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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be deferred to Tuesday, May 28 at 9:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The acting opposition whip has asked for a deferral. However, according to the Standing Orders of the House, a recorded division on a motion to concur in a bill at report stage, while being a non-debatable motion, can only be deferred on a Friday. As such, it is not possible for it to be deferred at this point.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to see the calendar as Friday.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #695

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that bill be read the third time and passed.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Miramichi.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women have the unanimous consent of the House to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. Bill S-2 would remove a factor that contributes in no small way to violence against women living in many first nation communities. The proposed legislation would give these women similar legal protection to that enjoyed by other Canadian women and the same legal tools and mechanisms that other Canadian women use to prevent and combat abuse and violence, particularly from spouses or common-law partners.

For many years, debates in Parliament about this issue have focused on the legislative gap: the fact that no effective law has existed for more than 25 years since a Supreme Court decision ruled that provincial matrimonial real property law cannot be applied in first nations communities, yet the truth of the matter is that this is much more than a legal issue for countless women. It is about pain and suffering, victimization and injustice. For many women, it is also about survival, courage and resolve.

When I consider the issues surrounding Bill S-2, I look through the prism of these ideas, the individual experiences of Canadians who have fallen victim to a legislative gap. Theirs is typically a harsh reality of impossible choices. An abusive husband threatens to evict his wife and children from their family home in a first nation community. She cannot leave with the children because they have no place else to go. If she stays, they will all suffer physical and emotional trauma. There is no law that would allow her to stay in the family home with her children. It is a miserable and awful truth lived by some Canadians each and every day.

During its review of the legislation now before us, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard from a number of witnesses, including Ron Swain. Mr. Swain is the vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. He is also an ex-police officer who recently retired after more than two decades on the job. During his testimony, he recalled a particular incident that was typical of what was experienced dozens of times during domestic disputes on reserves:

Usually, a big fight takes place, the police are called, the police show up, and whoever is the perpetrator or the offender gets arrested and taken away.

I can give you an example...going back a few years [where that] individual happened to be from that community, and he was with a Métis girl who wasn't from that community and didn't have band membership or wasn't part of the band. Once the person was released from custody, he went to the chief and council. Within a very short time, a band council resolution was passed, and then he had control and custody of that building, the house, the matrimonial home.

They were in a common-law relationship at that time. She had some children but not from that relationship. She was basically forced to leave that community. There was no separation of property. She basically had no rights...she was escorted off that community with just the clothes on her back and with her children.

Ron Swain's testimony cuts to the heart of the issue. Until effective legislation is in place, the vast majority of Canadians who live on reserve will be vulnerable to this type of abuse, and there is not a court in the land that can help them.

The standing committee also heard from Jennifer Courchene, a first nation woman who survived a similar situation: her husband evicted her and their children from their family home. In part of her testimony, she said:

When I went to court, the judge did want to help us. He said he would...if he could, but he couldn't. He said his hands were tied.

She also stated:

There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home...[and] if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.

Bill S-2 would close the legislative gap that continues to cause harm. The proposed legislation would give Jennifer Courchene and the thousands of women like her the legal protection they so rightly deserve, protection similar to what the law affords women who live off reserves, women like me.

As my hon. colleagues should recognize, the proposed legislation would feature a two-part solution. The first part would authorize Canada to recognize laws developed and endorsed by first nations communities. The second part is the provisional federal rules that would apply in those communities that have yet to develop laws related to matrimonial real property rights and interests. The federal rules would not take effect until 12 months after Bill S-2 became law. The end result would be laws to protect the matrimonial rights and interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. The provisional federal rules would give victims of abuse or violence access to two tried and true legal tools to defend themselves: emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders.

Currently the law does not provide people who live in the majority of first nation communities with access to these orders, yet these orders are widely credited with saving the lives of thousands of people, typically women facing violent, abusive spouses or common-law partners.

These orders, the provisional federal rules and the rest of Bill S-2 are designed to ensure that Canadians who live on reserve have similar matrimonial real property rights and protections to those of Canadians who live off reserve.

The proposed legislation would promote the safety of children and caregivers who experience family violence. It would enable children to remain in their home and benefit from the stability that this provides: the connection with the community and extended family and access to services, schools and special programs. In the event of separation or divorce, Bill S-2 would also ensure that matrimonial assets are divided in an equitable manner.

The importance of these points cannot be overemphasized. Children who witness violence between their parents are more likely to end up in violent relationships when they grow up. The proposed legislation would help break this cycle.

Most first nations women do not have access to the legal protections and tools available to other Canadian women. Women who live off the reserve can secure legal remedies, such as court orders. For women in abusive relationships, these orders are vital tools they can use to protect themselves and their children. The orders also serve as powerful deterrents to would-be abusers.

Bill S-2 would help prevent violence against women. I urge my hon. colleagues to consider the matter from the perspective of a woman who lives on a reserve with a physically abusive spouse. If they do, I fully expect they will be joining me in voting in favour of the proposed legislation.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I certainly know how important this legislation would be for women living on reserve.

I want to ask a specific question about where the protection is for children involved in these situations. Having access to the extended matrimonial home is so important.

I know that Bill S-2, in addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, would also allow the court to consider these factors to provide extended exclusive occupation and access to the family or matrimonial home, which is something that ordinarily happens for women who live off reserve.

Could the member please comment on that and how important this is?

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

Mr. Speaker, emergency protection orders are often the initial procedure in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by 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.

The federal provisional rules in Bill S-2 would enable the court to provide short- to long-term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of one of the spouses or common-law partners. 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. This provision would help ensure that spouses or common-law partners who are primarily caregivers would have access to housing for their children and or dependent adults.

The period of time that may be identified in an exclusive occupation order granted to a non-first nation individual by a judge under Bill S-2 would be defined, not open-ended. Judges may be asked to determine, as they do in similar proceedings off reserve, the appropriate duration of an exclusive occupation order.

Bill S-2 would require that the judge, in considering an application for an exclusive occupation order, take into account certain factors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is aware that we heard testimony around other issues, in particular the fact that there is a crisis in housing, a severe housing shortage on reserves, that there is no access to legal aid, that there is no funding to develop alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and that there does not appear—and this is part of what I would like the member to address—to be money attached to provide the kinds of supports that would be required to the provincial court systems because they do not have the intimate knowledge about the complex land codes that are on reserves.

I wonder if the member opposite could tell us exactly how much money would be made available to first nations communities to, first of all, implement this piece of legislation and, second, to develop their own matrimonial real property codes.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the funding would be put in place through the centre of excellence. It is approximately $4.8 million, which we discussed at committee when the member opposite was there.

This is about helping women and children. Matrimonial real property, or the family home, is the most valuable piece of property a couple on a reserve owns. Upon the breakdown of a marriage, the division of the property affects all involved: both spouses, their children, their families and, by extension, the broader community.

Bill S-2 proposes to eliminate a longstanding legislative gap that creates inequality and leaves aboriginal women vulnerable. Women, children and families living on reserve have been waiting more than 25 years for this legislation. There has been extensive consultation and a clear demand for it. If passed by Parliament, Bill S-2 would do much to protect some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nation communities.

Our government believes that family violence, wherever it occurs, should not be tolerated and that the rights of individuals and families to an equal division of the property value of the home must be protected. We know that aboriginal women and children cannot wait any longer for access to the same rights and protections that we have on this side of the House and they have on their side of the House.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to show my support for Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. I stand in favour of the bill and urge all members in the House to stand with me.

First, however, I want to say that I am appalled by the fact that the need for this legislation still exists in 2013. Everywhere else in Canada there is legal protection when a marriage or common-law relationship breaks down or a spouse or common-law partner dies except on reserves. Provincial legislation ensures that matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably, for instance, and that children and spouses are protected. But there are no similar family laws to speak of in first nations communities.

Provincial and territorial real property law cannot be applied on reserves. This ruling was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 in two landmark cases, Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson.

At the same time, the Indian Act is silent on this issue. It does not address on-reserve matrimonial interests or rights at all. This unacceptable and long-standing legislative gap means that people who live on reserves have no recourse of any kind when disputes over property or other issues arise following the breakdown of a relationship. This means that a spouse who holds the interest in an on-reserve family home can sell the home without the consent of the other spouse and keep all the money. A spouse who holds the interests in a family home can bar the other spouse from an on-reserve family home.

In cases of domestic violence and physical abuse, a court cannot order the spouse who holds the interests in the on-reserve family home to leave the home, even on a temporary basis. This situation has led to insecurity, financial hardship and homelessness for many aboriginal women and children in Canada.

I would like to bring the attention of my hon. colleagues back to Bill S-2 because at the heart of the proposed legislation is access to basic human rights and protections. Bill S-2 is about ensuring that married or common-law couples living on a reserve have access to the same rights and protections afforded to all other Canadians in case of death of a spouse or a breakup of a relationship.

The proposed legislation has been informed by many years of study, analyses, reports and significant collaborations. The groups that have contributed include the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, provinces and territories, and multiple parliamentary standing committees among others. Thanks to these contributions, the legislation now before us proposes a balanced and effective solution. Bill S-2 consists of two parts. Part 1 is an opportunity for first nations to establish their own communities' specific laws on matrimonial rights and interests, which may be based on their culture and traditions and which respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act as applicable.

Twelve months after Bill S-2 comes into force, part 2 would come into effect. This part provides provisional federal rules on matrimonial rights and interests. These rules would apply only to communities that have not enacted their own laws in this area under Bill S-2 or other legislation. The key word here is “provisional”. The federal rules would cease to apply once a first nation enacts its own laws as provided for in Bill S-2, the first nations land management act, or pursuant to a self-government agreement enacted through legislation. Bill S-2 provides matrimonial real property rights and protections after relationship breakdown including opportunities to access protection for children and their caregivers in situations of family violence. It would provide for continued access to the family home for women and their children in cases where a spouse is being violent.

The bill would also make it possible for those living on reserve to access important legal instruments, such as emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders.

To support implementation of this legislation, the government has pledged a public awareness campaign, training and education for front-line policing and justice personnel, and the establishment of a centre of excellence to assist first nations in developing their own laws that meet the needs of their communities.

I expect that everyone in the House can see that the goal of Bill S-2 is to provide men, women, children and families who live on reserves with similar rights and protections that the law affords other Canadians. The legislation now before us offers a long overdue resolution to an urgent bill. Bill S-2 is informed by the work of parliamentary standing committees and the research of independent groups, all of whom recommended legislation similar to what is now before us.

The fact remains that there are individuals and families who have no recourse when a marriage breaks down. They have no legal protection. We cannot continue to condone and accept that the rights of on-reserve residents, especially those of innocent children, are not protected, simply because of where they live. Quite simply, this bill is about ensuring that all Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve, have access to similar protections and rights when it comes to family homes, matrimonial interests, security and safety.

Shamefully, for 13 long years, the Liberals did nothing to address this issue. I am proud to say that our government is standing up for women, children and aboriginal people across Canada. We know that aboriginal women and children cannot wait any longer to access these same rights and protections. Aboriginal women, international organizations and even the Manitoba NDP have all called for this change.

Bill S-2, first and foremost, is about protecting women, men and children who live on reserve. Providing them with basic protections for matrimonial real property interests and rights is something that needs to be done and it needs to be done now. It is shameful that the members of the opposition would vote against rights to protect women and children in situations of family violence. Why do the members opposite think that aboriginal women should have less protection than they themselves have? It is time to do the honourable thing and support the proposed legislation that would do just that.

I urge my hon. colleagues to stand up for the rights for on-reserve residents and endorse Bill S-2.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House what is shameful is the fact that the Conservative government refuses to recognize first nations jurisdiction. First nations communities actually have jurisdiction over their own communities.

She mentions the fact that--

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

That is shameful. That is not right.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Unbelievable.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

The women have the same rights as you. Aboriginal women should have the same rights as you.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, she can wait for her turn to make her speech.

The colleague across the way did mention that there are first nations communities that actually have a matrimonial real property act--

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Laws are not restricted to the reserves.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health cannot keep her mouth shut at this point, so I would just say that they know full well that first nations communities can actually have jurisdictions within their own areas. Some have already proven it.

Instead, why will they not address the concerns of access to justice and dispute resolutions and remedies to address that?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to assure everyone in the House that we have an obligation to listen and to represent all of these people. We have heard witnesses and all these people at our meetings and that is exactly what we are doing. We are moving forward.

This bill would allow the first nations to enact laws regarding on-reserve matrimonial real property. This legislation is not about inherent rights and it does not define any right to self-government. Including a statement of recognition that the first nations have inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial real property would raise questions about the nature of this right, its scope and content and who holds the right. This in turn could lead to uncertainty over jurisdiction and litigation of these issues.

The government is of the view that the implementation of a right to self-government is best achieved through negotiation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to be clear that there is an obligation for the federal government to work with our first nations in developing legislation.

My question is a fairly straightforward, simple question for the member. Can the member provide to the House any indication of what first nations communities were consulted prior to the legislation being brought to the Senate? Did the government actually consult and work with our first nations leadership in coming up with the legislation we have before us?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member opposite that we are taking a leadership role in this issue. I ask the member opposite to get on board and support this important issue.

He asked with whom we were speaking. In 2006, our government initiated an extensive consultative process that included over 100 meetings in 76 sites across Canada at a cost of over $8 million to taxpayers. This helped lead us to the legislation we have here today. It is time to move forward. There is no time to sit back and not allow this to happen. As a result of these measures and on further consultation with first nations, a 12-month transition period was added before the federal provisional rules come into force.

The government recognizes that some first nations are well advanced in developing their own laws and transition periods. The transition periods would provide time to enact their laws under this legislation before the provisional federal rules take effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak to this piece of legislation today.

We have heard the members of the Conservative Party characterize this as an urgent situation. I need to point out—

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

It is.

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

The Minister of Health is continuing to heckle in the background about how it is.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I want to point out is that Bill S-2 was passed in the Senate back in December 2011. Here we are in the spring of 2013, finally debating it here in the House. If it was so urgent, first, why did the Conservatives not introduce that piece of legislation here in the House where we could have the kind of debate that is required, and second, why have they waited so long to bring it forward?

Once they decided that the House should actually debate the bill, they then invoked time allocation so that we could not have a full debate in the House. Then they moved a motion at the status of women committee limiting the time that we could call witnesses.

Contrary to what the members opposite have portrayed, what we actually heard from a number of witnesses is some very grave concerns with this piece of legislation.

First, let us recap this situation.

It was not urgent enough to bring it forward for a timely debate. It was not worth the kind of deliberation and consideration that the House should be taking because the Conservatives invoked time allocation, both in the House and at committee. They disrespectfully shut down witnesses and did not allow the opposition an opportunity to question key witnesses, such as the Native Women's Association of Canada. They are expecting us to just roll over for a piece of legislation that will not achieve what they are claiming it would achieve.

One of the things the Conservatives like to assert is that this bill is about protecting aboriginal women against violence, but I have to point out to the Minister of Health is that the bill does not talk about violence against aboriginal women. It talks about family violence, which is mentioned eight times only, and only in the context of emergency protection orders. Just because one says it is so does not make it happen.

If the government were truly serious about tackling the issues about violence against aboriginal women, it would endorse Motion No. 444, put forward by the member for Churchill, which calls upon the government to:

...develop, in collaboration, with the provinces, territories, civil society and First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and their representatives, a coordinated National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women, which would include: (a) initiatives to address socio-economic factors...; (b) policies to prevent violence against women...; (c) benchmarks for measuring progress...

and so on.

There is a whole series of very concrete steps that the government could take if it were serious about dealing with violence against aboriginal women and children, but instead, it continues to put forward the empty words that would not keep women and children safe.

I also need to point out that many people recognize that matrimonial real property is a family and a community issue and that it is absolutely something we should be tackling. The problem is that the solution that the government puts forward is, as always, going to fall far short.

In a letter we sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we outlined the concerns we have with the bill. I will read this letter into the record:

I wanted to express the profound concerns of the New Democratic Party regarding the current government's approach in dealing with the legislative gap related to matrimonial real property rights and interests on reserve.

During committee hearings on matrimonial real property (MRP) legislation currently before the House, we heard legal experts, First Nations' representatives and women's organizations speak against the current approach because they do not believe it will protect women from violence while also infringing on the collective inherent rights that women hold as members of individual First Nations.

In order to successfully address the issue of MRP, a collaborative process is necessary so that an appropriate and effective solution can be found that is supported by all stakeholders.

I would like to propose to you that we work on a new approach to MRP following all of the recommendations proposed by the Ministerial representative that would respect First Nations' jurisdiction and the principles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (to which Canada is a signatory).

To ensure full participation a key aspect of this approach is meaningful consultation on any proposed legislative solution, not just consultation on the principle or issue the legislation is intended to address.

Any MRP legislation should also be accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems, including:

Timely access to remedy;

Ending violence against Aboriginal women through a national action plan;

Addressing the housing crisis on reserves including funding for women's' shelters;

Better access to justice including increased funding to legal aid especially to remote communities;

Increased financial resources to support First Nation governments to actually implement new process; and

Access to alternative dispute resolution.

In order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, we hope that you will follow up with us on this new way forward.

There is another way that matrimonial real property could be addressed. However, sadly, what we have here is a Conservative government track record of ramming through legislation without seriously looking at the consequences.

While I have the floor, I also need to correct the record around the Manitoba NDP. We hear members talk about this consistently.

In the Manitoba Hansard of December 6, 2012, the Attorney General of Manitoba made this clear:

...we can't deny the fact there are serious concerns that have been raised by people across this country about the process by which this bill was created, the content of the bill and then the subsequent impact of this bill on First Nations....

The Conservatives fail to tell people that it was a private member's motion that was introduced by a Conservative. Of course people support the principle of matrimonial real property, but as is clearly outlined by the Attorney General in Manitoba, they have grave concerns about this particular approach to it.

One of the witnesses who came before the committee was the Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Acting Chief Commissioner posed three very important questions that I would argue the Conservative bill fails to address.

First, the acting Commissioner asked, “Will the proposed legislation provide women with fair access to justice?” The second question was “Will the proposed legislation ensure women will be able to access their rights in a safe way?” and the third was “Do first nations communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimony real property systems, and if not, what can be done to correct this problem?”

I would say that to all three of those questions, the answer would be no.

With regard to fair access to justice, the members opposite like to say that because we will make legislation, somehow or other fair access to justice will be in place. Well, we know that first nations in reserve communities have virtually no access to legal aid, and second, when it comes to getting to courts or having access to the court system, it is very difficult.

One woman from Quebec told us that when she was going to court, she had to travel in the same vehicle as the spouse she was separating from. There was no transportation to where the court system was and there was no money to provide for both parties in the dispute to go to court, so they had to travel in the same vehicle.

In terms of fair access to justice, there have to be legal remedies available, the court system has to be accessible for people, particularly in rural and remote communities, and some education and training should go into the court systems.

We have heard members opposite also talk about the centre for excellence. Let us think about it for one moment in terms of fair access to justice.

The Conservatives are saying that this centre of excellent would provide tools and resources for first nation communities who want to develop their own matrimonial real properly codes. This sounds pretty good. We would support that. However, in one year, first nation communities are not going to have access to the resources and tools they are going to need to have that code in place by the end of the year, because what has to happen is a very respectful process in order to develop that code.

The Acting Chief Commissioner's second question was “Will the proposed legislation ensure women will be able to access their rights in a safe way?”

We heard from a number of witnesses, and it was in the ministerial representative's report, that there are no non-legislative remedies attached to this piece of legislation. In terms of being able to access rights in a safe way, I want to talk about non-legislative remedies.

We understand there is a housing crisis in many communities. We also understand that in many communities, generations of families are living in one house. If a court order says one person or another will have the house, what happens to the rest of the family members who are living in that house? Where will they go if, for example, they happen to be related to the spouse who is not able to live in that house anymore? Where will people go on reserves where there are already very serious problems with housing?

The Acting Chief Commissioner's third question was “Do first nations communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems...?”

It comes as no surprise that there is no money in this legislation and that the likelihood of first nations communities being able to develop their matrimonial real property codes in a timely way is nonexistent. The NDP proposed an amendment to this legislation that the coming into force be changed from one year to three years to allow an adequate period of time for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes. If the government were serious, it would support first nations having the time and resources to develop these codes.

When the Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before committee, he referenced a tool kit for developing community-based dispute resolution processes in first nations communities. Although this tool kit is about alternative dispute resolution, it would be useful in terms of providing support and some guidelines for first nations who want to develop their own codes. As well, it was developed in conjunction with a number of first nations communities, so it has cultural relevancy and an understanding of the process in communities. The tool kit references article 34 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.

That would seem to be a very good starting point in terms of developing matrimonial real property codes.

The tool kit goes on to say that there are four stages to developing an alternative dispute resolution. They could also be used in developing matrimonial real property codes. They include “leadership, values and principles; capacity-building for development and engaging your community; developing your community's dispute resolution model; and implementation, monitoring and continuous improvement”.

The tool kit talks about the fact that developing these kinds of processes can also be an educational process within the community.

It goes on to talk about developing a regional dispute resolution process that could provide reduced costs for human and financial resources for all of the communities involved, the opportunity to begin developing a broader aboriginal human rights system and the chance to demonstrate how equality principles are being implemented in the community. With the appropriate time and resources, it is quite possible that the matrimonial real property codes that could be developed within first nations would more reflect their own customs, practices and traditions.

There are a number of problems with this legislation. I know I am not going to have time to go through every one of them, but I want to touch on a couple.

One is the whole issue around property. I sometimes wonder if the members opposite actually understand the complexities of the land codes that are facing first nations communities.

The briefing document that was provided to committee, Issue Paper No. 7, talks about how housing on reserve:

...varies among First Nations in terms of policies, rules and customs. Housing may be divided into two broad categories, including “band-owned” housing, consisting of an estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of all housing on reserve, and “individually-owned” housing. Band-owned or individually-owned housing allocations may be applied in nearly any combination to the broad range of landholdings on reserves, whether individually-held (e.g. individual with a Certificate of Possession) or communal (First Nation social housing on general band lands).

It also goes on to say:

Many First Nation families rent homes on reserves from their First Nation or from another First Nation member. The interests or rights of individuals renting on reserves are not as clear as those off reserves, nor are the regulatory powers of band councils that rent housing, because provincial tenancy statutes likely do not apply.

So here we have this very complex system of housing on reserve. To say that Bill S-2 would somehow or other allocate housing based on an off-reserve housing model simply is not going to wash.

Members opposite continuously point out that this legislation would make first nations women's lives better. As is pointed out by Issue Paper No. 10 on gender-based analysis, that may actually not be the case, and women may in fact be disadvantaged by this legislation. It says:

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, more women than men may be required to financially compensate their spouse or common-law partner for their share of the family home.

That could be a problem for many women. They may be women who work in the home and do not have access to any additional income. They may be women who are underemployed, or they may simply not have been able to put away money that would allow them to buy their family homes from their spouses.

One of the measures called for in the ministerial representative's report is access to a compensation fund that would allow men or women to buy out their spouses. None of that is included in this particular piece of legislation.

One issue pointed out in the ministerial representative's report was that first nations could be placed in a Catch-22 situation in which they would be held to the same standard as provincial governments but would not have the resources and capacity to achieve it. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses that.

There are a number of other issues I would like to cover in terms of non-legislative measures. However, I will not be able to do that in the limited time available.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give third reading to Bill S-2, 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, because it:

(a) is primarily a Bill about the division of property on reserve but the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did not focus on this primary purpose during its deliberations;

(b) fails to implement the ministerial representative recommendation for a collaborative approach to development and implementing legislation;

(c) does not recognize First Nations jurisdiction or provide the resources necessary to implement this law;

(d) fails to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the community level;

(e) does not provide access to justice, especially in remote communities;

(f) does not deal with the need for non-legislative measures to reduce violence against Aboriginal women;

(g) makes provincial court judges responsible for adjudicating land codes for which they have had no training or experience in dealing with; and

(h) does not address underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security that underlie the problems on-reserve in dividing matrimonial property.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Health.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as an aboriginal person, what I know for sure is that the NDP and the Liberals do not support equal rights for non-aboriginal and aboriginal women.

The legislation is very simple. It is about equality of non-aboriginal and aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights. The members can come up with a laundry list of all the excuses around tool kits, infrastructure and what have you. I am sure that they have gone through the process of coming up with excuses not to support something as simple as equality.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. They deserve the same rights as non-aboriginal women in Canada.

When it came to the matrimonial rights of non-aboriginal women, did the Liberals and the NDP come up with a laundry list to not support the rights they take for granted as non-aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite sad that the Minister of Health stands and asks a question like that when, instead, what the Minister of Health should be talking about are the kinds of investments the NDP for years has been calling for to actually protect aboriginal women and children on reserves.

I want to again reference the national action plan on violence against women the member for Churchill has proposed. The government has stalled any kind of inquiry on violence and on the murdered and missing aboriginal women and children in this country. The government has refused to allow the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to conduct an inquiry on violence against aboriginal women and the murdered and missing aboriginal women.

The government has failed to look for remedies in terms of access to legal aid, access to alternative dispute resolution, access to adequate housing and access to transition shelters. If the government were truly serious about equality, it would implement some of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review report. The government has no legs to stand on when it talks about equality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would provide some comment on the Government of Canada's obligation to meet with the leadership of first nations communities in developing legislation. It is not for the government, on its own, to go to the House of Commons or the Senate and say what it wants and to then impose it. There is an obligation to work with first nations to come up with legislation that makes sense and that has wide support among first nations leaders. Would she not agree with that statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous Supreme Court decisions that have reaffirmed the duty to consult, but the duty to consult does not stop at the duty to consult. It is the duty to consult and accommodate.

Government members will say that they have spoken to people. That is great, except that what they then did was disregard what they heard. The ministerial representative, who was hired by the former aboriginal affairs minister, Jim Prentice, a number of years ago, did a thorough analysis of what was required in the legislation and the process for it. The government has largely disregarded what its own ministerial representative recommended.

Then there is article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which talks about free, prior and informed consent. The government, after much pressure, became a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and then promptly disregarded its obligations under it.

The member is absolutely correct. The government has not only the duty to consult but a duty to accommodate. It also has a fiduciary responsibility such that when it puts forward legislation like this, first nations actually have the tools and resources they need to implement the legislation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the member for Miramichi, the parliamentary secretary and now the Minister of Health, both in committee and here in the House.

In terms of the legislation itself, this bill has a huge flaw, specifically concerning common-law spouses in some provinces such as Quebec and Saskatchewan, if I am not mistaken. In fact, the law is unenforceable in cases where spouses do not have access to property rights under provincial legislation. That is a serious problem. It means that this bill can hardly be described as equal or fair.

Another important point is the fact that first nations have spoken out against this bill. Perhaps we should listen to them. Furthermore, two votes were already held, when first nations representatives were here. I could quote Michel Audet, among others. We could look at the record. Two votes were called in the House to prevent these people from speaking out. All they said was that they did not have enough time and that we should wait to pass the bill.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. First, there are some serious concerns about whether provincial court judges currently have the background to deal with some of the issues related to the complex property codes. Also, the member rightly pointed out the issues related to common law status in provinces such as Quebec and its recognition by provincial governments.

What we would actually be doing is setting up a regime that would have different rules applying to different first nations across the country. There would not be any confidence that if one lived in one province, one would have access to the same property rights one would have in another province. That is certainly one problem, and it is a problem a number of witnesses identified in terms of both the current provincial court rules on matrimonial real property division and a judge's ability, currently, to interpret those complex land codes.

The second matter the member raised in her question was, of course, the whole process of how the bill came forward and how we were able to hear from witnesses. Witnesses were limited in their ability to testify. Certainly we were limited in our ability to pose questions. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do that due diligence when we have legislation before us to make sure that we understand the legislation and its implications.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually the Liberals and the NDP who are attempting to stall the protections for aboriginal women. One of the NDP's convoluted arguments is that our government did not pass the legislation fast enough. Then it complains that the government wants to get the bill through. All the while, the NDP is opposing the legislation.

The public needs to know that the NDP has complained that the government has not consulted with every single aboriginal community in Canada, when, in fact, we have spent $8 million and have consulted with 103 communities. Bill S-2 would save lives. It would help 100,000 people gain protections.

I would like the NDP to address the issue of how it can vote against this bill that would help save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case the government has failed to notice, it has been in government since 2006, and it finally introduced this bill in the Senate, back in 2011. Then it delayed bringing it forward in the House. Somehow or other, it is the New Democrats' fault, because the government failed to bring a bill forward for debate. When it finally did bring it forward for debate, it wanted to eliminate debate.

It does not actually want people to stand up and speak about it. It does not want to call witnesses and hear from them. It does not want to have the ability to question the witnesses.

Part of our job as parliamentarians is to hear from witnesses, on all sides of the House, to consider the legislation before us and talk about whether the legislation is feasible and whether it can be implemented.

The members claim that the legislation is going to save lives, yet they are not putting any resources into these communities to deal with it. What about extra policing costs? What about access to the court system? What about access to alternative dispute resolution? What about access to legal aid? What about transition shelters? Not one dime is going into those measures.

If the government is serious, I would call on it to move forward on a national action plan to address violence against aboriginal women and children. Where is its action on that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear throughout the process for Bill S-2, the Liberal Party does not question the need to address the legal gaps and other problems surrounding the family breakdown for first nations living on reserve.

However, the political rhetoric of the government members regarding this bill has been absolutely shameful. It is reprehensible for the minister to stand in the House and say “I know opposition members do not care about aboriginal women and children, but we do.”

This partisan approach, this simplistic approach is completely against what the members on this side are objecting to. This problem will only be solved in a holistic way and if it is in keeping with the advice of first nations leaders and organizations and first nations women themselves.

The truth is that this bill will not effectively deal with the problem of matrimonial breakdown on reserves and fails to provide first nations with the tools to implement appropriate measures for families to resolve disputes safely in a culturally appropriate way.

Furthermore, the assertion of the government that the bill is the answer to the disproportionate levels of domestic and other violence against aboriginal women is appalling. It is patently dishonest for the Minister for Status of Women to stand in the House and claim emergency protection orders alone will save lives.

The fact is the government's decision to move forward with this legislation, without dealing with the issues of access to justice and gaps in enforcement capacity, could actually make matters worse.

When Mr. David Langtry, acting chief commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission, testified before the Status of Women committee, he asked parliamentarians to consider three fundamental questions. First, would the proposed legislation provide women with fair access to justice? Second, would the proposed legislation ensure that women would be able to access their rights in a safe way? Third, would first nations communities have the capacity they needed to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems?

Although I would broaden the questions to include first nations men, I believe answering these three questions provides an ideal framework to analyze Bill S-2 in both its scope and effectiveness. As one reviews the limited evidence the House of Commons committee was willing to hear, experts who testified before the Senate and the many stakeholders who had provided comments outside the committee process, the answer to all three of these questions was a resounding “no”.

The government's own ministerial representative on matrimonial real property on reserve, Wendy Grant-John, noted in her report:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures such as programs to address land registry issues, mediation and other court related programs, local dispute resolution mechanisms, prevention of family violence programs, a spousal loan compensation fund and increased funding to support First Nation communities to manage their own lands.

She went on to say:

Without these kinds of supports from the federal government, matrimonial real property protections will simply not be accessible to the vast majority of First Nation people.

The Liberal Party is very concerned that the government disregarded her advice and that of first nations from across the country and brought forward legislation without these non-legislative supports.

The potential solutions under the interim rules imposed by this legislation rely heavily on access to provincial courts.

As we have heard from many witnesses, many first nations communities are in areas with limited access to courts or lawyers and provincial courts may not be financially or even physically accessible for many first nations individuals.

Michéle Audette, president, Native Women's Association of Canada, put this issue into context when she told the committee:

Canadian women find it difficult to access justice because of the high costs involved, or, in the case of those who live in remote areas, because of the long distances to be travelled.

Therefore, imagine what it is like for women in our aboriginal communities. It is even worse.

She went on to say:

—it would be difficult for a woman who lives in a remote community such as Attawapiskat or in other communities in other provinces, such as in Quebec, to find a lawyer who knows family law and the Indian Act.

The persistent underfunding of legal aid systems across Canada have left them ill-equipped to deal with current demand. It is clear that they will be unable to deal with the additional burden of the unique legal and cultural realities of property division on reserve.

Another fundamental challenge facing the provincial court systems relates to a lack of experience with and understanding of these matters.

To mitigate these issues of access and cultural sensitivity, we heard time and again about the importance of the availability to alternate dispute resolution mechanisms in first nations communities to deal with matrimonial breakdown if there was no commitment to provide funding for alternatives to the court system, which would be more cost effective and culturally appropriate.

The government does not have a comprehensive plan to deal with these realities, which will deprive first nations individuals of practical access to the legal rights the law claims to provide.

The government has tried to frame this legislation in terms of responding to violence against aboriginal women. As noted earlier, it has emphasized that this legislation provides for emergency protection orders for women living on reserve and claims this will save lives.

Unfortunately, the government's decision to move forward with legislation, without non-legislative support, maybe the opposite for many first nations women.

Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould addressed this in her testimony when she said:

—preliminary research we have uncovered shows a correlation between increased harassment and threats of violence against women who file for protection orders in instances where there are issues with their enforcement. We question the capacity and ability of such orders to be effectively enforced, particularly in remote communities with limited access to police services.

This very telling quotation must be viewed in light of the lack of funding available to first nations police forces and the fact that some first nations communities have far greater police presence than others.

While we are happy that the government is finally listening to first nations and Inuit police forces and the communities they serve by providing a longer-term funding agreement, it is clear that the government is still not providing these essential services with the resources they need to do their job.

In other communities serviced by the RCMP or other police services, there is often an inadequate police presence and the enforcement of existing laws is an ongoing challenge for these overstretched offices.

Beyond issues around adequate enforcement, the bill also fails to address the root causes of family breakdown and domestic violence, mainly the lack of housing, inadequate funding for child welfare and inadequate access to legal aid and other services for aboriginal women. For example, only 41 shelters serve more than 630 first nations communities in Canada.

Even Betty Ann Lavallée, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, told the Senate that this bill should address the issue of emergency housing for victims of domestic violence, a recommendation that the government clearly chose to ignore.

We are concerned that many first nations do not currently have the capacity to develop their own rules around matrimonial property and will be left with the provisional rules for an extended period of time. That means communities will have provisional rules that do not reflect their traditional laws, culture or reality imposed upon them without the time or the capacity to move beyond them.

The government cuts to the National Centre for First Nations Governance, tribal councils and other institutions focused on building first nations governance capacity is further undermining the ability of first nations to develop and implement such a review.

The government talks about a promised centre of excellence which would help first nations develop rules of their own, but this will not be up and running until after the passage of the bill and likely after the time frame allocated to most first nations to develop their own rules.

There will only be a 12-month window for the first nations to develop and adopt their own regulations regarding matrimonial real property on reserves, before the provisional rules are imposed.

All the testimony we heard on the issue suggested this was a completely unrealistic time frame. The legislation that brought first nations communities under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act provided a three-year transition period.

We heard from the Canadian Human Rights Commission officials that in their experience that period may not even be enough, but would be more realistic.

Officials from the first nations Lands Advisory Board had more than 10 years of experience facilitating first nations law-making for matrimonial real property rights on reserve and they made it clear that they were:

—concerned about the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the 68 first nations that are presently waiting to become signatories to the framework agreement, and the other communities across Canada.

They went on to say:

Successful enactment of these laws by framework agreement signatories has invariably been the culmination of a multi-year, community-driven, consensus-building process...

The AFN has also suggested 36 months would be a more appropriate transition period and that is the time provided in this very bill to first nations in the First Nations Land Management Act process. Given current capacity issues and the fact that the centre of excellence would take time to develop, it was clear that all first nations should have the benefit of a consistent 36-month transition period to develop their own culturally sensitive matrimonial property regime, but the government refused even that common-sense amendment.

Although general public discussions were held on first nations matrimonial real property in 2006-07, it is important to note that both AFN and NWAC, the two first nations organizations the government engaged to facilitate those meetings, oppose this bill. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and the government members to listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what they hear into the approach. The Native Women's Association of Canada and the AFN have been clear that they are not confident the legislation will resolve the problems associated with matrimonial real property on reserve and have pointed out that the current bill will fail to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time this legislation has been brought forward.

Further, given the recommendations of the government's own representatives and first nations about the need to deal with capacity and resourcing issues before, or at least in concert with, legislation, it is curious why the Conservatives decided to introduce the bill in the Senate where it was subject to increased restrictions on incorporating resources.

Since this bill was initiated in the Senate, it cannot generate any spending.

Then, despite the fact that the legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on behalf of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the bill was sent to the status of women committee to be pushed through with only two weeks of witnesses.

This legislation deals with legal and cultural issues in the first nations, for both men and women.

It was completely inappropriate to, for reasons of expediency, have the study of these complex matters done by a committee with no prior experience with aboriginal issues. The fact that the committee did not allocate reasonable time to hear from organizations with the expertise and experience to highlight some of the challenges was particularly disappointing. The AFN and the first nations Lands Advisory Board had less than 20 minutes of committee time and NWAC was allocated 8 minutes. The Conservative majority then pushed this flawed bill through the committee without accepting a single amendment. This is not the way to produce effective and well thought out legislation.

The Liberal Party will not be supporting this legislation because the government has decided to move forward in a way that not only ignores many of the fundamental issues at stake, but actually may make things worse.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of a history lesson for the member because this is a consistent position for the Liberal Party.

When Conservative Party Prime Minister Borden extended the right for women to vote in Canada in time for the 1918 election, that was a Conservative prime minister extending rights. When Prime Minister Diefenbaker extended the right to aboriginals in Canada to vote for the first time in 1960, that was a Conservative prime minister extending rights to Canadians. When this party and this government stood up to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserve and that party stood against it, that was our Conservative Prime Minister extending rights. Our Prime Minister is extending rights and protections again to aboriginal women in our country.

What is shameful is that member and that party are once again standing up against fundamental rights in our country for people who woefully and rightfully deserve them. When will she join with this party and our Conservative Prime Minister and do the right thing for women in our country?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the member does not understand the basic duty to consult and the need for free, prior and informed consent on any legislation, any policies or programs that affect first nations, Inuit and Metis people in Canada. The bill continues the paternalism of the government thinking “father knows best” and refuses to listen to what native women in Canada are saying. They do not want this bill until it can actually do the job it is intended to do.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments even though the Liberal government put a 2% funding cap that has been problematic for first nations communities with respect to their resources, but while there are obvious gender discrimination problems with MRP on reserves, Bill S-2 will not be possible to implement because of lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law, lack of funding for lawyers, lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts, lack of on-reserve housing and land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserve, no ability to enforce this legislation, particularly in very remote areas, no equipping provincial courts to deal with complexities of land codes on reserves and no dollars to assist women who have to buy out a partner if they are awarded homes.

On that note, I want to reiterate that the first nations are basically seeing this as another assimilation bill. Could my colleague comment on some of the issues that I brought forward, and whether we would see the success of the bill if it were to go forward?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that had the Kelowna accord been implemented seven years ago, the $5.1 billion would have dealt with a number of these issues, particularly around housing, education and the kinds of things that we know are a root cause of violence.

The kinds of resources that native women in Canada are asking for are really important, as the member asked about. They include shelter space, housing and mediation. Women do not have the resources to be able to buy out the partner and the bands have told us time and time again they do not have the capacity to help the woman buy out the partner. This is a piece of paper that cannot and will not work unless the resources and the root causes are dealt with.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, the time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for St. Paul's will have six minutes remaining in questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-2, 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Under Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

Questions, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was commenting to my friend across the way that the government might need a more efficient system for signing all of these orders into the House because it does it so often. It must just change the name of the bill, photocopy it, change whatever stage it is at and ram it through.

My question is very simple. We have heard from first nations groups who have said this legislation is wrong and it will not help the situation. It is not what they need.

Further to that, the government at some point in time is going to have to learn how to do sincere consultation. Consultation does not mean ramming things down throats. Consultation does not mean imposing time limits on every debate. Consultation does not mean eroding the very foundations of our democratic institutions, which is what the government is doing here today.

We have a process question. The government is invoking the power it has as a majority government to shut down debate on a bill that is opposed by the very people it would affect. The government is somehow saying Big Brother knows best. The Conservatives are just going to tell first nations how things are going to be done, as if that is going to help the situation that has been bad for so many years.

The minister has been on his feet a number of times on this very same issue. Has he better talking points today as to why his government is so perfect when it writes these bills that it does not need to listen to the opposition or to the very first nations groups upon whom it is going to impose this legislation?

[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.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I heard two members opposite say that maybe it is a bad bill. I find it interesting that they would say maybe it is a bad bill, when it would help women on reserve with emergency protection orders and also give them the same rights that I have standing here.

Critics of Bill S-2 have said that allowing courts to address interests and rights to the matrimonial home on reserve is just too complicated for judges and places too much of a burden on the individual, but these critics want to deny aboriginal women the same rights and protections that many of them take for granted themselves. The fact is that Bill S-2 would simplify the process involved in the breakdown of a marriage or common-law relationship. It would provide individuals living on reserves with access to the legal tools and protections they need.

Could the minister please explain how this bill would aid judges in enforcing matrimonial real property laws on reserves and how it would ease the so-called burden on individuals?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there is no legal protection available to couples living in first nation communities that are governed by the Indian Act. This is what we are attempting to correct here. I would argue that nothing should be considered so complicated or burdensome as to justify not extending these basic rights and protections to one segment of the population.

Throughout the country, judges already deal with the division of matrimonial property off reserve. As part of our implementation plan, we are committed to ensuring that judges will receive educational materials to help them better understand the legislation and the social context in which these matrimonial real property issues arise in first nation communities.

In closing, I would also argue that Bill S-2 does not place too much of a burden on the individual, rather it is the complete opposite.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make it seem as though they are passing legislation in support of the rights of aboriginal women, when in fact they disregard what these women have to say. They are trying to push through legislation without addressing the real, relevant, non-legal problems faced by aboriginal women and their families.

Why are the Conservatives trying to ram through this legislation, despite a great deal of testimony stating that in order to resolve matrimonial real property issues with something more than interim rules, there first needs to be a more comprehensive response by first nations leadership?

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

Mr. Speaker, you would really have to be on the other side of the House, in the New Democratic Party, to seriously contend that the bill is being rammed through, six years after its introduction in Parliament.

The member’s proposal would enable the opposition to delay, if not completely block, a fundamental initiative under which families living on reserve in Canada would have the same rights enjoyed by other Canadians.

I know that the New Democratic Party would like to see the rights of women and children on reserve remain inferior to the rights enjoyed by every other Canadian. We, however, believe that it is time to act, and that is what the motion seeks to achieve.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that we are here debating ending debate, and what we hear from the Conservatives is debate on the bill, not on ending debate.

It is yet another example of the disdain the government has for our parliamentary democracy. It is the 40th time in just over two years, that is one every seven sitting days, that we have had to end debate. We have had to shut the mouths of the parliamentarians. We heard from the Conservative backbenchers how much they liked having their mouths shut, when they complained about the fact that they could not be heard on issues that were of importance to them.

Let us look at the other abuses of parliamentary democracy that we have had in the House of Commons. We have had omnibus bills on the budget that had nothing to do with matters that were raised in the budget, that raised all kinds of other things, yet this was supposedly part of the government's plan, which was never mentioned in their plan.

Instead of a revered chamber of sober second thought, the Senate has become a place for cracks, hacks and flaks who are doing nothing to make this parliamentary democracy work for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the abuse of parliamentary democracy is the opposition. It is the opposition members using every means they can to prevent the House from adopting a bill that will give equal rights to families living on reserve. That is an abuse of democracy. That is an abuse of parliamentary democracy. The member may gesture with his head as he wishes, but I do not think that is parliamentary.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There are three minutes left in this question period, so I am going to ask members to keep their questions very short so we can accommodate all the members who have been standing since the beginning.

I will go first to the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal women, as you well know, have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. In fact, this morning at breakfast I spoke to Sophie Pierre, the Chief Commissioner for the B.C. Treaty Commission, who said that aboriginal women desperately want to see the legislation passed.

I would like the minister to please explain how time allocation will finally bring this important legislation to aboriginal women.

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

Mr. Speaker, time allocation, as I just indicated, will allow another five hours of debate at third reading. Finally, after 25 years of a matrimonial property regime in this country that excludes aboriginal women, children, husbands and common-law partners on reserve, this allocation will solve an injustice that has been taking place in this country for much too long. Hopefully, the NDP and the Liberals will wake up to the necessity of ensuring equal rights for all Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it was the Conservatives who abused their power when they appointed senators to fundraise on behalf of the Conservatives. That is an abuse of the institution of democracy.

I have a question for the minister. If he knows, could he tell us why aboriginal women and chiefs are against his bill? Does he at least know why? Why are aboriginal people opposed to his bill?

The government is trying to get the legislation passed quickly, but the reason the bill has not been passed is that the Conservatives prorogued Parliament and called elections. The bill was not defeated as the result of a democratic debate in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, true to form, the member brought absolutely nothing to the debate, except for once again making a remark that I cannot repeat because it would be unparliamentary.

One thing is certain: Parliament will be called upon to vote on an injustice that has been perpetuated for far too long. I would invite the member for Acadie—Bathurst to continue, in the tradition of the NDP, to deny the right of first nations members living on reserve to enjoy the same rights as other Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this abbreviated time for debate to raise one point.

It is not enough for Conservative members of Parliament in this place to say that aboriginal women should have the same rights that each of us have. The issue is constitutional. It is about the requirement from numerous Supreme Court decisions that decisions that affect first nation rights must have prior, full, constitutionally mandated consultation. That has not occurred and that makes me fear that the hon. minister is asking us to pass a bill that will be ruled unconstitutional later.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally wrong. There have been consultations.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #711

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. Minister for Status of Women. I hope the House will forgive me for using my laptop for my notes, but I cannot stand up and I will lose my pages if I try to.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. The bill would provide the courts with a mechanism, where there currently is none, to apply matrimonial real property laws on reserves.

What does that mean? Right now, if the conjugal relationship of a couple living on reserve breaks down, one of the spouses—it is almost always the woman, who is often accompanied by children—is left completely defenceless. The spouse can be forced from the home and there is no legal recourse to protect her if the house is sold and her spouse retains all of the proceeds. The second spouse—usually the woman, as I said—is left without any financial compensation. Financial devastation is commonly, if not always, the outcome.

The spouse has little protection through the band council and no recourse through Canadian law. As a result, these women and children are often left homeless and impoverished.

This has created an unacceptable situation with first nations communities. We live in a society where most of us take the protection of our rights and property for granted. We do not even think about it. We believe that the current situation on reserve cannot continue. The time has come for action.

Of course, the biggest criticism to this bill is not its content, the problem it solves or the solution it provides. The false accusation is that there has been insufficient consultation or debate. Just this morning, the House leader of the official opposition said this bill was being shoved down people's throats. He suggested that somehow the hours, days, weeks, months and years of extensive consultation held throughout the country with first nations leaders and countless individuals do not count as consultation. For some reason, it seems that consultation only counts if someone other than the Conservative Party passes the legislation that results from that consultation.

Consultation has been held. Extensive research has been conducted, and countless hours of parliamentary discourse and debate have been extended. This is not a case of Big Brother handing down a paternalistic non-solution. This bill is a long-overdue response to an oppressed people, perhaps the most vulnerable people in the world, after generations of abuse and abandonment of women and children who, through a technical loophole, have been left unprotected by our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To ignore this situation is nothing but shameful hypocrisy.

Let me briefly review the comprehensive and inclusive process by which Bill S-2—

Suspension of Sitting

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:32 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 11:53 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed.

Sitting Resumed

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Lethbridge has six and a half minutes to conclude his remarks.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was about to share some information about how much consultation had been conducted on this issue and how much debate had been held in the House of Commons and in the Senate.

Starting in June 2006, the government appointed a ministerial representative on matrimonial real property issues on reserves to start discussions with first nations communities to produce a report on the consultation process and ultimately to provide legislative options to address the issues.

Of course, she did not do this alone. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada collaborated in the consultation process. Dozens of meetings were held to map out the direction and priorities that would take shape during the consultation phase. We had meetings to discuss how we would conduct the meetings. It sounds like a government project.

The Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations each received $2.7 million to consult not just with leaders, but with the residents of first nations and to record their opinions on the issue. The government also made a total of $11 million available to many other first nation organizations and councils, both national and regional, to provide input into the process. These organizations included, among others, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Indigenous Bar Association, the National Association of Friendship Centres and the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence.

Following the process, the ministerial representative created a comprehensive 500-page report detailing the massive problems that resulted from the lack of proper on-reserve property rights for married couples, especially for women. The report made many recommendations, which now are held within the legislation before us.

I will skip a lot of this because I only have four minutes now, but the point is this. This is not the first time a bill like this has been created. Over the years, since 2006, the bill has been recreated and re-debated many times, with many first nations groups included and many expert witnesses. The legislation contains all the improvements, all the recommendations, that have been included in the debate and research.

This is the point. Process is important. In fact, how we do things is almost as important as what we do, but eventually something must be done.

As I said before in my speech, and it bears repeating, the plight of first nations in our country is our great hypocrisy. It is no secret, even though we do not often face it, that our country shoulders a collective shame for what was done to the first ancestors, then the grandparents and even the parents of first nations. Even though we did not kick them off their land as is often said, our forebearers did, and the posterity of those who were kicked off their lands still lives on the reserves into which they were corralled.

It does not matter much now who caused the countless problems that still plagues our first nations, but they are not only our friends now and our neighbours, they are fellow citizens and even our brothers and our sisters.

I for one will not and cannot standby to let petty politics still hold some of these downtrodden hostage. It is not enough to visit the prisoners, the prisoners must be set free. This may sound dramatic and like so much rhetoric that is often said in politics, it will be just rhetoric unless something is done. This bill must be passed to help protect the women and children in first nations communities.

We talk about this collective shame, about how people were kicked off their land and put into bondage, and we try to solve that problem. At the same time, if we let the people who were in bondage be held in bondage even further because for some reason the Charter of Rights and the Constitution does not apply to them, as I said over and over again, that is hypocrisy and our collective shame and it must stop.

Great effort has been made to include all people involved in the consultation process. This is a great solution for people. We cannot wait until everyone agrees that it will be to their political advantage to pass this law. It is for the people who are repressed.

I am proud to stand in favour of Bill S-2. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support Bill S-2 and set the prisoners free.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He did a good job of catching up despite the fact that we had to leave right in the middle of it.

He stated that it was the third time this bill has been introduced because of elections and minority governments. The fact remains that a number of associations that testified identified problems. For example, the bill does nothing to solve the resource shortage, which makes it difficult for women to access the legal aid provided for under this bill. Furthermore, Quebec’s Civil Code is different from the law elsewhere in Canada. This lack of consistency is a problem.

I would like the member to tell me why, despite three attempts, the bill still has major flaws that make it impossible for us to support it.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are differences between the Quebec Civil Code and the common law system used in the rest of Canada. However, this problem cannot be solved with a single bill, even if it has been introduced three times. This problem has been around since the beginning of Canada's history. We have tried to address the differences between the two systems, but that is not the issue here. The real problem is that women and their children are being left homeless and out in the cold. We need to focus on this problem before we deal with the one between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 long years that on-reserve residents, particularly aboriginal women, have been deprived of basic rights and protections simply because of where they live. This is unacceptable.

The aboriginal women, international associations and even the Manitoba NDP agree that the current situation must change and change now.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, is currently the fourth iteration of this bill to come before Parliament. The bill has appeared both in the House and the Senate in a number of different forms and has been the focus of extensive consultations. It addresses the issues that were raised with its predecessors, while providing aboriginal women on reserve with the same rights that other women in Canada have.

Would my colleague provide the House with information regarding the extensive consultation process that was undertaken for this bill?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague answered some of the question in posing it and I answered some of it in my speech, although I did skip over a lot of the consultation process because I wanted to focus on the results. However, the process of consultation has been included. Over 103 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across Canada with many different associations.

Furthermore, the legislation does not put an end to the ability of any of the first nations to include their own matrimonial laws, as long as they are consistent with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights of Canada.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange to hear my colleague talk about consultations. A number of consultations were held, but they were not about Bill S-2, at least not this version of it. A number of consultations may have been held in the past, but the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations openly voiced their complaints and said in committee that the government did not take into account the problems they raised with the bill.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say to these associations with regard to the government's lack of interest in their opinions and demands.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the consultations and our system of Parliament. Every time an election is called or Parliament is prorogued, we reset the clock on all legislation. However, it does not erase the consultations conducted in the past nor our ability to refer to, think about and make wise decisions based on those.

As I said in my speech, as important as this process is, ultimately something must be done. We cannot wait until every problem is resolved, while women and children wait in the cold. This bill does not stop problems that have not been addressed from being solved in the future, but it does address a problem that is long overdue from being resolved.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with the words of Betty Ann Lavallée, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. She has said that Bill S-2 is:

—addressing the real human issue of an Aboriginal person, sometimes often taken for granted by other Canadians. A spouse within an Aboriginal relationship should not be denied or put out on the street alone and without any recourse because of a family or marital breakdown.

I agree with her completely. Her words are truly informed by her knowledge of the often harsh realities of the day-to-day life faced by many women residents of first nation communities.

At the end of the day, this bill is about one very simple thing, and that is equal rights.

As members know, in 1921, women in Canada were first given the right to vote in the 1921 federal election. However, that did not mean all women in Canada. In fact, aboriginal women, covered by the Indian Act, could not vote for band councils until 1951 and could not vote in federal elections until 1960.

Today, we are seeking to eliminate another unacceptable human rights issue. Through Bill S-2, we will finally be extending the same basic rights and protections to aboriginal women that all other Canadians already enjoy. I urge the opposition to stop denying aboriginal women equal rights and vote in favour of Bill S-2.

As my colleague said already, it has been over 25 years since the Supreme Court of Canada identified this legal gap that exists today on reserve and our government would finally close it with this bill. Bill S-2 proposes an effective solution to this injustice and we are proud to be the government to bring an end to it by providing women and children on reserve with legal protection.

As Minister for Status of Women, I feel strongly that the proposed legislation will provide options to women and children living on reserve who are experiencing family violence. Wives, spouses or common law partners who are living on reserve today face the reality that in the event of separation, divorce or death, the law currently does not protect their matrimonial real property interests or rights.

This is now our government's fourth attempt to pass this legislation. Clearly, as my colleague said before me, it is time to move forward with the bill.

Bill S-2, as proposed, will guarantee the matrimonial real property rights and interests of women who live on reserve and will protect spouses from violent domestic situations.

Statistics show that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than non-aboriginal women to report being a victim of a violent crime, including spousal violence. Among victims of spousal violence, six to ten aboriginal women reported being injured. For comparison, the proportion was four in ten among non-aboriginal women.

According to the 2009 Statistics Canada “Women in Canada” report, 15% of all aboriginal women who were married or in a common law relationship had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. In that same report, the rate among non-aboriginal women was 6%.

Nearly half of all aboriginal women who experienced spousal violence reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a gun or a knife. A similar proportion reported that there were many times they feared for their lives.

This legislation is about eliminating an injustice by giving on-reserve women access to the options that are available to all other Canadian women to date. However, most important, the bill would provide emergency protection orders to aboriginal women and children who are experiencing violence in the home.

Emergency protection orders clearly save lives. They are recognized by child and family justice advocates as one, if not the most significant, means for preventing family violence.

Several witnesses before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women acknowledged the need for matrimonial real property legislation.

A member of a first nation in Ontario, Rolanda Manitowabi, described how she and her common law partner had built a home together. She invested her life savings into that home and to protect here interests, she got the band to issue her a document naming her as the owner of the property. However, when she and her partner split up, she was evicted from her home. It was at that time she found out that the document in fact had absolutely no legal foundation. Bill S-2 would change that. About the bill, she stated, “I hope it's available to help other women and children on reserves”.

Jennifer Courchene, a member of a first nation in Manitoba, also appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Jennifer and her children became homeless after her abusive partner forced them out of their home. She said, “if there had been something [like this] to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure”.

Aboriginal women on reserve who are not able to stay in the family home are forced to flee the reserve with their children, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes on their back, to a shelter or, even worse, somewhere homeless. Currently, a woman living on reserve who is a victim of violence has no legal protection other than pressing criminal charges. There is no mechanism to allow a parent and her children exclusive access to a family home.

I repeat the importance of using emergency protection orders to save lives. In the case of domestic violence and physical abuse, a court cannot order the spouse who holds the interest in the reserve home, which is almost always the male, to leave the home, even on a temporary basis. When a woman and her children are evicted from a family home on reserve, no judge currently has the power to intervene.

Extending the same rights that women off reserve have to aboriginal women living on reserve would address this dire situation. If emergency protection orders were enforced, abusers could be removed, allowing the women and children to find safety in the comfort of their own homes.

If aboriginal women were granted the ability to remain in the family home on reserve, they could escape situations of domestic violence, while the perpetrator was taken from the home, and they could stay to continue to care for their children and also maintain that vital access to the support in their own communities.

In addition to the protections provided by these orders, Bill S-2 would also provide for the granting of temporary exclusive occupation of the family home. This protection is important for two reasons. First, in situations of family violence, women could be granted temporary exclusive occupation of the home for a period of time extending past the emergency occupation.

Second, in the case of the death of a spouse or common law partner, the surviving spouse would be allowed to stay in the home for 180 days. During that time, the surviving spouse could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home for a period of time to be determined by the courts.

As my colleagues have said in the House many times, there has been a need for the bill for more than a quarter century. Our government has brought this issue before Parliament four times now, debating this issue in both chambers and in committee for more than 60 hours, and this includes more than 25 hours of debate on this particular iteration of the bill alone.

Yet after spending $8 million on 103 consultation sessions in 76 different communities across Canada, even after the Supreme Court of Canada has identified this legal gap and the United Nations Human Rights Council has identified this as a gap for aboriginal women in Canada, after countless reports and studies going back a quarter of a century, the opposition continues to propose that we need more talk. We have said clearly that we have had enough talk and it is time to act.

Some first nations have established matrimonial property rights, and I applaud them. However, similar legal regimes are not yet in place in hundreds of on-reserve communities across Canada. It is time that aboriginal women living on reserve shared the same rights as all other Canadian women.

As the Minister for Status of Women, I work very closely with my colleagues to address violence against aboriginal women, and we do this by supporting many projects that address this issue in a very comprehensive manner, the projects that build economic security and develop the leadership skills that prepare women to successfully escape violent domestic situations.

Since 2009, through the women's program, we have provided a great deal of funding in support of projects that helped to empower and protect aboriginal women and girls. For instance, the La Loche Friendship Centre Corporation is addressing violence against aboriginal women and girls living in northern Saskatchewan. With the support of community stakeholders—men, women, youth and elders—they will be able to better address violence faced by aboriginal women.

Actions taken by this government to end violence against women and girls include increasing funding to the women's program to its highest level in Canadian history. We have now funded more than 600 projects in Canada from coast to coast to coast since 2007.

We have also launched a comprehensive national action plan to combat human trafficking to ensure the safety and security of women and girls across Canada who are being targeted for sexual exploitation by violent traffickers.

We are moving ahead with Bill S-2, which would give aboriginal women equal rights and access to their matrimonial property rights and, most important, emergency protection orders to protect them in cases of domestic violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She mentioned that consultations were held. It is therefore surprising that the government then introduced a bill that does not have the unanimous support of aboriginal communities.

The Native Women's Association of Canada severely criticized the bill for a number of reasons, including the lack of funding to support first nations governments and the additional obstacles this could create for first nations members who are seeking justice. The association also criticized the 12-month transition period.

The Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women's summit also expressed a number of criticisms of this bill.

If the government really held consultations, why are members of aboriginal communities who truly understand the situation criticizing the bill? Why did the government not listen to them and why were these criticisms not taken into account when the current bill was drafted?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the proposed legislation would actually meet 30 of the 33 recommendations of the groups we work with and the ministerial representative who did a lot of the consultations across the country with aboriginal women and with a number of first nations. There are challenges with enacting a new right, if they want to look at it that way. However, that is definitely not a reason to not move forward with giving aboriginal women equal rights.

We put in place funding associated with this bill. We would provide training for all of those front-line workers, like prosecutors and others who deal with this issue, to support them. We understand the challenges of transitioning to a whole new legal framework, and we have all the means in place to ensure the training happens and those support mechanisms are in place.

Again, that is the responsible way to do this, but any challenges that face us should never be a reason not to move forward with giving aboriginal women the protection they deserve and the equal rights that all of us in Canada have and that aboriginal women are denied today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that there are numerous pieces of legislation, and this is but one of those pieces, which the government has brought in with the idea of passing through the House. On the other side, there has not been the type of consultation that has led to consensus building to try to resolve a number of issues that are there within first nations communities. It is in good part an issue of respect also, and the government has not clearly had the support of the majority of the people whom this would affect.

I wonder if the minister can provide comment. Can she incorporate Bill S-2 into this in terms of the obligation she feels to work with first nations leadership in trying to build toward consensus in bringing legislation that would ultimately pass with the support of all political entities inside the chamber, and have wider support outside the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows this is the fourth iteration of the bill and that close to $10 million has been spent on consultations in 67 different communities. I could go on, and the member knows that, but as I said, those challenges should never stop us from giving aboriginal women the protection they deserve on reserve, the same protection that all of us in this room are afforded.

The member talks about respect, and I ask him to think about the respect these women deserve from Parliament. It has been more than 25 years since the Supreme Court identified a legal gap that needs to be closed. This framework would at least be, I hope, the beginning of what needs to be addressed on reserve. It is one piece of a larger issue, but it is a piece that has to be addressed. For the member to suggest we should go on and continue to deny aboriginal women this legal protection on reserve, to me, is just unconscionable.

I agree with the member that there are some chiefs who have moved forward to give women on reserve this legal protection, and I applaud them. However, there are many chiefs who are fighting this because they do not want to share property, and that is unacceptable. I, for one, will continue to advocate to ensure aboriginal women have access to the support they need to use this legislation.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech I would like to mention that I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-2, 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 concerns matrimonial real property, which is the subject of this bill. At least there is some effort to resolve some problems, a certain form of discrimination against women that currently exists on reserves. This is the issue that Bill S-2 seeks to address. “Matrimonial real property” means lands and structures affixed to those lands. In this case, it would apply equally to couples in a conjugal relationship and those living common-law.

As has been mentioned, there is now a certain legal vacuum on reserves concerning matrimonial real property. This legal vacuum exists as a result of the current Constitution and the division of powers it provides for. The provinces and territories are responsible for property rights and civil rights in their respective territory. The federal government is constitutionally responsible for legislation regarding Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

Bill S-2 seeks to grant equal property rights to both spouses in a relationship. Regrettably, unlike what the government continues to say in the House, it is impossible to implement Bill S-2 as it stands. There are several reasons for this, and they have been repeatedly raised by various stakeholders who work either directly in aboriginal communities or closely with them.

Many members stood in the House and bragged about the large number of government consultations that took place before this document was produced. What they forget to mention is that there was no consultation on Bill S-2 specifically, on the most recently introduced version. There were a number of consultations that, in one way or another, broached the topic that we are discussing today—that of matrimonial real property—but aboriginal communities were not directly consulted on the content of the updated version of the bill. Off the top of my head, I believe this is the fourth or fifth version of a flawed bill that the Conservatives have been trying to pass in the House since 2008.

Certain groups and organizations were consulted in the past, and they were called before the committee to study Bill S-2. They raised the same concerns and issues that they had years before. Take a look at the testimony from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and it becomes clear that the problems previously brought to light were not taken into consideration by the government when it wrote this bill. I am thinking, for example, about testimony from the Assembly of First Nations.

Again today I am giving a speech within the context of another time allocation motion imposed by the government.

A number of people have complained that the government did not listen to them and did not take their opinions into consideration. The government is trying to restrict our ability as members to represent the people who want their views expressed in the House and to try, once again, to amend the bill or at least ensure that it is not passed now, without the necessary consultations.

If the proposed measures in the bill are imposed, we will completely overrule the rights of first nations communities. I feel that is disrespectful.

In addition to the work of the committee and the various stakeholders who have spoken out publicly and who appeared before the committee on this matter, a number of reports drafted over the years raise the same problems that have been raised from the outset, whether it be issues with funding to implement the measures that would be set out in a bill of this nature or issues with a lack of funding to enable aboriginal women to take advantage of any new measures that may be put in place to help them.

All of these issues have already been raised many times. Unfortunately, once again, they cannot be found in the document before us today and on which we will soon have to vote. This government is staying true to the new tradition for which it is so well known and it is doing whatever it can to restrict the right of opposition members to reflect the views of the citizens they represent.

Ever since the beginning of this debate, I have heard a number of members say that it is the opposition parties that are being undemocratic and are trying their best to limit debate. I find this absolutely ridiculous. I do not know if they have had an opportunity to listen to what they are saying or to read their speeches before they give them, but when I hear comments like these, I am appalled. Every day, I am surprised at what we can hear in the House from the party in power. It is just amazing.

Earlier I was talking about the very important problems and issues raised by the Assembly of First Nations. It has determined that three main principles are key to addressing matrimonial interests or rights on reserves.

The first of these three principles is the recognition of first nations jurisdiction. The government did not consult or even ask for their opinion or their support for Bill S-2, which is currently before us, so I find it rather odd to even think that we might be able to recognize their jurisdiction and respect their fundamental rights. In any case, when the government asks for their support or their opinion, it is not taken into consideration at all. I think this is one of the major problems we have with recognizing the first principle identified by the Assembly of First Nations.

The second principle is access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies. Here again, there is a chronic lack of funding for certain communities. I am thinking of the northern communities that are far from major centres, which will now have to appeal to the provincial courts more regularly, without necessarily having the financial resources to get there and exercise their rights.

Finally, the third principle identified is to address underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security. I am also thinking of access to safe drinking water, another major issue that the House will soon have to deal with and take concrete action to resolve.

Coming back to this principle, we see that on reserves there are still many issues that prevent the full implementation of the measures in Bill S-2. These measures would make it possible to protect women on reserves who are unfortunately experiencing family violence.

Other problems noted by the NDP prevent it from supporting this bill. First, the bill includes a one-year transitional period to allow first nation communities to enact new laws. This one-year period is too short for many communities that want to resolve a number of outstanding issues that are not being addressed here.

Quebec is a prime example of some of the problems this bill will create. According to lawyer David Schulze, Bill S-2 overlooks the specificities of Quebec. Under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not have property rights, but they would under Bill S-2. For example, a first nations member would have rights to his Innu spouse's home on the Uashat reserve, but she would have no rights to his home across the street in Sept-Îles.

Clearly the bill does not exactly resolve the problems of discrimination that the women are experiencing when it comes to matrimonial real property.

We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that their rights are respected. That is why the NDP will continue to oppose Bill S-2, which does nothing tangible to give first nations women the help they really need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her excellent speech. I wanted to ask her more or less the same question that I just asked the Minister for Status of Women, who did not provide a specific answer to my question regarding the consultations.

Many aboriginal groups, such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the national aboriginal women's summit, have been very critical of the Conservative government's consultation process and the manner in which it passes bills.

Had the government held serious and effective consultations and had it listened to and respected what aboriginal stakeholders had to say, would we still be dealing with the bill in its current form?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

In my opinion, the bill would be altogether different. Quebec Native Women is another group that opposes the current version of the bill. This group, which the government is trying to protect, clearly said:

...Bill S-2 in its current form does not meet all the concerns expressed repeatedly to the government by FAQ, particularly with respect to access to justice and capacity building of our governments and communities.

It is very clear: women who should usually feel that the government provides them with the means to stand up for themselves are telling us, their representatives, that this is not the case. Bill S-2 does not meet their needs and does not really give them access to all the legal avenues that they should have. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any measures to address the systemic violence experienced by women in their communities.

Had the government truly considered their proposals, briefs and testimony, it would have introduced a completely different and much more effective bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that many first nations across Canada are watching how this debate is evolving, there is a great deal of frustration and a sense that the government did not go out of its way whatsoever to have legitimate, genuine consultation even though court rulings have directed the government to work with first nations.

My question is related to what the member started to talk about: the idea of the government bringing in time allocation on the bill, which is adding insult to injury. Could the member provide a perspective as to how that will be received by our first nations communities?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is similar to that of my colleague from Sherbrooke and which will allow me to speak more about the lack of respect for democracy that this government shows on a daily basis.

This is even more obvious now that we are approaching the end of the session. There are two or even three time allocation motions every day. Every time, we have to fight for our right to speak, a right stemming from our mandate.

I sincerely believe that first nations communities will be very disappointed with the government's attitude, which is once again reflected in the way in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development manages his file and speaks with first nations groups.

How he manages the file is symptomatic of how this government manages all issues that affect first nations. It does not consult very much, it does not really focus on coming up with real solutions to first nations' problems and it does not even address systemic problems. I have the feeling that the communities will be very disappointed with the results of the study of today's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for sharing her time with me.

I want to begin by saying that I already know what to expect as criticism from the government in terms of our position on the bill. It is easy, because we have often heard it during question period and statements by members. The government accuses us of not giving any consideration to the rights of women on reserves.

I must admit that I think expressing that view is intellectually dishonest. The issue is much more complex than one where everything is either black or white: if you are against the bill, you are against women’s rights, and if you support the bill, you support women’s rights. This is ridiculous, and I think the members of the government are intelligent enough to understand the issue. At least I hope they are. It is a question of rights and legislation. We must therefore recognize the complexity that lies behind our opposition.

I would like to go back to the debate that we had earlier with the minister when the time allocation motion was adopted. I do not even know anymore how many time allocation motions there have been over the past few days, there have been so many. The number of gag orders and time allocation motions has been particularly high.

The minister answered one of my questions, and I heard other Conservative members reiterate the point that this is the third or fourth version of the bill, given the various versions that died on the order paper because of elections and so on.

Even though this is the third or fourth draft, what puzzles me is that the government still has not managed to strike the right note and achieve a result that reflects the consultations that were actually held. There were consultations held in the early 2000s. Things have changed a great deal since then.

A variety of reports have been tabled, and consultations were held in 2003, in 2005 and more recently in 2008. In reality, the situation is constantly changing. I think we should hold consultations on a more regular basis, especially on this bill specifically.

The government is bringing in a bill. However, according to the presentations made by the first nations during the consultations, the bill falls short of its goals. It is therefore rather difficult to see it as the result of the work that was done. The people who were consulted are telling us that it is not.

Of course, this causes huge problems. In addition, it is representative of a failure to listen and a lack of rigour by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as well as his troubling incompetence in this issue, as in so many others. We are aware of the major problems faced by first nations communities.

I would now like to come back to the issue of complexity. Frankly, I must say that I am offended, just as my colleagues must be, to be told every day, by a government that does absolutely nothing for women that we are opposed to women’s rights just because we are opposed to the bill. I have to say it, especially in this very complicated context.

We in the NDP are very proud of the record number of women sitting in the House. Our caucus is made up of women who are very dynamic and very aware of the issues. Ever since I have been involved with this party, I have had the pleasure of learning a great deal about these issues.

The idea is that the bill proposes changes that will fill the legal void in the area of matrimonial rights. We need only look at the provincial civil codes and the federal government's responsibility to the first nations to appreciate this void.

For example, an aboriginal couple who are going through a divorce will not be able to properly deal with the situation or manage it from a legal standpoint. By introducing this bill, the government is making it look like it is doing something to address the problem but, at the end of the day, the bill is nothing but a talking point for press conferences, and does almost nothing concrete to help women in difficulty.

To begin with, there is no funding attached to the changes proposed in the bill, despite the fact that funding would give these people access to the legal resources they need to benefit from the changes proposed in the bill.

If the court is located too far from a reserve, it creates an additional financial burden. People who are unable to get assistance from a lawyer, or some form of legal aid, will need money to make the trip. They will need access to resources, and the bill does nothing in that regard. That is the first problem.

The other problem, which was raised on a number of occasions, pertains to determining the symptoms of the problem. In theory, the bill changes the act. However, in addition to the lack of resources, combatting violence against women is outside intended scope of the bill.

First nations communities are experiencing poverty and shameful third world conditions. Obviously, we need to start somewhere, which is probably the intent of this bill. However, since it does nothing to achieve concrete results, provide adequate resources, or address related problems, it is difficult for us to support it.

We must not forget that the communities themselves appeared before the committee and made this observation. The Native Women's Association of Canada stressed that the problems I just listed are not going to go away and that, in certain cases, they may get worse. This bill is a way for the government to say that it has addressed the problem and that it has taken action. The government will, in all likelihood, use the bill as a pretext for taking no further action when, in fact, we know full well that there is still a great deal of work to be done, work that this government, unfortunately, does not seem prepared to do.

I would like to address another issue that I have already raised a number of times today in the House. It concerns the lack of resources and what the bill claims, in theory, to do. A number of aboriginal communities in Quebec have an important place in the Quebec nation. We are trying to work with them, and maintain a good relationship with them.

However, the Quebec Civil Code is very different from the common law system used in the other provinces. Lawyers testified in committee, and elsewhere, that the bill does not take this difference into account. In the provinces, especially in Quebec where the differences are substantial, procedures and rules already exist. The bill is a way of imposing the Conservative government's vision, and it does not take into consideration all of the issues I have mentioned. This creates a multitude of problems, and is a demonstration of bad faith.

I would like to conclude on this point. I talked about the minister's incompetence in this file. This is a common problem with this government, which has very fractious relationships with the provinces. Indeed, the Prime Minister never meets with the provincial premiers to talk about such issues as the economy.

However, this government has adopted the same attitude in its dealings with first nations. It does little things here and there so it can boast about it in front of the cameras, yet, according to testimony and what we see on the ground, these measures actually lead to very few concrete changes. My colleagues whose ridings include reserves are in a better position to testify to this than I am.

The government then has the nerve to show contempt for the people who organize to protest this paternalistic attitude. Take for example the minister's recent comments, which I will not repeat because of his unparliamentary language. His general approach and the way he treated some of my colleagues on the committee, including the member for Churchill, when discussing this issue show a certain contempt that does nothing to encourage good relations with communities that have gone through very difficult situations. The government should be bending over backwards to work better with them, but instead it is content to engage in public relations.

This is really unfortunate. There are too many problems in this bill for us to support it. We want to see more tangible, meaningful action. The government must recognize that this issue is much more complex. We want the Conservatives to stop insulting us by saying that we do not respect women's rights. This is utterly false.

This is why we oppose this bill.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is, first and foremost, about protecting women, men and children who live on reserve. Providing them with basic protections for matrimonial real property interests and rights is something that needs to be done now.

They can spin this any way they want, but the fact is that women on reserve need to have the same rights that he has, that his colleagues have and that I have. It is shameful that the members of the opposition would vote against rights to protect women and children in situations of family violence.

Why does the member think that aboriginal women should have less protection than his colleagues and we on this side of the House have?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I was expecting these sorts of comments, which we have been hearing since this debate began.

We all agree on this issue. The government and the opposition parties agree that something must be done to improve the lives of aboriginal women. I find it reprehensible that the government is saying that we do not believe in women's rights simply because we want to have a debate on the complexities of changing the law. That kind of comment is completely unacceptable.

To respond to my colleague's question—for which I thank her—and to reiterate what I said in my speech, it is all well and good to change the law in theory, but the fact of the matter is that the resources are not there to allow women to benefit from these changes. It takes resources to hire a lawyer, use legal aid, go to court and make the legal challenges required to benefit from these laws—resources that these communities do not have.

That is what we heard from witnesses. It is not coming from me. That is what people from the communities and the members who represent them told us. We also heard it from the various associations that testified in committee and in public forums. That is why we have no qualms about opposing this bill.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather disarming to see my colleague take the time to explain at length how unacceptable it is to be accused of not supporting women's rights because we disagree with the approach to this bill and the lack of resources to go with it. It is a bit like the regiments needing tanks and the government buying them minivans instead. We would vote against that because we would be buying minivans for soldiers who need tanks. The Conservatives would tell us that we are against the army. This tactic has gone so far and it is so low that I am sure that historians will look back on this in 10 or 15 years and remark how harmful this was to democratic debate.

I would like my young colleague to elaborate because he is a fine example of the future of democracy and parliamentary work in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He described the problem perfectly. We have asked questions in the House on other issues affecting aboriginal communities and the answer we got from the various ministers concerned was that we did not respect women. That is nothing but rhetoric and demagoguery.

Based on the consultations we held and the testimony we heard from the people affected by the changes, we see that there are problems with the bill. We therefore come to the House to tell the government that the bill does not go far enough. We want to achieve the same objective that the government says it wants to achieve, except that we know that this bill will not help us do that. We want to propose better measures that will truly make life better for aboriginal women. This government has some nerve telling us that we are against women's rights, especially aboriginal women's rights.

We have seen this government's inaction and the contempt this minister has for the communities he is supposed to represent. We have no lessons to learn from this government.

I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

As an aboriginal woman, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about the importance of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

The basic principle behind the legislation is very simple. It is about the equality of non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights. It is about access to the same basic legal protection for those living on and off reserve. Everywhere else in Canada there is a legal protection when a marriage or common law relationship breaks down or a spouse or a common law partner dies, except on reserves. Provincial legislation ensures that matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably, for instance, and that children and spouses are protected, but there are no similar family laws to speak of in first nation communities.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a long time. It is simply appalling that this legislative gap still exists in Canada in 2013. They deserve to have the same rights as non-aboriginal people in Canada. Our government believes that Canadians should not be denied access to basic rights and protection simply because of where they live.

That is why our government is responding to the call of aboriginal women. Parliamentary committees, international bodies, even the Manitoba NDP, have called for urgent action to finally eliminate the long-standing legislative gaps that have caused much pain and indignity. As hon. members of the House must recognize, Bill S-2 does not simply speak to the principles of fairness, equality and respect. It will also have a direct and positive impact on people's day-to-day lives during a family crisis.

Bill S-2 would protect the right of married or common law couples living on reserve in the event of the breakup of their relationship or a death. It would provide an equitable division of matrimonial real property assets, and in the case of violent and abusive relationships, it would protect the spouse and children by authorizing the court to grant an individual spouse exclusive occupation of the family home. Until an appropriate matrimonial rights and interests law is in place, spouses or common law partners living on most reserves in Canada will have no legal protection and rights in the event of separation, a divorce, death or domestic violence.

In our great country, it is outrageous that there are still individuals, mostly women, who do not have the legal means to defend themselves in situations of spousal violence and who have limited rights when it comes to protecting their matrimonial real property and interests in the event of a marital breakdown.

As parliamentarians, we cannot and must not allow this state of affairs to continue any longer. Now is the time to act, because innocent women and children have suffered long enough and because we do not want this legislative gap to claim any more victims. Every day that goes by leaves thousands of aboriginal men, women and children across our country vulnerable and without the same protection as anyone else in the House takes for granted.

More than 25 years have passed since the 1986 landmark ruling in two cases: Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provincial family law cannot be applied to homes and real estate on reserves. It is shameful that the opposition does not share this same sense of urgency in supporting legislation that would give these same rights and protections to aboriginal women and children who might otherwise be left homeless and poverty-stricken.

Consider that in a first nations community, when a marriage or a common-law relationship breaks down and an individual, usually a woman who is often accompanied by children, is forced from the home, she has no legal recourse. If the house is sold and the spouse retains all the proceeds, no court can help her.

Jennifer Courchene, a first nations woman, is one of those women who have suffered as a result of this legislative gap. She was evicted, with her children, from the family home by her husband. She told the standing committee on status of women that a judge wanted to help but his hands were tied. She lost the family home. Jennifer and her children needed, and rightly deserved, legal protection similar to what the law affords women who live off reserve.

Bill S-2 is designed to ensure that Canadians who live on reserve have similar matrimonial rights and protections to those who live off reserve. It would promote the safety of children and caregivers who experience family violence. It would give these women the same legal tools that help other Canadian women prevent and combat abuse and violence from spouses or common-law partners. Along with matrimonial real property rights, the bill would ensure continued access to the family home for women and their children after a marital breakup. Legal instruments, such as emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders, would also be available.

Parliament has spent ample time reviewing, amending and debating Bill S-2 and its previous legislation. The time for study and delay has passed. Now is the time to act.

The fact is that no one disputes the need for this legislation or criticizes the bill for what it does, which is finally filling a legislative gap that has existed for more than 25 years. It would provide individuals living on reserves with the same basic rights and protections as all other Canadians, yet instead of getting behind this bill, the opposition continues to oppose equality for all Canadian women, whether they be aboriginal or non-aboriginal. It continues to oppose the bill.

I would respectfully urge the members opposite to recognize the urgency of this situation, and to vote in support of this bill and for extending basic equal rights to thousands and thousands of aboriginal women, men and children.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed with the Minister of Health's attitude while my colleague from Chambly—Borduas and others were speaking.

The various disparaging remarks make me wonder if she really understands our overall position. I would like to know if she took that same attitude with the communities and the aboriginal women who wrote to the government and who appeared before the committee to say that this bill does not meet their needs and that it does not take into account the discrimination faced by the women in these communities.

I want to know if she was that closed-minded towards the women who are calling on the government to truly help them.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, a great day in history in Canada was in 1921, when Canadian women were able to vote in federal elections. Unfortunately, that did not apply to aboriginal people. In 1960, under a Conservative government, the Prime Minister introduced the legislation that would allow all aboriginal people to be able to vote.

I find it very hard to believe that today I stand in this House as an aboriginal person debating the rights of aboriginal women and non-aboriginal women. I find it absolutely shocking to be debating this issue with a fellow woman. We need to pass this legislation and address the gap between non-aboriginal women and aboriginal women when it comes to matrimonial rights and property.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not question that this is, indeed, an important issue. Having said that, I would have loved the opportunity to ask the minister a wide variety of questions on health care, given that she is the Minister of Health.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

By all means.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is a tough one to resist, but I will.

The issue before us is one in which the government has brought forward pieces of legislation that ultimately have a significant impact on first nations. We have seen court rulings that have indicated that there is an obligation for the government to work with our first nations in trying to build consensus. Could the member provide assurances to the House that a majority of first nations are supporting the initiative that the government is now proposing?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier in my comments, this bill is very simple. It would make matrimonial law applicable to aboriginal people as it is to non-aboriginal people.

Members can cloud the issue with all the excuses they want, whether it be infrastructure or not enough resources here and there. They can cloud the issue with all kinds of excuses, but the fact of the matter is that this is about aboriginal women having the same matrimonial rights as non-aboriginal women. I urge NDP members, their leader, and Liberal Party members to vote in support of addressing the gap between aboriginal women and non-aboriginal Canadians on the issue of matrimonial rights.

The bill is very simple. Opposition members need to stop coming up with excuses for why they cannot support the rights of aboriginal women and support this legislation immediately.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to speak in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

The legislation before us has been crafted to meet the specific challenges presented by the fact that over two decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that provincial or territorial matrimonial real property does not apply to first nations reserve lands.

I feel particularly proud as a member of both the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. That is the committee that was fortunate enough to hear about this bill in detail and to hear from some of the victims and those people who supported the bill. We also heard from those in opposition to the bill. I want to address some of those comments, which I am hearing today from the opposition as well.

I find it shameful that there are people in this House who would not vote for this bill. It addresses a long-standing legislative gap with regard to matrimonial property rights. As the Minister of Health just stated, this is long overdue.

I want to talk about a mechanism in the bill that would provide for courts of law to apply matrimonial real property laws on reserve where there are none.

Specifically, I want to talk about the fact that first nations could develop their own laws if they so wish. They could do that while meeting the specific needs of their communities. First nations could determine the content themselves with the help of their councils and leadership. What they would need to do is earn the majority support among eligible members in a public vote. This process is public and out in the open. That is a very important provision in the bill.

Another important provision is the 12-month transition period that was added in direct response to a request from first nations to have it built in. We know that many first nations are quite advanced in developing their own laws, so this allows them a 12-month period to do so before the provisional federal rules would take place. If that is the case, 12 months after Bill S-2 comes into force, the provisional federal rules would come into effect so that those communities that had yet to enact a law of their own under Bill S-2 or some other legislation such as the First Nations Land Management Act would also have a law on this subject. All first nations citizens would have access to the same protections and rights as I and other Canadians have, regardless of where they live in Canada. This is the right thing for us to do.

It is important to recognize that Bill S-2 would not require first nations to enact laws that are identical to the federal rules. To do so would essentially defeat much of the collaborative work that has gone into the proposed legislation, which is years of analysis, consultation and engagement.

Through these collaborative efforts, a clear consensus emerged that first nations must be able to develop their own laws on the issue if they so wish. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this provision. First nations could enact laws tailored to their needs and cultural traditions. As an example of how a first nation could personalize the law, it could grant a role to a council of elders to resolve disputes.

In the case where a first nation does not pass its own laws related to matrimonial real property, the bill would provide for the application of provisional federal rules. That would be fine too. First and foremost, these federal rules are designed to protect individuals who have far too often been victimized by the lack of relevant law, particularly women and children. The federal rules would provide spouses or common-law partners with an equal entitlement to occupy the family home. Should the relationship end, each spouse or partner would be entitled to equal shares of the value of all matrimonial interests and rights, including the family home.The rules would also ensure that the family home could not be sold or remortgaged without the consent of both spouses or partners.

These provisions would prevent a scenario that has become all too common in recent years: one partner or spouse sells the family home and keeps the proceeds, leaving the other partner or spouse impoverished and homeless.

We heard this situation time and again in the status of women committee. It was heartbreaking to hear these women. Their lives will never be the same. Some of them are still paying their fair share of this family home that they have been thrown out of by their former partners. It is shocking. It really is.

I want to talk about two other provisions in the bill that would do much to protect family members when there is violence as well.

The first involves emergency protection orders. We have heard the Minister for Status of Women talk about these provisions often, because she knows how effective they would be in dealing with this issue. Specifically, the order would be issued by a court and would be enforceable by police or peace officers. It would exclude a spouse or common-law partner from the family home for up to 90 days, with the possibility of an extension if necessary. The orders would be made in urgent situations when violence has occurred or is imminent.

A second and similar instrument would be the exclusive occupation order, also in the bill. This would again be fully a enforceable court order that excludes a spouse or partner from the family home for a specified term.

In both cases, the excluded spouse or common-law partner would be able to contest the order in court.

Also, the federal rules proposed in Bill S-2 would address the often difficult issue of who can occupy the family home after a spouse or common-law partner passes away. As unfair as it seems, there have been cases in which a widower has been forced out of the home upon the death of his wife. Therefore, under this proposed federal regime, the surviving spouse or common-law partner could remain in the home for at least 180 days.

The government believes that what has been proposed would also balance individual rights and interests with collective rights of first nations. Bill S-2 stipulates that a first nation would have the right to make representation to the court on its collective rights on its reserve land as well as on any relevant cultural, social or legal matters not relevant to a case heard under the federal rules. This provision would not apply, however, in cases involving emergency or confidentiality orders, which I believe is entirely appropriate, given that emergency orders can sometimes involve life-threatening situations.

I believe that there is built into this bill respect for the collective rights of first nations. For example, non-members would not be allowed to acquire permanent interests in reserve land, nor would they be able to benefit from the value or appreciation of that land.

There would be one exception, which is that if a non-member has contributed to the improvement of the land that he or she held together with a former spouse, that person may be entitled to some compensation. That entitlement would apply only to improvements, not to the original value of the land.

Finally, this is the fourth version of a bill that has come before Parliament on this issue. Bill S-2 includes amendments, making the previous bills even better, and of course extensive consultation took place.

I echo the words of the Minister of Health when I say that it is time to stop debating this issue and time to take action. It is time to pass this bill.

The legislative gap has hurt families and entire communities, and there have been individuals on first nations for more than 25 years without the same rights that I and other members enjoy. Let us stop the pain and suffering caused by this legislative gap. This pain and suffering can often lead to homelessness and poverty. Again, this measure is long overdue. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in supporting this legislation, Bill S-2.

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

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

After boasting that this is the fourth version of the bill, and that it has been improved, she ended her speech by saying that it is time to stop debating this bill.

If this is the fourth time that this bill has been improved, it must not have been very good to begin with, and additional improvements may be needed.

The Conservatives say that they consulted extensively. However, I do not think that they listened to people. I do not believe that they used these consultations to improve the bill enough. A number of aboriginal groups still do not support it because it does not really apply to their situation.

I am wondering how the member can say that this is the fourth time they have introduced this bill, that they have continually improved it and that they now have to hurry up, stop the debate and pass it as quickly as possible. This approach does not make much sense to me.

Can my colleague explain her position? I do not understand it.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think 20 or 25 years to debate an issue like this one, which would grant aboriginal women the same rights that I and the member opposite have and take for granted, is too long.

That said, there has been a lot of consultation on the bill. I could tell members about the consultation that began in 2005 and consisted of four phases, including national consultation, consensus-building and engagement on draft legislation. Organizations were provided with over $8 million in total to conduct these consultations, but more important, I think, is that many people on reserve—many first nations leaders and many aboriginal men and women—support the legislation. I will tell members more about them if I get a chance to answer the next question.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific technical question for the member.

Bill S-2 seeks to extend matrimonial real property rights and interests and access to emergency protection orders and occupation orders to individuals living on reserve.

While some have called the bill paternalistic, it would provide first nations with the ability to enact legislation on the topic of matrimonial real property rights that could be legally upheld in court.

Would you please provide us with more information about how Bill S-2 would enable first nations to enact their own laws on the topic of on-reserve matrimonial property rights?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I will not provide that to the hon. member, but perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South would.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have talked about this and I know how much the member cares about the issue and wants it to be resolved. I am so pleased that he will be supporting the bill.

I want to thank him for that question because I want to say that this is about respect. It is respect for first nations to be able to develop their own laws on this subject.

However, it also means that this government, through this bill, is respecting cultural differences and respecting any social traditions or cultural traditions that first nations want to incorporate into their own legislation. It does that as well. It is because we recognize that there is diversity among first nations that we would have this 12-month transition period, for example, so that they can do exactly that and implement the best law for their own communities.

However, I mainly want to tell the member about Rolanda Manitowabi, who came to the status of women committee and said:

...my son and I were thrown out of the house. I had no place to go. I was in a crisis. ... This legislation would have helped...and it would have considered the impacts on my son. I hope it's available to help other women and children on reserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, the incomparable and the irreplaceable member for Nickel Belt. He will have half of my speaking time.

Bill S-2 comes from the Senate, hence the “S” before the bill number. This means that the process was started in the Senate. I will not be spending too much time talking about the Senate and whether or not it has a role to play here. I think everybody already knows the NDP's position on this issue.

I think that it is the elected officials in the House of Commons who should put forward bills as often as possible. This bill has already appeared in other forms in previous Parliaments. The Senate took it up again, probably at the request of the government, for reasons that I have not yet figured out. In my view, it is the right of elected officials to introduce bills.

Unfortunately, there is an additional process. We always have to send our bills to the Senate, which spends thousands—if not millions—of dollars to do just about the same job as we do here, that is, to study bills.

Frequently, the other chamber hears the same witnesses and conducts the same studies as we do. I will not elaborate much on this, because I know it is not the point today. However, I would simply like to point out that every time we consider a bill that starts with the letter “S”, it means that it was introduced in the Senate.

As I was saying earlier, this is the fourth version of a piece of legislation that the Conservatives have been trying to get through Parliament since 2008. The NDP has opposed each one of these bills when they have come up for debate. This is nothing new.

The Conservatives are showing their ideological blindness. They seem to hide behind their ideology and they do not seem to understand common sense, the truth or the arguments that we put forward. They seem to be caught in their own ideology and cannot get out of it, unfortunately, even though we try to make them see reason with our speeches.

Today, the point of my speech is to show the government the many flaws in the bill and help the government understand why parliamentarians should not vote in favour of the bill in its current form.

A number of people have already spoken about the bill, primarily in committee or here in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, these are essentially the same people who go to the Senate to present their point of view.

Opinion on the bill is far from unanimous. It seems that the objective of the bill is a good and laudable one. All members in the House are in favour of equal rights for women, whether they live on reserves or elsewhere. No one opposes that laudable objective. However, since the present bill is flawed, it will improve the situation only slightly, if at all. That is why a number of people, a number of experts who live in these aboriginal communities every day, made presentations and came out against the bill.

When the government wants to propose legislation and make decisions, it absolutely has to initiate negotiations or hold consultations. The government did hold a few consultations regarding earlier bills, but unfortunately, no consultations were held regarding Bill S-2, which we are discussing today, although it is very similar to the earlier bills.

In spite of all the consultations, it seems that the testimony of the people who expressed their views has not been taken into consideration. In committee, they said the bill had problems and they therefore could not support it. I will come back to the more specific positions taken by certain witnesses later.

Another somewhat more technical thing caught my attention. In this version, the bill concerning first nations matrimonial real property has a lower ratification threshold. In the previous bills that tried to do the same thing as Bill S-2, a majority of band members had to vote for the law, that is, 50% plus one. In the present version, Bill S-2, the law must be approved by a simple majority of those who voted, with a participation rate of at least 25% of eligible voters. This is a slight change and is relatively difficult to find, but it is rather important. The ratification threshold has been lowered from 50% to 25%. That is really quite surprising. Is it because the Conservatives are afraid of the results? Are they afraid of what the first nations will be deciding in their own democratic bodies? I offer that as a possibility.

There are other reasons why the NDP opposes this bill. In fact, all of the leading first nations organizations, whose members will be affected by this bill, do not support it because they do not think it will succeed in protecting women against violence. It also infringes on the inherent rights of female first nations members. I am not the one saying that; first nations organizations are saying it.

Those organizations oppose this bill for several reasons. We could mention the lack of financial resources to help first nations governments implement the law or the lack of funding for lawyers or to take into account limited access to provincial courts, for geographic reasons. That is an important point, because aboriginal communities are often in remote areas and what the bill is trying to do is not as simple as the government might think. Sometimes, it seems to be a simplistic solution to a much more complex problem, particularly for aboriginal communities in very remote areas.

We could also talk about the lack of housing on the reserves and the lack of the land that would be needed to provide both spouses with separate houses on the reserves. We could talk about the lack of capacity to implement the law, particularly in remote areas, as I was saying. We can also see the lack of provincial courts that are capable of managing the complexity of the reserves’ land codes and the lack of funding to help women who have to buy their shares back from their partners when they are given access to the house. There is also the lack of resources for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the lack of extra housing on the reserves.

I have listed several reasons why first nations organizations have criticized Bill S-2. They are also reasons why we, as a party and as the official opposition in the House of Commons, have to oppose this bill.

Once again, the Conservatives are taking a paternalistic, confrontational approach to impose their legislative agenda. That is why the NDP will not support any bill concerning matrimonial real property unless it is accompanied by non-legislative measures to solve these serious problems. What needs to be done includes providing speedy access to remedies; ending violence against aboriginal women by developing a national action plan; managing the housing crisis on reserves and funding shelters for women; providing better access to justice, including increased funding for legal aid; increasing financial resources to help first nations governments enforce the law; and providing better access to alternative dispute resolution methods.

These are all reasons why we cannot support this bill. Legislation alone is not what is needed; measures that go beyond legislation, meaningful measures to help all first nations with their everyday reality, are also called for.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the national aboriginal women’s summit are all organizations that have very strongly criticized the bill brought in by this Conservative government, which is congratulating itself today on listening to the first nations when we can clearly see that the responses show the opposite to be true.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently all morning, and now into the afternoon, to members across the way regarding this bill. For years, there have been a number of iterations of the bill. It has been in the public domain and throughout the aboriginal community. There have been 103 consultation sessions in 76 different locations, but members across the way constantly say that we have not listened with regard the bill. I do not understand how they could sit through 15 hours of committee with witnesses clearly saying that the legislation would have saved them their home, from being out on the street with their kids. They continually rationalize why they will vote against it.

Those members keep trying to say that, yes, they are for aboriginal women's rights, but that there are all these technicalities, yet they offered no amendments at all at committee.

Those members need to come clean with the real reason or get onside. Do the right thing and support the legislation so women on reserve can have the same rights as the rest of the women in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Perhaps he misunderstood what I said. I stated that the government had indeed held consultations and that I gave it due credit. However, if it had conducted them properly and then understood what was said during those consultations, the bill would never have taken its current form. Aboriginal groups are criticizing the current bill.

Even though the Conservatives held consultations, they did not listen to what was said in these consultations. We listened. We listened to what the groups said, and that is why we are taking this stand today.

In fact, the bill is well intentioned. I am for equal rights for all women in the country, no matter where they are. However, in reality, the current bill does not address this concern properly.

The NDP proposed four amendments in committee to try to improve this situation. Regrettably, the Conservatives refused to listen. Much as the NDP wanted to change the bill for the better and maybe then support it, the Conservatives did not listen. The government consistently opposes anything that comes from the opposition parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke who, with calm strength, gave a great speech.

The member opposite spoke about witnesses in committee. I would like the member for Sherbrooke to comment on this short quote from a specific witness, namely David Langtry, the acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He said:

Although the measure is meant to be temporary [of course], many first nations lack the financial and human resources to develop effective dispute resolution systems. This is part of a larger issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

During my speech, I did not have time to get to this very important point. This legislative measure will take effect in 12 months. Through an amendment, which was rejected, we tried to change this time period to three years in order to allow first nations to have their own measures in their respective bands and decide for themselves how to proceed.

Unfortunately, most of the witnesses said that these places did not have any resources to implement internal measures within the various bands in order to improve the situation.

In my opinion, this is inconsistent with our current laws, which call for consultation first and for aboriginal reserves to be masters of their own laws. Bill S-2 would come into effect on all the reserves after one year, and they will not have made any decisions on their own internal measures.

There are serious constitutional problems, according to one of the witnesses that the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi alluded to.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill S-2, 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.

My party is opposed to Bill S-2, now at third reading stage. I will give context to the bill, my debate and my contribution.

There are four first nations communities in my riding.

The first one, Nipissing First Nation, is situated between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay along Highway 17 east, and the chief is Marianna Couchie. I specifically will be quoting Chief Couchie later on in my speech because she is the only female chief in my riding. Members will find what she has to say about Bill S-2 very interesting.

The Nipissing First Nation is a good and very modern reserve. There are a lot of small businesses and some very nice land situated along Lake Nipissing. It is a very progressive first nation.

Another first nation community is the Wahnapitae First Nation, and the chief is Ted Roque. It is situated along Lake Wahnapitae in the riding of Nickel Belt. It works very closely with the mining companies on its land or close to it. It does the water monitoring for the mining companies. The first nation hires some of its own people to do the work, to monitor the water in its reserve or close to it.

The third first nation community in my riding is the Whitefish Lake First Nation, located in Naughton, on Highway 17 west. The chief of that first nation is Steve Miller. Again, it is a very progressive first nation. It is building homes, a subdivision, with the help of Mike Holmes, the famous builder we see on television regularly building energy-efficient homes.

The last first nation community in my riding is the Mattagami First Nation and it is situated on Highway 144 west, next to Gogama. Its chief is Walter Naveau. The Mattagami First Nation is also very progressive and it has an agreement with a mining company, IAMGOLD, which is developing an open pit on its traditional land. The first nation has signed an agreement with this company, which is probably one of the best agreements signed with first nations and a mining company. The Mattagami First Nation will be helping with the development of this open pit.

With respect to this legislation, I will read what Chief Couchie from Nipissing First Nation had to say. She emailed me some information about matrimonial homes last night. She said:

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.

That means that if the mother is a non-native and the father is native, the mother, if she so wishes, can raise the kids in the family home. Chief Couchie continued:

Implicit in the 2nd matter is that if this is a marriage of a Status man and a non Status women. It the non-Status women is going to raise the child or children then she has the right to live in the matrimony home. This woman can never gain control of the land of the house, both have to be transferred in the name of the child or children).

Chief Couchie concluded:

I do, and others at the Nation, worry that the Bill is just another tactic to take our land; our Homeland!

This current government is trying in every way it can to under mine our Treaty and Inherent Rights.

The Conservative government still views First Nation peoples as “a problem”.

The Fundamental question is when will the government stop undermining our Rights and start to recognize that we have rights enshrined in Laws and Treaties. They should just change their plans and leave our lands and Rights alone.

It would be even better if the government entered in to a truly respectful dialogue.

With respect to this legislation and how the Conservative government treats first nations, I have said it before and I will say it again. We, as a country, need to get this relationship right. Until we do, we cannot move forward in any meaningful way as a country. The Conservative government's failure to consult and to recognize treaties and rights continues to be the stumbling block to progress.

As important as apologies are for wrong past behaviour, there is no real walking the walk with the Conservative government on these matters. Despite several good reports, consultations and previous legislation, the government fails to listen here.

The federal Conservatives went to the trouble of consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada on matrimonial real property, but ignored the results of the consultation when preparing the original legislation. While this iteration of the bill removes some of the most onerous parts of previous legislation attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent rights and jurisdiction in this matter.

The opposition to this legislation should give the government pause to consider moving forward. There is opposition from the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. There is opposition from many nations across the country.

Listen to Ms. Jennifer Courchene, in testimony to Parliament on April 30, 2013:

I'm not sure about the politics of this legislation, this bill. I just know that there should be something in place to help. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gone through this in a first nation community. There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home. I'm not sure how other first nations communities are run, but if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.

This legislation and the recent budget would not provide any of the necessary resources to take care of the fundamental problem. Bill S-2 is the fourth version of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008. The NDP has opposed these every time they came up for debate.

There are fundamental principles that need to be adhered to in addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. Unfortunately, I will not have time to name all of these concerns from the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Speaker, because you have given me the one minute signal, so I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech today, as difficult as it is for me to appreciate.

Notwithstanding the fact that the four reserves in his riding that he mentioned are progressive communities, there are hundreds of first nations communities in isolated and remote regions of Canada and many in northern Ontario that do not have access to some of the economic development that his communities have. By way of extension, we run into some very serious problems as they relate to MRP, two of them.

I have grappled with this legislation professionally in my capacity as a nurse working in first nations communities, particularly the isolated ones, and as legal counsel. I fail to understand in any measurable way who would have as compelling and substantive a debate against at least two of the features in this bill. They are the emergency protection orders and the occupation orders. The member himself quoted somebody in his speech who was vulnerable for those very reasons, in fact, if we break down what she was saying.

Can the member rise in the House today and explain to us why he is against emergency protection and occupation orders, very basic and urgent rights that occur at a very vulnerable time for many Canadian aboriginal women, who do not have those rights that other women do in other parts of Canada? I cannot understand it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member cannot understand, and I am not surprised.

The fundamental principles outlined by the Assembly of First Nations on the problem with this bill include “recognition of first nations' jurisdiction”. That is what we have to do. We have to recognize their jurisdiction. We have to do more than just talk to them. We have to listen to the first nations. We have to stop telling them what they want and start to listen to them when they tell us what they want. That is what we have to do.

The other problem with the bill is access to justice dispute resolution and remedies. This bill does not have that. It also does not address underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear lots of rhetoric from the other side, but in fact Conservatives did not consult with the first nations, and this is the problem with this bill.

I have a letter from Chief Shining Turtle dated November 9, 2012. I know he has written other letters since, but I picked this one. He says:

Most recently, Indian Affairs has provided an option for Bands to opt in or out of 4 year terms for Chief and Council. Reflecting upon this further, Indian Affairs can amend Bill S-2 to allow Indian bands like Whitefish River that have an MRP law to be exempt from this hideous piece of legislation.

In another letter he wrote to the minister, he went on to talk about the following:

You directed in writing to have your department staff set up to meet with us and this has not occurred nor have your staff attempted to set up any meeting with us on MRP.

I can tell members that the chief invited government members to his community, and there was no response.

He further stated:

I will now remind you and your staff that this act undermines the Supreme Court decisions in this Country. In Sparrow, the Crown must have demonstrated accommodation of Aboriginal views and concerns.

The bill does not.

Again, maybe my colleague can remind the government of its duty to consult and the inherent rights of first nations to be respected.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that the Conservative government does not believe that the duty to consult exists, even though there was a court case on it.

I did not have time in my opening remarks to thank the MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan for all of the excellent work she has done on this bill. I also know that my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing does a lot of work for the first nations in her riding.

I know the Minister of Health speaks to a lot of first nations and first nations women, but I want to quote one of her answers a while ago. She stated:

I find it very hard to believe that today I stand in this House as an aboriginal person debating the rights of aboriginal women and non-aboriginal women.

What a shame that the Minister of Health, an aboriginal herself, would find that other people cannot speak for aboriginal people.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I want to take a few minutes as I begin to speak on Bill S-2, the bill that would give real matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women and men living on reserves, and talk a little about why this bill is so important to me personally.

I get very emotional whenever I stand to speak about this. I feel very passionate about it. My granddaughter, Arcaydia Faith, is a baby girl of just over a year old, and she is of aboriginal descent. My son's girlfriend, a beautiful young aboriginal woman named Tamara, is a status Indian. When I look at my granddaughter, Arcaydia, and I look at her beautiful mother, Tamara, who together with my son are trying to build their lives, and I realize that my granddaughter and her mother do not have the same rights as I do as a Canadian woman just because they are born as status Indian women, it saddens and troubles me, and it literally breaks my heart.

It breaks my heart not just for these two aboriginal women who are part of my family but, more importantly, for the tens of thousands of aboriginal women and, frankly, men who are victimized over and over again because of who they are and because of their Canadian status.

When I speak about this issue and when I hear the opposition say it is not aboriginal women talking about aboriginal rights, as Canadians we do not accept that argument anymore. We are here, standing up for those who nobody else will stand up for.

On this side of the House we are standing up for them, and as a grandmother and as a mother, I am standing up for my aboriginal granddaughter and her mother. I am very proud to do so. I will do it for as long as I can, until we see the same rights that are afforded to every other Canadian afforded to aboriginal people.

As well, I want to say this does trouble me. I have a lot of respect for many of the opposition members who I believe are here for very solid and good reasons, but it does sadden me deeply when they oppose this legislation. I think if they looked at themselves in the mirror, they would know they do not have any good reason to oppose it.

I will also say I am very disappointed there has not been more coverage of this issue in the media. I do panels, almost on a weekly basis. I do news panels on the RCMP. I do news panels on prisoners and all kinds of very interesting topics. Why are we not doing panels and why are we not talking about Bill S-2 and the rights of aboriginal women?

We should be talking about this day and night for the next several weeks. We should have been talking about this. I am troubled. I think it begs the question that maybe we all have to look in the mirror. Why is it that aboriginal women in this country deserve to be virtually ignored not only by the media but sadly also by the opposition who I believe are here for the right reasons?

I challenge the opposition members to stand up and have the courage to maybe vote against their leader, maybe vote against their party, and do the right thing and support aboriginal women and the rights of aboriginal women on reserve.

I do want to take few moments to talk about what our government has done in terms of consultation. I think it is important that we look at the statistics on what aboriginal women face.

Approximately 15% of aboriginal women in 2009, in a marriage or with a common-law partner, reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the 5 previous years. This is a very serious and relevant issue. 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 weapon, and 52% of aboriginal women reported they felt threatened and feared for their lives.

Bill S-2 is designed to address this very real need in first nations communities for fair matrimonial rights and interests. It proposes not only to protect today's victims but also to prevent similar injustices from occurring in the future.

Bill S-2 and its implementation plan have been meticulously developed to take into account the realities of life on first nations reserves. For example, due to the remoteness of many first nations communities, the regulations under this legislation would enable an individual to secure an emergency protection order by telephone, email or fax.

Right now they could be crying for help, they could be phoning, and there is no protection order for them. Not only would this bill bring in the ability for a protection order, but it could actually be acquired by telephone, email or fax for emergency protection. Bill S-2 would also authorize a peace officer or other appropriate person to apply on behalf of a spouse or common-law partner, again providing that support that is so needed in times of crisis.

In addition, the government plans to support the implementation of the legislation through education and training. Front-line police officers would be given tools, policies and training to effectively enforce relevant laws governing matrimonial property rights. Education material and opportunities are also planned for provincial and territorial superior court judges. This would provide judges with a clear understanding of relevant on-reserve social issues, along with Bill S-2 and first nation laws.

There is a two-part phased-in approach proposed for the implementation of Bill S-2. The first part would allow courts to apply first nations' laws. This is very important and something that we recognize. The second part is a provisional federal regime that would apply to those communities that have yet to develop laws related to matrimonial rights and interests. The federal regime would not take effect until 12 months after Bill S-2 becomes law. The end result, however, would be that laws that protect the matrimonial rights and interests of all Canadians, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, regardless of where they live, would occur.

Some first nations currently deal with family violence issues by bringing an independent third party into the household to help resolve disputes, and their laws would continue this process. First nations would be free to create laws that align with their traditions and cultures. Laws developed under the mechanism proposed in Bill S-2 must satisfy only a few criteria. They must be endorsed by a majority of members in a free and open referendum, and they must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I do not think anyone could argue that aboriginal people should not have the same rights that we enjoy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the Canadian Human Rights Act. To suggest the opposite, some would say is not only unfair but extremely discriminatory.

To support this empowering and culturally sensitive approach, our government would fund the creation of a centre of excellence for matrimonial real property. With the centre of excellence, first nation communities would have support and resources as they draft their own regimes. During its life cycle the centre of excellence would become an important resource to synthesize important tools, communications and research activities, and assist first nation communities and organizations in the development and application of the new legislation.

In addition to its critical role as a central resource, the centre of excellence would be supported by an advisory committee comprised of key stakeholders, such as the Government of Canada, aboriginal organizations, non-governmental organizations and centre of excellence staff. The committee would provide non-binding guidance on the direction of the centre in such areas as research and implementation related activities.

By endorsing Bill S-2 we could close this deplorable legislative gap and start the real and necessary work required to prevent the gap from claiming new victims, while putting an end to the pain and suffering that countless children and women are currently experiencing. It is time that all Canadians, regardless of where they happen to live, have access to a process to help them receive protection from domestic violence and abuse.

Clearly, Bill S-2 would provide first nations women with rights and protections in situations of domestic abuse. It is an essential part of any effective solution of violence against women and children. We talk about that so much in the House, whether it is murdered or missing aboriginal women, or violence against women and young girls in other parts of Canada. This is a very direct thing that we can do to help women on reserve.

I hear words like “we need to consult” and “culturally appropriate” and “treaty rights”. All of those things are extremely important, but imagine a young aboriginal woman having someone look her in the eye and say, “You don't have the same rights as every other Canadian because of who you are, because of your ethnicity, because you were born a status Indian and in Canada we are not going to protect that”.

That is what the opposition is saying. I ask them to reconsider and to pass this. We are going to do everything we can to pass the bill. I think we have the votes to do it, but more importantly, what a wonderful strong message it would send to aboriginal women if the opposition stood together with us and as one Parliament of Canada we support it and say, “Aboriginal women, we are here for you. We will not turn our backs on you, no matter what opposition we have”. I ask the opposition to do that.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments I just want to remind all hon. members that if they want to ask a question they ought to wait until the speech is over as opposed to standing several minutes in advance in order to hopefully catch the eye of the Speaker.

Having said that, questions and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that consultation is important but that there are other avenues. According to the law and the inherent rights of first nations, it is a mandate for the government to consult. So again, let me remind her about Chief Shining Turtle from Whitefish River First Nation. He said:

While MRP laws may be needed for a handful of First Nation communities, what is desperately needed is capacity building and funding to support First Nations to work with their communities to come up with their own laws and local dispute resolution mechanism—we already know from residential schools how things turn out when Canada imposes its own views on Aboriginal peoples.

Again, here is a community that has had matrimonial real property legislation already in place within the community. Why is it that the Conservative government does not just provide capacity and resources to other first nations who are in need, because there are a lot of first nations that already have that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I continually hear from the opposition on this matter, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Instead of talking about—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Chief Shining Turtle of a first nation.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The chief the hon. colleague was talking about, if she is a woman, would like to have the same rights as I have as a non-aboriginal woman. Let us talk about basic human rights. As a woman or a man in Canada, I am free from violence. I am free to acquire assets and if I go through a divorce, I actually can have half of those assets. The law makes sure that happens.

Why will that member not stand and instead of just talking a bunch of talking points and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, actually stand up for women in this country who live on reserves and happen to be born as status Indians. They should have the same rights as I have as a non-aboriginal woman.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to debate a bill and we are to debate a bill on its own merits, but the sanctimony and hypocrisy coming from that side of the House is mind-boggling.

The member said let us look at ourselves in the mirror. Let me remind her, this bill started off as Bill C-47. What happened to it? It died on the order paper because the Prime Minister called a sudden election in 2008. It came back as Bill C-8. It died again on the order paper. Why? Because the government prorogued in December 2009. It came back again, this time as Bill S-4. They had seven months and the Conservatives did not do a thing with it. It came back as Bill S-2 in May 2011. It has been there almost two years. What did they do?

Now we are in a big rush. What does the government have to say about the priority of the bill?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. colleague clearly did not hear is that this is actually very personal to me. My granddaughter is a member of the first nations. Her mom is a status Indian. I only speak for two Indian women in this country, but there are tens of thousands of Indian women who deserve the same rights as we do sitting here as non-aboriginal women.

The member can holler and yell. He can do the same thing that the opposition and the NDP are doing. This is a basic right for every single Canadian. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal women should have the same rights. That is what this is about.

Here is the good thing that I can say to my granddaughter: “We got it passed. We got it done. We are making sure that aboriginal women have the same rights as everybody else”.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to rise today in support of Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

As a Canadian woman, I find it deplorable that, in 2013, men, women and children living in the majority of on-reserve communities have no legal rights or protections in relation to the family home. In situations of family violence, aboriginal women have often been victimized and kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go. This is why Bill S-2 is so important. It would finally provide the same basic rights and protections to individuals living on reserves, in the event of a relationship breakdown or upon the death of a spouse or common-law partner, that are available to all other Canadians.

Ultimately, Bill S-2 would remove a factor that contributes in no small way to violence against women living in many first nations communities. The proposed legislation would give these women similar legal protection to that enjoyed by other Canadian women, protection that we take for granted every day. The legislation equip them with the same legal tools and mechanisms that other Canadian women use to prevent and combat abuse and violence, particularly by spouses or common-law partners.

During its review of the legislation now before us, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard from a number of witnesses, including women who suffered as a result of this legislative gap. They include women such as Rolanda Manitowabi, a member of a first nation in Ontario. During her testimony, she described how she and her common-law partner built a home together and that she invested her life savings in the project. To protect herself, she got the band to issue her a document naming her as the owner of the property. However, when she and her partner separated, she was evicted from her home. It was at that time she found out that the document had no legal foundation. She stated, “...my son and I were thrown out of the house. I had no place to go. I was in a crisis.... This legislation would have helped...and it would have considered the impacts on my son. I hope [the bill is] available to help other women and children on reserves”.

The members of the committee also heard from Jennifer Courchene, a member of a first nation in Manitoba. Jennifer and her children became homeless after her abusive partner forced them out of their home. She told the committee:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gone through this in a first nation community. There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home. I'm not sure how other first nations communities are run, but if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.

These are just two examples of women who have suffered as a result of a lack of legal protections on reserve. However, as Dr. Kim van der Woerd, a board member for the Young Women's Christian Association, described in her testimony, these women are not alone. She stated:

With respect to violence, aboriginal women experience spousal or partner violence at a rate three times higher than non-aboriginal women. With respect to housing, aboriginal women are more likely to experience homelessness than aboriginal men, and this homelessness is often related to their experience of violence and escape from violence.

Bill S-2 would go a long way to protect some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nations communities. It would close the legislative gap that continues to cause harm, and would give women like Rolanda and Jennifer, and the thousands of women like them, the legal protection they so rightly deserve, protection similar to what the law affords women who live off reserve.

Bill S-2 would provide aboriginal women two important legal tools to defend themselves: emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders. Currently, the law does not provide people who live in the majority of first nations communities with access to these orders.

Under the proposed federal rules, any spouse or common-law partner residing on reserve would be able to apply to a judge or justice of the peace for an emergency protection order. If credible evidence of family violence is presented, the court could issue an order that excludes a spouse or common-law partner from the family home for a period of up to 90 days, with the possibility of a one-time extension.

To ensure that people living in remote communities can access these orders, the federal rules would authorize applications submitted via telephone or email. The rules would also authorize a peace officer or another appropriate person to apply on behalf of a spouse or common-law partner. This provision would protect applicants facing dangerously unpredictable spouses or common-law partners. In past cases, a spouse or common-law partner who learned that an application has been made immediately lashed out, and the consequences have been tragic. By enabling a third party to make applications, this provision would mean that victims would not have to immediately confront violent spouses and possibly place themselves in danger.

Exclusive occupation orders would also provide for one spouse or partner to have exclusive access to the home and could be extended for longer periods of time. The court would determine the time period for each order that it grants. Many of the same conditions would apply. For instance, the person banned from the family home would have an opportunity to contest the order in court. The court would need to consider the broader context, such as the best interests of any children involved in the relationship, the history and nature of any family violence, and the financial and medical circumstances of the spouses or common-law partners.

These orders, the provisional federal rules and the rest of Bill S-2 are designed to ensure that Canadians who live on reserve would have protection and real matrimonial property rights similar to Canadians who live off reserve. The proposed legislation would promote the safety of children and caregivers who experience family violence. It would enable children to remain in the home and benefit from the stability that this provides, including the connection with the community and extended family, and access to services, schools and special programs.

This legislation is not about policy or funding levels. It is about eliminating the cause of injustice in closing a legal loophole that creates inequality and leaves aboriginal women vulnerable. It is about ensuring that all Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve, have similar protections and rights when it comes to family homes, matrimonial interests, security and safety.

It is my hope that the opposition will come to its senses, recognize the very important measures that are in this bill and vote in favour of Bill S-2.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

One of the most conclusive proofs of Canada’s backwardness in its legislation respecting first nations comes quickly to light when we consider the issue of the division of matrimonial real property. In this case, as in many others, aboriginal people tumble into a legal void that illustrates the gap separating them from other Canadians.

Parliament has now been pondering the problems related to this legal void for 10 years. That is an eternity. We have much evidence at our disposal, and a plethora of reports from the Senate and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as well as private institutions.

Once again, unfortunately, the Conservative government does not seem to have done its homework, and Bill S-2 does not reflect any of the recommendations produced over the last decade. What is more, the bill is a new version of Conservative paternalism towards aboriginal peoples, since the government did not hold any consultations before drafting it.

The result is a bill that seems to have been written in haste on a restaurant napkin and may jeopardize the fundamental rights of women on reserves. For these reasons, I will be opposing Bill S-2 and encouraging the federal government to review its distressing approach to first nations.

Canada has already seen major legal proceedings rejected by the provincial courts, because provincial law cannot be enforced on aboriginal lands. The cases Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson, in 1986, are good examples. Some 17 years were to pass before the Senate issued a report on matrimonial real property on reserves. The report first identified the legislative void in question, which was not such a bad thing. However, it noted in particular that aboriginal women have no rights in the case of a marriage breakup and have no choice but to leave the home. The report recommended that provincial legislation apply.

Those are very fine ideas for an institution that seems more than ever to have let time pass it by. It might have been considered more useful had the government taken this study into account in drafting Bill S-2. However, since the government prefers to use the other house to reward its party friends, it may not have consulted its earlier deliberations.

No later than 2004, however, the Senate issued another report, the title of which is more explicit: “On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property: Still Waiting”. In that report, the upper house stressed the need for early action with respect to matrimonial real property. Among other things, the report recommended that the issue be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and so it was.

In 2005, the committee in turn issued a series of recommendations to solve the knotty problem of on-reserve matrimonial real property. Among other things, it recommended that the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women’s Association be consulted on the development of new legislation or the amendment of the Indian Act; that financial assistance be provided to first nations to enable them to develop their own codes respecting real property and matrimonial assets; that any new legislation should not apply to first nations that had developed codes of their own; that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include aboriginal persons living on a reserve; and that Canada recognize the self-government rights of first nations.

As anyone can see, these are excellent recommendations. Unfortunately, the Conservative government knowingly disregarded them when drafting Bill S-2. This is another shameful waste of public funds. The government has no vision of Canada to offer other than that of a “for sale” sign on the lawn of Parliament.

I say “waste” because the government has chosen to disregard the knowledge we have gained from extensive evidence and from reports that were carefully prepared by various players.

That is not all. In 2006, a report on the status of women put its finger on the problem by citing foreseeable barriers to the administration of an act respecting matrimonial real property on reserves. According to that report, the government should allocate adequate funding to implement such legislation, address the very serious housing shortage on reserves and conduct consultations. Those three essential factors are also not reflected in Bill S-2.

As long as they introduce pointless legislation, the members opposite should consider staying home. In 2006, a departmental report revealed that no consensus had been reached with regard to the legislative measures that should be taken to address the matter. It recommended, for example, that the competing jurisdictions model be used. However, the report specifically emphasized that the government should quickly determine the actual costs of administering provincial statutes on reserves, the solution advocated by the Senate.

The least we can say is that the government had the time it needed to consider the matter. The least we can believe is that it had everything it needed to develop a good bill. The least we can acknowledge is that Bill S-2 is largely inadequate under the circumstances.

This government has always taken an unconventional and paternalistic approach to first nations. I imagine we could not have expected otherwise. I know there are real solutions to the very real problems the first nations are experiencing, particularly as regards matrimonial real property.

There is an urgent need for us to develop a bill that provides quick access to recourse for communities that, in some instances, are far removed from urban and legal centres. We must put an end to violence against aboriginal women by developing a national action plan. We must provide better funding for communities that are part of the 2% and we must resolve the terrible housing crisis among the country's first nations.

A bill that does not take these considerations into account would be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on the remarks of my colleague.

I had the privilege of joining the status of women committee for its study on violence against aboriginal women in 2010. We travelled to Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. We heard over and over again the challenges women in rural and remote communities faced with violence in their homes.

We have responded to calls from aboriginal women, parliamentary committees, international bodies and the Manitoba NDP. They have called for the elimination of the legislative gap that this legislation would fill.

The member referenced a study done by the Senate called “Still Waiting”. Could she justify to the House and tell us what she would tell aboriginal women? If she had her way, they would still be waiting to have the same protection that all Canadians enjoy.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, aboriginal women were consulted, but that is not reflected in the report. Why not consider what they said? For years now, aboriginal women have been overlooked and treated as though they are not persons.

It is important to consider their opinions in matters pertaining to the status of women, just as those of so-called “other” women in Canada have been taken into account. I have worked to improve the status of women for some 30 years. It is important to consider the opinions of these women, whether they are aboriginal or of other nationalities, and we do not see that in this bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette for her very interesting speech. She works very hard for her riding, and I commend her on that.

As far as Bill S-2 is concerned, she raised some very interesting points. I want to come back to the comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, who said that under this bill, aboriginal women will have the same rights as all other women in Canada. We know full well that without the necessary means to fully exercise those rights, they will be meaningless. Aboriginal women will not have access to the same resources as other Canadian women, and the courts are not properly equipped to hear their cases. There is certainly no guarantee that aboriginal women will have the same rights. The way I see it, it is clear that this bill will not give aboriginal women the same rights that Canadian women have.

Could the hon. member elaborate on this?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

This bill will not give aboriginal women the same rights that Canadian women have because provincial laws do not apply on the reserves. Someone mentioned this earlier. How are they supposed to have their rights recognized?

There is a legal vacuum. These rights are not recognized under federal law, and provincial law does not apply on reserves. What are these women supposed to do? Should they go to their MP's office so that things might change one day?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is not only about matrimonial rights; it is also about protection orders for men, women, and children.

The member opposite mentioned that aboriginal women had been ignored for years. Does the member opposite want to ignore them for another 25 years?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these women certainly will not be ignored for another 25 years.

This is the fourth bill that the Conservative Party has introduced, but it is no good because it is missing provisions to protect the women. Maybe provincial law should apply on reserves, which is currently not the case.

My colleague can rest assured that I will see to it that these women will not have to wait another 25 years. In 2015, we will see to it.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-2, 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 is not the first time this issue has come up in the House of Commons. Similar bills have been debated during previous Parliaments. This is the fourth time we have talked about this issue. Why did the government wait so long to bring this bill forward? Why, after all this time, is it still flawed?

Aboriginal women's rights advocacy groups have made it clear to me that they are against this bill. I would like to point out that they were not consulted with respect to Bill S-2. They were consulted previously about other bills on this issue.

Fortunately, parliamentary committees asked people to appear as witnesses on this subject. Of course, the Conservative government seems to be restricting parliamentary committees' freedom more and more, which means that fewer and fewer witnesses are able to appear. Still, aboriginal women's groups were able to testify before the parliamentary committee, and they expressed clear opposition to this bill.

I would like to say a few more things about that. What is the primary objective of the bill before us? Matrimonial rights are simply not covered in the Indian Act, so we have a dilemma because some areas of jurisdiction may be seen as falling under provincial legislation. How are we addressing that?

The bill before us concerns matrimonial rights and interests, primarily with respect to property rights. In Canada, there are two kinds of property: movable assets and real property. Real property means everything not attached to the ground. This bill is really about rights to housing, homes and land. The dilemma is that first nations do not own their own land. This is a real legal dilemma, and Bill S-2 makes a noble attempt to resolve it. This is a step in the right direction because we have to recognize that this is a problem we need to solve.

The problem is that not only do first nations members not own their own land, but they are also currently experiencing a housing crisis because there are not enough homes. That causes all kinds of problems. This bill addresses sociological issues that could cause families to split up or that could lead to divorce, but it also addresses cases in which there is a death. In such cases, we have to determine what happens to the family assets.

The bill tries to address these problems, but unfortunately it does not do nearly enough.

For example, if the first nations are experiencing a housing crisis, if a woman wants to separate from her husband or if a family splits up, where will these people live?

The bill skips a number of steps. The first step seems quite obvious to me: fix the housing crisis within our first nations. If there is a shortage of housing, where will people go if they want a divorce? A number of families in my riding share the same home. That makes no sense. We need to fix this problem.

This bill brings up another problem: access to justice. Legal assistance is simply not available. That is another area of shared responsibility, since provincial and federal courts are unfamiliar with the rights and traditions of the first nations. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address those issues.

We must absolutely talk about the courts having a knowledge of first nations traditions. Why would the first nations be subject to a provincial court if that court is not familiar with first nations traditions?

The Crown has an obligation to ensure that the courts that are affected by this bill have the information they need well in advance. The funding is simply not there. Once again, the Conservative government wants to place an obligation on the provinces without giving them the resources they need to fulfill it.

This is a rather serious problem across Canada. Every time this Conservative government suggests sharing responsibilities with the provinces, it seems to forget that this requires resources. It completely ignores the fact that the provinces do not have the means, especially when they are being forced to take on more and more roles that would normally be federal responsibilities.

In any event, since it is mostly women who would be affected by this bill, how are they supposed to exercise their new rights if they do not have the means to do so? How are they going to get to the courts in question if they do not live in the designated communities? They will be far from home.

If the bill passes, many aboriginal women will simply be incapable of exercising their rights because they will not have the means to get to the courts in question, which will quite often be far from their community. This is major flaw. Why not plan to have the courts go to them, instead of insisting that the courts, which are quite far away, be the places where matters related to this bill are resolved?

Parliament has dealt with this bill a number of times, in a number of previous parliaments, and a number of studies have been done. The problem is that the recommendations that have come out of these studies have been ignored and are not included in Bill S-2.

The Senate came out with the report, “A Hard Bed to Lie in: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”.

In that case, in 2003, they recommended that provincial laws apply. That was a good idea.

The Senate, “Still Waiting“ in 2004, identified the lack of clarity for the rights of women on reserve as a human rights issue that was a recurring recommendation from the UN, which was a very damaging report.

In 2005, “Arm-in-Arm”, the parliamentary committee talks came up with five recommendations, which we see very few of in the bill in front of us today.

In 2006, again, the Status of Women report identified barriers, including insufficient funding or the implementation of it, especially for the problem of chronic housing shortages on reserves and the lack of high level consultations.

Again, the need for consultation and funding was recommended and, again in the bill, the government simply did not do its jobs. It did not consult with first nations on Bill S-2. The Conservatives asked them to come to the parliamentary committees. Thank goodness the opposition was there to insist that they show up, otherwise the government never would have consult first nations women, which is absolutely hypocritical on its part.

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that aboriginal communities have only 12 months to implement it. Most of the communities asked for three years if this bill passes. One year is absolutely not enough.

Again, there are some serious problems to address in aboriginal communities. There is a chronic lack of housing in aboriginal communities. If we do not deal with these basic problems, then how can we deal with fundamental problems such as matrimonial rights?

Matrimonial rights cannot be dealt with if a woman has nowhere else to stay. This is a simple, but fundamental problem. If we do not tackle the fundamental problems of first nations, then a bill like Bill S-2 can never be implemented fairly and in such a way as to guarantee the rights of aboriginal women in Canada.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and member for St. Boniface.

I am proud to stand today in support of Bill S-2. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this proposed legislation offers a balanced and effective solution to an unjust problem that continues to affect individuals living on reserve today. The problem is that a legislative gap currently exists for individuals living on reserve that is preventing them from accessing the same rights and protections to matrimonial real property rights and interests as all other Canadians take for granted every day. That is because provincial laws only protect the MRP rights and interests of those who live off reserve.

The result is that some Canadian individuals have fewer protections and rights, simply because of where they live. Very few first nations in Canada have developed MRP laws under other enabling federal legislation, which means that the majority of individuals living on reserve lack protections and rights similar to those living off reserve. Given this reality, the legislative gap represents an inequality that can no longer be tolerated.

Our government believes that Canadians should not be denied access to basic rights and protections simply because of where they live. That is why our government is responding to the calls of aboriginal women, parliamentary committees, international bodies, and even the Manitoba NDP for urgent action to finally eliminate this long-standing legislative gap that has caused so much pain and suffering for some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nations communities.

We believe that family violence, wherever it occurs, should not be tolerated and that the rights of individuals and families to an equal division of the value of a family home must be protected, regardless of where they live. Aboriginal women and children living on reserves should not have to wait any longer to benefit from the same rights and protections people living off reserve are afforded. They deserve and expect no less.

On April 30 this year, Ron Swain, the National Vice-Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, appeared before the Standing Committee on Status of Women and argued that not backing this bill is disallowing equality for all aboriginal people. Our government agrees with this view, and I call on all hon. members to support this long overdue legislation, thus ensuring that the matrimonial rights of all Canadians are protected.

This legislative gap can lead to heartbreaking injustice. For example, an abusive husband can evict his wife and children from their family home, and no court in the country has the power to intervene. Bill S-2 would protect the matrimonial rights and interests of all individuals who live on reserve. Furthermore, it would allow the courts to apply first nations law, thus allowing first nations to formalize its traditional dispute resolution processes and remedies. The legislation would also ensure that until a first nation was able to create its own laws, federal rules would provide families with rights and protections similar to those afforded people living off reserve.

Over the years, a wide range of groups have studied this matter. Parliament has pursued legislative solutions for many years, including studies by parliamentary committees as to what such solutions might entail and how they might be implemented. In 2003, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights published “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, a report with many valuable recommendations. Central to its conclusion was the need for the development of cultural sensitivity laws.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development also investigated the issue and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses. Bill S-2 was informed by the committee's final report, “Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”, presented in 2005. The report concluded with two principal recommendations. The first reads, in part:

That, consulting with the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to the extent possible, considering the urgency of the situation, the government immediately draft interim stand-alone legislation or amendments to the Indian Act to make provincial/territorial matrimonial property laws apply to real property on reserve lands.

Our government heeded this recommendation. Officials with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began the planning process in collaboration with the two national aboriginal organizations identified in this recommendation. During the planning process, the parties agreed to implement the second principal recommendation of the standing committee's report, which reads:

That, in broad consultation with First Nations organizations and communities, the government collaborate with those organizations and communities to develop substantive federal legislation on matrimonial real property for those First Nations that have not created their own laws on the subject matter within the time frame set out in the interim legislation. This legislation should cease to apply to First Nations that subsequently develop their own matrimonial real property regimes.

Our government followed these recommendations and allocated over $8 million to aboriginal organizations and first nations to consult with members and stakeholders. A discussion paper outlining the issues and mapping out three potential legislative solutions was prepared. To coordinate the consultations and forge a consensus on a potential legislative solution, a ministerial representative was appointed.

During 2006 and 2007, more than 100 consultation sessions were held across Canada. Most of the sessions were led by the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. The vast majority of the session participants were members of first nations. Dozens of groups also provided written submissions.

During the consultations, it became clear that there was overwhelming opposition to one of the potential solutions: incorporating relevant provincial and territorial laws into the Indian Act. As a result, this option was discarded entirely. The pattern of responsiveness to the stakeholder input has been repeated throughout the long development of the bill before us today.

Previous versions of this legislation were introduced in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and debates and committee review inspired a series of amendments.

When the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights studied a previous iteration of the bill, Bill S-4, a total of 12 amendments were made to the proposed legislation. All of these improvements are included in Bill S-2.

With Bill S-2, this government chose to change elements of the bill to specifically address three criticisms most commonly directed at the previous version.

I would also point out that amendments were made when the bill was in the other place to further respond to the views of stakeholders. I believe Bill S-2 is not only an important bill but a necessary one, as it would finally close the intolerable legislative gap that continues to reduce so many to poverty, hardship and, too often, homelessness.

Bill S-2 is a progressive piece of legislation that would recognize first nations are best placed to develop their laws in this area. It would enable the courts to apply MRP laws developed by first nations. It would support sound governance practices in first nation communities and encourage self-reliance. Most important, Bill S-2 would protect some of the most vulnerable citizens and eliminate the injustice that tarnishes our country and has led to international criticism.

Under Bill S-2, first nations could develop, enact and implement MRP laws for their reserves. The content of the laws would be determined between the first nation government and its members alone. This would mean more transparency and accountability between first nation members and government.

For more than 25 years, women and men on reserves have lacked legal protection of their matrimonial real property rights and interests. Surely we can all agree that it is unacceptable to deny legal protection to a group of Canadians any longer simply because of where they live.

The time has come to eliminate this fundamental inequality. It is in our power as parliamentarians to do so.

I urge all members of the House to lend support to Bill S-2.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the statements being made on this bill very sad.

Organization after organization, first nation government after first nation government, first nation national leaders and regional chiefs have all said they oppose this legislation.

Yes, the government, finally pressured after many iterations of the bill, did provide for some consultation. What it did not do is listen to what it was told.

The same issues have been raised time after time by the first nations. They would like to have the opportunity to develop their own legislation. Many of them have strong customary laws. They are saying this is all very fine and dandy; however, they are asking how they resolve this if there is no housing. In many cases, in isolated communities, the women do not even have access to a bus to meet with a lawyer, let alone to pay the retainer for the lawyer to go to court.

I wonder if the member would advise the House what the first nation organizations and governments told them and in what way the bill would respond to what they were told.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not surprised. When we look at the Conservative government and if we look back in history, we see it was John Diefenbaker who gave aboriginals the first right to vote. I am sure when he did that, the NDP sat in opposition and said it was not fair, it was not appropriate and they should not allow it to happen.

We see that happening here again. Instead of the NDP grabbing a piece of legislation that is based upon strong moral values and strong principles, it attacks it. It ignores the evidence that was gathered by aboriginal groups themselves. It ignores the recommendations that were gathered by those groups, also. It ignores the piece of legislation, not based upon what is the right thing to do, but based upon party politics. That is pretty sad.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I take this bill to heart, and I want to thank my colleague, who just presented a description of what aboriginal women go through in their communities when they do not have these rights available to them.

I have seen myself, many times, women from reserves who are kicked off and who are afraid. When they speak out, they do not want us to tell members of the community that they are speaking to us, because they are afraid. Their children are still on reserve, they have been kicked off the reserve and they are desperately trying to get access.

I listened to the member across the way, from the NDP, talk about leadership and saying they do not want to do this. It has been 25 years that these aboriginal women have suffered in silence. They have asked for our help and, gosh darn it, we are going to do everything in our power to do that.

I want to ask the member for Prince Albert if he could address the 25 years of suffering in silence that we have heard of because there is no law in place to protect these women.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is intolerable to think that this has been going on for so long. I cannot put myself in the shoes of the people who are faced with the options they have, living on reserve in this type of situation.

Off the reserve, there are all sorts of options. People can seek legal advice and they can get the courts to intervene. However, on reserve, people cannot do that. They have no options. They have no ability to seek the courts or get any type of injunction.

If we look at the people who are asking for us to do this, we see it is actually the Manitoba NDP that is saying they need this legislation now and urgently. I cannot understand how the federal NDP cannot get along with its provincial cousins and actually get behind this piece of legislation and move it forward. It just bewilders me.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of Bill S-2.

Everywhere in Canada, there is legal protection when a marriage or common-law relationship breaks down or a spouse or common-law partner dies, except on reserve. Provincial legislation ensures that matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably and that children and spouses have access to the protection they need when they need it, but there are no similar family laws to speak of in first nation communities.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. As a woman myself, from a Metis background, I find the fact that this situation still exists in Canada in 2013 absolutely appalling. Aboriginal women deserve to have the same rights as non-aboriginal women in Canada, and this bill would finally eliminate the current legislative gap and allow for matrimonial real interest laws to be applied on reserve.

More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that provincial matrimonial real property laws do not apply to on-reserve communities because reserve lands fall under federal jurisdiction. Since the Indian Act is silent on this issue, the result is that a gap exists in the law respecting matrimonial rights and interests for residents on reserves. This gap is harmful for many reasons.

Most damaging is the lack of protection in the event of a family breakdown or the death of a spouse. For instance, I know first-hand of cases of wives and children left homeless and destitute after abusive husbands kicked them out of the family home. Many of them went on to be exploited sexually on the streets of Winnipeg, where I was a police officer for almost 19 years. They were desperate to find help, and this is the help they have been seeking for 25 years.

However, because of the Supreme Court ruling, the legal recourse in the courts available to every other Canadian is not available to those living on reserve. No judge, for example, has the authority to issue an order for emergency protection or temporary exclusive occupation of the family home if it is situated on reserve. That is why our government is acting.

I want to point out that matrimonial real property regimes do exist in a small number of first nation communities that are governed by the First Nations Land Management Act or by a negotiated comprehensive self-government agreement, and I want to commend those communities. However, Bill S-2 would extend matrimonial property rights to all first nations in Canada by creating a legislative alternative under which they could develop their own matrimonial real property laws, and courts would be able to apply these first nation regimes.

The legislation now before us is based on the premise that first nations are best placed to develop their own MRP laws. Those laws could reflect first nation culture and traditions, for instance. They might make use of an elders council or propose a remedial mediation process. As members recognize, people are more likely to respect and abide by laws that they have had a role in creating and that reflect their particular culture and traditions.

Indeed, several first nations are already well advanced in developing their own MRP laws, but without appropriate legislation, such as Bill S-2, the courts are not able to apply these laws, and some first nations, of course, may not be in a position to develop MRP regimes immediately or in the short term.

To ensure that this legislation would extend these basic rights and protections to all Canadians, and not just those living in communities where the governments have enacted legislation, Bill S-2 would also include provisional federal rules. This federal MRP regime, once enforced, would apply to first nations who have not developed their own MRP laws under Bill S-2 or other federal legislation.

These provisions would establish a federal regime based on the principle of equal rights for all Canadians, and these rights should not depend on where they live. All Canadians should have similar protections. Bill S-2 would end this unjust discrimination and help to ensure that all Canadians—men, women and children—living on or off reserve, have access to matrimonial rights and protections.

Opponents of the proposed legislation have made a number of points that I would like to briefly address.

Some critics assert that Bill S-2 fails to properly recognize the inherent rights of first nations to govern themselves respecting MRP. Well, I believe this critique to be false, and it completely misses the point of the legislation.

It ignores the need for federal legislation to fill the gaps, so that first nations can establish their own laws to do exactly that. The fact is that interested groups have unanimously agreed that this legislative gap needs to be resolved on an urgent basis. It should not be stalled because of the fact that some wish to have a broader discussion on the concept of inherent rights. For goodness' sake, 25 years is long enough. Let us get on with it.

There is also criticism concerning the adequacy of the consultation process that informs Bill S-2. This criticism is also misguided. After coming to power in 2006, one of our government's first orders of business was to embark on an extensive consultation process in partnership with national aboriginal organizations. In total, more than 100 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across the country. Hundreds of people, most of them residents of first nations communities, took part in this process, and their feedback directly influenced the content of this legislation now before us.

I am talking only about when we got to power. However, since 2000 there have been special representatives and advisors, there have been special papers written, there have been forums, information sessions, consultations, and the list goes on and on.

Some may claim that there was not enough consultation, but to them I say this issue has been discussed for more than 25 years. Although the NDP is heckling me as I speak about the needs of these women at this present time, I will stand here and I will defend their right to have this law as long as I am alive.

I cannot imagine how much more consultation is needed to do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing. My colleague also stated that this is the fourth time this bill is before Parliament. Since its drafting in 2007, numerous improvements have in fact been made to the bill, many of which respond directly to the concerns voiced by a wide range of stakeholders, which includes first nations peoples. Changes were made to improve the bill before it was introduced again. For instance, there is no verification process in the legislation now before us. Similarly, Bill S-2 features a 12-month transition period and a lower ratification threshold.

I believe these changes further strengthen the bill and better support first nations. The proposed legislation offers a practical and balanced solution to a problem that has harmed women, men, children and families living on reserves for far too long. Each delay of its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on reserves, particularly for aboriginal women and children.

In conclusion, let me talk about our aboriginal women, something I know just a little bit about. As I think about the aboriginal women, I want to reflect for a moment on what my aboriginal mother taught me. In aboriginal teachings, the moon is known as the grandmother moon. A full moon ceremony is special to us aboriginal women. I remember my mother talked about the moon ceremony. She explained that women's natural rhythms are connected to the changing cycles of the moon.

For this reason, we come together as women when grandmother moon's light is the fullest. In her light, we are able to connect with the brightness of our own inner light, to heal and to celebrate womanhood. The spirit of grandmother moon hears our deepest prayers at that time. The grandmothers teach us that when the moon is full, it is time for women's prayers to be expressed. Prayer is a powerful energy that supports us in manifesting the deep wishes that emerge from within.

Around June 25, many aboriginal women in Canada will be participating in and praying at a moon ceremony. I, too, will pray. I am going to pray that all aboriginal people are protected equally. I will pray especially for our women and children who have suffered far too long without matrimonial property rights, that have left them vulnerable and helpless, and far too often they have been left homeless.

This is long overdue legislation that deserves our full and immediate support. I am very disappointed in other members of this House. This is a no-brainer. This is a bill that all parties should be supporting without reservation, without hesitation, and with pride in what we want to succeed in giving all Canadian women and children and men across this country from coast to coast to coast. I will continue to support it. I will continue to urge members on the other side to do the right thing. I will continue to pray that this bill passes so that we can set this aside. It has been 25 years. Let us get on with it.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in hearing first nations women from the grassroots and women involved in leadership speak out against the government's colonial agenda as evidenced in Bill S-2.

The member across seemed to be compelled by her passion for the interests of on-reserve women, but first nations women have increasingly talked about the lack of non-legislative measures that follow Bill S-2 and legislation without the ability to implement it, and I know the member knows the lack of policing in northern first nations, without police, without shelters for women to escape to, without somebody to enforce a protection order. We felt there should be funding for courts to come into these communities and this legislation is mute on that.

Why does the member and her government insist on putting forward a paternalistic form of legislation without actually investing the funds that are necessary to make a difference in these women's lives? Enough rhetoric, where is the—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Manitoba. She sat on that committee. Why did she not listen to Jennifer Courchene from Manitoba, who said very clearly she was kicked off a reserve? She wants to see that we provide some kind of law that prevents that from happening to other women. Why did she not listen to Jojo Sutherland, a female elder in our aboriginal communities who works with women who are transitioning from jail into their communities again? These women have suffered. Jojo Sutherland said “I was kicked off a reserve. I ended up being sexually exploited and prostituting myself. My children ventured into that world”. They had nothing but one suitcase as she left the reserve.

The member ought to listen to the women who are suffering, many of whom disappeared as missing and murdered aboriginal women and do something for once.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard examples of real passion from two women who are speaking on an issue that is important to them. We should be respectful of that debate.

One of the concerns I have is this. I started reading the list of people who had expressed concerns with Bill S-2 such as the Native Women's Association, the Assembly of First Nations technical update of January 27, 2012, the National Aboriginal Women's Summit, Ellen Gabriel. I could go through a list of a number of people and groups who are concerned, including Dionne Schulze, Shawn Atleo, the Quebec Native Women, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation Women's Council, and there are more. I will not read them all, but the reality is that if we have that many people from that cross-section raising concerns with the bill, why would we not pause that extra bit longer and do it right to do the best we could to take those things into account? That is what I find difficult with this.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do respect what the member opposite is suggesting, but there is just a long a list of people who testified, for example, like the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres and many others, the Young Women's Christian Association. We had aboriginal woman, after aboriginal woman and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They said that this was needed. The Supreme Court ruled 25 years ago that there was a legislative gap.

I would suggest for the member to please look at the facts. The facts are that the NDP at this point wants to support people who want catch-all legislation that would solve world poverty, that would end world hunger, that would solve every housing crisis we have ever known. It is not possible. Yes, I would love to come up with a legislative piece that would solve all of that, but in the interim it does not exist. Let us take a step forward and protect the most vulnerable.

The NDP members will have blood on their hands if they sit there and do nothing. I will not stand for it. I cannot stand for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to participate in and be part of this debate. As some of my colleagues are indicating, passions are running high on this piece of legislation, and this piece—

[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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I found some of those remarks frankly outrageous and inflammatory, that the member suggested that any one government has “sought“ to “impoverish” and “marginalize” people. In this place we might disagree about means, but surely we do not believe that any member of this House seeks to impoverish or marginalize Canadians. Perhaps the member, on sober reconsideration, would retract that.

She suggested that this bill is being rushed. This bill has been debated in this place for more than 15 years in various forms. That is not a rush. For 25 years, aboriginal women have been waiting for a legal remedy to their lack of access to matrimonial property rights. Twenty-five years is not a rush. The NDP can keep inventing specious process objections to represent the interests of a few powerful stakeholders, but eventually action must be taken.

She said that not many Conservatives have been on aboriginal reserves. This government has the largest number of first nations members of any government in Canadian history and represents 60% of aboriginal Canadians. Many of our members spend a great deal of time on reserves.

Finally, I would like to ask the member what she thinks about the fact that her Manitoba NDP government unanimously supported the passage of this bill on December 6 of last year, adopting a unanimous motion in the legislature, that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urged the federal government to pass Bill S-2. Why will she not listen to her own Manitoba NDP government?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not be retracting any comments that I made and I would encourage the member and his colleagues across to come and visit the first nations in my area and spend time with the first nations that they represent.

We have heard from national organizations that speak on behalf of their members, such as the first nations that are in their constituencies that oppose Bill S-2. We have heard from aboriginal women directly about their opposition to Bill S-2.

With regard to this constant reference to the 25 years, first nations people have fought against colonial attitudes for far longer, and they are not going to put up with a half-baked, entirely colonial approach to an important issue. Nobody is saying that matrimonial property rights are not an important issue, but the way that the government has carried itself on Bill S-2 and the way it is carrying itself on other bills that pertain to first nations reeks of colonialist and paternalistic attitudes.

It saddens me that in the year 2013, we have to have this conversation in the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Churchill will have seven minutes remaining for questions and comments, should she wish it, when the House next returns to debate on this question.

It being 12:30 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:30 a.m.)

The House resumed from June 10, consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Currently men, women and children living on the majority of on-reserve communities have no legal rights or protections in relation to the family home. In situations of family violence, for decades women have been victimized and kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go.

Statistics show that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence. According to the 2009 general social survey, approximately 15% of aboriginal women in a marriage or with 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 a gun, and 52% reported that they feared for their lives.

This is why Bill S-2 is so important. It will help to mitigate occasions of domestic violence on reserve by providing for emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders.

Currently, individuals living on reserve cannot go to court to seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on reserve in the event of a relationship breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.

Bill S-2 extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, a spouse can now 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 for extension. These orders may be granted upon a hearing or an application to vary the original order at the judge's discretion.

An emergency protection order is quick, 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. We know that emergency protection orders are invaluable tools in efforts to end family abuse and violence. Each year, hundreds of Canadians, most of them women who are victims of spousal abuse, petition courts to acquire these orders and access the legal protection that they can afford.

Police who are authorized by the courts to enforce the orders typically represent an effective line of defence for victims of family violence. As it stands today, residents of most first nation communities cannot access these tools. I say “most”, because a handful of first nations have established and enforce laws in this area through authorities acquired in self-government agreements or through the First Nations Land Management Act. Nevertheless, the vast majority of on-reserve couples cannot access these orders because no court has the legal authority to issue them.

Bill S-2 would change this. For every other region in Canada, other than on reserve, family law is the domain of the provinces and territories. Legislation exists in most provinces and territories that deal specifically with violence and intimate relationships. Although the names of these laws, along with the specific legal instruments that they include vary from one jurisdiction to another, they all provide powerful forms of protection to victims of spousal abuse and violence.

In general, the laws authorize two types of protection orders: short-term and long-term. These orders, sometimes known as an intervention, prevention or victim assistance orders, can be obtained 24 hours a day, by telephone or appointment, from a trained justice of the peace. In many cases a police officer or a victim services worker can apply for the orders on behalf of the victim.

To me, the absence of legal protection on reserve is simply unacceptable. We have tolerated a legally sanctioned form of discrimination in Canada, for women and children and other victims, for far too long. It is one that has claimed and continues to claim victims. Bill S-2 will change this.

In order to understand the value of these orders, it is crucial to appreciate the larger context. An act of domestic abuse, such as a husband beating his wife, may be an isolated incident, but it is also part of a relationship's larger dynamic.

Domestic abuse is often a gradual and incremental process, and the frequency and seriousness of the violence tends to escalate slowly over the years, even decades. In many cases, abusers express deep remorse and promise to change, and then go on to break these promises.

For the victims of violence, it can take years to recognize that the violence will never stop and that the relationship is poisonous, dangerous and unsalvageable. Until victims come to this conclusion, though, they often cannot conceive of acting decisively by leaving the family home or by securing a court order to banish the abusive spouse.

The victims' long-term experience leads to the erosion of self-confidence, making it even more difficult to believe that they deserve better treatment, that they can find the courage to leave and that they can manage on their own.

Exclusive occupation and emergency protection orders provide the separation victims often need to heal and to make a new start. It is regrettable that the need for these orders remains so strong in 2013. Part of the reason for this sad reality lies in the history of how our society and legal system address relationships between spouses. As my hon. colleagues recognize, the law has not always protected the rights of women as it does today.

Of course, we all recognize that our laws have evolved dramatically over the years to reflect the needs and aspirations of Canadians, but the legacy of the past shapes our current circumstance. There was a time when Canadian women had few options in life. Living as independent citizens was virtually impossible, employment options were extremely limited and few of the jobs that were open to women paid a living wage. The vast majority of women married, and most went on to have children and to enjoy happy, fulfilled lives.

Women were assigned a specific role in society, were expected to fulfill this particular role and were respected for it. The laws at the time reflected this social norm. As norms have changed in recent generations, we have done much to eliminate outdated laws and attitudes. Bill S-2 would take us one large step further along this road.

Part of the legislation now before us addresses the link between spousal violence and matrimonial rights and interests. Over time, the laws governing matrimonial rights and interests have evolved to reflect new social norms, yet this type of evolution typically occurs in fits and starts, and the law usually lags behind progress in societal attitudes. This is because the impetus to amend the law often comes only from incidents and trends that the public considers repugnant; such as husbands being able to beat their wives with impunity.

Today, of course, Canadian attitudes about violence against women have changed dramatically. Violence against women is no longer socially acceptable, and the law reflects these attitudes to a large extent. This is why family law includes instruments such as emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders. These orders are designed specifically to address spousal violence and to complement the protections provided by the Criminal Code.

However, the authority for these orders exists only under provincial or territorial law. The Supreme Court ruled that these laws do not apply on first nation reserves. Bill S-2 proposes to fill this unacceptable gap and to help prevent the harsh reality experienced by so many victims.

Under Bill S-2, a spouse or a common-law partner residing on reserve could apply to a judge or justice of the peace for an emergency protection order. The order, enforceable by police, would exclude the spouse or common-law partner from the family home for a period of up to 90 days. The order may be extended once, for a period of time determined by a judge. Orders issued by a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge must be reviewed by the superior court as soon as possible.

The federal regime would authorize applications submitted by telephone or email to ensure that people living in remote communities could access the orders. The regime would also authorize a police officer or another appropriate person to apply on behalf of a spouse or a common-law partner. This provision would enable people who face dangerously unpredictable spouses or common-law partners to secure orders without exposing themselves to undue risk.

The regime would also enable people to apply for exclusive occupation orders, which could provide longer-term protection.

Exclusive occupation and emergency protection orders are only one part of the protection that Bill S-2 would provide. It would provide stability for women and their children, through continued access to the family home; continued connection to the community and extended family; access to services, children's programs and education facilities within the community; and the equitable distribution of marital real property assets. In addition, it would improve the ability of first nations to meet the specific needs within their communities.

A little more than 30 years ago, the members of this House laughed when one of their hon. colleagues raised the issue of violence against women and suggested that new laws were needed. The laughter caused a public outcry and inspired a host of changes, including legislation. Today, violence against women is widely recognized as a scourge.

Statistics Canada research indicates that aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to suffer severe injuries, such as broken bones, inflicted by a violent spouse. Today, we have an opportunity to help eliminate a factor that contributes to this violence.

Canada has made substantial progress in the issue of violence against women, but much more remains to be done. While the factors that contribute to the issue are manifold and complex, there can be no doubt that emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders are effective, both as deterrents and as defensive mechanisms.

Today, we are seeking to eliminate a human rights issue. Through Bill S-2, we would finally be extending the same basic rights and protections to aboriginal women as all other Canadians currently enjoy.

I urge the opposition to stop denying aboriginal women equal rights and to vote in favour of this legislation.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about her speech.

This is the fourth version of this bill. Were first nations involved so that their needs were made known, their concerns were heard and those needs and concerns were incorporated into this bill?

Can the Conservative member explain how this bill fulfills the needs that were expressed during meaningful consultations with first nations?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the witnesses, Rolanda Manitowabi, said at committee that if this bill were in place, there would have been an option. In a situation where there is domestic violence or abusive behaviour, there are no choices. When she was thrown out of her home, she had no place to go; that was her home. To this day, she continues to pay for that home. If this bill had been in place, it would have given her an option for some place to go with her children.

This victim came to our standing committee and told us a horrible story of how, for years, not only was she thrown out of her home with her children but she was also thrown out of her community. Due to family violence and the breakdown of her marital situation, she and her children had no place to go. Bill S-2 would address this.

As the member opposite knows, this bill has been debated a fair amount. There were 172 consultations across this country. This government spent some $4 million on consultations with groups. The Manitoba Legislative Assembly sent us a resolution, and it completely supports the bill. This has certainly been discussed, and consultations have occurred; we have heard of real-life situations in which this bill could help these women.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and the work she has been doing on the standing committee to work through this piece of legislation.

What is interesting is that, last Thursday at the special committee for missing and murdered aboriginal women, we had a chance to hear first-hand about an aboriginal woman's experience. What I have been most consumed with or have grappled with at great lengths in this piece of legislation in particular is the emergency protection order and the priority occupation, which the member just referred to in her response to the question by the member opposite.

I wonder if the member could expound a bit more on how that could definitely make a difference in a situation where there has been an unfortunate situation in the home that has resulted in domestic violence, so that the courts, the judge or the police officers would have the opportunity to ensure that the woman and her children stay in the house, as opposed to their having to move out, which is very problematic if not troubling, as I have seen first-hand in first nations communities.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in the downtown east side of Vancouver some 20-odd years ago. It was heartbreaking to see women arrive with garbage bags of clothing, their children in tow, not having had a meal and with nowhere to go. That is because for 25 years there has been a gap in legislation, as has been pointed out by the Human Rights Commission. For 25 years this bill did not exist, which has impacted hundreds, thousands, of women across this country. Previous speakers have spoken about the statistics and the horrifying impact this has had on women and their children across Canada.

I would like to quote from Jennifer Courchene, who is also a member of the first nations in Manitoba. She came to the standing committee as well and told her heartbreaking story. She said that she and her children became homeless after her abusive partner forced them out of their home.

She stated:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gone through this in a first nation community. There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home. I'm not sure how other first nations communities are run, but if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.

The acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission came to committee as well. He said the situation was urgent. I asked him what exactly he meant by “urgent”.

It has been 25 years. The opposition has been vehemently opposing this legislation to grant these rights and protection for these women and children for more than 25 years. I ask the opposition members how much longer they will oppose this for these hundreds and thousands of women who have been in the streets. I not only ask but beg them to vote with us on this legislation.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 puts the onus on couples to resolve disputes in court, yet it does not improve access to provincial courts. In addition, it is difficult for the bill to be enforced, in a practical sense, in many first nations communities. It is unrealistic.

Instead of presenting first nations with a bill that is ineffective, will the Conservatives commit to supporting the implementation of remedies within first nations communities that would stem from their own legal traditions?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that would be like saying that human beings cannot fly in an airplane. Just because things are sometimes difficult, it does not mean they are not the right thing to do, nor are they insurmountable.

We have built into Bill S-2 all kinds of abilities with respect to technology, as well as funding a centre, which would help first nations across Canada devise their own laws and devise how they would implement this within their own communities across Canada. With this new convention centre as well as the ability to phone, email or talk to a peace officer, certainly the access points for an order would be there, through Bill S-2.

In addition, I do not believe that this Parliament, in righting a wrong, should hang on the fact that it is difficult. The government and this country have overcome many other difficulties and we are confident that this is a good bill, a necessary bill and an urgent bill.

Again, I would urge the member opposite to vote with us on protecting women and children on reserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for one moment the intention my friend from Vancouver South brings to this is to right a wrong.

My problem is that I have looked at the briefs and talked to women in first nations communities who do not think the bill would accomplish its end, and they see significant problems.

Because she is not on the floor of the House to say this, my friend Ellen Gabriel from Kanesatake in her brief said that the areas of concern for the bill, the problems, include, one, the incorrect assumption that the bill was accompanied by a consultation process. She was clear that it was not. Two, the lack of inclusion of the Constitution Act that protects and affirms inherent treaty rights of aboriginal peoples; three, the lack of resources for communities' implementation of the bill and problems with potential court orders; four, non-legislative matters and lack of access to justice; five, financial burdens placed on women who pursue these issues and are reliant on their spouses; and six, jurisdictional issues of provincial, federal, common law, civil law and indigenous customary laws.

Native women's associations of this country are not supporting the bill, and I ask my hon. friend from Vancouver South if we cannot step back and ensure that any bill we pass can work.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed shocked that someone of the member's stature, being a lawyer herself, does not recognize the fact that we need to start somewhere. By starting somewhere, we need to have the legislative framework to do so.

My short answer is, without the bill, women and children have no rights on their reserve. There is nowhere to start in terms of any of these programs and services.

The hon. member knows that consultation has occurred extensively across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who will be taking the second half of the speech on Bill S-2.

I was deeply disturbed last night by the aggressive, attacking tone of the government on the bill. What we heard last night from speakers, and we are hearing a bit of that today, are very aggressive attacks from the government.

I certainly understand that the government feels it is in a weak position. The Conservatives brought forward Bill S-2 for consultation. They actually tried yesterday to say that they consulted with groups like the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. They talked about the consultation process as something meaningful. None of them, not a single Conservative member of Parliament who spoke on this issue last night, and we have not heard any this morning, acknowledged that those organizations opposed the bill. In the consultation process that supposedly took place, the government was met with opposition from aboriginal women's groups from across the country.

There is something profoundly disturbing about government members who would stand in the House and say that they have done some kind of consultation when the organizations that they consulted with have said that the bill would not get the job done and, in many respects, the bill would actually be harmful.

The aggressive tone of government members has done nothing to allay the many concerns that we are hearing from first nations, aboriginal women's groups and aboriginal groups across the country. The reality is, the aggressive tone belies what the government's agenda has been when it comes to first nations. We have seen it cut back on funding for the aboriginal police forces that should be ensuring that women are protected on reserve across the country. It slashed and closed the First Nations Statistical Institute that gave us important information about what was happening right across the country. It closed down the National Centre for First Nations Governance.

The Conservative government has a lamentably poor record when it comes to adequately funding of first nations organizations. It is making first nations and aboriginal peoples in Canada pay the price of the Conservative agenda of bestowing billions of dollars on its pet projects, whether it is the F-35 or many others that we have spoken of over the last few days. It is aboriginal Canadians who are paying the price for the government's mean-spirited attitude toward first nations across the country and indeed toward all Canadians.

The government stands in the House and says it has slashed funding and would not provide any funding for Bill S-2, yet any aboriginal women's organizations that raise concerns, any opposition members of Parliament who raise concerns, are treated with an aggressive and attacking tone. We simply beg to disagree. This is a fundamentally wrong approach.

There is a duty to consult by the government and it did not consult in any meaningful way. Aboriginal organizations across the country are opposing Bill S-2.

Aboriginal organizations and aboriginal women's organizations are on one side saying the bill should be opposed. The government says it knows better, it will try to ram it through with closure and takes a very aggressive attacking tone with anyone who raises any of the very valid concerns that aboriginal organizations, aboriginal women's organizations and first nations have raised across the country.

The question then is, who has credibility? It is worth reading into the record what the Conservative government's record is. It has closed a wide variety of first nations organizations doing important work. It actually shut down the statistical institute that allowed all Canadians to understand the current situation of first nations. After seven years in power, here are the results: a quarter of first nations' children live in poverty. That is double the national average.

Suicide rates among first nations youth are five to seven times higher than rates among young non-aboriginal Canadians. Life expectancy of first nations citizens is five to seven years shorter than that of non-aboriginal Canadians. Infant mortality rates are 1.5 times higher among first nations. Tuberculosis rates among first nations citizens living on reserve are 31 times the national average.

A first nations youth is more likely to end up in jail than to graduate from high school. First nations children, on average, receive 22% less funding for child welfare services than other Canadian children. There are almost 600 unresolved cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.

The Conservative government's record is appalling. It has not taken action on any of these issues. Last year, we saw our former leader, the member for Hull—Aylmer, go with the member for Timmins—James Bay to Attawapiskat, where they saw appalling housing conditions.

In the same way that the government is attacking members of the opposition, it told aboriginal women's groups and aboriginal groups in first nations across the country on Bill S-2 that if they dared to disagree, it would attack them. It would insult them and degrade them. In the same way that the government did that, we can remember the attacks on Attawapiskat. The attacks were on the first nations there, which were simply looking to ensure a better future for their children.

The Conservative government's attitude is that anyone standing in the way of its agenda is somebody to be attacked, insulted and degraded. The first nations of this country deserve much better than a government that will insult and deride them when they disagree fundamentally on a bill's direction.

The government introduced the bill, first in the Senate and then here in the House. The government introduced the bill and it has not got it right. The government cannot stand and say that it has done the consultation when the groups that it consulted with oppose the bill. There is an illogical disconnect between government members standing up and saying they have done the consultation and not mentioning that the groups they consulted with oppose the bill. It simply does not make any logical sense.

What it does, of course, is lessen the integrity of the individuals from the government side who are standing up and making these comments. Maybe they do not know. Maybe they are reading prepared talking points from the Prime Minister's Office, so maybe they really do not know that the organizations that they are trumpeting about having consulted with are opposing the legislation. I do not know.

On this side of the House, when we carefully read our comments on any bill that is coming forward, we make sure that we get it right. We make sure that we are making comments that are factually true. However, here we have Conservative members who, perhaps in a mean-spirited way or perhaps unknown to them, are mentioning organizations like the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada and saying that they have consulted with them, when those organizations oppose the bill and disagree with the government, very vehemently in some cases.

Where do we go from here? We have an appalling state of first nations after seven years of a Conservative government. We have slashing and cutting of a wide variety of important first nations organizations, including the First Nations Statistical Institute. It did not cost a lot of money, but given the horrendous situations in health and unemployment and the lack of opportunities for children and youth on reserve, one would expect that a government would want to know what was going on. The Conservative government wanted to be blind and wanted to shut off that source of information.

With that approach from the government, we can only say this. Yes, we will continue to stand up and speak against this bill, as so many aboriginal women's organizations, aboriginal organizations and first nations have. The New Democratic Party members of Parliament will be the voice of first nations, the voice of aboriginal women and the voice of aboriginal Canadians here in the House of Commons. We will continue to say, very clearly, that this bill needs to be strongly redrafted.

The duty to consult still exists for the government. The government has the obligation to consult with first nations and heed what they say.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if he has any support for matrimonial real property rights for women on reserve who have gone through a marital breakup. Does he think there is any circumstance when that would be good public policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It was a sincere question, and I appreciate it.

There are numerous reports that deal with matrimonial real property that make solid recommendations. I am talking about “A Hard Bed to Lie In”, 2003; “Still Waiting”, 2004; “Walking Arm-in-Arm”, 2005; the Status of Women Report, 2006; and the Wendy Grant-John ministerial report from 2006.

All of these reports could have been guidelines for the government. They spoke to the issue of matrimonial real property rights and provided very substantive recommendations. A number of the aboriginal organizations across the country supported those recommendations. The question is this: Why did the government not heed those reports and follow those recommendations? The work had already been done, which is what I find so sad.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for such a long time. The government had a number of reports that provided substantive recommendations, but instead of following those recommendations, the government ignored them. Then, when first nation organizations said that this bill was inadequate and would do more harm than good, the government refused to listen to those aboriginal organizations and women's groups. It is sad. However, there is still time for the government to pull back and do the right thing.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a concept that has been developing over the last two decades, and that is the honour of the Crown as it applies, in particular, to the aboriginal communities of Canada. I have been listening to some of the interventions on this debate at various readings, but I have yet to hear this mentioned. It puts on the Crown, as my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster said, a true obligation to consult, and not to consult without the conclusions the consultations would lead to. The honour of the Crown is almost a fiduciary obligation and responsibility vis-à-vis our aboriginal peoples. I was wondering if my colleague would comment on that.

I hope that some members from the government side will speak to this later today. I might ask this question again. This is a very important matter that, unfortunately, has been neglected, but it should not be, because there is an obligation upon the Crown, and therefore the government, to act in a very particular manner vis-à-vis the aboriginal peoples of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Conservative government has imposed closure, so there is not going to be this debate. The government's position seems to have weakened as the fact that it has not consulted aboriginal women's groups and organizations has become more apparent, and the government is shutting down debate.

I would quote Ellen Gabriel, the former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association. This is what she said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which require the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. While it is understood that legislation is not accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement laws, these Bills will create further financial hardships on First Nations communities.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the fifth of its kind to be introduced by the government since 2008. The background on this issue has been given and we have debated it. Every time it has had the opportunity, the NDP has opposed the bill, and that is the case again here.

I am a feminist and I fight for women's rights. I fought as part of the Quebec section of the NDP women's council for years, before I was elected, and I have had the honour of chairing the NDP women's caucus. I take these issues to heart.

Division of matrimonial property is an important issue. Courts have rendered decisions on this issue since the mid-1980s, and parliamentary committees have been studying it since the early 2000s.

Right now, when a couple divorces, the division of family property, such as the house and the couple's personal property, is determined by provincial legislation. Subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that property and civil rights are under provincial jurisdiction. However, under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Therefore, provincial laws are not applicable to the division of property on the reserves.

In 1986, in the Derrickson case, the Supreme Court of Canada created a legal vacuum when it ruled that the courts could not rely on provincial law when determining the division of matrimonial real property on reserves. The absence of provisions at both the federal and provincial levels with regard to the division of matrimonial real property on reserves is a problem, because the people who live on reserves cannot appeal to the Canadian legal system to resolve issues relating to the division of property when a marriage has broken down. It is usually aboriginal women who pay for this legal vacuum.

The Assembly of First Nations determined that the following three broad principles were key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves: first, recognition of first nation jurisdiction; second, access to justice; and third, addressing underlying issues related to housing and economic security.

The bill does nothing to address any of these principles. On reserves, gender discrimination clearly exists when it comes to matrimonial real property. Everyone says so, including the courts, aboriginal people and politicians.

Bill S-2 does not solve the problem. It does not address the issues related to a lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law, a lack of funding for lawyers and legal advice, a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts, a lack of on-reserve housing, and a lack of land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserves.

Here is what Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo had to say:

The legislation...does not provide the necessary tools or capacities for first nation governments to deal with the issues that arise when marriages break up. This is rightfully a matter of first nation jurisdiction and we must have this capacity.

First nations have repeatedly and forcefully called on the government to work with us on an approach that will truly give our people in our communities access to justice. There are already first nations that have put their own laws and approaches in place on this matter. These must be respected and a similar approach must be supported for all first nations.

The Native Women's Association of Canada also has a problem with this bill.

Despite previous recommendations that first nations must be involved and create the solutions that will address the multitude of socio-economic issues impacting on families, the government has consistently tried to rush the process and to push through legislation that has been drafted mostly on its own, with little involvement and disregard for the comprehensive recommendations of the past ministerial representative, and many first nations governments and organizations.

As I indicated earlier, a lot of work has already been done on this issue. For example, there was the 2005 report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development entitled “Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”.

The report set out a number of very worthwhile suggestions. It recommended that the government consult with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in order to develop a new law or amend the Indian Act. It also recommended that the first nations be given financial assistance so that they can develop their own matrimonial real property codes, and that any new legislation should not apply to first nations that have their own codes. What is more, the Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended to apply to people living on reserves. The report also suggested that Canada recognize the inherent rights of first nations to govern themselves.

Canada is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, as such, consultation entails the consent of the people consulted. Although Canada conducted some limited consultations, no consent was given by the rights holders. As a result, we are opposed to Bill S-2 because it violates article 32 of the UN declaration, which requires the free and informed consent of the rights holders prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or well-being.

Those are the reasons why I cannot support this bill. However, I would like to add that the government must treat our first nations with more respect. In addition to a better bill on matrimonial real property, it is urgent that the government work with first nations in order to put an end to violence against aboriginal women. It must improve living conditions on reserves, particularly with regard to the housing crisis, and it must put an end to systematic discrimination with regard to funding for first nations children.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all of the hard work she has been doing on women's issues for several years now.

She pointed out some problems inherent in this bill. Could she elaborate on those? We heard from first nations women, particularly in our women's caucus.

What is the member's perception of violence against women in aboriginal communities? What concrete measures could be taken, particularly with respect to the housing crisis and the fight against poverty?

I would like to hear the member speak to these major issues.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my passionate and hard-working colleague for her question and I thank her for giving me the opportunity to talk about the testimony we heard in our women's caucus.

Aboriginal women are very disappointed that the government has not taken action to combat the violence they are experiencing. They told us that nothing has been done. Study after study gathers dust on the shelf. No action plan has been created. These women took the initiative to get organized and put pressure on the authorities to open inquiries, particularly in the case of abused, missing and murdered women.

These women do not even have the right to a roof over their heads. They have no financial assistance. WIthout a home or financial means, how do we expect them to be able to access the courts? That is the problem with this bill, which was unfortunately introduced in the Senate and not by the government. The government is trying to pass this bill today, but in my opinion, this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The government boasts about having held consultations. Indeed, perhaps it did. However, after consulting communities, the government has to respond to their demands. In this case, most of the groups were very critical of this bill.

Does my colleague think that sound consultation involves taking into account what was said during the consultations and then incorporating all this information in a bill? Is that what the government did?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hard-working member, the youngest in the House, for his insightful question.

As I mentioned earlier, the government claimed that it consulted everyone, yet these consultations were quite limited. I quoted Mr. Atleo, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and his words spoke volumes. Moreover, according to the Native Women's Association, this bill does not provide any tangible solutions to address the problems they face every day.

It is obvious that this government is once again trying to pass bills in a hurry just to get them done and pretend that it has already done all the required work.

Since the 2000s, no tangible solutions have been found to address the problem at the community level.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The parliamentary secretary will have approximately five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this particular piece of legislation. There have been discussions and contributions by a number of stakeholders. From my own experience and context, I think back to the more than eight years that I spent living and working in isolated first nations communities across Canada, in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and parts of the Arctic Circle.

I mention this experience because earlier in the debate we heard some concerns put forward. I do not know if they are on the record or not, but I heard the words “jurisdictional matters”, and if I might say so with some humility, I have a sense not just for the issues as legal counsel for first nations communities over a number of years but for any of the jurisdictions where this might be a problem.

Earlier I had a line of questions for members across the way and in my own caucus, tough but fair questions around the emergency protection orders and priority occupation measures that this piece of legislation contemplates. In my respectful view, these are two key components of this legislation.

In the special standing committee on murdered and missing aboriginal women we heard from a witness who was unequivocal and categorical in her understanding of this legislation, particularly with respect to emergency protection orders and priority occupation. We heard that these two pieces would have, in fact, spared her from a tremendously difficult process that arose as a result of a domestic violence situation perpetrated on her by her partner at the time.

In the progression of this debate, we have heard members, particularly in the official opposition, identify a number of groups that they say are in principle against the legislation overall. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that considers some of the good people who commented on this legislation and may have made a general statement about it, because what they were really concerned about—and I think we are all in agreement on this point—is that whenever and wherever possible, the real effort should be to encourage first nations communities to develop their own matrimonial real property regime.

This bill would achieve that end. It says to first nations under a variety of different agreements, such as the First Nations Land Management Act and self-government agreements, to go out and make this. In fact, first nations do not even have to belong to one of those two categories to design or develop their own framework for matrimonial real property.

It is important, because we know that whether it is first nations communities or non-first nations communities, relationships do break down. In that final and most unfortunate category of relationship breakdown, or along the way, violence can arise. That is why my emphasis is on emergency protection and priority occupation: it is because this is where the real vacuum in the law exists. It is that fundamental ability of a police officer and a magistrate at that difficult time to give a woman and, most importantly, her children an opportunity to stay in the home.

I, unfortunately, have had a ringside seat in this special category that I am referring to. I have seen a woman and her family taken out of the home. It is not a very nice thing to see. I cannot imagine experiencing it. I can only relay to my friends across the way and to members of this government and caucus the importance of these two elements alone as grounds to consider matrimonial real property and how it would work on reserve until or unless first nations communities were in a position to develop their own regime that would respect these two important principles.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 11:12 a.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order adopted Wednesday, May 22, the deferred recorded division is deferred until later today at the end of oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, 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 read the third time and passed, and of the amendment

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Ms. Crowder to the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-2.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #747

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #748

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is rising on a point of order.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, you can obviously see the point I am trying to make here. In the past, when members voted on both sides of the question, I believe the Chair asked for clarification.

I am pressing this point because when members rise on a question in this House, I think it is important that the rules apply equally and that when members inadvertently vote one way or the other, they are asked to stand to correct the record.

For the record, I am glad you did not ask the whip for the NDP as to how I vote. I would like to affirm now that I vote with the government.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think there is a point to be made that there may be room for discussion on inadvertently doing something versus purposely doing something. In any event, I appreciate the clarification.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the Board of Internal Economy begin posting the travel and hospitality expenses of members on a quarterly basis to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member for Papineau have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

I move that the Board of Internal Economy begin to post expense reports organized by member, every quarter, on the Parliament of Canada website, in a form more accessible to the public.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member may know that usually a period of time has to proceed before a member seeks unanimous consent for the same motion.

Is it a different one? It is.

Then does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

I move that the House ask the Auditor General to conduct performance audits of the House of Commons administration every three years.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you sought it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be directed to develop guidelines under which the Auditor General is asked to perform more detailed audits of parliamentary spending and report these guidelines to the House no later than December 10, 2013.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley on a point of order.