of the most recurring themes that came up in our committee was the lack of housing on first nations. Now some members, actually, on the government side in our committee asked what the connection was between housing and violence.

I do not think a lot of the members on the government side have spent time on reserve. I invite them to come to northern Manitoba. I invite them to come to communities like Pukatawagan, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Gods River, Shamattawa, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Berens River Bloodvein. I invite them to visit the houses where there are 15 people living inside a house, no, maybe even 21 people living inside a house, mould-infested homes.

I invite them to see what is like, to hear about the social tensions that have developed because people simply do not have a place to live. Why do they not have a place to live? Because they live on reserve and because they are under a federal system and successive federal governments, I would note. Currently the Conservative government has sought nothing more than to further impoverish people, than to further fill inadequate housing up with more people, than to limit the kind of opportunities these first nation people have to access the outside world and opportunities that may exist outside their community. Then it turns around and tells us that a document, Bill S-2, would end the social conflict and social tension that they face.

This is beyond insulting. It is beyond reproach. This is the face of colonialism. It is the face of a colonial government that has sought nothing more, time after time, than to further marginalize the first peoples of our country.

The NDP takes great encouragement from the first nation leaders, from the women and the men and the grassroots leaders, I will note particularly, who have stood up and who have stood up through their Idle No More movement. They said that they had enough of the government's attitude toward them. They have had enough of great sounding commitments, like the commitment of five years ago, the new relationship that came directly from the current Prime Minister, only to be followed by legislation after legislation, rhetoric messages that seek to divide Canadians, that seek to pit Canadians of various backgrounds against aboriginal Canadians, that seek to divide aboriginal communities among themselves, that seek to change the channel, instead of actually having a government that would step up, work with first nations, consult on a nation-to-nation basis, work in partnership and make the investments necessary.

These challenges are not going away any time soon. The violence against aboriginal women is certainly not going to go away as a result of Bill S-2.

I think of Joan Jack, the counsellor from Berens River, who so passionately spoke in our committee. She said that the bill would not save one life in Berens River.

I would encourage members of the government to look at the Hansard to hear the messages that we heard in committee, to hear the kind of opposition that exists against Bill S-2.

While we are talking about committee, we have heard government members tonight make various references to consultation and how they have heard from people and all of these things. If they wanted to hear from people so badly, why did they bring closure in on this debate? Why did they cut off debate, not only in the House but also at committee?

We had two weeks to look at this fundamental piece of legislation. I will put on the record that in those two weeks the government made sure we got to hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples more than any other national aboriginal organization. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples clearly expressed in its presentation that it does not represent on-reserve aboriginal people. Therefore, the question is this. Why would an organization that does not represent on-reserve first nations people be seen as the ultimate authority on this very piece of legislation?

I will not leave the surprise any longer. It is because it read exactly the kind of messages that the government wanted to hear. However, when it came to organizations like the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and various band chiefs, various people with legal expertise, grassroots leaders who had real concerns with Bill S-2, who opposed Bill S-2, none of them got as much time to speak to it as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women's Association of Canada got eight minutes to speak to this bill with no questions and answers. It is truly shocking. The Assembly of First Nations got 10 minutes to present, and I am stretching it by saying it had maybe 12 minutes of questions and answers.

The government turns around and uses the word “consultation” and uses the sentiment of indignation. Those of us who are standing in solidarity with first nations who did not have their voices heard or who had their messages cut off because the government was so eager to shut down the debate, we are the ones who are shocked and angered by the government's colonialist approach to first nations.

First nations deserve far better than the current government, which has sought nothing more than to further impoverish, further marginalize and further assimilate them. They deserve justice and respect. They certainly do not deserve a bill like Bill S-2. They deserve real leadership. I end off on that point.

We have heard the government members call on us, hoping we might change course. I would ask them to listen to the many people who they have blocked from the House and committee, the voices of first nations who would be most impacted by this bill. I would ask them to change course and free themselves of the colonialist approach they have taken to heart and start a new beginning, like the new beginning their boss talked about five years ago. It is time.