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.

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the subject of pay equity. I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

I am going to begin by reading verbatim from our Conservative Party policy statement:

The Conservative Party supports the full participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada. The Canadian workforce has evolved to include more women than ever. We believe all Canadians have the right to freedom from discrimination in the workplace and equality of opportunity. Individuals should be only judged on skills, qualifications and merits. Women must be entitled to equal pay for equal work.

This is what our party believes, and this is what I believe.

Over the last 10 years, our party has taken steps to improve the status of women in our country. We put the first woman in cabinet. We put the first woman in Senate. We put the first female engineer in the House.

Our women on boards initiative increased by 20% the representation of women on executive boards across the country in just under two years. We placed the first female clerk of the Privy Council in the House. All of these women were paid equitably.

I fully support the statement in paragraph (a) of the NDP's opposition day motion, which calls on the House to recognize that the government must take action to close the unacceptable gap in pay between men and women, which contributes to income inequality and discriminates against women.

I was a victim of pay inequity on several occasions throughout my 32 year career in engineering. In one instance, a human resources lawyer was called in after years of complaints from numerous women. I, along with several women in similar circumstances, was given a 17% pay increase while I was off on maternity leave. When I asked if it was in recognition of the amazing work I had done while on leave or whether I should be expecting a retroactive cheque for the years I had been inequitably paid, I was told I would be better off if I took the increase without question.

In another role, I was given a zero bonus one year even though I was top rated. I was told the company was on hard times, and it was. However, my male counterparts each received between 5% and 10% of their salary as a bonus at the same time.

Although laws have been put in place to ensure that men and women are paid equally for the same work, there are still ways to discriminate, including time to promotion, bonuses, and disparity within a pay band.

I have two daughters who are just starting in the workforce, and I want to do everything possible to ensure they will be paid equitably with their counterparts.

Part (b) in the opposition motion calls to “recognize pay equity as a right”. As the President of the Treasury Board has pointed out, this has already been established in section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a fundamental human right, also known as equal pay for work of equal value. Some of the work still to be done is the identification of the method by which non-similar jobs can be compared to determine if there is equity.

Another area of opportunity is enforcement to ensure the good pay equity measures put into place by companies across the country remain vigilant.

When it comes to part (c) of the opposition motion, the NDP has referred to the “2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report”. There is a lot of information in the report where the recommendations have been followed up on, but there is still more work to be done. Although I do not agree with all the recommendations in the report, I agree we still need to do work on it.

However, part of the opposition motion calls to “restore the right to pay equity in the public service...”. That states that this was somehow removed by our party in 2009. This is absolutely untrue. A fundamental right that is part of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not something that can be or was removed. Pay equity exists in the public sector. As evidence I would put forward the following facts.

In 2013, 55% of public sector employees were women. This data comes from public service hiring and staffing activity files. The percentage of women in executive positions in the public sector is 46%, as was pointed out.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which is accessible on the government web page where it is displayed transparently, reiterates the requirement for men and women to be equally compensated for work of equal value. What really happened in 2009 was that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act came into place. The act was designed to see issues of equal pay for men and women in the public service dealt with through collective bargaining between the union and the employer, with complaints referred to the Public Service Labour Board for expeditious resolution. This solved the issue of complaints previously brought to the Human Rights Commission, which the Senate committee on human rights testified were each taking at least six years to resolve, and in some cases up to 15 years. Pay equity cases, although they are only 8% of the caseload, absorbed half of the spending on legal fees by the Human Rights Commission.

A fact and evidence-based approach forces me to reject the wording in section (c) of the motion because the facts do not support it. Public service workers have pay equity rights and the Conservative Party did not remove their rights.

Section (d) of today's motion calls for a special committee to be put in place with a membership that looks like the representation we have today on the committee for the status of women. The committee would work on pay equity, which I understand the status of women committee has already worked on, and appropriately so. As a new member of this committee, I was quite impressed looking back over the previous Parliament's work to find that the majority of the time this committee operated in a nonpartisan fashion where gender issues impacting women were scrutinized with passion and intelligence.

In 2015, an investment of $700 million was made through the Business Development Bank of Canada for women entrepreneurs. Changes to the labour code to allow longer leave for families were also made in 2015. The first women's trade mission was implemented.

The committee also studied Bill S-2, which specifically dealt with ensuring that first nation women were granted appropriate equal property rights on reserve in matrimonial cases, something every other woman in Canada would consider a natural right practically.

A study looking at improving economic prospects for Canadian girls was undertaken to look at what could be done to improve the fiscal prosperity outlook for women and girls across all backgrounds in Canada, including marginalized groups, such as first nation women or new Canadians, for example.

Furthermore, and something I am pleased to say occurred under the previous government, the government committee recommended that departments conduct gender-based analysis of the legislation we introduce here.

In 2010, we saw a report that talked about the elevation of debate in the House of Commons in order to attract and retain more good women in politics and better showcase the good work that is being done.

Women make up the majority of enrollments now in college programs. Women are the majority in full-time undergraduate programs. There is another generation of women graduating now that need to be assured of equal opportunity and pay equity.

All of these efforts were taken by the status of women committee in a non-partisan, open and transparent fashion. With this in mind, I would urge the NDP to rethink why their motion today is basically calling for the exact duplication of the work that can be done by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

For this reason, we would not be supportive of part (d) of the opposition motion, because it would create, at additional expense, a structure that is already in place and capable to do the same thing.

Although I am passionate about pay equity and about making sure that the playing field is an equal opportunity one for men and women, I do not see anything in the motion that would add to the improvements our party has put in place, so I have an amendment to the motion. I move, seconded by the member for South Surrey—White Rock that the motion be amended by deleting sections (c) and (d).

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to know that I am an immigrant myself. I have worked with immigrant settlement agencies across Canada. I have worked with immigrant women and children across Canada for over 30 years.

I want the member to know that it is our government that has stood up for women and children and taken action on this. We have doubled funding for women's programs across Canada. We brought forward Bill S-2. We are bringing forward Bill S-7.

I would like to ask the member why his party, instead of using rhetoric, is not standing and voting for Bill S-7, because this is what would protect women and children in Canada.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the member for the question, because it gives me the opportunity to say how truly sad I am that the member and his party did not support Bill S-2. Bill S-2 gave women and children protection on reserve, and the Liberal Party did not support it when it was brought before the House several years ago.

It is very personal to me, because the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women is one that is very dear to us in the Lower Mainland in B.C. We want to move forward. We want to address these issues. That is why we have an action plan for missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not want to just study it again for another several years, which is what the opposition wants to do. The opposition wants inaction. It wants to just talk about it. We have heard the opposition's rhetoric today. We want action and we are doing it.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy and very honoured to stand up today to speak in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

For many of us, there are very special issues that are dear to our hearts, and when we are able to bring forward legislation that is important and is helping Canadians, it is especially gratifying.

Two years ago, I was able to stand up and speak in support of Bill S-2, a bill that was not widely talked about, that was completely opposed by the opposition parties and virtually ignored by mainstream media, but a bill that had an amazing and profound impact on aboriginal women. For the first time, it gave matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women now have real matrimonial property rights. It is because of this government and that piece of legislation, and it is because we took a leadership role on a somewhat complicated and difficult issue.

We are doing the same thing today with Bill S-7. We are looking at an issue and a problem that primarily victimizes girls and women. We are looking at it in terms of what we, as a government, can do. As with so many issues that negatively affect our country, at the heart of it are people's feelings and attitudes toward women, marriage, and certain practices. Ideally those change first; the hearts and minds of people change first.

As legislators, we cannot change people's hearts and minds; only they can change their hearts and minds. What we can change is legislation. We can change laws, and we can give law enforcement the tools they need to help protect the most vulnerable.

In this case, we are certainly primarily talking about women and girls. I think all of us, and I have listened to some of the comments from the opposition, agree that the following practices are unacceptable, and we would describe them as barbaric. They are wrong and not acceptable in Canada. I think we all agree that forced marriages are wrong. We all agree that the early marrying of very young girls is also wrong and should be stopped. We agree that in Canada not only is polygamy wrong, it is illegal. Certainly we would all 100% agree that honour killings are absolutely wrong. There is no defence to any of these practices.

The next thing we need to agree on are the best ways that we can stop these practices, combat them, and the best ways we can support women who find themselves in these situations. Preferably, we need to agree on how we can stop these situations from happening. That is where Bill S-7 comes in.

We are introducing a number of changes to a number of pieces of legislation that are already in place. Together we believe that they form a good package, whereby we can protect women from some of these practices.

First, we are raising the age of consent for marriage to a minimum of 16 years. That is across the country. Different provinces do have different minimum ages. Some are extremely young; I think as young as 12 or 14 years. We want that to be uniform across the country so that there is a minimum age with consent of marriage. The bill will establish a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage to protect our most vulnerable in society, namely our children.

The Civil Marriage Act will also be amended to codify the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent to marriage and the requirement for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. That will remain consistent.

The other step we are taking is on changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in regard to polygamy. In relation to polygamy, this bill proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on the grounds of practising polygamy.

The bill would prohibit both temporary and permanent residents from practising polygamy in Canada and provide for the removal of non-citizens who practise polygamy in Canada, without the need for a Criminal Code conviction or a finding of misrepresentation.

Someone who lives outside of Canada and practises polygamy and wants to come to Canada and live here permanently or temporarily will not be allowed. Polygamy is illegal in Canada. We are sending the message loud and clear that polygamy is illegal. It is not allowed, and it is not tolerated in any way, shape, or form.

We are going to ensure that if they are practising polygamy, they will be removed from the country. That is step number two.

Step number three addresses the whole issue of people who participate knowingly in forced or early marriages. This would not only send a strong signal, but it has penalties attached.

The proposed amendment addresses a gap in the current legislation by creating offences that focus on the active participation in the forced or underage marriage ceremony itself. What does this mean? Essentially, the bill proposes two new offences for anyone who knowingly celebrates or aids in a marriage ceremony where one or both of the spouses are under the age of 16 years or are marrying against their will.

We can compare this to violence. If anyone knowingly participates, celebrates, or encourages violence toward another person, there are penalties for that. If someone knowingly encourages, participates, or is active in a forced or early marriage before the age of 16 years, that would now be an offence under the new legislation. It would include those who conduct the marriage ceremony, and those, such as family members, who have full knowledge of the circumstances but still actively participate. These two new offences would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment.

We also want to make sure that it is an offence if someone tries to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage outside of our country. A child could not be taken from Canada to a different country for the purpose of forcing them into marriage. That would also be an offence. There have been disturbing cases of this, and Canadian protection officials currently lack the tools needed to intervene and prevent the child's removal from Canada. I believe these measures would help not only prevent but also deter the removal of children for these harmful practices, and punish the perpetrators.

I have heard that many victims of forced or underage marriage are very reluctant to come forward to contact authorities prior to the marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. It is very understandable. That makes sense, and it is something we wanted to address. We want to make sure that young women are not feeling this pressure.

Currently, where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a person, including a family member, will cause personal injury to another person, they can be brought to court and ordered into a peace bond or a court order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Other conditions can be imposed, including that the person have no contact with the person who fears for their safety. A person subject to a peace bond could be prosecuted if they breach the order.

Bill S-7 would give power to courts to help protect these girls without necessarily laying a criminal offence. It basically tells the perpetrator that there is a peace bond on them and that if they break this law then there will be a criminal charge. Therefore, it protects these young women, but also gives them a sense of peace, in that they know they are not going to be prosecuting their relatives. This would also mean that the perpetrator would have to surrender travel documents and refrain from making arrangements or agreements in relation to the marriage. They would also have to participate in a family violence counselling program.

The last part of the bill that I would like to speak to is in relation to the honour killing issue. We definitely know it is an issue. As legislators, we have to look at every way that violence can be inflicted on the most vulnerable, in this case primarily women. Honour killings are some of the most horrible cases. Women and girls are being killed because they dated someone or wore the wrong clothing, or got a tattoo or went to a bar. Girls have been killed in Canada in the name of honour.

Right now, provocation is still a defence. We want to remove that loophole as any possible defence. Therefore, we are going to change “provocation”. Provocation is not when someone dates someone outside of their faith or culture. Provocation is not if someone goes to a bar or wears earrings or gets a tattoo. We are absolutely removing that; provocation would have to be something that is actually illegal and punishable by law.

I am very proud of this piece of legislation. I support it. I look forward to the opposition supporting the spirit and the letter of the legislation with their vote.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of purpose that I am participating today in this debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I am supporting this legislation because I believe that men and women are equal, and our government believes that men and women are equal. Passing this bill is critical to ensuring that immigrant girls and women have the same chances to position themselves for success in Canada as men and boys do.

Canada has opened its doors to many people who have left their home countries to come here for a better life. Many have come for the rich opportunities. Many have fled persecution in search of safety and security. We want to ensure that they can live here in safety and security. We want them to know that they can live freely, because Canada upholds the enduring principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Those apply equally to men and women. We cannot just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. This bill is an example of that today.

Even in this House, we can see that immigrant women are making great contributions to Canada. I think of my fellow colleagues who are immigrant women, the MPs for Vancouver South, Richmond, and Fleetwood—Port Kells, just to name a few who were born elsewhere. They have been elected to Parliament, and they work every day toward a better Canada.

As legislators, we all owe it to immigrant girls and women to ensure that they are not hampered from making great contributions to Canada by discriminatory cultural practices and barbaric cultural practices, such as early and forced marriage, polygamy, and yes, so-called honour killings, which have no place in this country. Indeed, we have zero tolerance for such practices, and this bill sends that strong message.

To that end, the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps. Already our government is providing women who are newcomers to Canada with a whole range of services and programs to help them build their skills so they can enter the workforce and get great jobs here. I have had the opportunity to participate in graduations from some of these programs. I have to say that they truly are inspiring. They have such vim and vigour and a desire to get out and make a contribution.

Two great organizations in my community, among many, that are doing this work are the Calgary Immigrant Women's Association and Immigrant Services Calgary. They do things like co-op programs for professional women, job retraining, and mentorship.

However, shockingly, groups that work with many of our immigrant women and girls also report that when they have left countries where barbaric practices are common, they find themselves subjected to them here.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government committed to ensuring that barbaric cultural practices do not occur here on Canadian soil. The Government of Canada, the people of Canada, will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices that hold women back. That is the bottom line.

It is up to us to ensure that immigrant women and girls are not being subjugated through isolation and violence. This bill codifies that in law. It says that practices like early and forced marriage, like polygamy and honour-based violence, will not be tolerated.

Women and girls seeking a better life for themselves here in Canada should never be subject to living in constant fear under threat of violence or death simply for living their lives, for choosing whom they wish to marry, and for seeking better opportunities for themselves.

These practices are antithetical to the fundamental Canadian values of freedom and gender equality in which I firmly believe. According to Justice Canada, reports from criminal court cases, the media, and refugee decisions, there were at least a dozen killings from 1999 to 2009 committed in the name of so-called honour. These were premeditated killings, killings of girls and women, murders by family members.

I am haunted by a case in my own home town of Calgary in March 1991, when 20-year-old Kulvinder Dulay was gunned down with her husband and a friend in a parking lot outside the mall by a family member. Ontario was rocked in 2009 when four strong, vivacious women, the Shafias, were murdered by their own family in Kingston.

We are prosecuting such crimes under our current laws, but we know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls face additional barriers when it comes to protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women who are born in Canada.

There were a reported 219 cases of forced marriage from 2010 to 2012 just in Ontario, and all of those individuals reported being victims of violence. These practices have a very negative effect on families and on society at large as well as on the communities in which they occur. Bill S-7 is the latest example of this government taking strong action to protect women and girls.

Our government has also recently updated Canada's citizenship guide, called Discover Canada, and the newcomers' orientation guide, called Welcome to Canada, to clearly state for people coming to Canada and people who want to be citizens that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful cultural practices like forced marriage or gender-based family violence. This is a great step. I have talked with our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently about expanding the scope of the distribution of these guides to all of our embassies worldwide.

However, our efforts do not stop there. Status of Women, a committee on which I am privileged to sit, has also invested $2.8 million for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices. Justice Canada and the Status of Women co-chair an interdepartmental working group on early and forced marriage, honour-based violence, and female genital mutilation. Since 2009, Justice Canada has been busy holding workshops. It has held six sector-specific workshops with police, crowns, victims services, child protection officials, and shelter workers to build capacity among the people who deal with these issues on the front lines.

As I said, we know that more needs to be done to protect girls and women in our immigration system. That is why Bill S-7 is necessary. To ensure the effectiveness of the measures in this bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consulted with immigration advocates and others in this field for many months, across the country, to formulate the policies that would stop violence and abuse. Those experts told us that barbaric practices still occur on Canadian soil and that we need to act. They gave advice and made very important recommendations that were included in this bill. That led us to where we are today.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would send a clear and unambiguous message to Canadians and newcomers that such practices are verboten. It would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers from these harmful practices by ensuring, for example, that people know that it is a crime to participate in these barbaric cultural practices. We would remove the defence of provocation in the case of so-called honour killings. We would declare that the practices of some cultures are not consistent with Canadian laws and that Canadians will not tolerate cultural practices that deprive individuals, girls, and women of their human rights.

To repeat, this bill would support women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life. It would make it clear that under no circumstances do Canadians accept or allow the propagation or enactment of barbaric cultural practices that target women.

Aruna Papp, who was a victim of early and forced marriage, says this about Bill S-7:

The government's Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act recognizes the plight of these women. In presenting this bill, the government of Canada has said, in effect, “as a Canadian citizen, you, too, deserve to live a life free of violence and coercion.” For this, I am grateful.

For this, I too am grateful. This bill needs to become law to prevent more young victims like Aruna Papp.

I implore the opposition members who refuse to stand up for those victims and who say that action is not needed for such a small problem to support this bill, to think of Aruna Papp, of Lee Marsh, of the four members of the Shafia family, and of all the victims of these barbaric practices.

I know that members of both opposition parties say that they are in favour of women's rights. Yet both parties voted against Bill S-2, which gave aboriginal women long-denied matrimonial property rights last year. That is a game changer for them.

I encourage all of my hon. colleagues, and especially those members of the opposition who sit with me on the Status of Women committee, to lead their colleagues and stand up for women and girls. I ask them to vote for Bill S-7 and stand up for victims of violence and abuse.

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

It is very important, and housing is a very big problem in aboriginal communities. It is broadcast widely across all the news channels and the media. There is overcrowding. In terms of matrimonial.... Communities are small. Everybody knows one another.

If you take out the man and the woman gets the house, where does the man go? Everyone is contained in a small community. There are no shelters for the women. It's problem after problem.

That's why NWAC is calling for a national public inquiry. It is calling for all levels of government and NAOs to sit down together and to start to look at these problems, because we're just bouncing them around and looking at them though one lens. That's not what is needed.

Putting in things like Bill S-2 may do a little bit of good, or it may not.

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

You've given me a lot of food for thought and hopefully we can come back to that.

Ms. Dumont-Smith, thank you for your comment.

You specifically spoke to housing as an issue. Bill S-2 was quite frankly my proudest moment on this committee. I was incredulous when I learned that aboriginal women did not have matrimonial property rights, and hopefully that will address some of the issues, certainly for women in the case of marriage breakdown. I refer to my experience as a school trustee in the City of Winnipeg, where about 25% of our students were aboriginal, and there were many young women who were thrown out of their home because the marriage had broken down. They came to the city with a number of children and it's a very tough situation. I'm grateful that we've addressed Bill S-2.

But your group represents women. I think it was very courageous of Mr. Bellegarde to speak out—it was very recently on the front page of The Globe and Mail—saying that every member of his community has a role in this. Clearly he was looking to men and women.

What advice would you give him to engage the men and boys in the community in solving violence against women, because it's so crucial?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Again, I'd like to thank all of you for your excellent information.

Going back to Calgary and the wraparound services, I want to talk a little bit about your perspectives on the need for more transition houses. We've implemented Bill S-2 in this country, which means that women on reserves get to stay in their homes, and it's the perpetrator who gets removed. Which would you say is a better model? Is it a better model for the women and children to remain in their homes where violence existed and the perpetrator is removed, or is it a better model for the women to be removed?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Anyway, the point is that it is now in place and that gives us a step forward in terms of another best practice. Is that correct, in the sense that we now have something that means women can stay in their home? Given the high incidence of aboriginal women being on the streets—certainly I saw them when I worked in the downtown eastside in Vancouver with garbage bags full of clothes and stuff like that—I felt that was a huge step ahead.

I see some nodding. Are there any comments from you folks as well? How are we going to see Bill S-2 play out? Are we going to see that women are going to get to stay in their homes?

[Ann Decter]

There were issues with Bill S-2.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Exactly, but you did not support Bill S-2 though, so that was interesting.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I'll just make a quick shift there.

Last year we passed Bill S-2, which gave matrimonial and property rights to women who were experiencing violence or whatever on reserve. There had been a gap in legislation. What we did with that, which I think was very commendable, was to say that these women and children don't have to leave their homes to go to a shelter. In fact the abusive man has to leave. These people can stay in their homes and stay in their schools and stay in their community, etc., which I think is far better. Would you agree with that? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

There is some good information that's coming out here, and I appreciate the contributions that all of you are making in your various areas.

I want to talk to Andrew Beynon for a minute.

It was said that you could address the matrimonial property rights act. I'm wondering if you can tell us how, in your view, Bill S-2 will make a substantial contribution to ending violence against women.

[Marla Israel, Director General, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members, I wish to thank you for inviting Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to appear before this committee.

I also want to introduce my colleague, Andrew Beynon, director general, community opportunities branch, who's here to answer any questions you may have regarding legislation on matrimonial real property.

I'm so pleased to be here on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women to provide you with information on Aboriginal Affairs' efforts to address violence against aboriginal women and girls, and of course, I'm pleased to answer questions you may have regarding our programs following this presentation.

As you are no doubt aware, family violence is an issue with very serious and far-reaching consequences impacting women, children, families, and communities. The causes of family violence and remedies to prevent it are exceedingly complex and require partnerships and the active involvement of professionals, communities, and governments.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides a range of programming to address issues associated with family violence. First and foremost, our investments are directed toward protecting women and children from violence.

The department's Family Violence Prevention Program funds the operation of a network of 41 shelters serving women, children and families living on reserve. Core shelter services include a safe and respectful residential environment, the provision of nutritious meals, crisis intervention, individual case planning and referral to other social supports.

In 2012-13, approximately 4,465 women and 2,700 children accessed services in the 41 shelters. In areas where there are no shelters on reserve, first nations can access provincial shelters in order to find a safe haven from situations of violence.

Shelter expenditures have been gradually increasing year after year. Five new shelters have been built since 2007. In addition, the department has been providing the 41-shelter network with a top-up of $500,000 annually to address issues related to cost of living increases.

The department also invests in prevention efforts by providing funding for projects aimed at providing information on the impact of violence, raising awareness about violence prevention efforts in communities, and offering training supports. Prevention, of course, is a multi-layered, shared responsibility and involves multiple partnerships with the RCMP, public safety, public health, health services, and other partners, each responsible for an important section of those prevention efforts.

Our prevention projects are proposal driven and community based. They aim to promote community awareness about the impact of violence and help reduce the incidence of family violence in order to support a more secure environment for families living on reserve. Examples of community prevention projects include public outreach and awareness campaigns, conferences and workshops, stress and anger management seminars, and community-needs assessments. In 2012-13, a total of 249 proposal-based prevention projects were funded by the program and delivered by first nations to respond to community needs.

In recent years, the department has been working on approaches to distribute prevention funds more strategically by encouraging and leveraging partnerships in the communities and strengthening linkages to ensure that prevention projects reach a broader audience.

I would like to share an example of a successful prevention imitative that the department recently funded.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Miawpukek first nations community family and youth support program provided theme-based sessions to children and youth to raise awareness of family violence. This program involved a family violence support worker, a mental health social worker, and a special needs coordinator at the community school.

One component of the program, healthy relationships school, taught youth between grades 7 and 12 how to deal with unhealthy relationships in their lives. The program also had anti-bullying workshop sessions for children ranging from pre-kindergarten through grade 6, delivered by mental health social workers and members of the RCMP.

We see this example as a best practice as it is inclusive of professionals, community based, and aimed at the vulnerable segments of the population. More importantly these types of projects continue to raise awareness as children progress into their teenage and young adult years, which is an important factor in changing attitudes towards violence.

In 2013-14, in order to enhance linkages between protection and prevention services, on-reserve shelters were added as eligible recipients for prevention dollars under the program. This allows shelters to offer prevention activities tailored to the needs of women seeking shelter services. The department is also undertaking shelter visits to assess capacity, address challenges, and develop plans where needed. In addition, under the first nations child and family services program, the department supports the delivery of culturally appropriate prevention and protection services for first nations children and families.

In 2007 the first nations child and family services program began shifting to an enhanced prevention-focused approach geared to working with families in at-risk situations to address issues in the family before there's an escalation and shelter services could become necessary. Measures include working to improve prevention and parental supports, working with extended families to stabilize the situation, and working with social workers to ensure other services and supports can become available.

Another key element that works to solidify rights for women living on reserve was the introduction of the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which came into force on December 16, 2013. This act provides basic rights and protections to individuals on reserve regarding the family home or other matrimonial interests or rights in the event of a relationship breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner. The act sets out provisions for the enactment of first nation laws respecting on-reserve matrimonial real property.

The act also provides for provisional federal rules that will come into force December 16, 2014 to fill the legislative gap in the absence of a first nation's own laws. It will also provide protection for individuals living on reserve in situations of family violence.

Moving forward, it will be important to continue improving the coordination of violence prevention and protection efforts by working in partnership across federal organizations, with provinces and territories, and through the leadership of aboriginal communities and organizations. We understand the important task that is at hand and are committed to working collaboratively and seamlessly with our partners to address violence within communities.

I hope and trust that the information I provided will help inform this important task you are undertaking. I thank you so much for your time.

Violence Against Indigenous Women

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his important speech on this issue.

I am very proud of this action plan and, together with other federal support for shelters, family violence prevention, and increasing economic leadership opportunities, it will result in an investment of the Government of Canada of $200 million over five years.

However, not everyone wants a national action plan. The Minister of Status of Women met with organizations and family members across the country. In my riding of London North Centre, At^lohsa Native Family Healing Services wrapped up a week of activities to honour sisters, daughters, and nieces who were taken too soon. Meg Cywink, a sister of Sonya Cywink, who was slain 20 years ago, said to forget a national inquiry; it would only create more paperwork. That is just one example.

The previous member, a Liberal member, asked something to the effect that, if a woman could not find a safe place, where would she go. If the Liberals had voted for Bill S-2, they would have a safe place; it is called a home.

My colleague and I were both on the committee together when we heard from the family members. Only one asked for a national inquiry at the end of her speech. Would my colleague not agree that the other family members wanted us to hear their stories and know their pain, and wanted Canadians to know who their—