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.

Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this issue has been before this Parliament for many years now. My colleague referred to the majority government. All those families living on reserve in Canada will thank Canadians for having elected a majority government.

This is the fourth iteration of this bill before Parliament. The first bill was introduced as Bill C-47 on March 4, 2008, in a minority Parliament and was debated at second reading and referred to committee. It died on the order paper on September 7, 2008. In all of those months, when the opposition and everybody had a chance to debate the bill, it did not happen.

I will continue with the next question, but the member is going to get the same answer as to why it is time we acted.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is amusing, because he is talking about the bill having been introduced in Parliament several times, yet it seems that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. We still hear the same comments from first nations, and the Conservatives are still using the same paternalistic approach. Since this government has a majority, it wants to impose its own way of doing things.

The problems here do not just affect the first nations. The bill also raises important issues for Quebec, which is governed by the civil code and has certain unique aspects that are not taken into consideration in this piece of legislation. By shutting down the debate, the Conservatives are preventing the members from discussing these problems. Then, they say that this does not matter, that the bill was introduced two or three times during previous sessions. Since they have had three tries before, it seems to me that the fourth should be the charm, but unfortunately this is still not the case today.

The first time the Conservatives adopted a time allocation motion, they said that it was important for the economy. Did they use the same reason for all the other bills for which they moved a time allocation motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that the importance of the issue escapes the hon. member. He is talking about the economy, but we are talking about fundamental rights here.

Why do families who live on reserve in Canada not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians and children living off reserve?

Anyone who watches the procedures of the House of Commons knows that if we do not limit debate on the bill, then it once again risks not being passed by the House of Commons. With a majority government, we can ensure, once and for all, that Canadian families living on reserve, women and children, enjoy the same protections as other Canadians. That seems to me like a fundamental, valid and justifiable reason to limit debate and ensure that these people will finally have the same level of protection as other Canadians.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. We know that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence.

According to the General Social Survey in 2009, approximately 15% of aboriginal women in a marriage, or who had a common-law partner, reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. Of those who had been victimized, 58% reported that they had sustained an injury, compared to 41% of non-aboriginal women. Further, 48% reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a knife or gun and 52% reported that they feared for their life.

We know that emergency protection orders save lives. Could the minister describe how Bill S-2 would enhance the protection of aboriginal women and children living on reserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, currently, aboriginal women in our country cannot go to court and seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on a reserve. The bill extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, which is what the member referred to, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home at the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days, with the possibility of extension.

An emergency protection order is quick. It follows a simple process and is recognized by child and family justice advocates as being one of the most significant means of preventing family violence. Violations of these orders can result in fines or jail time, hence the importance of the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very disappointed to rise to speak to a time allocation motion.

This is the 40th time the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate on a bill. What is more, this bill does not have the unanimous support of the House, civil society or aboriginal communities.

My question is quite simple. I am not going to get into a discussion of the minister's competence today. Did the minister consult with first nations, including women's groups that were opposed to the bill and still are? If so, why did he decide to introduce the bill in its current form, which does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, in short, the department consulted extensively with aboriginal nations across the country.

We began these extensive consultations in 2006. About 100 meetings were held in 76 locations across Canada, which allowed us to improve the bill at that time. A number of changes were made specifically to address the concerns of certain stakeholders, the first nations and others about the implementation of this bill. We had to ensure that its real objective of protecting aboriginal families living on reserves across Canada would be attained.

Consultations were held and changes were made such that, today, the bill passes the test and achieves its objective.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that 100 meetings were held and that there were consultations. I am wondering why the results of these consultations are not reflected in the bill before us. Consulting the people is a good thing, but it is not enough to go somewhere, say that the people have been consulted, but not listen to what they had to say. I believe that consultation means taking into consideration what was said.

Had that been the case, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations would be able to support this bill. They are not. This means that they were not consulted to the extent required to make amendments and for the minister to know what would have secured their support for the bill.

I wonder why the minister consulted people without listening to them and without amending the bill he has introduced.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I totally reject the unsubstantiated and far-fetched allegations made by the member. As I said earlier, consultations were conducted.

This is the fourth iteration of this bill. On several occasions, and every time that it has been introduced in the House of Commons, numerous Canadians and aboriginals—in the first nations and across Canada—were consulted, and a number of amendments were made to improve the bill.

In fact, contrary to what the member stated, amendments were made. The result: the bill responds to the challenge Canada faces of guaranteeing the same rights to all its citizens. Most notably, it will ensure that women, children, and couples living on reserve are not treated like second-class citizens.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for this bill. I have worked extensively with the aboriginal community and have to say that every woman wants the same rights as every other woman in the country.

In addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, Bill S-2 would allow the courts to consider these factors and provide extended exclusive occupation access to the family home. Emergency protection orders are often provided in the initial procedures in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by an application for exclusive occupation and valuation.

During the time period of the emergency protection order, the spouse or common-law partner could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home. In cases where the need for this protection is extended and where there are children involved, having access or extended access to the family home is very important.

Could the minister please describe the importance of providing access?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the federal provisional rules in Bill S-2 would enable the courts to provide short-long to long-term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of a spouse or common-law partner. The duration of this order could range from a determined number of days to a longer period, such as until dependent children reach the age of majority.

What is important to add is that the bill contemplates that with the extension of such period of time, the judge would take the advice of the First Nations Leadership Council chiefs about the implications this has on the community. Therefore, this provision in the bill would help ensure that spouses or common-law partners who are primary caregivers would have access to housing for their children and/or dependent adults. As has been demonstrated by witnesses during the debate at committee, this would really be an added value to our set of laws for aboriginal people in Canada.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email from Chief Marianna Couchie of the Nipissing First Nation last night. I would like to quote from her email. She stated:

There are some certainties that NFN would like to ensure. We already have our own Matrimonial Rights Property policy in place, that occured quite a few years ago around 2004. (I am concerned about) Will this new Bill have an impact on our Existing MRP Policy?

When we enacted our MRP two matters were of precedent:

1. The safe guarding of the right to preserve for ever our Land.

2. In our Policy/Act the children if they have status own the family home and which ever parent is prepared to raise the children in the family home can do so.

I have two questions on behalf of the chief. If this bill is enacted, will it affect the policy that they already have in place, and would this new bill have an impact on their existing MRP policy? The second question from the chief is this. Does the Conservative government still view first nations as a problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the last question from the chief, the member may tell her that, indeed, the aboriginal presence in Canada enriches this great country of ours. We are attempting to work co-operatively with all chiefs and councils and first nations members in communities all across Canada in trying to reconcile aboriginal rights with Canada exercising its sovereignty.

I will read an important quote in answering the question. I will quote representatives of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples who testified before the committee in November 2011. They stated:

The MRP Act has more significance than meets the eye, because it goes to the heart of the issue-- dignity of the person.... For many years, we’ve been calling for an effective Matrimonial Real Property regime to protect spouses who are forced to leave a reserve.... Promoting the dignity of the person does not erode Treaty or Aboriginal Rights.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of a bad piece of legislation. Will the Conservatives sit down with the first nations once and for all and address concerns regarding the recognition of first nations jurisdiction, access to justice and conflict resolution, for example?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind the member of something. Were he the slightest bit familiar with this issue, he would know that the first nations have already obtained the right to self-government and that they are part of a comprehensive agreement. These first nations already have legislation that addresses these issues.

The bill targets first nations that do not benefit from such a system. It is designed to enable these first nations to pass their own legislation that focuses on their own communities and on the cultural values of those first nations. They will have one year to do this, then the legislation will come into effect. Until this is achieved, even provisionally, federal rules and regulations will remain in effect. The bill was, therefore, developed to fully respect self-government, comprehensive agreements, and, most notably, the rights and treaties that are currently in force.