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.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'm wondering, first off, how many consultations were held on Bill S-2? Not the predecessors but on Bill S-2, which I understand was presented December 1, 2011.

[Jo-Ann Greene]

The centre of excellence is planned—because of course it is pending appropriate funding approvals—to support first nations through providing information, tools and communications, and best practices related to the development of matrimonial real property laws. As well, should they choose not to develop their own first nation law, it is to help bring better understanding of the provisions that are in Bill S-2.

The centre of excellence is planned to be established within an existing organization that is at arm's length from the government and the first nations that it intends to serve.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

There has been a lot of consultation done on Bill S-2. Could you state for the record the number of meetings that have been held with first nations on this topic? Of those that were held across the country, could you give me examples of some of the places in which the consultations were held?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is showing its paternalistic attitude yet again. This time, it is Bill S-2. The government has made some wild statements, claiming to have heard from aboriginal people. It is not formal consultation. The government has not listened to first nations, to recommendations made by aboriginal organizations or the ministerial representative. In fact, Bill is in breach of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Conservative government has also suddenly remembered the issue of violence against aboriginal women, yet Bill S-2 has nothing to do with ending violence against aboriginal women. It provides no effective and timely access to remedy, including legal services and the courts. More importantly, it does not involve an action plan; no national inquiry, no investment in shelters, housing and education, and now members of the government are blaming first nations leaders. Pretty convenient.

Instead of playing politics, the Conservative government should do its job: consult with first nations and take real action on ending violence faced by aboriginal women. It turns out the government does not know best.

Financial Administration Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House and speak to the important work that my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, has done to present this private member's bill.

I thank the member for the work she has done on this issue and also for her leadership and vision on gender equality. She shows us how to increase management opportunities for women from all walks of life.

Based on the work this member did before being elected to the House and the work she does here, it is evident that her vision is based on experience, including Quebec's experience. She has shown that it is possible for women to have leadership roles in crown corporations.

We can make a change to increase opportunities for women to hold these jobs.

We have seen so many examples of the bar being raised by the many feminist women who have come before us, women who have really changed the quality of life that women and men have in our country.

I want to pick up on one of the important points my colleague raised, which was the argument about how long it will take, if everything stays the same, for women to play a greater role on corporate boards, on boards of our crown corporations and in the upper echelons of business.

The Conference Board of Canada and others have said that it would take, I believe, 150 years for women to have an equal position at such a level. That is clearly unacceptable. Not only that: the response of the government in failing to provide leadership in this area and using this language about consulting and waiting and trying to figure out some way instead of actually taking direct action on quotas or bold goals when it comes to women on corporate boards is reminiscent of what women have been up against in this country for a long time. Whether it is on the right to vote, on choice, or on pay equity, women have often been told to wait.

The issue here is that through crown corporations, we have an opportunity to effect change and to set the bar high for corporations that are ours as Canadians, corporations that do critical work in terms of basic services or research or foundational work in Canada. We have the opportunity to give leadership to crown corporations and to say that women ought to play an equal role in the management of these corporations.

That is really what we are talking about today, the opportunity to take leadership. Unfortunately, the government has dropped the ball when it comes to women in Canada time and time again.

In fact, today I had the opportunity to be in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we saw the government try to impose paternalistic legislation on indigenous women in Canada through Bill S-2. We saw it some months ago, when members of the government repeatedly wanted to reopen the abortion debate in Canada. We have seen it in the cutbacks to Status of Women Canada and in the elimination of funding for research and advocacy by women's organizations. We have seen it through the removal of the mandatory long form census that provided key research when it comes to women's positions in Canada. Unfortunately, we are seeing the government drop the ball for women once again through its remarks with regard to this bill.

Thankfully there is a chance for them to change their minds on this. We are at second reading. Obviously today there will be some debate and I hope the government will choose to seize this opportunity, be bold and set the bar high like other countries have done.

Often on this side of the House we talk about the equality that women enjoy in Nordic countries. Once again, Nordic countries have beat us to the punch on something as important as the place of women on boards.

Norway was the first country to legislate gender balance on boards of public limited companies with its 2003 gender equality act. That, of course, was 10 years ago. The legislation applies to state-owned companies, and it entered into force in January 2004.

The government had originally tried to negotiate voluntary quotas with the private sector, with an ultimatum that legislative measures would be introduced if the desired gender representation were not attained within two years.

A survey of these companies by Statistics Norway showed by the July 2005 date, only 13% of the companies complied with voluntary quotas, with women representing only 16% of board members. As a result, legislation was applied to public limited companies.

Since its introduction in 2003, the number of women on boards in Norway has reached 40% as required by law.

It can happen. Norway has made it happen as have Spain, France, Iceland, Germany, the Netherlands. In fact, on April 18, just earlier this month, after much debate and even reluctance, Germany legislated a binding quota of 30% women in boardrooms starting in 2020.

These are countries we look to on common issues. Why not on this issue? Other countries have carved the path. Norway, as far back as 10 years ago, set the bar high for all of us. Instead of following suit, Canada is once again not just trailing behind, but actually running backward.

Here we have an opportunity to change that direction, to say that today, and through Bill C-473, we have the opportunity to be leaders. Our hope is that the bill will come into effect, that the government will support it and that crown corporations will be able to show the rest of corporate Canada what it means to have highly qualified, intelligent, competent women working with men of the same calibre to take businesses forward, to take our country forward and really to show that this can happen.

As a young woman, I also want to recognize how important this legislation is to so many young women looking at career opportunities in business, in management, in working in crown corporations. The reality is that the glass ceiling still remains. We see a lot of gains have been made in many workplaces. Women have reached senior management levels in many sectors, but the higher up women go, the power remains with men.

A lot of women my age in my generation know a lot of challenges have been overcome, that change has been made, but they are still seeing that the glass ceiling exists in certain sectors.

This is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to say that we want to change this for young women in Canada. We want to ensure there is a clear message that young women looking ahead have a key role to play at all levels, including the upper echelons of our crown corporations and in the corporate sector.

We believe this is not the time to tell women to wait again. We believe this is not the time to continue the pattern of going backward, as we have seen the Conservative government do when it comes to women's equality in Canada. We believe this is the time for Parliament and the government to stand with the NDP, show leadership and carve out the path for women to be equal in all areas of our society.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Then I guess I would like to say that the centre of excellence sounds like a very fluid model that can be used to direct Bill S-2 in the way it is going to evolve and be integrated into the various communities so as to give women and children these rights.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Again, I want to thank the ministers for being here today and providing us with such a comprehensive overview of Bill S-2.

I used to work in the downtown eastside in Vancouver where I was a native youth and family worker and there I saw the effects of not having Bill S-2, where women and children were routinely on the streets because they were not able to stay in their matrimonial homes. So I also believe that this is a very important bill and one whose time has come. I think, as we've heard today in terms of saving lives, this will create safe places for women and children to stay in, as well as give equal rights to women.

I want to ask Minister Valcourt about the centre of excellence, because in my work there, as well as over the many years that I've done policy and program development for different levels of government, we recognize indeed that building capacity is very important.

Therefore, I was struck by the addition of the centre of excellence, which I think is a brilliant idea. It's not a presupposed formula, so that centre of excellence is there to assist and support the various communities and first nations to implement their own laws and acts. Where that doesn't happen within a certain time frame, my understanding is that the federal rules will apply.

So I'd like to ask the minister about how this centre of excellence is going to transfer the knowledge, information, and education about rights to these various communities across Canada and also create the centre of excellence to provide links, supports, and program expertise, all of the things the opposition members are talking about, and provide access to all those things, to existing experts and program services for those women and children who so need this Bill S-2.

Thank you.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Well, the point you made about shelters is interesting because there have been a number of witnesses before the committee that studied S-2 and on this particular issue. One was Jojo Marie Sutherland, who's a staff member at the Native Women's Transition Centre. She appeared before committee in January of 2011 and she said: On the reservation in the seventies, family violence was an everyday thing. You married the guy and you had to stick with the guy. The band house gets given to you. The band house doesn't belong to the female, it belongs to the male. If you decide to leave, you have to leave the house. That's what happened to me.

She talks about the real, practical issues that women are faced when, predominantly, it's the man who has title to the house. So if he's able to sell the house without her permission and keep all the money or ban her from the house, or no judge can order an emergency protection order to remove him from the house if there's spousal violence, you can only imagine what that means for women.

This really is a question of justice. It's justice for aboriginal women and children who do not have the right to protect themselves in these kinds of situations, when it's either a situation of family violence or a dissolution of the marriage. So without this proposed legislation, aboriginal women cannot go to court to seek an exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for an emergency protection order while living in their family home on reserve.

This bill does not propose anything new; rather, it will provide access to the same rights. So it's not different, it's just providing the rights and legal protections that we all have access to. They're already available to every other woman in this country.

The current situation provides no legal certainty on the dissolution of the marriage and of course, Bill S-2 will allow individuals on reserve to apply to the courts to negotiate the division of their matrimonial real property.

We understand that aboriginal women are often in remote areas with limited access to the courts and transportation. Importantly, the issue around emergency protection orders is acting quickly and needing to enforce and apply an emergency protection order quickly.

This bill does one thing that's unique. It allows an emergency protection order to actually be done by phone or e-mail because of the remote locations. A peace officer or any other appropriate person can apply that way on behalf of a spouse or a common-law partner if they live in a remote location. In a situation of abuse or violence where it's often dangerous to signal an intention to break off the relationship or to seek the protection of the police, the ability to have a peace officer or other appropriate person make the application for an emergency protection order can keep the victim from having to confront the violent spouse and possibly placing themselves in further danger. Again, it's very important for the protection of women. Perhaps it's something that Minister Valcourt will speak to in more detail later.

Bill S-2 also provides for the creation of a centre of excellence, which Minister Valcourt alluded to a number of times. I recognize that implementing any legislation where there isn't a great deal of capacity will require support, and we're committed to that. We're committed both in our department and in Minister Valcourt's department to support women who need access to building this capacity and to communities that need to build this capacity. At the end of the day we need to move forward.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Excuse, Madam Chair, I am keeping to the question. The point that I would like to raise, which ought to be on the record, is that if legal systems do not have the resources, whether in terms of legal aid or in terms of allowing courts to access remote communities, there is no access to justice. I think that is something that we clearly haven't heard from this committee.

My last question is, would you be open to amendments to Bill S-2?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

In answer to the question, I'd like to read something that was sent to the minister by my good friend, the Hon. Eric Robinson, the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs in Manitoba. It reads as follows:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the federal government to pass Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

[...]

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent by the Speaker to the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

There was no qualification in the call by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to pass Bill S-2.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Actually, I'll be sharing my time with my colleague, Ms. Day.

I want to note that my province, Manitoba, has been referred to many times, and I wish that the first nations of Manitoba received the same kind of adoration and, certainly, commitment that the province is receiving today.

I want to read into the record the final paragraph of a speech by the Attorney General from Manitoba, in which he says:

So we have concerns about process. We've concerns about certain provisions, and we certainly have concerns about the supports to make Bill S-2 work. But we do want to fill a legislative void. Let's call for improvements to Bill S-2. Let's do that today, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

I've certainly had the chance to speak with colleagues who've noted support in principle but have expressed real concern about various provisions, including the kinds of supports that provinces would need to go forward, if this bill were to be implemented.

My question is—and again a yes or no answer would be preferable—was there a consultation done with every single one of the provinces?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for being here today to talk about this very important bill.

We've been talking a lot about consultation today.

Frankly, I'd like further elaboration, Minister Valcourt, if you wouldn't mind, because I think Canadians need to know that there has been adequate consultation. Can you tell us about the consultation process and the way that Bill S-2 has been amended to respond to the information gathered in that consultation process?

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

Mr. Minister, forgive me, but my question was not to do with whether or not first nations needed support in terms of developing custom codes. My question was about whether or not your department has done the analysis of whether first nations will have the capacity to actually enforce Bill S-2 once it's passed, and whether they will have the capacity to provide support around transition houses. We know that oftentimes when there has been some dispute between partners, people are faced with the difficulty of whether or not there will be legal aid.

Those are the questions that I was asking, not whether or not they would have the capacity to support development of custom code.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ministers Ambrose and Valcourt, thank you for participating in our committee's review of Bill S-2. This is a very important bill.

Minister Valcourt, I share your utter incredulity with the fact that this legal gap has existed for 25 years. If my colleague's husband was incredulous, I can't even describe the shock my 15-year-old daughter has that this is the law in Canada. So I'm delighted that you're helping us all to change this.

This legislation is quite unique because it's interacting alongside both provincial and territorial legislation, it has to take into account the first nations law, and the First Nations Land Management Act. Obviously, there are a few first nations that have been proactive and have changed this in their own communities, but the vast majority of first nations are not protected. There remains a legislative gap.

I have a few questions. Either minister, as you wish, can respond.

First of all, I'd like a little bit more information on how Bill S-2 is allowing first nations to enact their own laws on the topic of on-reserve matrimonial property rights. I'd like to add that notwithstanding the comments from the colleague from the Liberal Party, who indicated that shelters are preferable, they really aren't in my view as a mother. I think in the case of a marriage or a family breakup, it's always preferable for the child to stay in the home, regardless of which parent stays with them.

To the other question, could you describe how this bill will apply to first nations, including those that are already under the first nations land management regime and the self-governing first nations?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Thank you for your comments.

I know I'm repeating myself, but emergency protection orders save lives. Anyone—any worker, front-line service provider at a shelter, or police officer—who works in any field related to violence against women will tell you that they are one of the most important tools for preventing family violence.

Of course, as you indicated, Canadian women have access to a number of legal protections right now that are not available to men and women living on reserve. As I said earlier, aboriginal women are three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence.

The emergency protection orders that are provided in Bill S-2 are very important, because they extend these protections to women and children living on reserve.

Bill S-2 also gives first nations band councils the ability to create their own legislation—which I think is important, as Minister Valcourt said—related to matrimonial property rights and to enforce these orders on reserve. Should they not, then obviously the federal regulations would stand.

I wanted to go through a little bit of the process, because a lot of thought has gone into this. It has been 25 years. We've tried four times now to pass this legislation, and there has been a lot of consultation with first nations and with the Native Women's Association of Canada, as Minister Valcourt indicated.

When it comes to emergency protection orders, any spouse or common-law partner, whether or not they are a member of a first nation, will be able to make an application to a judge or a justice of the peace for an emergency protection order. That's incredibly important, as you said. The person seeking protection will not need to be occupying the family home at the time they make the application, which is also important.

A peace officer or any other person will be able to make the application on behalf of the person seeking protection—which is also very important and, of course, with their consent. They can also make the application without the person's consent, if they have permission from the judge or the justice of the peace. Again, those of you who are involved in issues around preventing violence against women know why this is also very important.

The application will be able to be made ex parte, which means that it is a proceeding that involves only the person seeking protection and does not involve representation or notification of the other spouse or common-law partner. Again, this is very important for a women who's going through issues around domestic violence.

If the designated judge is satisfied that family violence has occurred and that the victim is at risk and in need of protection, he or she will be able to make an order excluding the other spouse or common-law partner from the family home for up to 90 days as well as indicating other measures that the designated judge considers necessary for the immediate protection of the victim or of the property that is at risk of damage.

Again, this is what all of us are used to dealing with when it comes to domestic violence in every other part of the country, but on reserve this is not the case today.

In making the order, the designated judge will be required to consider the broader details and circumstances surrounding the family violence, including, for example, the history and nature of the violence and the best interests of any children.

A peace officer will be able to serve a copy of the order on any person who is specified in the order. A person will be bound by the order as soon as they receive notice of it. The peace officer will also let the applicant know that the order has been served on the spouse or common-law partner. The contents of the order may, for example, direct the peace officer to remove the spouse or common-law partner from the family home.

Emergency protection orders are often the initial procedures in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by application for exclusive occupation and valuation.

One of the greatest hardships for women fleeing a violent family situation is that they often leave with only the belongings on their backs, often going to a shelter and ending up without long-term housing.

Bill S-2 will ensure that women seeking protection from a violent spouse will not be revictimized by needing to run, often to the nearest town or miles away.

Obviously, you know how I feel about emergency protection orders. Every day that goes by without passing this bill, these women have less protection.