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—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the concurrence motion before the House today.

I will be splitting my time with the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs.

We are here to address the report of the House of Commons Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women. I was honoured to chair the special committee and I would like to thank the other members of the committee from all parties for their dedicated work on this report, as well as the organizations and individuals who made submissions and appeared as witnesses. Most of all, I would like to thank the families who came to tell us their heart-wrenching stories. They have done a great service to Canadians by bringing even more attention to what is a serious issue and a complex problem.

Let me say at the outset that our government has made it very clear that these abhorrent acts of violence against aboriginal women and girls will not be tolerated in our society. These violence crimes must be strongly denounced by the communities in which they occur and by all Canadians. Canada is a country where those who break the law are punished, where penalties match the severity of crimes committed, and where the rights of victims are recognized.

What the committee heard from the families is that they want justice. The reality is that far too many aboriginal families have felt the effects of violent crime and have had to live with the consequences. This is unacceptable and that is why our government continues to take action to address this problem. This report is about solutions. It is about actions and that is why I am very proud to support the report and the action plan.

I want to talk about economic action plan 2014 investing an additional $25 million over five years to continue efforts to reduce violence against aboriginal women. On September 15, the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women launched the Government of Canada's action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women. This action plan was developed in response to the 16 recommendations identified in the report of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women. It also builds on lessons learned from the government's previous investments, as well as the many studies and reports on this issue, including the RCMP's national operational overview, a thoughtful and thought-provoking report released earlier this year.

In developing the action plan, the Minister of Status of Women also met with leaders of several aboriginal organizations and communities, as well as a number of individual victims and families. The action plan sets out concrete actions in three areas: to prevent violence, to support victims, and to protect aboriginal women and girls from violence. It includes the new funding of $25 million over five years beginning in 2015-16, as well as renewed and ongoing support in a number of important areas. I would like to tell the House about some of those areas.

The $25 million specifically includes $8.6 million over five years for the development of more community safety plans off and on reserve across Canada, including in vulnerable communities with a high incidence of violent crime perpetrated against women as identified in the RCMP report that I mentioned earlier. It also includes $2.5 million over five years for projects to break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse by raising awareness and building healthy relationships.

This is one example that I think resulted directly from evidence heard at the special committee, that the cycles of violence would continue if we did not stop them in their tracks. The committee heard over and over again from aboriginal organizations, aboriginal leaders and families that the cycle must stop, so this government is taking that seriously and that was worked into the action plan. The funding also includes $5 million over five years for projects to engage men and boys and empower women and girls in efforts to denounce and prevent violence.

This was another theme that came up over and over again, engaging men and boys off and on reserve to understand that the cycle had to stop and that these behaviours could no longer be tolerated or encouraged. There are programs in effect and we are committed to funding those programs to engage men and boys. There would also be $7.5 million directly for victims and their families for support as well as $1.4 million to share information and resources among community organizations and to report regularly on progress made.

I am particularly proud that part of the 2014 funding commitment, $1.3 million per year, would go to a DNA-based missing persons index. This is extremely important. We heard from many of the witnesses at committee that we needed a central database of missing persons. This would help law enforcement, the RCMP and police, to investigate the crimes and find the perpetrators more quickly and efficiently.

The member for Trinity—Spadina mentioned in his speech funding for shelters. I am particularly pleased that there is funding of $158 million over five years for shelters and family violence prevention activities. That is through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will tell us a bit more about that in his comments.

One of the other issues that came up a couple of times was economic security for aboriginal women. I think one of the most obvious and relevant actions that this government has taken on this front is the passage of Bill S-2, matrimonial property rights on reserve.

When I tell women in my riding of Mississauga South that until the House passed this bill, women on reserve did not have the right upon dissolution of a common law relationship or marriage to own property, they cannot believe it. Frankly, it does not seem right that in a country as great as Canada that this would be the case. We identified this as a problem because when one does not have a home, one cannot have economic security. That has all changed, and now women on reserve have the same rights that every other Canadian woman has enjoyed for many decades.

Taken altogether, these measures outlined by the minister in the action plan represent a total investment of $196.8 million over five years, so it is no surprise that many stakeholders have endorsed this action plan. Chief Ron Evans of the Norway House Cree Nation said:

This comprehensive Action Plan responds to the needs and recommendations made by stakeholders across the country in developing a concrete and action-oriented plan with significant resources and funding for implementation.

I think that is a fancy way of saying that the committee listened. The committee heard from the witnesses and made recommendations that were then implemented into the action plan. We are finding those solutions and taking the necessary action to help women and to solve this very tragic situation in Canada.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate with great interest.

I want to echo what my colleague said, that the Conservative government did not consult the first nations on this bill. We talked to a number of communities across the country and we found, in fact, that the communities are against this bill that, among other things, is not increasing funding for the first nations education system to an acceptable level.

I would like to ask my colleague why he thinks that it is acceptable not to consult the first nations on this bill. The Conservatives did that in the past with Bill S-2, which aboriginal women opposed.

Why does the government keep introducing bills that do not have the support of aboriginal communities across the country? Let us not forget that the government has a constitutional duty to consult the first nations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is extremely important to the people who sent me to Parliament, first nations and indigenous people in northern Manitoba, and of course, first nations people across our country.

I want to begin by speaking about the reality that first nations youth face in communities in our part of the country. Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Little Grand Rapids. Little Grand Rapids is a small first nation on the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. It is isolated. There are no roads that go there; it is in the middle of the forest, or the bush, as we call it. People work hard at what they do, hunting, trapping, fishing, and they hope for the best for the future of their kids, as anybody does.

What I hear from them when I visit from house to house is their concern for their kids, the concern that their kids are not going to have the same opportunities as other kids. It is not because of where Little Grand Rapids is, how far it is from the city or where it is positioned geographically. It is because it is a first nation, and they know their kids face some of the most unequal opportunities in terms of education in this country. Because they are first nations, going to school on reserve, they are guaranteed to be going to a school that is funded to a lesser extent than other schools.

What does that mean? It means that their kids go to a school that some people describe as a fire trap. It is a school where the doors do not lock properly. In order to lock them in -40° weather, so the cold does not come in, they have to a use a chain and a lock. It means the fire alarm system does not work. In fact, when Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development built the school, it hooked up those little fire alarm contraptions that we see everywhere else. It put them on the walls throughout the school and never hooked up the wiring to a fire alarm system. Guess what? There is no fire alarm system. Not only is there no fire alarm system, but as a result there is no sprinkler system, and due to the underfunding, there are no fire extinguishers.

My question in the House for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is whether he would be okay with his kids going to a school like that. Why should the youth of Little Grand Rapids and first nations across this country go to schools that are dangerous, underfunded, falling apart, and full of mould, that do not have enough books, do not have enough teachers, and do not have enough resources, and that are setting them up to fail?

When we talk about the history of colonialism and paternalism that first nations have faced in this country, we cannot just talk about history, because it is happening today. It is happening in the way first nations people face unequal standards across the board, whether it be education, health, employment, housing, or infrastructure. The list goes on.

To see what is most fundamentally clear in the response to the needs of first nations youth and the kind of paternalism we see, one has to go no further than the approach the government has taken on Bill C-33, the first nations education act. The reason I say that is that a fundamental obligation of the federal government to consult with first nations people has not been adhered to in the development of this critical bill.

First nations across the country, certainly those in Manitoba, have been clear that, without consultation, the bill cannot be supported. It is not because they have not made clear the importance of consultation. They have made it clear and have been consistent over the last number of years.

In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began consultations on an education act. In July 2013 the department released a document called “Developing a First Nation Education Act: A Blueprint for Legislation”. With few amendments, that blueprint became a draft legislative proposal for a first nations education act in October 2013. I am sure all too many members of the government will remember that the draft proposal was condemned by first nations educators, leaders, and activists overwhelmingly.

On the very issue we are discussing today, on the critical issue of education for first nations, first nations have told us the direction they want to take and their priorities.

In 2013 a special assembly the Assembly of First Nations highlighted five priorities: first, respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations education jurisdiction; second, statutory guarantee of funding; third, funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and cultures; fourth, mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority; and fifth, ongoing dialogue and co-development of options. Those five priorities were laid out clearly in a very public manner by first nations themselves, and sadly, the federal government failed to adhere to those priorities.

What we hear from the federal government is rhetoric that is at first premised on having spoken with first nations and of having heard real concerns. Then when I and my colleagues raise the concern that first nations across the country have not been consulted on this legislation, when they need to be consulted, we hear threats, intimidation, and the same old colonial attitudes that first nations have put up with for centuries.

It is clear that first nations across this country are saying no to the first nations education act. I and my colleagues in the NDP are proud to stand with them. I am proud to stand with first nations educators who are speaking out against the first nations education act.

I would like to share the words of Janice Mokokis, an educator and lawyer from Alberta, who has been involved with the Idle No More movement. She has been clear in her opposition to the first nations education act. Janice tells us:

There have been rallies and teach-in's held across the country to inform the Canadian public and First Nations about the implications of this Bill. People who have attended the rallies include children, mothers, fathers, teachers, professionals, leaders and those that would be directly affected by this...[government's actions]. There has been consistent opposition about the Conservative's agenda what they deem to be good for First Nations on Education. The Conservative's idea of 'consultation' needs to be closely questioned and critically examined. For example: In the Saskatoon consultation, people were...pushed out of the 'education consultation'.

It was made clear that they were not welcome to have their voices heard.

I also stand in solidarity with people in the blue dot campaign, who made clear their opposition to the government's desire for them not to be welcome at the announcement on the Kainai first nation in Alberta. Members of that nation and first nations people from across the country were there to hear an announcement of legislation that has everything to do with their future, and yet they were not even welcome to stay in the room.

It is clear that there is opposition from coast to coast to coast. First nations people are saying that their inherent rights are not being respected, that their treaty right to education is not being respected, and that the right to consultation that they have under the Canadian Constitution and that is recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not being respected. The necessity of consultation is not being respected.

The reality is that first nations youth sit by and suffer as a result of the way the Conservative government is approaching a fundamental part of their development and future. We know the statistics are grim. Secondary school data over the last number of years identify the rate of first nations graduation at approximately 36%, compared to the Canadian graduation rate of 72%. Some 61% of first nations young adults have not completed high school, compared with 13% of non-aboriginal people in Canada.

In 2010, there were more than 515 first nations elementary and secondary schools available to approximately 109,000 first nations students resident on reserve. Over 64% of these students attended 515 on-reserve schools operated by first nations. The majority, 75%, were enrolled in either kindergarten or elementary school.

First nations youth is the largest young population in our country. I am so privileged to have had a chance to visit first nations across our region and look into the bright faces of these little kids, who want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, and carpenters and who want to do great things. All I can think of is the way I come to work every day to look at a government, a Prime Minister, and a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that do everything in their power to ignore the voices of their communities, educators, and leaders. They say they are doing the right thing and they say they are going to do the right thing, but after the next election, maybe in a few years, or maybe if they get re-elected. Maybe. All the while, these young people are left in limbo.

I am also fortunate to have learned from elders. They are elders who fought as part of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, fought against the white paper, and fought against the control that the federal government had on their education. They fought back, and they fought for first nations control of first nations education. Many of these elders are not with us today, owing to the challenging life situations in our communities and the shorter life spans that first nations people have. However, in my conversations with them and in my journey to Parliament, they taught me a very clear lesson, that first nations control over first nations education is fundamental to the success of the education system. It is fundamental to the success of first nations youth as they go forward. This is because first nations know what their nations need.

We know about education in first nations language; youth who learn their first nations language succeed at great rates. We know that when they have the resources in their schools to learn their mother tongue, the historic language of their people, they will have opportunities that other youth do not have. We know that when first nations have control over the kind of curriculum, priorities, and lessons that are shared with their youth, their students succeed.

I think of first nations like Roseau River, Peguis, Fisher River, and others that have had very successful models when it comes to education. It is not because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development told them how to do it. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. It is these first nations that have stood up and sometimes, with the few resources they have, pulled together extraordinary people. They have supported the education of their youth, who have gone on to become experts and specialists in education and have come back to their communities and invested in the resource that is most important to them: their youth.

One would think that, in seeing the successes and knowing the way graduation rates in first nations increase when there is proper funding and proper support, when there is a focus on first nations language, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs would celebrate, that it would say that first nations control over first nations education is critical.

Consulting with first nations on further steps, on a first nations education program, is not only critical but first nations need to be leading that direction. Instead, what we have is a slap in the face from the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation to first nations that makes it very clear that it does not matter what success these students have, it does not matter what success these leaders have had in fighting for education in their communities, with its response to promise action and change and to do that with a father-knows-best mentality, that what it knows best is what is going to go.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting with leaders and grassroots people in Thompson at the office of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, where we saw live the apology the Prime Minister made to first nations people about the tragedy of the residential school system. I remember it moved all of us. I am proud that our leader Jack Layton was integral in that important historic day. There were tears. There was sobbing. There were people who were very emotional about that apology, people who had been very clear about the abuse, the oppression, and the racism they had faced. However, there was also an overwhelming sense of hope, hope that things can change, that a new spirit of reconciliation was guiding our country.

Over the last six or seven years, I cannot say how many people I have met across northern Manitoba, how many first nations people, who have said obviously that apology meant nothing to the Prime Minister. People took the time to believe and to enter into that spirit of reconciliation. Unfortunately, through the actions of Prime Minister, not just in looking at Bill C-33 but also Bills S-2, S-6 and S-8, as well as omnibus bills like Bills C-45 and C-38, we can look at the long list of legislative actions that the government has taken that fly in the face of that apology, of that spirit of reconciliation, of that commitment that the relationship with first nations would be different.

At the end of the day, is there anything more important than investing in the future of our young people? In the one area of education, the federal government had the chance to change course and maybe remember the statement that the Prime Minister had made in terms of that apology and act in the spirit of that apology. Instead, he and his government have chosen to take a very different approach, an approach that is clearly not only supported by first nations but is extremely deeply problematic in terms of the future of first nations education in our country.

In closing, I am proud to stand with first nations in Manitoba who oppose the first nations education act and who are very clear in demanding far better from the government, from Canada, and from the Crown when it comes to the future of education for first nations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me and my officials to outline our department's supplementary estimates (C) for 2013-14.

Before I do—and you alluded to it—I want to thank committee members for the valuable role they play in ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are used wisely and are achieving their intended results, among them, jobs, economic opportunities, and long-term prosperity for aboriginals and northerners. I would also note that, as this committee sees I'm sure, our government is currently pursuing a heavy legislative agenda related to aboriginal peoples and the north, and I want to express my gratitude to this committee for its ongoing work in moving this agenda forward.

Mr. Chair, from the many local projects—roads, water systems, schools, and connectivity projects—to initiatives aimed at large-scale reform such as the recently announced first nations control of first nations education act or the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement, our government is delivering on its commitment to create jobs and economic opportunities for aboriginal and northern communities. We remain focused on ensuring that aboriginal peoples are an integral part of our government's broader jobs and economic growth agenda, while building a renewed relationship with first nations people.

I believe we have made important progress in that vein. Areas where we have seen significant improvements are skills and training, education, economic development, claim resolution, and removing barriers to better governance.

Through work with willing partners, carefully targeted investments, legislation as well as claims agreements, we continue to take the concrete steps necessary to create the conditions for stronger, more self-sufficient aboriginal and northern communities.

Through these estimates, we are continuing to make strategic and targeted investments in the amount of $72.4 million that are directed at shared priorities we have with first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners. Furthermore, the supplementary estimates earmarked $36.1 million to meet the Government of Canada's obligations under the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, which I had the privilege of signing in Inuvik last June, on behalf of the Government of Canada, along with the Government of the Northwest Territories and five aboriginal partners.

This historic agreement gives northerners greater control over their own lands and resources, all the while unlocking the economic potential of the region by modernizing the existing regulatory regime. This will strengthen environmental stewardship and protection and ensure that the Northwest Territories remains an attractive place to live, work and invest.

The health and safety of first nations communities is also something we have to heart and it is a priority of our government. To that end, $33.2 million from our supplementary estimates will address health and safety concerns related to flooding and other natural disasters that occurred in first nations communities in 2013.

As you will recall, a number of serious weather-related incidents this past year put first nation residents at risk, including flooding in Saskatchewan and floods and storm surges in the Atlantic region. Several communities in northern Manitoba and Ontario also had to be evacuated due to forest fires. Funds allocated in these supplementary estimates go towards provinces, territories, or other organizations that incurred costs in both responding to and recovering from these emergency situations.

In November 2013 I also announced a new comprehensive approach to emergency management that will better protect the health and safety of first nations people living on reserve. This new approach will simplify the current process by creating a new single window for first nations to secure funding for emergency costs. This will eliminate overlap and provide first nations and provinces and territories improved access to emergency funding when needed.

As well, we are revising the emergency management assistance program to strengthen program management and provide greater clarity about expense eligibility. Within that reform, we are also providing $19.1 million to negotiate and implement new or renewed agreements with the provinces and territories that support emergency preparedness. This includes the development of emergency management plans for first nation communities that will provide for timely, effective, and efficient support in times of crisis.

A further important initiative funded through these supplementary estimates is the new Centre of Excellence for Matrimonial Real Property. A portion of the $1 million will be provided to the centre to implement and enforce the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. I was pleased to be in Vancouver this past December, Mr. Chair, to announce its coming into force and mark another important milestone towards ensuring that families living on reserve have access to the same basic rights and protections as all other Canadians in the case of a breakdown in marriage, common-law partnership, or divorce—protections that they have been without for nearly three decades.

Mr. Chair, we know that aboriginal youth represent the fastest growing segment of the population, and yet they have one of the lowest graduation and unemployment rates today. This situation concerns us.

Supplementary estimates (C) has also set aside another $1 million for Cape Breton University's Purdy-Crawford Chair and aboriginal business studies to encourage business studies by aboriginal students. This money, which was announced in last year's economic action plan, will enable more young people to develop business, investment and corporate skills to spur economic development in aboriginal communities across the country.

Mr. Chair, as you can see, the expenditures detailed in these estimates are vital to the lives and livelihood of aboriginal people and northerners. They are key to improving their standard of living and quality of life, and continued economic development, jobs and growth.

I welcome the committee member's questions regarding my presentation. My officials and I will be pleased to answer your questions about any aspect of the supplementary estimates (C).

Thank you.

Motions in amendment

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to speak in this House on Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

I stand with my colleagues in the NDP to oppose this bill in the House of Commons. This bill is very important to me as a New Democrat, but most importantly, as the member of Parliament for Churchill.

In northern Manitoba, I have the honour of representing 33 first nations. These first nations and the leadership of these first nations have often been at the front lines calling for a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. They have been at the front lines pointing to the way in which the Indian Act and a colonial system of legislation imposed on first nations has led to nothing but trouble.

These first nations have made clear the connection between the paternalistic attitude of successive federal governments and the way first nations are not able to deal with the serious issues they face at home, such as the third-world living conditions.

They have talked about the way in which, because of the approach of the federal government, they have not been able to get at the table or have had to struggle to get at the table to discuss basic things such as ensuring proper water and sewer services in their communities, ensuring that there is adequate housing for the people who live in their communities, and ensuring that there is equal funding for education in their communities. At every step along the way, these first nations have been told that the federal government and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs know best.

It is 2013, and if there is anything we have learned from our history, it is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the federal government do not know what is best for first nations. There are many incidents in our history that indicate just that, such as the residential schools, a policy that was supported by the federal government, a policy that was seen by the federal government overtly as a tool of assimilation and as the way to go. We know that it was a policy that has created long-term trauma and damage for first nations people in our country.

We had the Prime Minister, a number of years ago, doing something that many first nations took very seriously. He apologized to first nations, Métis, and Inuit people for the federal government's approach towards them. He committed to a new day, a new chapter, when it came to indigenous people in Canada.

That day has not come. First nations people in Canada are still waiting for that day. Allies of first nations people are still waiting for that day. Instead, the Prime Minister and his government have used that important symbol, the apology, as a tactic to wash themselves of the responsibility and duty to truly change course.

What they did after that apology, and every step along the way, was adhere to the same old paternalistic approach, which is that the federal government knows best. However, it makes it look as if it is engaging in some consultation. We do acknowledge that in the context of this bill, there were discussions and round tables that took place around the country. Unfortunately, the government took the feedback it got at these round tables and basically shelved it.

The government chose the discourse that suited it and came up with a bill that does not reflect the needs of first nations people. It does not reflect the real issues first nations people face in terms of their electoral system.

Instead, what the government's bill would do is give greater power to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to decide how electoral systems exist in first nations. It would take away power and models that first nations people have developed that work for them. The government has made it more difficult in terms of the appeal process.

It is really a slap in the face of first nations people when we are talking about that new chapter.

I have stood in the House far too many times in the last five years to speak out against bills from the Conservative government that would have a negative impact on first nations. I do not speak about them in theory. I have seen what they mean on the ground.

I have visited these first nations. I have heard from people first-hand what it is like to feel as if they still live in a time when paternalism rules the day. I have talked to chiefs who have fought to come to Ottawa to sit at the table with the minister, if they get that meeting. They have poured their hearts out about the pain in their communities, whether it is about housing, water and sewer services, or health care, only to be told to wait longer or that the federal government will come up with something. Instead, all we see, bill after bill, are bills that exclude first nations' voices.

It is great to have a process that listens to people, but if the final result, the final bill and the final piece of legislation, do not reflect what these people said, the Conservative government is not living up to its duty to consult. The constant paternalistic tone of knowing better has a detrimental effect on the ability of first nations to push forward.

Yesterday I was part of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women. It is a perfect example of the way the Conservative government is refusing to listen to first nations on the issues that really matter. A constituent of mine, Brenda Bignell, said that we need a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. We are a committee. We are looking for recommendations. Brenda Bignell's recommendation is one we could consider for our report. However, we have already heard from the Prime Minister that he does not feel that there needs to be a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

What do we tell Brenda Bignell? She has lost her stepmom, her cousin, and her brother. She talked about all of these stories. Do we say that we want to hear from her but that what she tells us will probably not end up in the end result of what we are doing here? That deeply saddens me. It saddens me to be part of a committee, when I know that the Prime Minister has set the tone on a very important issue for first nations people.

It also saddens me that day after day, week after week, month after month we have proposals by the Conservative government and bills that would change laws in our country that are created without hearing the views of first nations people. The government may have heard them, but the end result certainly does not reflect them. As I said, this has an impact on that working relationship.

Idle No More was a movement that came out as a response to Bill C-9, Bill C-27, Bill S-2, and all of the bills that have come forward that do not reflect true consultation with first nations people. Idle No More was people at the grassroots level standing up and saying “enough”. It was the first nations, Métis, and Inuit people and their allies who stood up and said that there is a pattern here and they have had enough of it.

We know that there is a long-term negative impact when it comes to the lack of consultation and the tokenistic approach of picking testimony that suits the government but not actually listening to what everybody has to say. We know that all first nations people suffer when their electoral and governance systems are not allowed to be developed based on what they think is best.

I thought we were past this. I thought that in this year, 2013, we were past this. I thought that after the apology six years ago, we were past this. I thought that after Idle No More, maybe the Prime Minister and his government had gotten the message. Business as usual is not going to work. I thought we were past this, but we clearly are not.

In addition to all of this, what bothers me is that the government uses its bills to divide our society. I have seen how it has done it in the communities I represent.

Parts of my constituency have high numbers of first nations people. Some parts do not. Interestingly, in the last election, the Conservative Party shared literature in the parts of the constituency where not many aboriginal people live that talked about corruption in first nations. It also talked about the chiefs and the councillors and those people who were using taxpayers' money. The government did not engage in a conversation with the people who live on reserve. There were some materials with vague references to accountability and transparency, which are issues we all think are important. Rather, it chose to speak in parts of the constituency and to fan the flames of division and racism. It chose to use examples of legislation to say that it is keeping people in line.

That was not just an election tactic. Unfortunately, it is a governing tactic that I have seen from the government too many times. The Conservatives go out there and use material that says that they know best and will tell the first nations how to run their business. However, they will not invest equally in first nations education or make a difference when it comes to the highest dropout rates in our country. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live shorter lives than non-aboriginal people in our country. They do not talk about the fact that young first nations women are five times more likely to be killed than young non-first nations women. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live in more precarious conditions, in poverty, compared to other people in our country.

The government talks about bills that will fix how things get done. The Conservatives will tell aboriginal people how to do it. They will point to a few people who maybe gave some testimony that sounded like what the Conservatives would like to say. They will not listen to people like Grand Chief Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who currently represents first nations from across Manitoba. He said that there are problems and that they have made recommendations, and those recommendations have not been heard.

The government will not listen to Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. It will not listen to Tammy Cook-Searson, the Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. It will not listen to people like Aimée E. Craft, the past chair of the National Aboriginal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. The government will not listen to first nations people who live in places like northern Manitoba. It will not listen to people who want to come to the table, want to work on a nation-to-nation relationship, and want to talk about what is best for their communities.

I have heard vague references made by some members about how they have been on a reserve or have worked on a reserve. Somehow that gives them the authority to know what is best.

Thirty-three first nations helped send me to Ottawa. What I have heard from people in my constituency, not just from the leadership but from people on the ground, is that they are still waiting for that new chapter from the Prime Minister. They are still waiting for consultation and for the word of the AMC Grand Chief to be taken seriously. He said that we have to go back to the drawing board when it comes to first nations electoral reform.

We in the NDP agree that changes need to be made, but this bill is not the way to do it. I could take any bill the government has put forward in the last five years related to first nations and raise similar issues and poke holes in the kind of paternalistic discourse it tries to use to divide Canadians and keep first nations at arm's-length. Unfortunately, it perpetuates the problematic relationship that sets so many first nations back. I wish the government would take on some of the serious day-to-day issues first nations people face with the same energy and passion.

Maybe government members could spend some time talking to the chiefs of the Island Lake First Nation. I would be happy to take them on a tour. We could visit houses that do not have sinks because they do not have running water.

Can members imagine that, in 2013? This is their regular house. They have a counter, but where there should be a sink, there is not one because there is no running water. Guess what that means? There is also no bathroom. One has to go to an outhouse.

I remember visiting an elder who had mobility issues due to diabetes. In -30° weather—the way the winter gets in northern Manitoba—he has to trudge out to the outhouse, with mobility issues, because he has no indoor bathroom. This was not 50 years ago; I was there just last year.

I could talk about other instances, such as in communities like Gods River where the chief is extremely passionate about people in his community succeeding when it comes to education. This is a community that has grown significantly over the last number of years, and the school is so overcrowded that the science lab and home economics room have been taken over for regular classrooms. This means that these children are obviously not getting the one-on-one attention they need. It also means that these kids are not able to access specialized programming because the needed classrooms equipped to do that have been dismantled and made into regular classrooms.

Often these kids see a system that has given up on them. They see their chief fighting for them, but they know that, although the chief has gone to Ottawa and Winnipeg fighting for a new school to fit their needs, year after year, that demand is denied, and many lose faith and hope.

Unfortunately, in communities like Gods River, Gods Lake Narrows, Shamattawa and Pukatawagan, too many kids have gone down that path too far and have not turned back. They have committed suicide, fallen through the cracks of our society or moved to urban centres where they have been lost and have never come back.

There would be an opportunity for change. It is not because their chief, their leadership, and people like the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have not said what needs to be done, but that the current federal government does not listen.

Not only do the Conservatives not listen, but they choose to drive an agenda that suits them. It is an agenda that sucks up wedge issues, pits people against aboriginal people in our country and tells first nations and aboriginal leadership that they do not know how to run their business. It is an agenda that fundamentally keeps us on the path of a history that has only created trouble, is based on paternalistic colonial views and has been proven wrong.

I am proud to stand with a party that seeks justice when it comes to first nations people, which is why we are opposed to Bill C-9, and why we are opposed to so many of the first nation-related bills that the Conservative government has put forward. It is why we are asking for change, for a better future for first nation people and all Canadians.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2007, we have invested over $62 million in funding for over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls through Status of Women. This is the highest level of funding ever.

We have also ended house arrest for sexual assault involving serious personal injury and aggravated sexual assault, strengthened sentences for child sexual abuse and toughened penalties for those who import, produce and traffic date rape drugs.

If the member opposite was so concerned about helping women and girls, perhaps she should have voted for Bill S-2.

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

In terms of funding for the shelters, we've heard both at this committee and at the hearings on Bill S-2 that there don't seem to be enough shelters, and if there aren't shelters then there is probably not transitional housing. Certainly, hearing that 70% in Nunavut don't have a shelter is worrying.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I would like to take a moment at the outset to correct the record.

Ms. Mathyssen said it was March 2012 since the minister had appeared before this committee. She was not on the committee this year, and she might have received inaccurate information. In fact, Minister Ambrose did appear before this committee in the spring, on Bill S-2. I just wanted to note that.

Minister, thank you so much for being with us today.

You are a role model for women. When we're talking about women and their full participation in the economic, social, and democratic fabric of Canada, I can't think of anybody who would show them it's possible more than you. You're a pediatric surgeon. You have your M.B.A. You've been a leader in the health care field. You've been a really busy parliamentarian. Now, as the minister, I know you are and will be a very strong champion of girls' and women's rights. Thank you for being here.

I want to ask you about women's participation in the workforce, particularly in the skilled trades. I'm sure you are well aware that women are 47.5% of the Canadian workforce, but they're under-represented in skilled trades and science and technology. These tend to be higher paying jobs. They hold only 11.8% of construction jobs; 19% of forestry, fishing, mining, and oil and gas jobs; and 30% of agriculture jobs.

I was shocked, for example, to go up to Fort McMurray and find out that women are the most adept at operating those big, huge, and very expensive trucks.

In many cases, I think women don't look to those occupations that can lift them out of lower paying jobs. I'm wondering if you can tell us how Status of Women is working to encourage and promote women in these higher paying skilled trades.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank you, Minister, for taking the time to come and speak with us and answer our questions. I am happy to welcome you here today, as we are aware you have a very busy schedule. On behalf of this committee, I would like to thank you for all you're doing for women and girls in Canada.

I want to mention that in your speech you said, “If Canada is to continue to be one of the most prosperous nations in the world, women must be able to fully participate and contribute to job creation and fuelling economic growth”. Thank you for saying that, because I think it is so true.

As you mentioned in your remarks, yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 days of activism against gender violence in Canada.

Violence against women is a concern for this government and for all Canadians. It ruins lives, destroys families, and takes a heavy toll on the economy. On average, every five days, a woman in Canada is killed in a domestic homicide. Women are more likely than men to experience certain forms of violence. For example, they are 11 times more likely to be a victim of a sexual offence and three times more likely to be criminally harassed.

In 2009, Statistics Canada estimated the economic cost of spousal abuse at $4.8 billion annually. These figures are very concerning. That is why our government continues to take decisive action across departments to combat violence against women and girls. Some examples are the passing of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, launching the national action plan to combat human trafficking, the stiffer legislation for cyberbullying that was announced recently, and of course, our own call for proposals on cyber and sexual violence.

One thing I really like is we passed Bill S-2, a very important bill that gave women on reserves the same rights that we sitting here today have.

I certainly believe that in order to be successful in combatting all types of violence against women, we need to work together as a government to accomplish this goal.

Minister, could you please inform this committee what Status of Women Canada has done and is currently doing to address the issue of violence against women and girls?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I would like to move a motion before we begin. This motion reads as follows:

That the Committee invite the Honourable Kellie Leitch, Minister for Status of Women, to appear before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on the Supplementary Estimates (B) before December 3, 2013 for two hours to discuss plans and priorities for Status of Women Canada and that this session be televised.

If I may, I would like to explain something.

First off, it would be really important for us as a committee to welcome the new Minister of Status of Women to share with us her presentation on the supplementary estimates (B). This would be particularly timely, based not just on the timing of the supplementary estimates, but also on the fact that she is a new minister with some very interesting ideas that we've already heard presented.

I also want to add that unfortunately, we are one of the committees that sees our minister the least. We only saw the previous minister once since 2011 to speak on general Status of Women ministry issues. Of course, we did hear her speak on Bill S-2, but as we know, that was very specific to legislation, and her presentation was also tied in to the presentation of the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

I think it's imperative for our committee to hear from our minister, to support the initiatives that we believe are worthwhile, and of course in the context of this motion, to also gain an in-depth understanding from her side on the supplementary estimates that guide the work of the Status of Women ministry.

Obviously, we're asking for this to take place before December 3. We realize that this is a tight timeline, but given that she is the Minister of Status of Women and we are the committee on the status of women, we believe that a priority ought to be made. We'd certainly appreciate immensely her visit and presentation to the committee.

Women's History Month

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month, and before it closes, I want to highlight some key ways our government is promoting equality for women.

Women make up an important part of our economic fabric. In fact, 187,000 businesses in Canada are owned by women. Now our opening doors initiative is helping young women access higher-paying, non-traditional jobs, like engineers and jobs in science and technology, carpentry, and plumbing. Now our government and the Minister of Status of Women are looking to promote more women on boards. Data shows that when women help direct corporations, profits rise.

Last June we passed the watershed bill, Bill S-2, which enables aboriginal women and their children living on reserve to stay in their homes in the event of domestic violence or family breakup. Finally, our maternal health program internationally is gaining great accolades.

The residents of Calgary Centre care about these issues, and on their behalf, I want to thank our government.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts —Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

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—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

Aboriginal Affairs

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mark a historic moment in this place. When our government passed Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, shamefully, the Liberals and the New Democrats voted against this important legislation, which would give women and children living on first nations reserves the same matrimonial rights and protections as all Canadians.

Despite the courts having identified a legal gap in the protection of women and children on reserves some 25 years ago, violence and sometimes even death have resulted for too long. While it is unconscionable that the opposition parties stood against giving these rights to aboriginal women and children across our country, I applaud those countless women and organizations who came forward to support this bill.

Together, we have closed this gap, provided these protections and made our communities safer.

First Nations Elections Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his compliments on the beauty of my constituency and northern Manitoba. It is indeed true.

However, I will respectfully disagree with the rest of his comments. I find that the status quo, if that is what we are talking about, is a colonial paternalistic approach that the government has taken on bill after bill. I had the chance to speak, along with first nations, against Bill S-2 on matrimonial property rights. We are hearing some of same themes here. First nations are not being heard and their concerns are not being taken into consideration, and the government continues to impose this bill. That is the status quo that first nations have seen from the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, for far too long.

If anything, there is a chance now for the government to listen to first nations, to step up. There is a chance to take the leadership that is required to work with first nations and make real changes when it comes to repealing the oppressive nature of the Indian Act. They can truly work with first nations who want to make a difference for their communities and want to build a better future. That is what New Democrats are calling for.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill S-6, yet another bill that the Conservative government is putting forward about which first nations have a great deal of concern. Certainly he NDP believes it is a serious matter and that first nations voices, like on any issue that pertains to them directly or indirectly, must be heard.

I rise to speak to the bill on a very important week, a very important anniversary for first nations in Canada. Five years ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and apologized to residential school survivors, their families and their communities and he committed to a new relationship. He committed to a new beginning in the Crown-first nations relationship. Fast forward five years later, and not only have we not seen a new relationship, we have seen the government continue to impose legislation after legislation that flies in the face of that commitment.

Bill S-6, like bills that have gone forward, misses out on the critical piece, and that is first nations consultation. What first nations raise in terms of concerns must be reflected in the bill.

We have a case now with Bill S-6 where the government is applying rhetoric regarding empowerment, the importance of fair elections and stability in first nations, concepts which are very worthwhile and sound great. However, when we scratch the surface and start looking at what was said in the Senate when the bill was being discussed and when we start hearing directly from first nations and first nations leadership, we realize the bill is not about empowerment and it does not provide the kind of stability that first nations need when they come to their electoral system.

The NDP believes strongly that as a result, the bill cannot be supported. The government must go back to the table with first nations and listen to the very concrete concerns they have raised directly with members of the government. As we know, this has been debated in the Senate and changes must be reflected in a bill that purports to deal with making first nations elections fairer to allow greater stability in the community.

The bill establishes rules for elections, apart from the Indian Act. These include an election cycle longer than two years, the ability to have a common election date, elements that have been raised by first nations and need to be addressed. We agree with the need to address these issues, but we share the serious concern that first nations have brought forward, and that is Bill S-6 gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the power to order a first nation with community designed elections to adhere to the new regime.

We want to see first nations' elections improve, but this is basically tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act and does not address the extensive powers of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the right of bands to determine their own future.

In making that statement, it is very much founded on a critical concept. We have a federal government that has committed to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, yet putting forward Bill S-6 very much disrespects that commitment. I quote from article 18 in the UN declaration which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Unfortunately, when we turn to the legislative summary of this bill, it indicates that:

First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.

We in the NDP stand with first nations in expressing our complete and utter opposition to this very point, a point that challenges the commitment that the government and our country made to the UN declaration of indigenous rights. It flies in the face of the promise the Prime Minister made of a new beginning and a new relationship.

According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 first nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 first nations conduct custom or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 first nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.

We have heard real concern expressed from many first nations about the short term of office for first nations leadership positions, and I certainly know this from the first nations that I represent. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year term of office imposed on first nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities.

I have had the chance to get to know many chiefs and councillors across northern Manitoba who have struggled when that has been the case in their communities. They have brought forward ideas, a visionary approach to governing their community that perhaps differs from the approach of leaders who have come before them, but two years is not enough time to make changes and get the community on the path that they would like it go down based on the support of their community members. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year timeline must be removed.

I would like to note that we also agree with the substantive concerns with the Indian Act elections that relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and determine the size of councils.

We believe it is extremely problematic and, frankly, reeks of colonialism that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be able to interfere through ministerial order, as is clearly stated in this bill, in elections on first nations.

I would like to refer back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and some of the recommendations they made back in 1996. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples said:

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; regional first nations capacity and advisory bodies.

Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation.

We have referenced a sticking point under subclause 3(1), which states that “The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule...” of first nations participating in the new election system.

The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the Governor in Council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections.

We have had the chance to hear from many leaders and people involved in aboriginal governance who have expressed their opposition to the current iteration of Bill S-6, and I would like to read into the record their voices.

Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that we have seen a very problematic pattern by the government in bringing in closure on debate regarding first nations bills. We saw it with Bill S-2 and we saw it with bills that came forward prior to Bill S-2.

For us in the NDP, it is absolutely fundamental that first nations voices be heard in committee in order to best shape legislation or to give us the opportunity to challenge legislation on their behalf.

Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Conservative government has done everything in its power to muzzle the voices of first nations and to silence them when it comes to speaking out on bills that have everything to do with their communities. That is unacceptable, and it once again reflects the colonial approach that we have seen from the current government time and time again.

Having said that, I would like to read into the record some of the messages we have heard from first nations people when the bill was at the Senate committee.

I would like to start with a quote from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak. He said:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

There are a number of key messages here, including the reference to the need for meaningful consultation. He acknowledges that there are problems, and that one of those problems is the unilateral imposition of this framework that would greatly affect first nations.

I would also like to quote Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. Regional Chief from the Assembly of First Nations. She spoke to the problems with clause 3. She said:

These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.

Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.

Tammy Cook-Searson, Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, noted:

My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill S-6 incorporate the constitutional principles of the inherent right to self-determination and governance. The authority in this bill remains with the cabinet and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada instead of moving towards a greater responsibility with First Nations for our governance.

Aimée E. Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, came to the Senate committee on February 29 and presented, saying:

[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.

These are first nations leaders, and Aimée Craft is a specialist when it comes to the legal aspect of the bill. They all express serious concern about a number of points in Bill S-6.

It was also noted that:

Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or what is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change those Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.

There are a number of concerns. What I find extremely problematic here is the Conservative government's continued approach in imposing legislation and refraining to hear from first nations on very serious matters that have everything to do with their capacity to be self-determining for their own people, yet the Conservatives turn around and use broad-sounding language that may sound great to a lot of Canadians but that certainly hides the true facts.

I think of the first nations that I have the honour of representing and the kinds of challenges that I have heard from people when it comes to their election systems and the barriers they face when it comes to the Indian Act.

I know that the Conservative government has also jumped on the bandwagon of critiquing the Indian Act, yet it is ironic that so many first nations point to the Indian Act as being a colonial tool that oppresses first nations further.

Is imposing legislation on first nations not a sign of further oppression? Is that not a sign of that spirit of the Indian Act that sets out to impose systems and attitudes from the outside upon first nations?

The imposition of legislation without proper consultation, without heeding the calls for changes to this legislation, speaks to the attitude that the federal government somehow knows better than first nations, that somehow it can intervene and fix what is happening.

If there is anything that we have learned from history, it is that such an attitude will not get us anywhere, that it will further marginalize and disempower first nations. That is something I hope would cause some real concern among government members and would cause them to think twice about what they are doing on bill after bill.

Many government members, as was evident in the debate around Bill S-2, represent first nations. What are they hearing from their members? There are repeated messages of repealing the Indian Act and putting an end to the kind of oppression that has been imposed by a history of federal governments, by the Crown, but this is not the answer.

First nations must be at the centre of the future that they carve out for their communities. First nations must be at the forefront. The issues of governance and elections are fundamental to first nations' capacity to determine their own future. Instead of imposing legislation, the Conservative government ought to sit down with first nations and make changes that reflect their needs and their voices.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of attitude from the federal government. Instead we see a continued attack against first nations in bill after bill. These bills fly in the face of respecting first nations' treaty and aboriginal rights and they fly in the face of the UN declaration on indigenous peoples. They disregard the serious concerns that first nations are bringing forward as they demand that the federal government step up and take leadership.

On the issue of elections, I have heard a lot of concern from first nations that they simply do not have the capacity to put forward the kind of governance plan that they would like. That lack of capacity is fundamentally tied to the lack of funding and the cutbacks that we have seen by the federal government, building on cuts by previous Liberal governments when they froze funding to first nations at 2%. Now we are seeing cuts to advocacy organizations that also are involved with service delivery in education, training, housing and health.

First nations have always extended a hand out. They want to work with the government. They want to make change in their communities. We in the NDP are proud to stand with them in opposition to Bill S-6. We call on the government to change course and truly begin a new relationship with first nations people in this country.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably paragraph (c).

We have two choices here: the paternalistic Indian Act, or Bill S-2 that includes more transparency, more accountability and a better chance for Indian band councils to do long-term planning on their own terms. That is what we are doing here.

If those members want to go to the bad old ways of the Indian Act, good for them. That is why the people of Canada, in their own wisdom, have chosen members on this side to be government.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are trying to put together a positive approach to their relations with first nations, but they will not change course and refuse to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue.

Earlier in the House, during the debate on Bill S-2, we saw that this Senate bill could have been a real opportunity for this government to do something positive for aboriginal women.

Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the concerns of these groups of women and the bill does not have the support of the people it is trying to help. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government is attempting to appeal to women.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We know that the Conservatives do not always address the real governance problems by choosing to ignore the flaws of the Indian Act.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to the legitimate concerns of first nations groups?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do. When a government puts a budget together, there are choices to be made. Sometimes these are difficult choices, but they have to be made. We are dealing with some rather significant public safety challenges, so perhaps now is not the time to be reducing public safety budgets, including the RCMP's, among others.

This takes more than legislation. It takes means. I know that my colleague opposite supported Bill S-2. The fact remains that there are no resources for creating women's shelters on reserves for victims of spousal abuse.

Having legislation is one thing, but at some point we need to have the necessary resources to ensure that the legislation produces positive, tangible results.

Bill C-56—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. President, we want to clarify something on this side of the House, as we have done for several other bills in recent weeks. What we want to tell this government is that some bills introduced many years ago have been delayed for reasons that are quite clear.

For example, in September 2008, the Prime Minister decided to call an election. At that time, no one was expecting an election. Obviously when this happened, everything slowed down and we were forced to start from scratch.

I will use the example of Bill S-2, which was first introduced as Bill C-47. The Conservatives were forced to reintroduce it as Bill C-8. What happened to Bill C-8? In December 2009, Parliament was prorogued, so we had to start again.

These are the kinds of delays caused by this government. This bill was then replaced by Bill S-4, and the Conservatives sat on their hands for seven months. In May 2011 it was reintroduced as Bill S-2. Two years went by while the Conservatives did nothing. Suddenly, in June 2013 it became absolutely urgent to pass this bill because it had been on the order paper for so long.

The fact is that this situation is a direct result of their delays—

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, in a remote aboriginal community, when it is the middle of the night and it is 30 degrees below zero, and a women has been violently assaulted, it is absolutely necessary that she receive the same protection as all other Canadians. That is exactly why our government introduced Bill S-2, which will allow enforcement emergency protection orders, but yesterday, the Liberal leader shamefully whipped his caucus to vote against it.

Can the Minister for Status of Women please update this House on the difference between our government's position and the Liberals'?

Ethics

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I agree with the first half of the first rendition of his question, where he said our government has indeed answered these questions.

What is also important to note is that when the House does rise, our government will be very proud not only of the questions we have answered, but the actions we have delivered for Canadians. Just yesterday, we passed Bill S-2 to provide aboriginal women with equal rights to non-aboriginal women in this country. That was reported equally last week. That is great news for all Canadians. It was reported last week by Statistics Canada that the Canadian economy has created over a million new jobs since the recession.

On all these questions and on all these answers, we are proud to go into summer standing up as—

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

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

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.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage 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, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

Bill S-17—Time Allocation Motion

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that strikes me in this debate on a time allocation motion is that the government seems to forget that Canadians elected us not just to represent them in this august chamber, but also to provide good governance for all Canadians. We must work for all Canadians in the House of Commons and the committees, the institutions that are here on Parliament Hill.

In the current context, it is very difficult to convince the majority government that it is not necessarily taking the best approach. This time allocation process prevents us from making adjustments to certain bills, which should not be discussed at this time and are not in the interest of Canadians. That is why this process is being used.

I get the impression that we are again being prevented from debating a bill that has some serious flaws. We were supposed to debate Bill S-2 earlier, but the agenda is being changed again today. This is one of many examples that illustrate that there are flaws. The government just seems to want to leave as soon as possible and not correct the flaws that exist in a number of bills.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[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.

[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?

[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 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 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.

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.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Churchill, who gives her all every day defending aboriginal peoples, among others. She is the NDP caucus leader at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We just came from our review of Bill S-2, and she was able to share her vast knowledge on the subject.

Earlier, the hon. member talked about the importance of information. This concept was also raised this morning by the hon. member for Mississauga South. In her speech, she said that since we do not have enough trained people to do the work in the communities, such as installing sewers and water systems, which requires rather technical skills, we would train people there, either aboriginals or other people.

One of the challenges we are dealing with in the committee studying Bill S-2 has to do with money. People on site are being given responsibilities, but not the means to carry out those responsibilities.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to a very important bill and a very important issue for the people I represent in northern Manitoba. I am honoured to represent the people of Churchill. That includes 33 first nations, first nations that are diverse, young with tremendous energy and tremendous opportunity. However, immense challenges exist on these first nations. Nowhere is that challenge more evident than the lack of access to safe drinking water, water services and sewage services on first nations.

When the reference to third world conditions is made, it is made because of the lack of access to safe drinking water that exists on many first nations in northern Manitoba. I think of the Island Lake community, four first nations that are isolated on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. I think of St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. All of these communities are growing, like many first nations, at a high rate. There are a lot of young people and young families. Overcrowding and lack of housing are very serious issues.

However, what is evident in these communities is the impact of the lack of safe drinking water in terms of health outcomes, in terms of broader indicators of quality of life, in terms of the mortality rate that unfortunately among first nations remains lower than the Canadian average. That mortality rate is connected to a number of factors, but the fundamental lack of access to safe drinking water is key.

It is unacceptable that in the year 2013, in a country as wealthy as Canada, that first nations, simply because they are first nations, lack access to a basic right, the right of clean water and access to safe drinking water. They lack access to the kind of infrastructure that would ensure a healthier lifestyle in line with that which all Canadians enjoy.

While members from the governing party have spoken to the disastrous indicators, what they fail to speak to is their own failure to uphold their fiduciary obligation to first nations, their own failure to live up to the treaties, to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in ensuring that first nations, no matter where they are, have access to safe drinking water.

Instead of recognizing that failure and investing in the kind of infrastructure that is necessary, investing in the kind of training that is necessary for first nations to be able to provide access to safe drinking water, the government has chosen to uphold its pattern of imposing legislation on first nations. Not only has it imposed legislation in this case, Bill S-8, but it has done so without consultation, without recognizing the tremendous concerns that first nations have brought forward with respect to previous iterations of the bill. Fundamentally it is disrespecting its commitments under the treaties, under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which it signed. Even more reason for concern is the fact it is putting first nations in even greater danger than they are already in.

We know that Bill S-8 provides no funding to improve water systems on reserve. This is shameful because, given the rhetoric that we hear from the government about commitments to first nations, the reality is that when it comes to making a difference for safe drinking water, the need for investment in infrastructure and investment in capacity building is extremely serious.

I was there in February this year, but I remember being in Little Grand Rapids a couple of years back where the water treatment plant operator talked to us about how the chemicals he needed to be able to make sure that the water was safe for his community to drink were going to run out halfway through the year. I have spoken to water treatment plant operators who have talked about the lack of access to training programs so that they can improve their skills, so they can have the knowledge and skill set to be able to provide safe drinking water for their community members.

I have heard from water treatment plant operators, sewage treatment plant operators and leaders in communities who have expressed real concern about their inability, with the little they are given from this federal government, to provide what is a basic standard of living to their people. That onus falls entirely on the backs of the federal government.

Unfortunately, this is a result of years of neglect by the previous Liberal government, the imposition of the 2% cap that was halted, and has frozen in many cases, the kind of funding that is necessary for first nations to operate, and has been very much continued by the Conservative government.

We have seen that first nations that are continuing to grow, where their needs are continuing to grow, are turning to a federal government that is not only not prepared to make the investments in infrastructure, but is actually imposing its colonial agenda to boot.

We are very concerned in the NDP that on Bill S-8, like previous bills, Bill S-2, and so many others that impact first nations, Bill C-27, the government has insisted on shutting down debate on these very important bills, preventing members of Parliament from speaking out on behalf of their constituents who would be negatively impacted as a result of this legislation. We believe that by doing so, it is also silencing the voice of the first nations in this House.

This practice has unfortunately also been applied to committees where the facts have not been heard because of the government's attempt to muzzle those who oppose its agenda.

We in the NDP also stand in solidarity with first nations that have decried the government's continued pattern in which bills affecting first nations also include a clause, and we see it in Bill S-8, that gives the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights. The clause says, “Except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nations land”.

It is unconscionable that a federal government that is charged with a fiduciary obligation to first nations, that is there to honour the treaty relationships it is party to, would go so far as to derogate from aboriginal rights, to be able to break that very commitment it has to first nations. That is a failure on the part of the government. First nations have risen up against this failure, through the Idle No More movement, and through activism and leadership that first nations have consistently shown, saying that they are opposed to the government's agenda, and Bill S-8 is one of those reasons if we look at it clearly.

We are also very concerned about the pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation. We recognize that the AFN, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a series of representative organizations of first nations have been very clear in their opposition to Bill S-8.

The reality is that the government is trying to change the channel on its own failed rhetoric around accountability and transparency, words that it cannot take to heart, given the recent scandals that have emerged. The government is trying to change the channel and put the blame on first nations.

When it comes to something as serious as access to safe drinking water, there is no room for these kinds of political games. The government should stand up, and instead of changing the channel, instead of imposing legislation, instead of breaking its commitment under the treaties and disrespecting aboriginal rights, it should work with first nations in partnership to make the investments that are necessary and obvious to ensure that safe access to drinking water exists in first nations communities the way it exists in communities across the country.

For the people of Island Lake, for first nations across this country, for all Canadians, we deserve better from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

She spoke in particular about the consultation process. Conservatives often say that they held broad consultations that cost so many millions of dollars. Yet, oddly enough, first nations, among others, often say they were not consulted as they would have liked.

In committee, while studying Bill S-2, for example, I heard the Conservatives say totally absurd things. They said they had talked to their husbands, their sons or their sisters. This was the kind of comment that kept cropping up. There seems to be a need to define what constitutes real consultation.

I would like the member to talk about this. If she is saying that there has not been enough consultation while the Conservative Party says the opposite, there may be a misunderstanding. Could the member tell us more?

Sitting Resumed

[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?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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. Yet again, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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—

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.

Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

Bill S-2—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in part to add to my submissions of yesterday and in part to respond to the submissions of the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and others today.

As I said yesterday, there is a key understanding around here that our committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This is articulated in our procedural literature, such as page 1,047 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. One portion says:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

On the next page, we see that:

....committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

As I said, the notion that committees are masters of their own process is true and is often referred to you, Mr. Speaker, when people attempt to appeal decisions that occur in committee to this chamber, which you quite rightly point out is something for those committees.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley claimed yesterday that a process whereby a motion is deemed moved was some new invention. It is not. In point of fact, this same mechanism was adopted by the status of women committee on April 23 in relation to Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. There were no report stage amendments when we took up that bill on Monday.

Motions deemed moved are also contemplated in our Standing Orders. There we are not talking about committees, where we have more relaxed rules but rather in the more stringent environment of rules in this chamber. Taking a look at our rule book, I see that Standing Orders 7(1.1) and 8(2) provide that the appointments of the Speaker's three fellow chair occupants are all made on motions which are deemed to have been moved.

I have been here every night at midnight or later when the government orders finish. At the start of every night's late show, the Chair reads out the formula:

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.

I could list off a number of other Standing Orders where motions are deemed to have been moved, but I think I have made my point. There is nothing novel or new about it. It is an accepted practice of this House and it is done often.

Going back to committee procedures more specifically, let me quote an excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc, which was not tendered yesterday. Page 1,018 says:

Committees often adopt sessional orders that govern the granting of the right to speak in cases where witnesses are to be questioned. Consequently, it is rare that a non-member is able to participate in such proceedings. Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.

It was exactly such a majority vote to enable participation by the independent members of Parliament that the committee took on May 7.

Turning to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 760(3) reads:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.

I referenced that earlier.

Citation 762 meanwhile provides that:

Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit as committees.

At page 1030 of O'Brien and Bosc, there is a review of cases where committees have allowed even non-parliamentarians to participate in committee deliberations. Citation 771 of Beauschene's covers the same ground.

As I said yesterday, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley sought to relitigate the issue addressed by your November 29, 2012 ruling, at pages 12,609 and 12,610 of Debates.

As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands reminded us this morning, Speakers' rulings are not actually subject to appeal.

In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said the finance committee's invitation to other committees to submit suggested amendments to Bill C-45, an invitation which was renewed to some committees for Bill C-60 extended to independent members of Parliament the following:

....it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader....

That is the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

....himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

Your ruling continues:

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

Of course these words carry weight as rulings from the Chair and not, as the hon. NDP House leader described them yesterday, “some convenient article”. Nothing changed between Bill C-45 and Bill C-60, except for the finance committee's generous invitation, which was broadened to include members of Parliament who do not sit on the standing committee of the House .

Yesterday the House leader for the official opposition quoted page 775 of O'Brien and Bosc, which pertains to rulings on inadmissible amendments made by committees, that is to say, for example, amendments which go beyond the scope of a bill.

Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 27, 2007, which was quoted yesterday, was on that point. What is important to note is that the subject amendments would also have been inadmissible at report stage because they went beyond the principle adopted at second reading.

I now want to turn to two comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North yesterday. In his remarks, he stated, “We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules”.

We are not changing the rules here. The finance committee looked at creative ways within our existing rules, and did so on your invitation, I might add, of maximizing the input of all corners of this House in its work on the government's important budget legislation. The committee should be commended for responding to that invitation. He also stated that the Liberal Party opposed this matter.

Yesterday, I quoted the Liberal finance critic's comments at Tuesday's committee meeting on clause-by-clause. A further look at the evidence of the May 7 meeting, where the invitation was adopted by the finance committee, would show, at page 20, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants had proposed an amendment to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) of the motion. The invitation to the independent MPs is not found in those paragraphs that he proposed to delete. It is found in paragraph (c). Therefore, his amendment would have actually preserved the invitation to the independents. That is what I was speaking of as my understanding of the position of the Liberal Party.

I quite reasonably concluded that the Liberal finance critic's words and actions at the committee spoke as the substantive position of the third party at that committee and here in the House.

Having now augmented my case that the proceedings in the finance committee are in order, I want to turn to the consequences of those proceedings.

The hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Saanich—Gulf Islands forwarded three amendments and 11 amendments respectively to the finance committee for its consideration. As we heard this morning, interventions in support of their amendments were allowed during the finance committee's clause-by-clause study in the total amount of time roughly proportionate to the number of amendments they each put forward.

It is important that we all understand that they were not just invited to submit amendments. It is important to note, in the context of the arguments that were made by them in the House, that they were also afforded an opportunity to participate at the committee. They were not to participate as full members of the committee, but to speak, to explain the nature of the amendments and to make their case. That is an extraordinary step forward. It is an advance. It shows that they were given more than just an opportunity, as was suggested, to submit amendments that someone else then proposed. They had an opportunity to explain their positions on why those amendments were of merit. This is indeed meaningful participation. It allows them to explain their position on the merits and to participate in the process to get their point of view heard.

Yesterday, I quoted from your December 12, 2012 ruling on report stage practices. I underscored your observation that there was “wide latitude” for committees. I should add that you did not say that the House had wide latitude to amend the Standing Orders. The committee's wide latitude already exists.

As I said yesterday, the generous process struck by the finance committee, I would submit, is four-square within your ruling and would serve as a model for that “satisfactory mechanism” that your ruling cited and your constructive challenge to the creativity found among the members of the House that your ruling invited.

Under this satisfactory mechanism, Mr. Speaker, it is critical to point out that the independents are not disadvantaged in relation to any other member. This is a critically important point to understand. Their right to give notice of report stage motions remains unfettered. What it does, sir, is allow you an opportunity to apply a consistent standard across the board in your selection of report stage motions, whether they are proposed by a Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc, Green or an independent.

By virtue of the opportunity to participate and present amendments at committee, to have them heard, they are now, as independent members of this House, put on an equal footing with every other member of this House. They can propose report stage amendments. You, of course, select them in accordance with the rules, but it is achieving that equality of participation and fairness in which no individual member of this House is either advantaged or disadvantaged in accordance with our rules.

The selection criteria are set out in the note attached to Standing Order 76.(5), which provides that, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”.

That was never intended as a loophole to give to certain members of this House an extra right. However, we, through circumstances in your previous ruling, saw what one of the intended consequences of that was, and hence, you provided the invitation that it could be remedied by an effort at the committee to allow independent members to submit amendments to make their views heard at the committee stage. That is what the finance committee did.

The finance committee's mechanism, which I submit is consistent with your earlier ruling, is more than consistent, and it responds to your invitation. It enables the amendments of the independent members to be presented in committee, as that note contemplates.

Moreover, I would draw your attention to a further passage from the note: “A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance...”.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that should tomorrow's notice paper contain report stage amendments appearing in the name of a member who does not sit in a recognized party's caucus, aside from those that propose to delete clauses, it should not be selected for consideration at report stage.

In closing, I would observe that today's notice paper has four notices from the leader of the Green Party of motions to delete certain clauses of Bill C-60. In her submission to you this morning she said, and I quote from the blues, “As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity...is to have amendments tabled at report stage.”

Perhaps the answer here lies in the last sentence of Standing Order 76.1(5). “If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”

Although other members got identical notices in sooner, perhaps the balanced approach here is to call one of those motions in her name so that she can give a speech and participate in report stage, as she seeks to. Such a creative approach could well complement the finance committee's mechanism to allow independents a chance to get their views expressed in the House without creating yet more voting marathons. The exercise of this discretion could well eliminate the farcical scenes outside the offices of journals Branch last year in which New Democrats and Liberals treated us to camp-out expeditions to get their notices in first.

I would also point out that the Bloc has several deletion motions on notice as well. The same rule would apply, although I understand that some of those deletion motions stand only in their name, which would also satisfy the opportunity of ensuring they did get the ability to speak here at report stage that they seek. This, of course, would answer the concern or objection that is raised there.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think what you see here is a good-faith effort by the folks on the finance committee to respond to an invitation you provided, to improve the process and to enhance the rights of the independent members of this House. What we are proposing to you here is a further remedy that is wholly within your power and your ability right now to address what other additional deficiencies they fear they may encounter at report stage barring their ability to participate. This would ensure their ability to participate without any of those other adverse consequences that we have seen in the past.

I think it is a good model of the way in which, when we head into uncharted waters, you can, through your rulings, and through constructive dialogue with the committees of this House and the members of this House, evolve the rules in a fashion that works in the way you want it to, and that is to protect, in this case, the rights of the independent members of Parliament.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to submit, and accept the arguments of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, exactly the opposite would occur. You would be rejecting a process that was designed in good faith to provide those independent members an opportunity to participate in committee, and saying to reject the very invitation that you made and the suggestions you made for improvement.

Should you find favour with that perspective, you will not see an advance for the defence of the rights of independent members of Parliament here; you will in fact see them constrained and straitjacketed, no longer able to participate in the committee. For there will, of course, be no reason for the committee to exercise such an approach to invite their participation because under the rules of this House, they do not sit as members of the committees; that is a long-standing practice of this House.

I could ascribe motive and say that we know that the New Democrats do not want to see the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois members, who represent their rivals electorally regionally, have this additional profile and ability to participate. Perhaps that is their motive, I do not know.

However, all I know is that what we have here is a good faith effort by a committee. To respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, a set of constructive solutions will advance the dialogue, help us solve these problems and make this House a more functional place that will not be held in disrepute by the public, but rather will be seen to be focused on working, debating the important issues of the day, getting the work done and allowing the votes and decisions to be taken here that people send us to make.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

[Micha Menczer, Legal Counsel, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Micha Menczer, and I am the legal counsel for the Mohawks of Akwesasne.

I will be brief. There is a written presentation in the kit that goes into more detail, but I want to address some of the proposed solutions from Akwesasne. My colleagues have addressed some of them. I want to highlight two areas.

There is a copy in your kit of a political protocol that was entered into between Akwesasne and Canada in 1998, and renewed recently in 2012 for 10 years. This protocol really recognizes the multi-jurisdictional nature of Akwesasne and the problems this creates for the community, both international borders and interprovincial borders. One community, so many jurisdictions, hard to govern, both for the Mohawk Council and for external governments.

It also recognizes a commitment to look for innovative and new solutions that will address this unique situation. There is no other first nation in Canada with these circumstances.

You hear a lot of things in the press about Akwesasne. For those of you who have been there, you'll know it's a very strong community, a well-governed community, and this protocol recognizes it. How does this relate to the bill?

The other piece I want to comment on is that in the spring of 2012, Akwesasne and Canada's chief negotiators signed two agreements—an agreement in principle on lands and estates, and an agreement in principle on governance and relationship. Those are also excerpted in your kits.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs recently received cabinet approval, and we are beginning final negotiations this summer. That agreement will recognize Akwesasne's jurisdiction over water and wastewater regulation and standards. Under clause 14 of the bill, upon completion of that agreement the bill would not have application to Akwesasne unless they sought to be on the schedule, as you are aware.

So how do we address these unique circumstances of multi-jurisdiction in Akwesasne? In terms of our recommendations in this area, there are two things.

First, under subclause 5(4) of the bill, there can be a regulation made exempting a first nation for all, or parts of, the bill. Our recommendation—it's in the submission—is that because of the fact that it is multi-jurisdictional, and as Jim has mentioned and as the written presentation goes on to explain, you can't have Ontario and Quebec in each part of the community looking for a consistent system. So we're looking for a concurrent development of a regulation under subclause 5(4) that would set out the regime for Akwesasne—the only one in Canada that is unique in this way.

The second element is that other bills you have—for instance, Bill S-2, dealing with matrimonial and real property—have a transition period when talking about first nations with land codes, to develop their laws before the bills click in. Even the first nations governance act of 2002, which was flawed in many ways, had an interesting provision in, I believe, clause 34 that allowed a three-year period for nations in the process of concluding final self-government agreements to be exempt from the application of the bill, to allow those agreements to be finished and ratified.

We're looking for the same thing in this legislation for Akwesasne. We're entering into final negotiations this summer. Actually, I'm going to a meeting tomorrow with the federal negotiators, where we're going to set the timetable for this.

It doesn't make sense to do that work, have the bill apply, and then un-apply. So we're looking for, similar to what you have in Bill S-2 and similar to the concept that was in the governance act, a three-year transition period to allow us and Canada to complete this work that will give recognition to Akwesasne's jurisdiction.

There is a lot more in here, but another element is that Akwesasne has been recognized by Canada, by Liberal governments, by Conservative governments, as unique through the political protocol, and needing to find solutions. There is a demonstrated capacity. There is a first-class facility. When Minister Duncan was minister, he visited the community and commented very positively on what it was like. The Grand Chief has invited your committee members to come down and see it for yourself.

So there is capacity, and there is a legal basis, based on the self-government agreement negotiations nearing conclusion, and the political protocol to look at this differently.

That's what we're asking.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[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, 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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, I rise today in support of Bill S-2, 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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the NDP, which opposed a simple bill like Bill S-2 to give rights to children and women on reserves, its members stand to complain about the process that is before the court.

We have disclosed some 120,000 pages. There are more to come. It has chosen to go before the commission. We will follow the rules imposed upon us to give the documents that we have and that are relevant to the case.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this evening to Motion No. 17, which everyone on our side of the House knows is simply a motion that will extend sitting hours for the next few weeks to allow increased debate and participation by all members, dealing with a series of what we consider to be very serious and important legislative bills that the government wishes to bring forward.

I should point out at the outset that there is nothing new here. This is not unusual. In fact, as all members know, when they look at their parliamentary calendars, those little plastic calendars that we all put in our wallets to see when the session is on and when we adjourn, they will notice that the last two weeks in June always have asterisks attached to the last two sitting weeks. It is interesting, because every year even the most experienced parliamentarians continue to ask the same questions. They look at those little stars and come to me, or others on our side of the House, and ask if that means they can get out two weeks early. We have to point out that, no, it does not mean we can rise two weeks early. It means the government has the ability to extend the sitting hours for those last two weeks to allow for enhanced and increased debate.

This is quite a common occurrence that occurs every session and every sitting of a Parliament. All we are suggesting this time, hence the motion we brought forward, is to extend sitting hours for a few more weeks than the last two weeks of the scheduled session.

Why are we asking for that to be done? It is simply because we feel we have a very busy legislative agenda. We believe we have a number of pieces of important legislation that have yet to be passed in Parliament. We would like to see many of these, if not all of them, debated, voted upon and hopefully, from our perspective, passed before we rise for the summer. That is all. There is no other ulterior motive, as members opposite seem to be suggesting. We are not trying to engage in increased sitting hours now so we can rise earlier. Not at all, we are simply stating a fact, that our government has many pieces of legislation that have yet to be debated fully in this place and yet to be put to a vote.

We want to see that happen as quickly as possible. Hence, we are recommending that we sit, starting tonight, for an extended period of time. It would be a number of hours every evening, Monday through Thursday so we would be able to engage all parliamentarians in a proper debate of some of these legislative agenda items.

I have also heard some commentary from members opposite who seem to engage in these ongoing conspiracy theories. They suggest, for example, that one of the things the motion would do, in addition to extending the sitting hours, is impair the opposition members' ability to bring forward concurrence motions. I want to speak to that for just a moment.

If one is to adhere to the arguments brought forward by members opposite, one would get the impression that these concurrence motions, in other words debate on reports, are the most important thing that Parliament has to consider. Mr. Speaker, as you would well know, and I think all members know, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Concurrence motions, when brought forward by members of the opposition, are nothing more than dilatory tactics to try and prevent our government from engaging in its legislative agenda.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and all members should know, once a concurrence motion is brought forward, it allows for three hours of debate on that motion. In other words, if a concurrence motion was brought forward on a Wednesday, which as we all know is a short day, three hours of government time would be used in debate of an opposition motion. The government then would be unable to bring forward its own legislative agenda and would be unable to debate the bills that we wanted to see debated in the House. Instead, we would be engaging in a debate on a concurrence motion brought forward by the opposition, which means opposition members would simply be trying to delay legislation from being passed.

On one hand, we hear consistently from members opposite the argument that they need more time to debate, that the government is preventing real and fruitful debate in the House. That again is the furthest thing from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is occurring on a regular basis.

Opposition members are using procedural tactics, like concurrence motions, to prevent our government from introducing legislation. Why? Because they are not merely trying to oppose our legislative agenda; they are trying to prevent it from even making it to the floor of the House for reasonable debate.

That is what concurrence motions are and that is what the opposition is arguing that Motion No. 17 would prevent, but that is not true. The reality is, if we adopt Motion No. 17, concurrence motions would still be allowed, even though we all know they are dilatory in nature.

Members of the official opposition and third party would still be able to bring forward concurrence motions. There would only be one slight change, which is that after the first speaker completed his or her remarks, usually 20 minutes, and after the customary 10 minutes of questions and comments, we would then revert to orders of the day. This does not mean the remainder of the three hours would be washed away. The government would be obliged, in fact compelled, within two weeks to resume debate on that concurrence motion.

We are not preventing debate on any motion for concurrence that the opposition members bring forward. We are merely allowing for proper debate on government legislation to be held, without being impaired and delayed unnecessarily. When a concurrence motion is brought forward, normally our government, to try to get back to orders of the day, would move a motion to do just that, to return to orders of the day. However, that precipitates then a 30-minute bell. Committees are interrupted because members have to return to the House to vote on that motion.

There is important work being done in committees. We do not want that unnecessary delay to committees, particularly as we get closer to the end of this legislative session. The committees are seized with very important bills that have been passed through second reading and are at committee stage. We want the committees to engage in an examination of the bills, but if we are continually interrupted by having dilatory tactics brought forward by members of the opposition, that prevents true legislative examination of bills at committee.

Our intent is quite simple. Motion No. 17 merely suggests that we sit a few hours longer each and every day for the last few weeks before the scheduled adjournment on June 21 to allow meaningful debate on many bills that our government has introduced. The opposition members should embrace and welcome this. After all, it is they who continually state that we are preventing them from debating legislation.

This gives them an opportunity, four more hours each and every day, Monday to Thursday, 20 more hours per week of debate. Yet we hear this hue and cry from members opposite that they do not want to support Motion No. 17. Somehow they are trying to argue that by adding 20 hours of debate per week, it prevents them from speaking effectively on issues that they feel are important. How can that be? How can adding time for debate each and every day be a bad thing? In other words, we cannot have it both ways.

If members of the opposition are trying to make an argument that they need more time for debate on bills, if members of the opposition argue that time allocation prevents them from speaking on bills, how can they then oppose our attempt to add more hours to the day to give them the ability to debate the very bills they are complaining about now, saying that they do not have proper time for thorough examination? It makes no sense. Their argument does not seem to make any sense whatsoever.

Let me give one small example of a bill we want to debate and hopefully pass before we rise for the summer. This is only one of many. Bill S-2, on matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women on reserves, is a bill that has been criticized and opposed by members opposite, both of the official opposition and the third party, for reasons that I can only think about. Again, it defies any rational or logical thought, in my opinion.

What is Bill S-2? Bill S-2 proposes to enact legislation that would allow women living on reserves to have the same basic rights that every other woman in Canada enjoys now. Canadians may be quite appalled to learn that currently, on reserve, if a woman is married and living in a house, but then becomes divorced, she has no right to 50% of the property that she and her husband co-own.

Let me repeat that. An aboriginal woman living on a reserve, living in a house with her husband, who gets divorced, cannot claim 50% of the property that she and her spouse previously owned. That is abominable. That defies any logical thinking by any fair-minded Canadian.

However, both opposition parties in this place oppose our attempts to give aboriginal women the same rights every other woman in Canada currently enjoys. Why? I have asked them. We have yet to hear a logical answer. We have yet to hear an answer that makes any sense.

Members opposite continually seem to criticize our government, saying that we really do not have the best interests of Canadian woman at heart, yet this very bill, which they should be embracing, they oppose, for no good reason. I asked the member for Winnipeg North earlier tonight to give me one reason the Liberal Party of Canada opposes our bill. He could not do so. Why? I can think of several reasons, but none of them make any sense.

The basic point is that we want to debate that bill. We want Canadians to understand what this bill would mean to aboriginal women. We are asking for additional time in this place over the course of the next few weeks to debate this bill, and many others like it, that we believe are important to Canadians.

We have bills that deal with the economy of our country. We have bills dealing with the safety and security of Canadians. We have bills that I know Canadians want to see debated and passed.

However, members opposite are opposing our attempts to do just that. Again, how can it possibly make sense to, on one hand, criticize our government for restricting debate and on the other hand oppose our attempt to add hours to the sitting of this legislature for the purpose of debate? It makes no sense.

I know that I have more time available to me, but I also understand that members opposite wish to make some presentations this evening and that by eight o'clock, this debate will be concluded, so I will conclude my remarks, allowing the opposition members their 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Let me just conclude with this statement, once again. All our government is attempting is to allow more fulsome debate on government legislative agenda items. If members opposite do not want to be sitting extended hours, because they do not want to put in the time for meaningful debate, they should simply say so.

Our government believes that increasing the hours to allow for more debate is something Canadians would embrace.

It is a very simple situation. They either agree that more debate is a good thing, or they say that more debate is something they do not want to engage in. I think one answer is the answer Canadians would embrace; the other answer shows the sheer hypocrisy of the arguments being presented by members opposite.

The extension of sitting hours

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's comments, and I found them astonishing. He is trying to suggest to Canadians that the reason the Liberal Party is opposing the motion is because it feels we are trying to get out of this Parliament early, and for that reason he feels his party has to oppose it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are scheduled to sit until June 21. We are merely saying that we want to add additional hours of debate, something the opposition parties have been clamouring for this entire session, so we can address the pieces of legislation we have on the order paper.

One of those pieces of legislation that I want to speak to quite briefly, and ask my hon. colleague a question about, is Bill S-2, the matrimonial property act, which would allow aboriginal women on reserve to have the same basic rights that every other woman in Canada has. Could the member tell me why his party is opposing it? It would seem to be a no-brainer that every Canadian would agree to, and yet the Liberal Party and the NDP oppose allowing aboriginal women on reserve to have the same basic matrimonial rights that every other Canadian woman has. We want to debate that. We need extra time to try to convince the parties opposite to support it.

Could the member opposite please tell me why he wants to deny aboriginal women the same basic human rights that every other Canadian woman has?

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that last week I announced a project in northern Alberta that will support 200 aboriginal girls between the ages of 8 and 14 in addressing violence and abuse. We are working in partnership with representatives from the Bigstone Cree Nation Women's Emergency Shelter, the Bigstone Community School, the Bigstone Cree Nation family and children services and also the RCMP.

Today we have gone even further. Today the Standing Committee on the Status of Women finished its clause-by-clause review of Bill S-2, and we all know that in situations of family violence it would allow judges to enforce protection orders to remove a violent partner from the home. This is an incredible day for aboriginal women and girls, and I want to thank the Conservative members from the status of women committee for getting the job done.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about being here. However, I am here because we need to stand up to this government, which believes that Parliament exists only for its benefit and that it is just a place concerned with the government's problems and accountability.

It is almost as if a new party came into the House today, as we listen to the Conservative House leader speak. It certainly is not the party that moved prorogation and killed legislation time and again. This new Conservative Party is suddenly interested in not defeating legislation. It could not be the same Conservative Party that has shut down debate in the House of Commons more than any party in Canadian history. It could not be a member of the same party who was speaking here today, talking about opening up debate. The Conservatives have invented a new world for themselves that is fascinating.

I am reflecting on my friend from Langley, who sought to speak in this House on what they call an S. O. 31 statement, which happens just before question period. It is a statement that lasts for about a minute. Usually members of Parliament get up and make a statement about their ridings about some issue that is important to them. My friend from Langley, who sits in the Conservative Party, was a parliamentary secretary, I remember, for the Minister of the Environment, a chair, a well-respected member of Parliament, and a friend. He sought to stand up and speak to something he thought was important to his constituents.

It was the old Conservative Party that shut down that member of Parliament and every other one who tried to get up and speak, because this new Conservative Party talks about wanting people to speak in the House and wanting to have debate.

While it is refreshing to hear it, I do not believe it, and I do not think Canadians are going to believe that suddenly accountability and democracy have broken out within the Prime Minister's Office. It is the office of this particular Prime Minister who, rather than face any uncomfortable questions from the media or the official opposition members today, or for the rest of this week, has decided that going to South America to sit with other trading partners from other countries we already have established trade deals with to talk about trade deals that already exist is much more important than asking questions about the Senate.

It must be a new Conservative Party that suddenly has on its agenda a legislative directive that the members need to sit longer hours and work hard on something that might be quite topical today, something such as the reform of Canada's Senate, which has been long overdue and long called for by Canadians and New Democrats who said that the place was fundamentally broken. There is no accountability. Unelected and under investigation is the new Senate.

I remember the old Reform Party. You probably do as well, Mr. Speaker. It came in riding from the west, from my part of the world.

I see a member across the way, who was one of the founding members of the Reform Party, calling it a beautiful thing. While I disagreed fundamentally with many of its positions, certainly its social positions, there was something on which I could see some common ground. That was to make Parliament more accountable and to reform the Senate.

The current government has now been in power almost seven long years. Is that right? The time goes slowly. In those six or seven years, the Prime Minister made a promise as one of his fundamental commitments to Canadians. Commitments should be treated sacredly, I believe.

We all get up at elections. We have party platforms and promises we make to Canadians. If we win, that platform and those promises become our agenda. That is what we would seek to do in office. It is simple. One of his promises, one of his agendas, one of his reforms was on the Senate. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they would see those Liberal senators down there taking their money, not really representing anybody, going on trips and maybe even defrauding taxpayers. Who knows? The Reform movement came in and said it was wrong and anti-democratic.

For a party that decided to put “democratic” right in the middle of our name, we take these questions seriously. We feel that it is accountability to the people we on the orange team represent. In a sense, we are watching this Prime Minister now play victim to what is going on in the Senate with senators he appointed exclusively and explicitly to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now this same Prime Minister claims victimhood and wonders how this happened. How did his chief of staff, who sits to his immediate left every day and knows his deepest, darkest secrets, whom he put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries, cut a $90,000 cheque to a senator he appointed? However, obviously, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to go to South America to be in trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with. That is the new Conservative Party, which is the old one, the same one that has forgotten its roots.

Dear Mr. Manning is still with us, so he is not spinning in his grave, but he is definitely spinning. He was asked recently whether the Conservatives have lost their principles. He said, no, they have maintained their priorities. It is an interesting dodge of a question. Mr. Speaker, you have been around politics a bit. You know when a question is put directly and someone answers it indirectly.

I find it incredible that we have before us a motion that continues to abuse Parliament. This motion is designed simply to restrict debate and demonstrate to members of the House of Commons that the only reason Parliament exists is so that the government can do what it wants.

I remember a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When we were debating a time allocation motion, he said that their intention was not to put an end to debate or to censure it, but just to control Parliament.

It is incredible that a minister is admitting that the Conservatives just want to control the Parliament of Canada. It also reflects the Conservatives' esprit de corps. They want to control everything, not just the opposition and Parliament, but their members, as well as the media and the public.

The current vision of the Prime Minister and the government leaves the public with no choice and no voice. It is all about the kind of country that the Prime Minister wants to build.

We see a government moving this extraordinary thing, which will see, big deal, members of Parliament sitting until midnight.

New Democrats have been known, sometimes to our detriment, to be willing to force the calendar to the very last minute and sit all night, such as when the government moved anti-worker legislation against a very profitable Canada Post, which, I might add, in a parenthetical way, then lost money.

After the lockout by Canada Post, the government imposed wage contracts on those workers that were less than what the company was willing to offer. Then it said that it needed to shut down Canada Post offices around the country, as Canada Post was losing money because of the lockout it allowed them to do. The logic is inherently twisted on that side.

Remember the omnibus debates and the voting we had. I remember my friend from the Green Party moving a certain number of amendments to the bill, which forced the House to sit all night and vote, hour after hour. I remember some of my friends from Surrey who stayed in their seats for 22 hours.

No one has ever accused New Democrats of not being willing to come to work and work on behalf of our constituents. We may do some things wrong. We may sometimes fall short in some areas, but hard work has not ever been one of those things.

There is such irony in hearing a Conservative House leader who, with his Prime Minister, has prorogued Parliament, shut it down, and killed their government's own legislation time and time again, say to the Speaker that the problem is that they cannot get their legislation through.

It had been there for 12 months. After eight months, they killed it themselves and prorogued the House.

One prorogation was quite notable. The government looked to be in a bit of trouble. It was in a minority position. The world was entering into a very deep recession. The Minister of Finance, who claims to be the best in the world, ignored the recession and introduced what the Conservatives called an austerity budget at the very moment when the rest of the world, realizing that the economy was coming to a virtual standstill, was introducing budgets that did the opposite.

The finance genius we have sitting in the chair said, “Never mind what the rest of the world thinks about what is going on in the global economy; we know that Canada is not going into recession”, even as we were in the midst of a recession. He introduced an austerity budget to cut back billions in job creation, in grants and in all the things the Conservatives take credit for, such as unemployment insurance for a bunch of Canadians who were just being thrown out of work.

The opposition said that it was not a very good budget and suggested that we vote against that budget. The government panicked and prorogued. Canadians got a civil lesson in how Parliament works. They had never heard the word “prorogation” before. Then we got to learn.

The Prime Minister had to go to the Governor General. He sat there for a number of hours, perhaps being lectured about how undemocratic it was, when facing a non-confidence vote, to head down the road to the Queen's representative to ask for permission to shut it all down before he was thrown out of office. He was more worried about his job that day than about Canadians. That is for sure.

That is a government that killed its legislation in order to save itself, and did it time and time again.

Here is the trend that we worry about with today's motion. For a government that has broken the record by shutting down debate more times than any government in Canadian history, it has refused 99.3% of all the amendments that the opposition has brought to its legislation.

Let us look at that for a moment. The way a bill is supposed to work is it comes into the House and gets debated. There is a pro and con and the real coming together or clash of ideas to improve the legislation because no one is perfect. The drafters of legislation do not get it right. They are sometimes hundreds of pages long and very complicated. The House is meant to debate that. Then we send it to committee and hear from experts, not just members of Parliament who are not often experts in these areas, but people who work in the field. They are the social workers, the financial experts, the crime experts and the police. We hear those suggestions and write amendments based on those ideas. That is the way this place is supposed to work.

However, the government is saying that in 99.3% of those cases those experts are wrong and the government is right. It will not change a period, a comma, not a word in any of the legislation. Then lo and behold, time and time again, the legislation is challenged in the courts successfully. The legislation does not fix the problems identified and costs Canada and Canadians billions.

We all remember well Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill that would allow the state to look in on the Internet searches and emails of Canadians without any warrant. The government decided in its vigour for its tough on crime agenda that it would pass a law that said that at any point, at any time, Canadians anywhere could have their BlackBerrys and iPhones tapped by the government, that web searches on home computers could be looked at by the government and the police. There is no country in the world, outside of Iran and North Korea, that would even consider doing this. The Conservative government thought it was a fantastic idea. In trying to argue the case, it said that if we were not into exposing our Internet searches and our emails then we must be in support of child pornography.

Has any more offensive or stupid an argument ever been made on the floor of the House of Commons? It is offensive to basic civil liberties and decency, to the role of members of Parliament trying to do our jobs and to the Canadians who said that they were not sure they wanted the government looking at their email?

I look at the member for Yukon right now. I do not know what he is searching and I do not want to know. It is his privacy to look on his computer and do as he sees fit. That is a civil liberty I am sure he defends as well, but not his government.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was the flagship. The government rammed it all into one bill and said that it was such important legislation it would shut down debate on it too. Then whole sections of the bill were taken out. Why? It was because they were unconstitutional.

Now we know where that all comes from. Canadians actually pay for a service. Many members of Parliament may not know this, but when a government introduces a bill it goes to constitutional legal experts to determine if the new legislation goes against our constitution, our foundation as a country? If it does, it is a good idea to modify the law to ensure it does not get challenged in the courts, which costs upwards of $3 million to $5 million to taxpayers every time there is one of those challenges. The government did not check on Bill C-10. We know that because the people who work for the Government of Canada, who do this work, are no longer receiving references from the government.

The government is not even asking anymore. It is choosing ignorance. This is incredible. It is saying that it does not want to know whether the laws it writes are constitutional, whether the laws it writes as a government are for or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is incredible. This is not a mistake. It is by intention. Therefore, we have these lawyers sitting in their offices, being paid every day, waiting for the government to refer the bills it introduces here to ensure they can survive a constitutional challenge. The government does not ask anymore.

Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill and Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, were both challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. First nations are challenging it. I need to address this because the government House leader mentioned two bills that are being moved, so-called, on behalf of first nations. They are Bill S-2 and Bill S-8. One is matrimonial property rights. It sounds pretty innocuous. Most Canadians would say that matrimonial property rights for first nations women on reserve maybe protects their rights. Who is opposed to it? It is not just us in the opposition, but aboriginal women, every first nation women's group in the country. My friend across the way shakes his head, but I can show him the testimony that says the bill is no good for aboriginal women.

However, the Conservatives know better. With their shameful record on aboriginal rights and title in the country, suddenly they know better than aboriginal women, than first nations women. Bill S-8 is a bill to help first nations have clean drinking water because the record has been shameful.

Government after government has failed first nations communities. Thirty-five per cent of the people I represent in northern British Columbia are in first nations communities. The water conditions there are incredibly bad. We have to do something about it. There are fixes and there are ideas coming from those communities.

Instead the government moves the bill, handing all responsibility down to first nations in terms of cleaning up their own water mess, but none of the resources to do it. Are first nations supportive of it? No. Nor would any municipality or any province in Canada be supportive of legislation that rams down responsibility without any of the support, money or help to get that done.

Most of these first nations communities are living in abject poverty. Where does the government think they are going to get the money from? The government will not settle treaty with them in the west. First nations are having mining, oil and gas exploration and pipelines put everywhere and are receiving none of the royalties, none of the compensation and the government will not move treaty forward.

I was just in Gitxsan territory, speaking with the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, talking about basic child services, kids who are being abused in their homes and setting up a program that the federal government said that we should enact 20 years ago to allow first nations more rights and responsibilities to rescue those kids and help them kids integrate back into their communities.

Who is not coming to the table? The Conservative government. This is the government that on Bill S-2 and Bill S-8 suddenly said that it had first nations rights and title and priorities at heart, when it did not.

The place can work. Members can sense a certain amount of frustration in my voice, because Parliament can work. It is actually designed to work. I love our system. It is so superior to many other systems I have studied around the world, that have consistent congressional gridlock on legislation and on budgets. We can make things happen here.

However, with the power that is afforded a majority government, which is a lot, comes a certain amount of responsibility to use the power wisely and not abuse it. Yet time and again we have seen the government House leader and other ministers get up and say that they are not looking to limit the debate; they just want to control it. They reject virtually 100% of all the amendments and all the changes and suggestions they hear at committee because they know better and they have the votes to push it forward.

It is at such a point that the control has extended deeply into the government's caucus. Some of the more socially conservative members of the Conservative caucus are no longer free to speak, or are only free to speak on certain things, in certain ways, if the Prime Minister's Office allows for it.

In a small program that we run in northern B.C., initiated a number of years ago, I hold a conference call with all the detachment commanders from all the RCMP outposts that exist in my riding. It is a very large riding facing a lot of tough, difficult situations with policing. Once every two or three months I get on the phone with 12 detachment commanders and we talk about what is going on. We talk about what is happening in crime, what the drug use is like, what legislation is moving through the House that will help or hinder these hard-working, hard-serving officers.

I am not allowed to have that conversation with these RCMP officers anymore. I am not supposed to talk to them. As a sitting member of Parliament, I am not supposed to go to them. A number of them have come to me because they are friends and we have known each other for years. They offer good, on-the-ground advice about what is happening.

They say that they are sorry, that they cannot talk to me. They tell me that I have to phone the Prime Minister's Office in order for them to talk to me about what is going on in Prince Rupert, or what is going on in Dease Lake or Bella Coola.

It is insane. This is wrong. Government officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who I have known for years and who I phone just for an update to see what is going on with our fish on the west coast, tell me that I am a member of Parliament from the opposition and that I need to phone the people in the Prime Minister's Office and that they will give me permission as to whether they can tell me what is going on in Canada's fishery.

This is not their government. This is not a Conservative government. This is Canada's government. We pay for these civil servants. We pay their salaries to do work on behalf of Canadians. Whether it is silencing scientists, shutting down access for members of Parliament to basic conversations, or shutting down debate in Parliament, the consistent voice from the government is that it will not be held to account.

This is bad. This is not just about the privilege all members of the House need to do their job. The government says there is some urgency, but there is not. There is no urgency when it comes to the government's mandate or agenda.

It is very strange for the government to say it is very open, when we see what is going on in the Senate.

We have senators like Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. All current senators have potentially stolen money from Canadians. These are the same senators that the Prime Minister says are very good people. These are the same senators using money from the Canadian people to travel during an election and raise money for the Conservative Party. That is the new Conservative Party. I do not understand.

I remember the Reform Party of Canada and some reforms that Mr. Manning wanted to make. With the current party, it is the same story as with the Liberal Party and the Gomery commission and all the rest. I am both angry and sad.

The majority of Canadians did not vote for this government, which has a majority, but does not have the majority support of Canadians. Close to 60% of Canadians voted against this agenda, against this sort of arrogance. They voted not to have the kind of government that now uses brutal tactics, not against the New Democratic Party, but against Parliament.

Lastly, I think we need to have a referendum, which may not happen until the next election.

It bears some comment, not only with respect to the Senate scandal but even the motion today.

I watched the government House leader and the Prime Minister on television earlier. He actually allowed the media into his caucus room for a second, which was bizarre. The bully turns into the victim, that somehow this is put upon them, that they are somehow being victimized here.

What frustrates me is not just the work that we have to do as parliamentarians that is constantly thwarted by the government at committee stage, and my friend laughs, but how can it be possible that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected? The evidence is clear.

My friend can shake his head and laugh and treat this with disdain treat this with disdain or heckle out what seems to be a favourite tactic of some of my friends who cannot win the debate, but can simply sit in their seats and heckle, yell and try to put down a comment that hurts a little too much, that being that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected, that the witnesses were all wrong, that the government was always right and that the courts must be wrong too. Soon the Conservatives will call them activist courts like the Republicans do in the states. Members should watch for it because it is coming.

We believe this motion is fundamentally flawed in its abuse of this place and of all members. I do not speak just for the New Democrats or the folks down the way. I speak for the backbenchers who have been rubbing up against some of the limitations. What is sad about most of it and is most concerning is those who are not agitating against the Conservative government's control over its backbench and accepting it. I lament the most for those who are so comfortable reading the script from the Prime Minister's Office and repeating it like robots, feeling that is their work and whose expectations of what it is to be a member of Parliament are so diminished that they simply accept it, not those the media have called rebels who have stood up and stated that they want to have their own statement but the Prime Minister's Office has shut them down. They run under the blue banner, which is their choice.

I lament for those who seem so happy to get up and repeat the mindless dribble that is put to them by the Prime Minister's Office day after day. When they first ran for office, I wonder if they said that they wanted to be a member of Parliament to represent people and get to Parliament to speak with a strong voice of conviction on behalf of the people they represent and that in order to do they would read whatever was put in front of them by the Prime Minister's Office, written by a 24-year old intern who types out some sort of nonsense and makes up policies that the NDP does not have, making personal attacks on a regular basis as a substitute for honest and sincere debate? Was that really their expectation?

I wish I had some video evidence from some of those early debates because I know that is not what those members ran on. I know their nomination meetings did not look like that, nor did any of the debates they attended during the campaign. That is not what they said. They said that they would speak on behalf of their constituents, fight for them and still raise their voice, even if that meant it was contrary to what their government suggested.

I am sure that is what my friends across the way said. They are very nice people. I know a lot of these folks, as we have spent some time together. I know some of their inner thoughts about the way Parliament ought to be, and some of them lament it. However, it is the ones who do not who worry me. They are the ones who so comfortably slip into that straitjacket day after day. Maybe they just get used to it, but they are able to rationalize that there is some larger agenda that is more important than their having an independent and free voice.

They can keep yelling and you can allow them to if you wish, Mr. Speaker, but the truth often hurts, and the truth of the matter is that with a majority government, this member and his colleagues have chosen to vote for closure more than any government in Canadian history. With a majority, the Conservative government has refused the evidence, has refused the science time and time again, and that government is bad government.

The Conservative government appointed senators, and I am sure some fundraising went on for some of my friends. Maybe Ms. Wallin, Mr. Duffy or Mr. Brazeau came by and raised a few dollars, shook a few hands and got a few votes for my friends. Maybe there is a little bit of a tarnish on my colleagues, which is why they are calling out and why they are worried. It is because their base hates this. They hate the idea of entitlement and of an insider's game that goes on in Ottawa all the time, and that friends of the Prime Minister's Office get some sort of special treatment.

Talking about special treatment, how about a $90,000 personal cheque just cut off the back and handed over to somebody who may have defrauded taxpayers? Where is the Reform Party now? Where are the original Conservative intentions now? They are gone, bit by bit, eroded piece by piece. That is where it has gone, and it has all been subjugated to some idea that there is a better and bigger cause, that this grand scheme they are involved in somehow makes all of it justifiable.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what these guys would sound like if the roles were reversed? If it were a Liberal government with senators getting cheques from the Prime Minister's chief of staff or a New Democratic government acting the way the Conservatives act, could you imagine the hue and cry and the calls for resignations every second minute? They would be losing their minds.

Now the Conservatives play the victim, saying that these senators were put upon them, that they didn't know what they were doing, that it is terrible. They only have a majority, both here and there. The Prime Minister has appointed more senators than any Prime Minister in Canadian history. How many did he say he would appoint? None, but he had to appoint some, and then it had to be justified. These are small and slow slippages, and this motion is a continuation of that.

This motion says that Parliament matters less and that those Canadians who have grown cynical about the role of MPs are justified in their cynicism. We say that is wrong. How do we turn to the young voters coming up? How do we turn to people who come to us and say that they might want to run for office one day? How can we say that their voices will matter when the government moves motions like this time and time again, shutting down debate?

As my friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said, the Conservatives do not want to shut down debate; they just want to control it. Is this is how one entices people into a life of politics? Is this how one encourages young people to vote? Do we say, “Welcome to Parliament, where we are going to control debate and shut it down time and time again”? This is the Conservatives' call to action.

It is not a call to action, but a call to inaction. It is a call to cynicism. It is calling to people, “Do not look over here; nothing is happening here in government. Go on with your lives and other things that are more important and distracting.” The government is counting on people to have an attention deficit rather than realize that the decisions we make here in Parliament every day affect Canadians in every way.

If members of Parliament cannot do their work, as this motion suggests, and hold the government to account, it is bad government. It is bad government when it cannot find $3 billion that may be under a mattress or in a banana stand or wherever it happens to be, and when senators rip off taxpayers with no consequence whatsoever. We think the RCMP might have a role to play here.

What would happen if any of the Canadians in our gallery today or watching on TV defrauded the Canadian government of $500? They would get charged. However, if it is a Conservative senator, what happens? Oh, they just recuse themselves from caucus. Wow. They still get paid, they still have all of their privileges, but they cannot go to caucus meetings on Wednesday mornings.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that maybe that punishment is a little severe? I mean, having to recuse oneself from a two-hour meeting on Wednesday morning for defrauding taxpayers—boy, that seems pretty harsh.

Why the double standard? We used to call that the culture of entitlement. I remember a colleague of mine in this place, Ed Broadbent, asking a former Liberal minister who became head of the mint and was claiming packets of gum and coffee on his receipts, “Are you entitled to your entitlements, sir?” This person took a moment of authenticity and said, “Yes, I am entitled to my entitlements.”

The Conservatives railed at the Liberal entitlement, the culture of entitlement, the Gomery inquiry and all those terrible things that went down.

History repeats itself if one is not a student of history, and it seems that the Conservative Party has not looked at the history of this place or of other parliaments.

The fact of the matter is that debate in and of itself is not a bad thing. The exchange of ideas is not in and of itself a bad thing. Being wrong from time to time is not of itself a bad thing; learning happens in those moments, and the government needs to learn, because I can read off the list of the bills it had so fundamentally wrong that it had to withdraw them. The Conservatives had to say that they got it so badly wrong because they listened to none of the amendments that they have to fix it now, at the very last minute, or wait until it gets to the Senate and let the unaccountable, unelected and under investigation senators deal with it. That is no form of democracy worth defending, and the Conservatives know it. They know it better than most.

I will move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Fridays” and replacing them with the following: “(b) when oral questions are to be taken up pursuant”—

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On behalf the NDP, I'd like to express our opposition to Bill S-2. This government is not listening to first nations on a nation-to-nation basis, and we stand in solidarity with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, and many nations and experts across the country who have opposed this bill.

This bill will not solve the problem that it seeks to address. We know this because we have heard from the women, from the communities, and from the families whom it will affect. This bill has nothing to do with ending violence against aboriginal women, as it provides no effective, timely access to remedy. Women in remote communities have to wait for a judge or a whole court to be flown in, or have to travel hundreds of miles to a courthouse.

The New Democrats will not support any matrimonial property legislation that is not accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems that, despite strong recommendation from experts such as Wendy Grant-John, are not included in the final version of Bill S-2. These include 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 for legal aid, especially for remote communities; lack of financial resources and time to support first nation governments to actually implement the law; and access to alternative dispute resolution.

The legislation does not respect first nations' jurisdictions and the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory.

We acknowledge once again that proper nation-to-nation consultation has not taken place. We are also very concerned by the process the government has insisted on following throughout this committee. We are opposed to the way debate was shut down time and time again. We oppose the fact that so many witnesses were not able to make it here, because this government insisted on bringing in time allocation on a very important bill. We oppose the fact and consider it gravely disrespectful that the Native Women's Association, for example, was only given eight minutes to speak to this committee without any time for questions and answers, something that was unfortunately a pattern faced by so many organizations coming to this committee.

We acknowledge that the government witnesses often received far more time than witnesses who had grave concerns and who represented a constituency that is deeply impacted by Bill S-2. We stand in opposition to Bill S-2 as it is, and we believe it is a grave injustice by this government to first nations across Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I would like to call the 78^th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to order. Welcome. We are back from our constituency week. It is nice to see you again.

Let me remind you that we have three experts here with us today to answer any questions we may have.

My thanks to the three of you for coming back to assist us in our consideration of Bill S-2.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 17, 2013, 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.

We are continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-2.

(Clause 42—Notice of order)

We are on clause 42.

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

Nuclear Terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. She is absolutely right.

Bill S-9 implements measures consistent with international commitments that we support. This is therefore very important. Even if we have concerns, it is more important to co-operate at the international level so that we can advance within the international community. Canada is a very important player on the international scene. What we do here with our laws can reflect these agreements, and it is very important to set an example for other countries.

The case of Bill S-2 is completely different. As I mentioned, many countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden, are calling for us to do something for aboriginal women. None of them have told us that Bill S-2 is a step in the right direction, since the bill creates more problems than it solves.

Countries around the world are trying to help us and encourage us to prevent violence and racial discrimination against aboriginal women, and it is sad that our government has been ignoring these issues because it wants to play petty politics. Unfortunately, that is what the Conservatives are doing.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked the connection that my colleague made with the situation of aboriginal women. In fact, I too would like to make a connection between their situation and the bill that is before us.

My colleague said that she had concerns and expectations but that she still planned to support the bill. This is a good example that shows that, sometimes, we do not agree with all the measures or provisions of a bill but we are still prepared to support that bill because we think that it does not necessarily cause significant damage or because our concerns may not be so serious.

Bill S-2, which deals with the matrimonial rights of women living on reserves, is currently being examined in committee. This is an example of a bill that we are not necessarily prepared to support. Although its objective is very commendable, the way that it is written and the negative impacts it may have could be enough to stop us from supporting it.

The fact that the purpose of a bill is commendable does not mean that we are necessarily going to support it. We must go much further than that before making a decision. My colleague is very involved in women's issues. I commend her for that, and I commend her for her speech.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, will the NDP stop playing petty politics at the expense of aboriginal women and children throughout the country?

NDP members like to rise and spout wonderful theories, but when it comes time to vote on a bill that will really improve the situation of aboriginal women living on reserves, they vote against that bill.

If the hon. member is truly concerned about aboriginal women, then I urge him to convince the leader of his party to reverse course and vote in favour of Bill S-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astounding to see an NDP member rise in the House and complain about violence against women and then turn around and vote against Bill S-2, which seeks to give women living on reserves rights equal to those of other Canadian women.

The NDP should change its position. If they are truly in favour of protecting aboriginal women living on reserves, then they should simply vote for Bill S-2.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in a remote aboriginal community, when it is the middle of the night and it is 30° below zero and a woman has been violently assaulted, it is absolutely necessary for her to receive the same protection as all other Canadians.

That is exactly why our government introduced Bill S-2, which would allow the enforcement of emergency protection orders.

Shamefully, however, the Liberal leader whipped his caucus to vote against that bill.

Would the parliamentary secretary please update the House on our position versus their position?

Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14

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

Mr. Chair, I have the pleasure of being part of the status of women committee that is currently studying Bill S-2. I hope that the bill will be referred back to the House very soon. If passed by Parliament, Bill S-2 will do much to protect some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nation communities.

This bill must be passed into law in order to ensure that women and children on reserve can benefit from the same rights and protections people living off reserves are afforded. They deserve and expect no less.

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 value of the family home must be protected.

It is shameful that the opposition is not supporting these important measures. If they truly want to stand up for aboriginal women and children, they should support our legislation to protect the rights of women and children on reserves.

Can the minister explain to the committee why aboriginal women and children cannot wait any longer for access to these same rights and protections?

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

[Bill S-2] is addressing the real human issue of an aboriginal person, something taken for granted by all 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.

Prevention is the cornerstone of the government's overarching plan to stop the violence perpetrated against aboriginal women. This bill is one important means by which first nation women and children would be protected as it will allow access to emergency protection orders.

Bill S-2 would provide protections in situations of family violence and may prevent future incidents. Furthermore, this legislation would empower first nations to develop their own laws in the area of matrimonial real property, laws designed to meet their particular needs and respect their particular customs.

Under Bill S-2, a first nation could formalize its traditional dispute resolution processes and remedies and finally give them the force of law. The legislation would also ensure that until such time as a first nation would be able to create its own laws, federal rules would provide families with the rights and protections they sought and deserved just like all non-aboriginal citizens and aboriginal people living off reserves.

As a result, all men, women and children living on reserve would have rights related to the occupancy transfer or sale of the family home that were not previously available to individuals living on reserves.

More important, in situations of family violence a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home with the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days with a possibility of an extension.

Furthermore, we have committed to the creation of an arm's-length centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, which will assist first nations in the development of their own on-reserve matrimonial real property laws or in the application of the federal provisional rules.

I would like to point out that as part of the development of this legislation, our government undertook an extensive consultation process that included over 100 meetings in 76 cities across Canada.

We have had ample opportunity to review, discuss and debate the bill since it was first introduced in 2008. Since then, more than 40 hours have been dedicated to debate and study of the bill in Parliament. More than half of this time occurred during committee study of the bill, with 60 appearances from first nation organizations individuals and federal and provincial representatives, among others.

As a result of these consultations, Bill S-2 incorporates a number of improvements over previous versions. We are proud of this bill and urge all parties to support it.

To further protect vulnerable aboriginal women and children, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada also supports access to a network of shelters serving on-reserve residents and work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, first nation people and other stakeholders to develop effective and appropriate solutions to the issue of the domestic violence.

Family violence is an issue that can affect Canadians from all walks of life and can have tremendous costs, particularly for children, so it is important to ensure that help is near. Families and first nation communities that are remote and isolated make these particular challenges in accessing protection and support services. In order to address these challenges, this government invests in the ongoing operation of the family violence prevention program on reserve.

Economic action plan 2013 commits $24 million over two years for this program. These funds will allow the total funding level of the program to remain at $30.4 million for each of the next two years. This investment contributes to enhanced safety, security for on-reserve residents, particularly women and children.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering why Bill S-2 has anything to do with the main estimates.

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

Mr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will use the first 10 minutes of my time to speak and the last five minutes for questions.

Funding for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development programs services and activities allows the department to support aboriginal people and northerners in their efforts to improve social well-being and economic prosperity, develop healthier, more sustainable communities and participate more fully in Canada's political, social and economic development.

One such initiative that aims to improve the rights of families living on reserves is Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Many Canadians are not aware that in the absence of legislation like Bill S-2, if the spouse who holds the interest in an on-reserve family home passes away, the surviving spouse has no legal rights to that home, or that the spouse holds the interest in a family home on-reserve can sell that home without the consent of the other spouse and keep all of the money, or that the spouse who holds the interest in the family home on reserve can bar the other spouse from the residence.

Where do members think they are going to end up?

Constituents in my riding of London North Centre were shocked when I told them that aboriginal women did not have the same matrimonial rights that women off reserves had, or that in the event of domestic violence or abuse a court cannot order the spouse who held the interest in the on-reserve family home to leave their residence, even on a temporary basis.

Domestic violence is a stain on society. To counter it, countries such as ours should continue to maintain effective justice systems and to establish appropriate and specialized legal responses.

For many women living on reserves, however, there is no justice. Aboriginal women are at least three times more likely than non-aboriginal women to experience violence. They are also more likely to experience severe violence that is repeated over time and over and over again.

Aboriginal women who experience this violence and abuse currently have no legal recourse when it comes to the family home. In cases of abuse, women often have to choose between leaving their home or enduring the abuse because there are no emergency protection orders or exclusive occupation orders available to them.

I saw a witness in tears who said that if this bill had been in place, she would still have her home, for which she paid.

Although violence against women that takes place off reserve has similar impacts on individuals and communities, there is at least one fundamental difference off reserve. There are laws that enable women to seek protection and retain access to the family home. Women who live off reserve can go to a judge and secure legal resolutions, such as exclusive occupation orders and emergency protection orders. These tools provide women with the rights to the family home and a way to protect themselves and their children. This has been going on for years all across Canada, but not on reserves.

However, many women living on reserves do not have access to the same protection measures. Aboriginal women on reserves are all too often forced to leave the family home, along with their children, and even leave their reserve community when they experience violence at the hands of their intimate partner.

It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age, people living on reserve are not afforded similar rights and protections as those available to people living off the reserve. Individuals living on reserves should not be penalized simply because of where they live.

Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, if passed, will provide matrimonial real property rights and interests to men and women who live on reserves and will provide protection for spouses in situations of domestic abuse.

Betty Ann Lavallée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal People, said before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, that Bill S-2 is addressing the real human issue—

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

Mr. Chair, action plan 2013 announced funding of $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program, allowing my department to continue to offer its programming at a funding level of approximately $30 million in 2013-14. Another thing that could help these women and children would be the adoption of Bill S-2, the bill that would try to fill the gap that has existed in this country for too long.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Madam Sgro.

Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this clause?

(Clause 41 agreed to)

That ends our meeting. We will resume the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-2 at our next meeting.

My thanks to the committee for the work it has done today.

On behalf of our committee, I would once more like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. We will certainly send them an invitation to come to our next meeting as well.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to speak to clause 40. I believe it once again misses the point entirely, and it speaks to the deficiency of this bill when clauses like this exist without the commitment to non-legislative measures, which we know are absolutely critical in addressing the decisions that happen after a marital breakup.

I want to read into the record the message from Ms. Ellen Gabriel, who indicated that:

High unemployment rates, lack of sufficient housing, a growing population, dispossession of our lands and resources, the imposition of paternalistic values and processes, outdated funding formulas, poverty, and social ills rooted in colonialism have for generations affected indigenous women's ability to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

The government is indicating this is for the well-being of aboriginal women, a statement that is paternalistic to the maximum, in part, because it misses entirely all of these points that Ms. Gabriel raises, which indicate the socio-economic conditions in which first nations live, the crushing poverty, a poverty that first nations refer to on a regular basis as being third world.

I've been to houses in northern Manitoba where there's black mould on the walls, but people have nowhere to go. I've been to houses where there is no sink in the kitchen because there is no running water. People have to go out in -35 degree weather with a pail to get water from a well. I've been to houses where is no bathroom inside the house. I remember an elder in St. Theresa Point who had diabetes, who had to trudge through the snow to go to the bathroom outside. I've been to communities where they received slop pails from the federal government because after H1N1 it was clearly indicated that water and sewer conditions in the community were unacceptable. To add insult to injury, this federal government sent slop pails into the community.

Madam Chair, what members across, and certainly their government, are steadfastly ignoring are these living conditions, which first nations put up with because they are first nations people. The paternalistic, colonialist approach up to now clearly hasn't worked if you look at the quality of life these people lead.

Unfortunately, instead of changing course, this government has chosen, through clause 40 and through the entirety of Bill S-2, to impose legislation that completely discounts these living conditions—third world living conditions, as many first nations indicate—and seems to profess that this somehow is going to end violence, and is going to end the problematic situations that women face on reserve.

I would point them back to what Ms. Gabriel has indicated and how, through Bill S-2, this government is ignoring the very indicators that lead to the turmoil, that lead to social tension and violence, and to the fact that this government is continuing a paternalistic and colonial approach when it comes to first nations people.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, this is the same problem as the one we had with clauses 15, 4 and 29. There is a lack of legal clarity between Bill S-2 and the Civil Code of Québec. This is how clause 35 reads:

On application by an executor of a will or an administrator of an estate, a court may, by order, vary the amount owed to the survivor under section 34 if the spouses or common-law partners had previously resolved the consequences of the breakdown of the conjugal relationship by agreement or judicial decision, or if that amount would be unconscionable, having regard to, among other things, the fact that any children of the deceased individual would not be adequately provided for.

As several witnesses have indicated, in Quebec specifically, common-law spouses do not have the same rights as married ones. What about those 40% of Quebec women who are in a common-law relationship?

Given the way in which the Civil Code of Québec is applied, there is a striking difference between the status of a married woman and one living in a common-law relationship. Rights and obligations are often different, especially in terms of household expenses, the consolidation of debts, the family home, family assets, the rights of children, and so on. As one of the witnesses mentioned, an Aboriginal woman in a common-law relationship could find herself with her access to the family home blocked.

There must be better harmonization between Bill S-2 and the Civil Code of Québec.

Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to speak to clause 23, which leaves many questions unanswered. Obviously, we're once again talking about the decisions that the justice system will have to make, and it again involves the imposition of this bill, this legislation, on first nations. Given that the justice system, or the body that will enforce this clause in particular, is here, it begs the question: does the provincial system have the ability to handle this bill in general but also the question around occupation of the home?

I just want to read into the record the answers to our questions, in writing, from the Justice and Aboriginal Affairs officials. We asked, “Has there been an analysis of the cost that will be incurred by provincial governments?”

The answer was that “An analysis of the implementation costs for provinces and territories is not available.” It said, “Bill S-2 provides for provincial courts to hear issues relating to matrimonial real property at the same time as other court proceedings such as divorce or child custody.”

The issue here is fundamentally one of capacity, because the courts will have to deal with complex land codes. As we know, various first nations across the country have various land code arrangements. We heard it from former chief Baird. We heard it from Councillor Joan Jack. You have first nations that have just signed treaties in recent years. You have others that have treaties from the late 1800s.

We need to be clear here. The justice systems of our various provinces and territories need the ability to handle not just this bill, but to have an understanding of these land codes. We're very concerned that an analysis of the implementation costs is not available when it comes to the provinces and their ability to administer justice regarding this bill. We find it extremely problematic.

I would also add, again, that there is the issue of accurately assessing the value of homes on reserve. Obviously, there is an indication here of naming beneficiaries and the property being transferred to others. We feel that's a gap here. Unfortunately, although it's something that we've heard referenced by witnesses, due to this government's steadfast interest in limiting debate and not hearing from witnesses who are most impacted, we haven't had a chance to delve into the real gaps regarding accurately assessing values of homes on reserve and understanding the challenges that exist with regard to that.

I would also once again reiterate our concern about the provincial ability to handle what clause 23 is referring to—and Bill S-2 overall—without the kind of time allocation and without the capacity that are necessary to apply this legislation properly and in a way that could actually serve justice.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I want to add that there are repeated references, as we know from our witnesses, regarding the availability of other suitable accommodations situated on reserve, regarding the lack of housing.

It was noted in the testimony that in Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba, for example, there's a shortage of around 500 houses—not people on a waiting list but actual houses that are needed for families. We heard from Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler regarding the lack of housing in the NAN territories, which is in the thousands overall.

If these occupation orders are imposed, where will people go?

My colleague referenced the multiple generations that are often in houses—sometimes by choice, sometimes because people simply have nowhere else to go with such housing shortages.

I'd also like to add that there have been repeated references to the lack of access to courts and legal services, which are obviously involved in applying occupation orders. That's something that is not addressed by clause 20, this bill, or anything that this government has said on Bill S-2.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

To Mr. Jean's comments, all of us would like to see this passed. We'd like to see the changes go forward for people who are on reserve. But I think it might have been helpful if the committee had gone and visited a few of the reserves, and talked to some of the people on the reserves, and looked at really where some of them are situated.

I think Ms. Ashton's comments are very valid. As I read this, it would be fine in the city of Toronto. It would be fine in our cities, because there are lots of resources. But some of these reserves are very remote, and they don't have any of this help. I don't want to mislead women into thinking that they have enforcement mechanisms out there, and giving them a false sense of security, when there isn't anybody out there to help them.

Bill S-2 is going to help, but it's only going to help a bit. It needed to go the rest of the way. That is exactly what Wendy Grant-John said, that you can't cherry-pick. That's the problem. Otherwise, you know what? We'd all support this gladly and get it through. But it needs the other things. It needs the access to shelters. It needs the resources. That's what's missing in the bill.

In her report, Wendy Grant-John said that they needed the financial resources to be made available for implementation of non-legislative measures such as programs to address land registry issues, mediation and other court related programs, and so on and so forth. You all know what it says.

What you've done, as the government, is you've chosen to just cherry-pick certain parts that sound really good but aren't doing the job that needs to be done. There are no resources being put here. You are, I believe, misleading people to have a false sense of security.

I'm going to support clause 16, all right? We're going to support this. But again, you're fixing half of a problem and misleading people. I'd like to have gone further—I think we all would have—and seen that there were the resources to back up Bill S-2.

Put the money into it, have it happen within 36 months, and give the kind of support that those women are looking for us to deliver.

Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to speak to clause 16 on emergency protection orders. This is obviously a very important issue but unfortunately one that the government side has used to mislead the public, certainly, when it comes to this bill.

Many witnesses, and certainly those who have spoken out outside of this committee, have raised real concern regarding general enforcement of this bill, but even more specifically on emergency protection orders. We've heard repeated references to the lack of police and policing capacity that exists on first nations, and policing capacity that is able to cover first nations as well if they're not based on them.

We also know that emergency shelters are involved in emergency protection orders and certainly link women and men who are fleeing abuse to access these orders. However, as we do know, only 40 first nations out of 663 have a shelter on reserve that could help access this service. I want to indicate that subclauses 16(3), 16(5), 16(7) and 16(8) in clause 16 refer to a peace officer and the work that a peace officer would do.

As we do know, in many first nations there is not only a lack of police officers, but the band constable programs have been cut by this federal government. Certainly partnering with first nations in the provinces around policing capacity on reserve has been reduced by this federal government, meaning that access to peace officers who could actually implement all of these sections is not just tenuous but often impossible.

I want to read some analysis from the Ontario Women's Justice Network, which has done some excellent work on emergency protection orders. They indicate that: The short-term orders are emergency orders that can be obtained 24 hours a day, by telephone or by appointment, from a trained Justice of the Peace. In most cases, the police or Victim Services workers are the ones who seek these orders on behalf of the victim.

As well, in first nations communities:The First Nations' community case workers, for example, can apply for protection orders by calling the police on behalf of a survivor.

Madam Chair, we have heard very clearly from a number of witnesses that there is no trained justice of the peace on reserve in many cases, that there are no victim services workers on reserve in many cases, that there are no police on reserve in many cases, and this idea of a first nations case worker begs the question of who exactly that is, when we know that community after community after community has no person who could handle the capacity that already exists in the community, let alone deal with the aftermath of Bill S-2 in this case.

This is not to say that emergency protection orders are not important. They clearly are. But why is the government skirting the issue of enforcement? It's fine on paper, but as we've heard, if there is no enforcement of emergency protection orders, and there is no police officer, justice of the peace, victim services worker or a first nations community case worker, as exists in the rest of the country—excluding the community case worker, off reserve—then these are just words on a paper that will stay words on a paper.

I also want to indicate that the Ontario Women's Justice Network indicates, in the context of speaking to the provinces: It is also crucial that new legislation be followed by extensive training of enforcement bodies, lawyers and judges, and increased resources and access to legal representation and social services.

Madam Chair, I want to be clear. This is not in reference to Bill S-2, but what we've heard from many witnesses is that Bill S-2 involves no inclusion of non-legislative measures. It certainly provides no resources to provincial bodies, to legal aid, and certainly something could be given to the provinces to be then given to legal aid or to first nations to be able to implement this.

Protection orders that are not adequately enforced have the effect of providing a false sense of security instead of much-needed prevention and protection against violence. More women would likely seek protection orders if they could do so through community-based services such as women's shelters and not just through the police.

Again, Madam Chair, this is in reference to provincial legislation, but it is very clear that if we apply this to Bill S-2 without enforcement and without the resources, emergency protection orders remain three words on a paper and a lot of misleading rhetoric from this government that this will actually protect women from violence.

Thank you.

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

Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair.

We know that Quebec's unique characteristics are not taken into consideration in this bill. A lawyer from Dionne Schulze said that, under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not have a right to property in Quebec; that is well known.

I have some serious concerns about this clause. When we heard from the witnesses, I specifically asked the representatives from Quebec Native Women to tell us more about the potential lack of legal clarity and the gaps that would result from implementing Bill S-2 in Quebec. We know that Quebec uses civil law, not common law. Their testimony is clear and should be reflected in this bill. Among other things, Viviane Michel said:

A number of Aboriginal women are also in common-law relationships with non-Aboriginal partners. If this law is enforced and a verdict is reached, given all the problems facing our communities, including high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, and if a woman experiences those problems and her partner is a Quebecker, he will have the right to live in the house.

So the Quebec man would get the house and the children. The woman would lose her children and live in a community. Do you see how that could be a threat to Aboriginal communities? Those are the facts.

And I am not just talking about Quebeckers. It could involve people of other origins. In fact, women are more and more frequently in common-law relationships with partners of different origins.

So that can lead to gaps in our communities. Women can lose as much as their homes and even their children. The differences between the Civil Code and common law are particularly worrisome for Aboriginal women in Quebec, since Quebec's Civil Code does not give common-law partners the same rights as it gives people who are legally married.

It is said that the bill will not be consistent with Quebec's Civil Code for spouses in terms of the division of matrimonial property in the case of separation or death. Since 40% of women are in common-law relationships in Quebec, implementing this bill could create a lot of problems.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

This is an attempt to clarify that, once a first nation adopts its own matrimonial property laws through the process set out in S-2, they will have the option, but not the requirement, to use the provincial court system as an enforcement mechanism for those laws.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to speak to clause 4, under “Purpose and Application”. Obviously, this is one of the problematic clauses that purport that what is being done here is okay. This is clearly not the case, as we've heard from many witnesses. It's clear that this government is not listening to first nations on a nation-to-nation basis. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, and many nations across the country who oppose this bill, have spoken directly to the lack of nation-to-nation consultation. Certain first nations have been heard by the ministerial representative, but as has been the case previously, their concerns have not been incorporated into this iteration of the bill, and there are certainly some key concerns.

I want to read into the record a press release from the Native Women's Association of Canada when Bill S-2 was presented.

The Native Women's Association of Canada...express their concerns with Bill S-2.... NWAC is not confident that the legislation will solve the problems associated with Matrimonial...Property [rights] on reserve; and that the current Bill fails to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time this legislation has been brought forward.

Obviously, one of the real concerns here is that this is an imposition by the federal government on first nations. Janice Makokis yesterday was quoted as saying, “I want to focus my comments on how this bill is in violation of our treaties and the treaty relationship. This bill undermines indigenous laws and the inherent rights we have. Finally this bill further oppresses the roles of indigenous women within our nations.”

This bill does not solve the problems that it seeks to address and certainly some of the problems that this government has raised. We've heard this from women, communities, and families who will be affected. This government has said that the purpose of this bill was to end violence against aboriginal women. This bill has nothing to do with ending violence against aboriginal women as it provides no effective, timely access to remedy. It does not involve a national action plan. It does not address the housing crisis on reserves. It does not make any reference to funding for women's shelters. As we know, for 663 first nations, there are only 40 women's shelters. It does not allow for better access to justice, including increased funding to legal aid, especially for remote communities. It does not include financial resources to support first nation governments to actually implement the law. It does not allow access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which, as we know from witnesses who have brought this forward, are often critical to resolving the situation during marital breakdown.

I'd also like to read into the record, as I believe it certainly speaks to the opposition to clause 4, the statement by

Quebec Native Women:

Quebec Native Women would like to reiterate its opposition to Bill S-2... ... Bill S-2, in its present form, does not take into account the jurisdiction of First Nations over reserve property by granting jurisdiction to the provincial courts for enforcement and will not provide funding or resources to First Nations to access these provincial courts which would therefore be too costly or complex for them to use. The unilateral approach taken by the government to resolve this issue through legislation will also fail to address systemic problems such as lack of housing and violence against women in the communities.

Finally, I would like to indicate that clause 4 sets the tone and certainly makes clear the plan of this bill and obviously, the plan of this government, to impose legislation on first nations regardless of their opposition, regardless of the indication that first nations must be consulted according to section 35 and according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to which Canada is a signatory.

Therefore, we stand with the many voices of first nations, first nation organizations, and first nation women who have come out and spoken against Bill S-2, including clause 4.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you very much for accepting the invitation and for being here with us.

Let me repeat that these people are here with us to answer any questions we may have, in order to make the committee's work easier today.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, April 17, 2013, we will be conducting a clause-by-clause study 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.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the Preamble and Clause 1, Short Title, is postponed. We will look at them after we study the bill.

(Clause 2—Definitions)

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

[Chief Lloyd Phillips, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

Thank you very much to the committee members.

I have to condense my presentation very quickly here.

My name is Lloyd Phillips. I've been a chief for over 14 years in the Mohawk community of Kahnawà:ke, one of the larger first nations communities in Canada, with approximately 8,000 people living on reserve and another 4,000 living off.

Our reality is much different. We are located 15 minutes from downtown Montreal, so issues of poverty, lack of housing, and access to resources are not our main issues. Our issues are jurisdiction and the respect for our treaties and inherent rights, which we never surrendered.

It was presented yesterday here at the committee, from the Iroquois caucus as well as a couple of my fellow Mohawk communities, the way Bill S-2 continues to violate our original treaty relationship with the Two Row Wampum and the way it ignores our constitutionally protected and inherent right to self-determination. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke certainly endorses and supports these principles. We also heard many technical and legal representations from Madame Audette and many others in the past few days, and again we agree with many.

The fundamental problem here is the way in which this law is once again being imposed upon our people, without respect for our history, for the treaties that existed, for the fact that we never surrendered our rights, that we never surrendered the right to self-determination, as an overriding importance. It's the continual, paternalistic approach of government, where the Indian Act mentality going back to the 1800s, and even the mentality going beyond the 1800s, into the 1600s and 1700s, continues, despite issues that have been raised over and over again.

Our council was very hesitant to actually have me come here today, because to a certain extent we felt, what's the point? No matter what we say here, this government, the Conservative government, is going to continue on its way and pass laws the way it chooses to pass laws. Its track record speaks for itself. It's the continual way in which this government has been acting, and it's the policies, not just of the Conservative government, which is currently in power, but the Canadian system as a whole. You have policies that ignore jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction discussed between first nations and Canada is based on a policy or it's based on a surrender of your rights if you want to have a land claim settlement. These are fundamentally wrong. Canada is ignoring our constitutional rights in ignoring the treaties, and ignoring them on a moral level as well.

There's a long history out there, a proud history that the Mohawks and other first nations have. They actually helped defend what is now Canada from the invading people, the Americans. Without the allies of first nations such as the Mohawks, Canada might not exist today. The respect we get in return is almost nil.

Kahnawà:ke has a long history of making laws; we will continue to make laws. We have laws that are recognized internationally, recognized by the business community, recognized in our community. What's lacking, for the most part, is recognition from the federal authorities. We pass a law in our community and it's deemed not to be an official law unless it's stamped by Canada. This must change.

Canada has to come to terms with the fact that first nations are here to stay. Mohawks are here to stay. If you want to continue to live in peaceful coexistence, we are willing, but it takes two to peacefully coexist.

Nia:wen Ko:wa.

[Janice Makokis, Organizer, Idle No More]

Thank you.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Good morning, my friends and relatives. My name is Janice Makokis. Thank you for welcoming me here and giving me this opportunity to speak to you today.

I was taught to introduce myself in my language to acknowledge who I am, where I come from, and the responsibilities I have as a Cree woman to the Naheo Cree laws and nation I've been born into. This action is a part of acknowledging our Naheo Cree laws, practising self-determination, and exercising our sovereignty when we belong to a nation.

Another part of exercising indigenous sovereignty is acknowledging the lands we are on when we travel to another nation's territory. I'd like to acknowledge the unseated Algonquin lands we are on today and thank them for allowing me to be on their lands to speak to you.

In my Cree language I said I'm a member of the Bear clan, and I'm from the Saddle Lake Cree Nation located in Treaty 6 territory. I am a treaty person, and I'm a descendant of Treaty No. 6, where my ancestors entered into treaty with the crown of Great Britain in 1876.

I'm an Idle No More organizer and have been invited to speak as a person involved in this movement from the beginning. I am also a treaty educator and a sessional instructor of Blue Quills First Nations College. I exercised my treaty right to education and the promises given to my people during treaty. I obtained several degrees: a bachelor's, a master's, and a law degree.

Idle No More was initiated by women and originated as a grassroots movement in response to the current suite of legislation that directly affects the lives of indigenous peoples. Specifically, the suite of legislation attacks and undermines indigenous peoples' treaties, the treaty relationship, indigenous sovereignty, indigenous title, and inherent rights that have existed from time immemorial. Indigenous peoples across Canada have gathered through various peaceful activities, such as community teachings, public rallies, and peaceful roadblocks, to make statements of opposition to this legislation.

When our nations are under threat and our traditional governance structures, indigenous laws, and ways of life are being undermined by outside forces, in this case Canada, the women have a responsibility to take a stand and do something. This is one of the reasons why Idle No More began with women.

In Cree we have a law called, e na tah maw was sew yak, which means we are to defend the children and generations. In times of crisis, this law is invoked by the women, and Idle No More is a response to that because a threat against our people's children and all of creation is imminent and very real.

One of the bills that is included within the suite of legislation that Idle No More has a response to is Bill S-2, which I'm here to speak briefly about. I'm not going to go into detail about the technicalities. My friends here have spoken to that or will speak to that.

I want to focus my comments on how this bill is in violation of our treaties and the treaty relationship. This bill undermines indigenous laws and the inherent rights we have. Finally, this bill further oppresses the roles of indigenous women within our nations.

When my ancestors entered into treaty, we were sovereign nations, and the treaty process acknowledged that. We had established governments to govern ourselves. As a treaty person, I find it arrogant that Canada thinks it can draft a piece of legislation that dictates the division of marital property on reserve lands I live on. Nowhere in the treaties did we ever say we would give up our ability to govern ourselves and practise our own laws. To have provincial laws imposed on our—

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced Bill S-2 to protect first nations women and children, but yesterday, the Liberals attempted to remove this important legislation from the Status of Women committee.

Perhaps the Liberal leader does not want women MPs from this committee to have their say on this bill. We know that he shamefully whipped the members of his caucus to vote against these protections for first nations women and children.

Unlike the Liberal leader, we believe that first nations women and children deserve the same protections as all other Canadians. Unlike the Liberal leader, we are not afraid to say that violence against women and children is exactly what it is: barbaric.

Unlike the Liberal leader, we are not in over our heads. The duly elected female members of the Status of Women committee are more than capable of handling this bill, and our Conservative government is proud to stand up for the protection of first nations women, children and all Canadians.

[Viviane Michel]

Maybe you want to hold nice consultations in the communities, but I know that you are going to pass Bill S-2 anyway, however much we tell you we are opposed to it. Your minds are already made up.

If you really want to consult, you have to do it in our language. That is very important. You also have to think in the long term, not in the short term. You cannot move quickly, but it happens each time. It is important to get first nations involved because the contact is easier then. People express themselves better in their own language. It is a big challenge for Quebec Native Women, which is trying to make women’s rights better known in the communities. Not all women know their rights, in fact.

A lot of education remains to be done in that regard. And Bill S-2 comes up once more. I feel sorry for our chiefs, but they are not always up to date. We are suddenly presented with a bill and we have to become informed quickly. We have to work together and to react. What are the positions of all our nations? That is a lot of work and it has to be done quite quickly.

This also has to be looked at in the long term. Some things do not work. Your laws do not work for us because we are different. We have a way of thinking that has existed for a long time. It is innate. It is not written down on paper, but it applies nonetheless. We have always had equal relationships. Failing to take that into consideration can also lead to shortcomings.

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

Ever since we began to study Bill S-2 in committee, the members of the governing party on the committee have repeated a number of times that first nations have been consulted. They talk about a hundred or so consultations in 76 locations and about the $8 million that has been spent. That includes their last three attempts to get the bill passed. But your organization seems clear on the issue. You have shared several concerns during the consultation process and now, for the fourth time, the government is failing to respond to the requests of aboriginal women’s associations.

You also state that Quebec Native Women as an organization has participated in a number of parliamentary committees and that you have forwarded your comments on previous versions of the bill. You have also specifically asked for more consultations in communities, but your opinions seem to have fallen on deaf ears. What do you think about that and what should have been done?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, welcome to this meeting of the committee. Thank you for travelling here. I am always happy to meet the witnesses.

Let me just say from the outset that some of the things I have heard this morning made my hair stand on end. I had to keep quiet. I heard people repeatedly asking the grand chiefs who spoke before you whether they had read Bill S-2. I found that to be incredibly disrespectful. It is as if I were to ask Ms. Bateman, Ms. Young, Ms. Crockatt, Ms. Ambler and so on whether they had read Bill S-2. I apologize on behalf of those who showed disrespect.

In terms of consultations, the Six Nations of the Grand River have all said that they were not consulted. Consultations with the great first nations are expected and required. I think family law—and correct me if I am wrong—is also set out in the Indian Act, meaning that you have full rights in the way you govern your people, which is normal. That is what we do. They are your people and it is your nation.

My first question is for Viviane Michel.

Your organization has recently issued a news release outlining Quebec Native Women's concerns regarding the implementation of Bill S-2 in light of the provisions of the Civil Code of Québec. In your view, there are discrepancies that are particularly concerning for aboriginal women in Quebec since the Civil Code of Québec does not provide the same rights to common-law partners as it does to legally married persons. It is said that 40% of women in Quebec are in common-law relationships. The implementation of this bill could create more problems. Could you tell us more about your concerns regarding the Civil Code of Québec?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

Please forgive me, because I don't see the connection between reconciliation regarding residential schools and matrimonial property rights. I recognize that it was this government that issued the residential schools apology. That, to me, shows that.... I hear colonialism and paternalism. Frankly, I see a government that's actually trying very hard to consult on this issue and others, and to do the right thing, especially with regard to residential schools.

Maybe my question to you should be this. Do you want Bill S-2 to solve all of the problems? That's not how I see it. I see it as solving one problem. It's one piece of the puzzle. You're right. It doesn't address residential schools and it doesn't address housing, but it does address a big issue. We've heard from witnesses who've lived through the nightmare of being kicked out of their homes, and we're trying to help them.

So we can talk about a national plan of action and we can talk about colonialism. With regard to consultation, you can say there was none, but there was. It may not have been enough, but there was consultation. We still think we're doing the right thing. Do you not think there are women who will be helped by this?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

No, I'm saying those provisions are in Bill S-2.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I know it was a long time ago. It sounds familiar to me, too, because all of these provisions are in Bill S-2.

Funding issues aside—and that seems to have been the theme of your comments today—at the end you recommended that we amend the bill and then repeal the bill. If we repeal the bill, do you believe, in principle, that women on reserves, indigenous women in Canada, should be afforded the same rights as other Canadian women in this area of matrimonial real property?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today for being here to talk about Bill S-2.

Ms. Gabriel, you noted that you've spoken to a number of committees about this issue and others. I notice that in 2005 you testified before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs with regard to on-reserve matrimonial real property rights. You stated that you felt—and correct me at any point if I'm not right about what you said—that the best way to address the issue would be to amend the Indian Act in the following way: establish a matrimonial property regime that provides all property acquired during the marriage to be the property of both spouses; ensure that men and women have equal rights to matrimonial property and guarantee a fair division of matrimonial property on the breakdown of a relationship; apply the matrimonial property amendments to common law couples; and allow the parent who has custody of the children to remain in the family home.

Does that sound about right? Would you have testified to that effect?

[Ellen Gabriel, As an Individual]

[Witness speaks in Kanien'kéha]

Greetings to the chair, honourable members of Parliament, and my esteemed colleagues from the Quebec native women's association. This is at least the fourth or fifth time I'm presenting on this issue, in previous times as the president of the Quebec native women's association, so it is a great honour indeed.

As in the previous forms of this bill, several persistent omissions must be taken into consideration if there are to be real and long-lasting solutions to this problem. They first must be placed in context to understand the root causes of this injustice, which originates in the Indian Act and the impositions of colonial and patriarchal values.

I am compelled to note that the goal of this bill is the fair and equitable distribution of matrimonial real property for Indian women on reserves upon the dissolution of a relationship.

This bill should not profess to address the chronic issue of violence against aboriginal women. The issue of violence is best addressed through a national plan of action by Canada, its provinces and territories, and through cultural sensitivity classes on Canada's colonial history for judges, lawyers, members of Parliament, and politicians. It should include a genuine process of reconciliation that recognizes the negative impact of colonialism, the Indian Act, and the Indian residential schools system on indigenous peoples' identity, culture, language, traditional forms of governance, and how they have affected the roles and authority of indigenous women in their nations and communities.

A holistic view is essential if the issue of MRP is to be properly addressed by all levels of government, but in particular within aboriginal forms of governance.

High unemployment rates, lack of sufficient housing, a growing population, dispossession of our lands and resources, the imposition of paternalistic values and processes, outdated funding formulas, poverty, and social ills rooted in colonialism have for generations affected indigenous women's ability to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

There are several areas of concern regarding this bill, which include, one, the incorrect assumption that this bill was accompanied by a consultation process; two, the lack of inclusion of the Constitution Act of 1982, which protects and affirms the inherent and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples; three, the lack of resources for communities in implementation of this bill, and potential court orders supported by a weak implementation process, considering the situation of policing on reserves; and four, the non-legislative measures and lack of access to justice, in particular for those women living in remote communities, and the financial burdens placed upon these women, where homemakers rely on spouses for their incomes.

On the matter of consultation, I must state sincerely that there was none. While engagement sessions were given by Wendy Grant-John—her report came out in March 2007—and an explanation of the issue of matrimonial property was provided, with some discussion on suggesting solutions, even the ministerial representative's report noted that there has not been sufficient time to reach consensus.

While the government firmly believes that there were consultations, I must remind them that the ultimate duty to consult rests with the Government of Canada and its duty to uphold the honour of the crown. It is important to state that there were no consultations on the specific details and nature of Bill S-2 on matrimonial real property.

It is of significant importance to note that during any consultation process, the process of reconciliation must be included and is always ongoing in Canada's relationship with aboriginal peoples. As per the policy of the Government of Canada in its duty to consult, the crown also consults because it is legally obliged to do so. It must give effect to reconciliation and uphold the honour of the crown—the government's ability to adversely affect aboriginal treaty rights is restricted in this reality—and crown conduct must demonstrate respect for aboriginal and treaty rights.

In remote communities women rely on travelling courts. Women must often travel in the same vehicle as their ex-partner to attend court. Remote communities do not have easy access to legal aid. The financial burden placed upon women is cumbersome in their quest for a fair and just settlement.

Access to justice is challenging. With regard to financial compensation to their ex-spouse, should they try to negotiate a fair and just settlement, their measure of worth, of contribution made as homemakers, is not considered. This causes aboriginal women to experience more vulnerability and discrimination, as low-income women would not be able to pay their ex-spouses for the value of their part of matrimonial real property.

The issue of policing on reserves is also an extremely serious question. Provincial courts would only be able to provide temporary occupation orders for the home, and a lot of times police who are reserve police might have trouble implementing them if they're related to the persons involved. In Quebec common law, as Ms. Michel has stated, relationships are not recognized.

If harmonization with provincial and territorial laws was the goal in this bill, then a consultation process that also included the customary laws of indigenous peoples, along with their free, prior, and informed consent, should also have been considered. The trend for over 100 years is to go to Canada's courts if we disagree with Canada's decisions. Aboriginal peoples should not have to go to Canada's courts to protect their inherent and treaty rights.

Another important issue is that of membership codes, the criteria created by the Indian Act, and many times it uses blood quantum. Should a woman not be a member of the community, the woman will never have the right to own the home and its implements, thereby creating another gap.

Lastly, a centre of excellence should not be included since this was never a topic of discussion during talks with Ms. Grant-John. A centre of excellence is another example of the paternalistic attitude of government. It ignores the customary laws of indigenous nations and ignores the inherent rights and treaty rights. It seems to be another part of the aboriginal industry where badly needed funding for communities will be directed toward an organization isolated from the communities, instead of going to institutions damaged by the Indian Act such as our languages and cultures and traditional customs and governance, as well as more emergency shelters in the communities, which are essential to this process of reconciliation.

If the centre of excellence is to be created, it should not be headed or controlled by any aboriginal organization. Instead, it should have indigenous women academics, elders with traditional knowledge, and front-line workers with experience in domestic and institutionalized racism and abuse.

Like many laws before it, Bill S-2 fails to consider the realities of first peoples and their communities who lack the much-needed financial and human resources for its implementation. Bands are already pushed to their limits by outdated funding formulas, as stated by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser in her 2011 June Status Report, in chapter 4, “Programs for First Nations on Reserves”. She states, "Structural impediments explain the lack of progress on reserves". Ms. Fraser goes on to say substandard construction practices or materials, lack of proper maintenance, and overcrowding also contribute. Bill S-2 also does not accommodate the need for more land, nor the fact that in order to develop their own MRP codes, a band must already have been in or be in negotiations on their land.

Legislation that fails to consider the effects of colonialism and assimilation policies, like the Indian residential school system and the Indian Act, creates deficiencies in the promotion and protection of indigenous women's rights. In recent years, great accomplishments in the area of human rights, most notably regarding the collective and individual rights of indigenous peoples through comprehensive human rights instruments like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, must be included in any remedies to injustices faced by indigenous women and their families.

Various human rights agencies, like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, have been created to reconcile past injustices experienced by indigenous peoples due to doctrines of superiority and colonialism, which regrettably still exist today in Canada. There is a movement forward to end the discriminatory practices perpetuated under Canada's Indian Act laws and policies. It behooves the Government of Canada to implicate itself wholeheartedly within the processes of reconciliation in all its dealings with aboriginal peoples. Canada must amend Bill S-2, listen to the voices of indigenous women and their communities, embrace human rights instruments, and repeal Bill S-2.

I guess my recommendations will come at a later time. Thank you very much for your consideration.

[Viviane Michel, President, Quebec Native Women]

[The witness spoke in her native language]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to express our concerns about 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.

Quebec Native Women has repeatedly expressed its concerns about this issue. We would like to provide you with our comments and recommendations on the latest version of the bill.

Bill S-2 is supposed to remedy the legislative gap that exists for first nations couples living on reserves after the break-up of the relationship or the death of one of the spouses. That includes the division of property and matrimonial rights or interests. However, the bill, in its present form, does not fully address the issue of matrimonial property and will not fully protect those who are most vulnerable.

I would like to highlight some factors that contribute to the complexity of this bill that, at worst, will create more problems for aboriginal women and children than it will solve and, at best, it will be wishful thinking only bringing temporary solutions to vulnerable women.

First, although we commend the government’s efforts to enable first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property code consistent with their own traditions and customs, the bill does not take into account the jurisdiction of first nations over reserve property and their right to self-determination as it grants jurisdiction to provincial courts for enforcement. As a result, a provincial court will be imposing on communities the use of their own lands. In addition, if they do not develop their own code, the proposed legislation establishes federal laws that will be imposed on first nations. Even if first nations have an opportunity to create their own laws, it will only be a form of delegated authority.

Second, aboriginal women’s groups have been asking all along that additional resources be provided so that first nations communities can both develop and enforce their own laws. Yet no funding or resources will be provided to first nations to access those provincial courts, which will therefore be too costly or complex for them in a number of cases. We are carefully watching the government’s intent to establish a centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, which could assist idle communities in drawing inspiration from established best practices, but will not force them to use those practices, nor will it provide assistance to all the communities across Canada.

According to the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, a maximum amount of just under $5 million over five years will be earmarked for the centre. That corresponds to six full-time employees for five years helping 500 aboriginal communities across Canada to develop their own legislation. Not only does that seem like an impossible feat given the remoteness of the communities and the lack of human and financial resources within many band councils, but it also means postponing the detected implementation problems to the medium term. Supporting the development of those new family codes is a good idea if resources are also provided directly to the communities so that they can develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

Third, we want to ensure that minimum standards for the protection of aboriginal women are observed and that the following factors do not penalize women and their abused families or families affected by grieving or separation: exclusive membership codes, lack of housing, lack of legal resources and assistance within communities, as well as a different legal system.

From my experience as a first responder, the best resources to help aboriginal women are those that are culturally adapted and easily accessible within their own communities. Aboriginal women’s groups and their communities must work together in order to develop a fair and equitable system that is based on cultural traditions and customary law. Consideration should also be given to setting up multi-tier aboriginal mediation systems and other practices or aboriginal legal and decision-making systems for matrimonial real property. There also has to be a recognition of the systems that are already in place.

Bill S-2 proposes a solution based on the common law of the federal system without considering the legal provincial diversities. In fact, this bill is asking provincial courts to implement a common law system to handle family law disputes and, as a result, to adapt to a number of legal systems, including the system implemented by various nations and communities, if applicable. The Civil Code of Québec does not grant the same rights to spouses and common-law partners. However, the opposite would be true for provisional laws.

Another consideration is having a judge who is familiar with the Indian Act. It becomes a very complex situation. Also, the bill would not protect aboriginal women living in communities governed by specific treaties such as the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, as well as the Northeastern Québec Agreement that brings some specific features to the Cree and Naskapi territories. In its present form, the bill will probably have no legal impact on the Cree and Naskapi communities and they will have to make laws so that matrimonial real property matters can also be incorporated in their own legal system. That is another legal framework that needs to be considered in the province of Quebec.

Since the rights and recourses by provisional federal rules will be handled by various provincial, federal and aboriginal legal systems, the federal government should conduct further analysis to determine whether this situation has an impact on Quebec’s aboriginal communities and, if that is the case, to establish what the consequences would be. Ultimately, what makes aboriginal women vulnerable currently in cases of separation or domestic violence is the lack of housing and the non-settlement of land claims for all aboriginal nations across Canada. This type of settlement would enable communities to address the demographic pressure on their people and their needs for economic development. This is how the Harper government must do its part if it wants to help aboriginal women escape violence.

Bill S-2, in its present form, does not address this main concern. Furthermore, by refusing to take it into consideration, all it does is send the problem to the provincial courts and band councils. The unilateral approach taken by the government to resolve this issue through legislation will also fail to address systemic problems. The lack of resources, particularly the lack of housing in the communities, will be challenging, and so will the implementation of some provisions regarding the forcible removal of a spouse who will not easily find alternative housing in the community.

In addition, there is also an issue with public safety in the communities. The lack of human and financial resources in the police forces will make it difficult to effectively enforce emergency protection orders. We appreciate the changes to improve the bill, especially the 12-month transition period, but we note that it is a short transition period given that the legal framework being set up in the communities is not good.

Let's talk about family rights. Not all communities are in the same place. They do not have the same human and financial resources to establish this regulatory framework and then implement it.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that Chief Maracle, in his opening remarks, pointed out that this bill is before the wrong committee, and I would completely support Ms. Bennett's motion.

At the aboriginal affairs committee, we’ve just finished studying a private member’s bill that included a section on wills and estates. It became very clear—and this relates directly to matrimonial real property—that taking into account the very complex land codes within first nation communities, the matter of wills and estates needed further study. With regard to matrimonial real property, it's very clear that we're not dealing with fee simple lands. We're dealing with custom allotment. We're dealing with certificates of possession. We're dealing with a variety of mechanisms around lands that do not simply mean that when there's a marital breakdown, person A stays in the house and person B goes somewhere else.

That is an important factor when we're talking about matrimonial real property.

Madam Chair, when David Langtry, the acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, came before this committee, he indicated that there were three questions this committee should be considering. One is fair access to justice, one is ability to access rights in a safe way, and a third one is whether communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems. I would argue that all three of those questions need to be dealt with at the aboriginal affairs committee because the aboriginal affairs committee has a much broader perspective on the complexities facing first nation communities.

One matter that came up at the aboriginal affairs committee when we were talking about Bill C-428 was the issue around custom adoptions. Now, I haven't heard anybody talk about custom adoptions. When provinces are going to be dealing with allocating who gets to stay in a home when there is a marital breakdown, how are they going to deal with custom adoptions? Many provinces don't recognize the first nations’ tradition of custom adoptions, so what would happen in such a case?

Chief Montour, Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler, Chief Maracle, Chief Abram—all of you have talked about the lack of resources. At the aboriginal affairs committee, I can tell you we're well steeped in hearing testimony from people about the lack of resources for housing, the lack of resources for education, the lack of resources for water, and the lack of resources for policing.

Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler, I know your communities have been struggling with issues of policing now for a long time, but it has been very prominent in the media over the last number of weeks because of that lack of resources for policing in your own communities.

We hear the government say that what's going to happen is that by passing Bill S-2, miraculously, somehow or other, people in communities are going to be protected. Well, who's going to enforce those protection orders? Where's the community going to get the resources for alternate dispute resolution and mediation? Where's the community going to get the resources for legal aid? Where's the counselling when families need help? Perhaps they could resolve issues with appropriate counselling. Where are those counselling dollars going to come from? How are the chief and council going to deal with the fact that there are such severe housing shortages?

As Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler and Ms. Fletcher pointed out, there could be 13 or 14 people living in a house. What happens if the custodial parent, the woman, is living with the husband whose whole family lives in the house? Now we're going to say, okay, the woman now has the house. Does that mean the grandparents have to move out because they're the parents of the young man?

This act has been touted by the opposition...I mean the government—opposition I could only wish. The government has indicated that this act will deal with violence against aboriginal women. I want to thank Chief Maracle and Chief Montour and others for rightly pointing out that aboriginal men, first nation men, are not violent by nature. When we're talking about marital breakdown, we're talking about the stressors of poverty and a lack of access to resources that complicates families in a way that many Canadians simply don't face.

On the issue of violence, Bill S-2 mentions family violence—not violence against aboriginal women, but family violence—eight times in this act, and it does nothing, absolutely nothing to deal with the factors contributing to family violence.

We saw in the past as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation funds sunsetted, which could deal with the intergenerational traumas that resulted from residential schools, for example, that money has disappeared.

So when you want to talk about what's happening and where this bill should rightly be it should absolutely be before the aboriginal affairs committee. I would support the calls that have come in from certainly the chiefs who are before us today, but many other chiefs and community members as well, about the duty to consult and accommodate.

It isn't just going out and self-selecting a number of communities, it is about that duty to consult, that free, prior, and informed consent that's been outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So I certainly would encourage all members to vote in favour of Ms. Bennett's motion and have this bill dealt with appropriately at the appropriate committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Deputy Grand Chief and Ms. Fletcher, as well as the chiefs.

Reflecting on what Ms. Tilly O'Neill Gordon has said, I think it speaks to how this government has drafted a bill and simply doesn't understand the situation. Some of the grandparents that Chief Maracle was referring to in a house with 12 people, some of those grandparents may be 40 years old. They don't fit into the elder-infirm category. These are people who have been helping raise families.

I think, because the government doesn't understand that consultation means a two-way communication—send and receive—and because the government has refused to listen to Wendy Grant-John or to any of the overwhelming negative responses to this bill, and because of the debacle last week, to those of us on this side who have had experience on the Committee for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development it's very clear that sending a bill of this complexity to this committee that has no experience with legislation and no experience, expertise, or even cultural sensitivity to first nations, Inuit, and Métis people in Canada. Therefore I would like to move this morning:

That the Committee recommend to the House of Commons 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 referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and that the said committee report its findings to the House.

I don't think we can go on to clause-by-clause with this continual failure to listen to what's been said in terms of how this has to be. I don't care how much money you've spent on consultation. If you have not listened, it makes absolutely no sense that this wasn't done properly. Wendy Grant-John was very clear that without the non-legislative tools in place, this will not solve this problem.

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

I have to say that our government has made many consultations in the last years. We have had 103 consultations, at a cost of $8 million, so we have met with your people. I was just wondering how well consulted your own members were and whether they are truly aware of the factors in Bill S-2.

When I talk about the facts of Bill S-2, I point to the bill, which says, “the best interests of any children who habitually reside in the family home, including the interest of any child who is a First Nation member to maintain a connection with that First Nation”. That is very important to your people. I realize that.

Another factor is the financial situation and the medical condition of the spouse or common-law partner. That's an important factor that's under consideration in this bill, as well as the availability of other suitable accommodations situated on the reserve. Someone also mentioned that sometimes there are elders who live in those houses, and that is a factor that's brought up in here as well. It says “the interests of any elderly person or person with a disability who habitually resides in the family home and for whom either spouse or common-law partner is the caregiver”.

Now, I taught on a reserve for four years prior to becoming an MP, and I realize those situations exist, but I do feel—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you all for being here and making your presentations. I also want to reiterate what my colleague had just said. Bill S-2, we all know, and I acknowledge thoroughly, that it's not intended to address the broad issues of poverty or housing shortages on reserve. This bill was developed in response to men and women asking the government to do this. This is not just something we dreamed up. We were asked to do this, and that is why we are progressing with that. We've had witnesses who have been here already and who have spoken with passion on this issue. That is why we are going in this direction.

I also note that in 2007, the NAN held one consultation session, which included three focus groups over three days with approximately 30 participants. All these legislative options were put forward for consideration in the discussion paper. Since 2007, what progress has NAN made in developing family law templates for all the NAN communities? You said there were 49. I'm wondering what progress you have made in developing family law for all of these communities and matrimonial real property practices that incorporate restorative justice and the circle approach.

I will ask Chief Maracle.

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

Thank you.

We acknowledge that Bill S-2 will not, and is not intended to, address the broad issues of poverty or housing shortages on the reserve. The bill is developed in response to women and men who asked the government to address this inequity. It provides equal rights to the family home and protection for primary caregivers, the majority of whom are women, and their children in situations of family violence, divorce, separation, or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to thank everyone for being here and sharing your comments and thoughts on Bill S-2.

Can I just ask each of you, starting with Jackie, have you read Bill S-2? Have you read the bill and do you understand the bill?

[Chief R. Donald Maracle, Member, Iroquois Caucus]

Seken sewahkwekenh. Good morning, everyone. My name is Chief Don Maracle. I am the chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I concur with what my colleague Chief Montour has said.

The Mohawk Nation is part of the Iroquois Confederacy. We're part of the Iroquois Caucus and part of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. We live near Belleville, Ontario. Our current membership is 9,053 members. Our people live on just about every continent in the world.

Since the passage of the McIvor legislation, we have seen our membership increase by 819 members and there are other applications pending registration at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We have 2,200 members who live in our community, and an estimated 1,200 non-native, non-status people who live in our community and are attached to families.

With the implementation of Bill C-31 and in the past two years, our membership has increased by 10%. Many of the funding formulas are for people who live on the territory. Some of the funding formulas are for the entire membership. The new registrations have placed additional financial burdens on our community and on the council, with no additional funding to offset the increase in membership. These provide pressure on housing and education.

We have the third largest membership of aboriginal communities in Ontario and the ninth largest in Canada.

Our ancestors were military allies of Great Britain and participated in most of the wars in the last 300 years. After the American Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, our ancestors were required to choose a homeland on the north shore of Lake Ontario and the traditional hunting territory of the Iroquois Confederacy.

We are very disappointed that this legislation has once again surfaced in the House without prior consultation. The views of Wendy Grant-John, who was commissioned by Canada to travel across the country to gather the views of first nations people, have largely been ignored in the bill.

The government has a duty to consult and to also honour its own laws, and to date the government has not followed its own jurisprudence with respect to decisions passed on by the Supreme Court regarding the duty to consult. The duty to consult, accommodate, and obtain consent was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when the government is considering action that could affect aboriginal and treaty rights.

This bill does impact on Treaty 3 1/2, which created the land base for the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. It's published by the Crown as Treaty 3 1/2, dated April 1, 1793.

We are also of the view that this committee is not the appropriate committee to be studying this matter. This issue is not really just about aboriginal women's rights. There are men in our communities who fall under the same situation, who have suffered abuse, and sometimes it's not always the man that's the abusing partner. We feel that the bill should protect the family as a unit, to have a more holistic view, and not be gender-based.

There's a great deal of focus on family violence with this bill. There are many reasons that contribute to the breakdown of a family. To focus on family violence is leading the public to believe that all first nation marriages break down as a result of family violence. That is not the case. It also brings to the public the view that all first nation men are violent to their partners. That is not the case.

This submission does not constitute consultation. Bill S-2 is paternalistic. It does not recognize that the jurisdiction over who can live on our land belongs to the first nation and not to the Government of Canada. The government purports only to understand that family law is a right of a first nation's jurisdiction, but in fact, all the government is doing is not recognizing their right, they're delegating authority to manage it to the first nation. The Royal Proclamation of Canada was a document the government spent millions of dollars on and that document recognized that family law is a matter of first nations' jurisdiction.

There is a requirement to hold a referendum to pass a law. There is no government anywhere in Canada that has to hold a referendum to pass a law. There is a lot of difficulty meeting the 25% threshold because many of our people, who have been added to the list through Bill C-31 in 1985 and the McIvor legislation, live in various parts of the world. They may not always participate in community decisions and a lot of them believe it's not appropriate for them to do so.

There's no clamour from our membership to participate in these kinds of decisions. To get to the threshold to even vote could be problematic in some of the communities. Also, there's a high cost to that manner of consultation, which the government does not fund, so it adds another financial burden on first nation communities to go through this type of process.

Our land is very integral to our people. There's a strong connection that our people have to the land. Our identity flows from that relationship to the land, and it holds a cultural and spiritual importance to our people.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Welcome, everyone. This is the 75th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today, we are continuing the study of 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.

Joining us today are Chief William K. Montour, Chief R. Donald Maracle and Chief Joel Abram from the Iroquois Caucus. Welcome.

You have 10 minutes that you can share for your opening statement. Then, by videoconference, we will hear from

the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, with Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, and Madam Jackie Fletcher, the women's council representative.

You will have 10 minutes for your opening remarks. Then we'll go to our rounds of questions with the MPs around this table.

Mr. Montour, I welcome you and invite you to start your opening remarks.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

That's very good. Thank you for mentioning those facilities. I've been to the facility in Saskatchewan. It was absolutely amazing. Again, the stories that came out of the women I met there...very much the women who were kicked off reserve, who have no rights, who can't take care of their children because their children are taken away from them.

I'm sorry to harp on this, but Bill S-2, the matrimonial rights bill for aboriginal women on reserve, is an absolute godsend, and I hope to God that we prevent more women from falling into that cycle and perhaps falling victim to the next perpetrator and becoming the next missing or murdered aboriginal woman. I wanted to make sure we got that on the record.

Thank you.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses.

I want to thank you, first of all, Mr. Tupper. I'm just thrilled to be here. I spent an awful lot of time in the aboriginal community. I spent 19 years policing in the city of Winnipeg—I hope to go back at some point—and I've investigated some of these cases of missing aboriginal women.

You mentioned the canadasmissing.ca website, and God bless you, because we're not here just to try to figure out ways to better protect these women and to find them and to solve some of these problems; we want to raise awareness as well. For those who might be following this, I want to encourage them to visit that website. If we can find just one of those missing girls.... Their families need closure.

I'm going to repeat it: canadasmissing.ca. It's a wonderful website that's been developed. I thank all of the officials and people who worked on it. It's a tremendous tool. Again, if we can find even just one of these missing girls for these families, it would be incredibly valuable.

I have to say that when Greg Rickford was talking about some of the incidents that he's lived through, boy oh boy, I started to have flashbacks myself of homicides of aboriginal women that I've been involved in investigating, and the homicides of their children, and so on.

When I was working, particularly in Winnipeg's north end, many of the women would tell me, when I saw them being exploited in the sex trade and was stopping to discuss things with them, that they had been kicked off reserve. Many of them were kicked off reserve and had nowhere to go, so they came to the city. They didn't know what to do, because they didn't know how to support themselves. They would get into prostitution and be exploited, with vicious, vicious beatings—absolutely vicious beatings—yet they had no voice in their communities, so they would come out and do this. I still suspect that many of those women are missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Actually, the stats provided by Stats Canada today seem to support.... In their eighth slide, they say, “Aboriginal women's disproportionate representation [is] greatest in non-spousal homicides.” It's dating, etc. We need to do something to give these women their rights. I've been dreaming of Bill S-2 for many years, but when it doesn't actually work in the communities, where women are not reporting....

You're coming up with these safety plans in conjunction with these communities, but how come we only have 190 in your dissertation? Is that the correct number? Out of the 600-plus communities, why do we only have 190?

[Françoise Ducros, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you for having me here.

Madam Chair and honourable members, I want to thank you for inviting the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development department to appear before the committee. It's a privilege for us. Sheilagh Murphy and Jo-Ann Greene are also with me and can answer questions specific to social programs and matrimonial property.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, of course, continues to be deeply concerned about this issue and appreciates the opportunity to assist the special committee.

In the June 2011 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada committed to address the problem of violence against women and girls. The federal role is only one part of the overall efforts.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada supports aboriginal women, girls and families through funding for programs and services that directly address violence, such as the family violence prevention program. They also address violence indirectly through support for child and family services, on-reserve housing, economic security and prosperity, education and urban living.

Since 2006 the Government of Canada has invested approximately $205 million in the family violence prevention program. Economic action plan 2013 announced further funding of $24 million over two years for the program, allowing the department to continue to offer its programming at a funding level of approximately $30 million in 2013-14 and 2014-15. The investment contributes to the enhanced safety and security of on-reserve residents, particularly women and children.

The family violence prevention program provides funding to assist first nations in providing access to 41 family violence shelters and prevention activities to women, children, and families who are ordinarily resident on reserve. There are two components to the program: core shelter operating funding and proposal-based prevention projects in aboriginal communities.

Prevention projects may include public outreach and awareness, education campaigns, conferences, seminars, workshops, counselling, support groups, and community needs assessments. Since 2006 the family violence prevention program has funded 1,886 prevention projects that address family violence in aboriginal communities, 302 of which were supported in 2011 and 2012. They include the following projects.

The Alberta First Nations Regional Board for Family Violence Prevention is an example of prevention and partnerships. It manages the prevention project funding from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada for three treaty areas and has formed partnerships with other organizations in hosting a series of youth gatherings.

The Lac La Ronge Indian Child and Family Services Agency in Saskatchewan delivers a comprehensive program in four schools that offer high school education. The program includes students, teachers, parents, and communities in reducing violence and risk behaviours.

Also, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach in Quebec currently delivers a multi-approach prevention project. It offers family violence education awareness workshops and radio talk shows in the community, parenting courses, training on bullying for teachers and school staff, workshops for children of alcoholic parents, and group sessions for alcoholics.

The project has also led to the development of a crisis intervention protocol for all partners involved in responding to family violence crises, such as the police and social, youth protection and native health workers.

The family violence prevention program also provides core funding of approximately $370,000 to the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence, a national organization that supports aboriginal women's shelters and their staff through training fora, gatherings, development and distribution of resources, and research and collaboration with key partners.

The Government of Canada has also introduced legislation, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, Bill S-2, which protects vulnerable men and women on reserve.

Bill S-2 seeks to provide basic rights and protections to individuals on reserve regarding the family home and other matrimonial interests or rights. The bill would also help to address incidents of family violence against aboriginal women and their children on reserves by providing for emergency protection orders that grant temporary exclusive occupation of the home. Through this legislation, the government is addressing a long-standing legislative gap and ensuring that women, children, and families on reserve can live in safe and stable home environments.

The health and safety of first nations children is also a primary concern for this government.

The first nations child and family services program provides funding to assist in ensuring the safety and well-being of first nations children on reserve by supporting culturally appropriate prevention and protection services. These services are provided in accordance with the legislation and standards of the province or territory of residence and in a manner that is reasonably comparable to those available to other provincial and territorial residents in similar circumstances within the department's programming authorities.

In 2007 the first nations child and family services began shifting to an enhanced prevention-focused approach. This is consistent with provincial practices, which have largely refocused their child and family services programs by placing greater emphasis on prevention services.

The implementation of the enhanced prevention-focused approach is expected to improve services, cohesion of the family, and life outcomes for first nations children and families on reserve. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has increased funding for first nations child and family services dramatically over the past 16 years, from $193 million in 1996-97 to approximately $618 million in funding in 2012-13.

The enhanced prevention-focused approach is now being implemented in six provinces and is reaching approximately 68% of first nations children who live on reserve in Canada. Under the six current tripartite frameworks, more than $100 million per year in additional ongoing funding is now dedicated to implementing the new approach.

AANDC continues to share lessons learned and remains willing to work with other jurisdictions as they shift their own practices to enhance prevention. The government is also working to ensure that first nations students have access to education that encourages them to stay in school, graduate, and get the skills they need to enter the labour market. While the government invests significantly every year in first nations elementary and secondary education, we recognize that more remains to be done to make progress in improving outcomes.

In the economic action plan 2012, the Government of Canada committed $275 million for first nations education over three years for improving school infrastructure and to provide early literacy programming, as well as other supports and services to first nations schools and students, and to strengthen their relationship with the provincial school systems.

The Government of Canada is now consulting with first nations and other stakeholders on a proposed first nations education act, to be in place by September 2014. The purpose of the legislation is to establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve and to encourage students to stay in school and achieve better outcomes.

The government is also exploring mechanisms to ensure stable, predictable and sustainable funding for first nations elementary and secondary education.

An overarching goal of the Government of Canada's education programming remains to provide first nations students with quality education that provides them with the opportunity to acquire the skills needed to enter the labour market and to be full participants in a strong Canadian economy.

Perhaps the last thing I'd like to mention is that Aboriginal Affairs also provides support to national aboriginal women's organizations. In 2012-13, the Native Women's Association received approximately $1.5 million in project funding and annual core funding. This amount supports basic organization costs and provides a minimum level of capacity so that the organization can advise governments of its members' needs and interests.

In 2012-13, the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada received approximately $1.4 million in basic organizational capacity funding and project funding from our department. These are some of the ways in which Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada is working to support and enhance the safety of aboriginal women.

We're certainly prepared to answer questions as best we can.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

[Jeffrey Cyr]

I agree. I agree that with every piece of legislation, this is the way. That's what I talked about: looking at the complexities, how legislation is brought in. It has far-reaching implications that sometimes are not thought of.

On the human services side—those things that allow people to properly access the changes that are going on—in Bill S-2, which I don't necessarily disagree with, there are still a whole bunch of services that need to happen and there still needs to be a way to access them.

Yes, there needs to be a greater acknowledgment of that.

[Jeffrey Cyr]

All the time. What I tried to get to in my comments, though probably a little more generally, is that people who live on reserve, whether facing issues of matrimonial real property or not, come to urban centres and ask where they do these things and how the city works. It's like a foreign country. It's like moving to Paris. Where do I get my basic services, and how do I live? That is not always crystal clear. There aren't always service centres where you can go and figure it out. That's what friendship centres were originally there to do. The original concept of a friendship centre is a familiar face with a familiar language who says you need that, you need to go over here, even if you're pointing at a United Way service, or a government service, or whatever it is. So it's that ability to help those who need help when they need it. That's why it's called friendship.

This is really a point about long-term planning. Legislative changes are fine, and I won't speak to the law and the legalities of Bill S-2 and how the bill is written. What we're speaking of here is the planning that comes both before and after that. How do we pick up the pieces?

Mixing social issues is very complex in the urban environment. I would suggest a lot of thinking has to go in as implementation happens about where people are going to get service. If you have a year's waiting period, that's going to be a busy year, I bet, for people to figure out how they are going to do this. Yes, a legal centre of excellence is proposed for first nations to access, and that's great, but there's a human component that I want to talk about, and that human component needs to figure it out. They're going to ask what happens in one year.

[Jeffrey Cyr]

The reasons make a pretty long list, but we'll try to put some of it in plain speak.

People have been migrating to cities from rural areas and reserves at a fairly rapid pace for the better part of 50 or 60 years. This is not a trend unique to Canada. It's happening around the world. People migrate for a couple of key reasons, usually it's driven by economics. You want a certain level of education, or you want a certain level of access to employment. As you well know, around the country, around certain reserves and rural communities, for Métis or Inuit as well, that opportunity doesn't exist. So you need to travel. You may come back to your community, but you need to travel to find those opportunities.

There are other reasons as well: health care. Where do you have access to health care and access to services more generally? This refers directly to Bill S-2 because people leave divorce and separation situations for a variety of reasons when they occur, and they need services. I know this. I was divorced six years ago. I went through the process, and it's not fun. There's not a lot of guidance, even if you're not aboriginal and aren't dealing with the complexities of a first nation's law or Indian Act law on reserve, and the complexities of inter-working that with provincial law as well.

For this committee, the problem exists of access to services for those people affected by Bill S-2, or affected both before and after Bill S-2's potential passing, and it's going to exist for a long time. One of the reasons is that it takes a long time to resolve marital and other spousal disputes on or off reserve. It takes years, and in those years you need service. Ninety days is nothing; 180 days is nothing in that situation.

So what do those people do? Their home community, whether it's a reserve or not, may not be a friendly place to be for 180 days.

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

The best interests of any children, in other words, should be considered as a result of a divorce. That's one of the factors in Bill S-2, and I'm wondering what your comment is on that. Do you consider that as an important factor?

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

Thank you for your comment.

I'm wondering, have you discussed with your membership the factors that must be considered before the granting of an exclusive occupation order as laid out in clause 20 of Bill S-2?

If so, what was their comment, their reaction?

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

This clause allows a court that is already hearing the spouse's divorce proceedings to address the items outlined in Bill S-2 at the same time as the divorce proceedings, and then this way spouses who are already going through a divorce will have the option to include the legal discussion and the vision of their matrimonial real property as well as the determination of the final occupation of the home. This will not create further visits to the court. The goal is to simplify the process wherever possible so that a full slate of services can be provided with one visit. I'm wondering whether you think that men and women going through a divorce should have the option to legally divide their matrimonial real property and determine who will occupy the house.

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

Okay, thank you.

Are you familiar with the purpose of the section on divorce proceedings pending in subclause 43(2) in Bill S-2?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I want to also assure you that our government has always sent a clear message that violence against women, violence among families will not be tolerated.

As you know, I have had many consultations during our study on this, over the process of Bill S-2, and we have namely had 103 at a cost of $8 million. Now, having taught on a reserve, I have witnessed issues and seen the need to act on this and how important it is to stop violence against children, stop violence against men and women as well. That is the aim of our study and our government and our status of women committee. We need to see this proceed and carry on.

You also mentioned at one point that the emergency days cannot go beyond 90 days. I want to cover this before your time is up, Kim. This has been changed, and those 90 days can go on to whatever is decided in the court. So that is an important change, and it's important we all know that.

You also mentioned that you were speaking with your grandmother, and I was also at this point wondering if you have spoken to any other women and what was their comment. They must see some good issues in this.

This is to Kim.

[Dr. Kim van der Woerd]

Great, I'm almost done.

We note the emphasis on legal remediation within Bill S-2 is in keeping with the mission of the YWCA on ending violence against women and girls. We advocate for the recognition of, and need for, prevention services and programming to work toward eradicating violence on reserve.

To conclude, YWCA Canada recognizes the positive intent of the changes within Bill S-2 and advocate for sufficient and appropriate provisions to be in place to support aboriginal women and children and ensure the efficacy of this bill.

Thank you.

[Dr. Kim van der Woerd, Board Member, Metro Vancouver, Young Women's Christian Association]

Good morning. Gilakasla.

Thank you, Madam Chair and other members of the standing committee, for including our testimony on Bill S-2. Deborah Campbell sends her regrets; she's not able to make it this morning. I too would like to acknowledge the Algonquin nation, with whom you're meeting today, for having you on its territories.

My name is Kim van der Woerd. I'm a member of the 'Namgis First Nation from Alert Bay, B.C. My traditional name is T,lalisam, which is from the killer whale clan. I also serve on the board of directors with the YWCA in metro Vancouver and I'm here today to represent the YWCA.

I was speaking with my grandmother in Alert Bay about Bill S-2 and asked her if she was familiar with it, and she said she was. She told me about many situations in our community where women were removed from their homes and had nowhere to go with their children. She said that sometimes they were able to deal with this when they had family who could take them in and support them physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, as well as the financial support.

I asked her about what life was like in our community before there were rules and laws around property and housing. She told me about life when she was growing up, and she told me stories that her father would tell her. She said children grew up learning and knowing that they would build their own homes as young people and that they did not rely on government for housing. She spoke about how we were all independent before many of the laws of the Indian Act and that we were able to be independent because of the support from our communities and that the provisions were in place to be independent.

I would first like to acknowledge and recognize the positive intent with the proposed changes to this bill and the intention to improve the lives of aboriginal women. We appreciate, applaud, and respect the efforts made in this regard, and what we would like to share with you today is the YWCA's perspective on provisions that would make Bill S-2 successful.

We understand that the purpose of Bill S-2 is to provide powers to enact laws relating to the use, occupation, and possession of family homes on reserves. The bill and any resulting legislation would apply to all first nations and be implemented within 12 months of enactment. While changes to the bill have been positive with this fourth iteration, we find that there are still factors that need to be addressed.

We understand there has been opposition in the following areas that have been mentioned, from what we've been hearing already. First is the lack of first nation consultation. We recognize that we're currently in a round of consultation, but going forward we recommend open and meaningful engagement in this process. We understand that there has been opposition around jurisdiction with first nations' governments, and issues related to provincial courts and the Indian Act rules. We understand there are issues around community capacity to implement, which my colleagues have been discussing. We also recognize that there are burdens on citizens and safety considerations. Opposition to the bill highlights the complexity of violence in aboriginal communities and the need for comprehensive responses.

With respect to burdens for aboriginal women and families, the bill does not address the following considerations. There is a lack of access to emergency shelters, both on and off reserve. There is limited access to nearby and cost-appropriate legal services. There is a lack of adequate housing on reserve. There is limited access to counselling and other support services, and there is a need for infrastructure and human capacity investment that benefits aboriginal women.

I will now briefly speak about what we know about aboriginal women in Canada with respect to the experience of violence, housing, migration off reserve, and access to legal and emergency services. In 2011 the YWCA Canada commissioned a report, “Aboriginal Women's Initiative”, and some of the key findings are as follows. 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.

We know that many aboriginal women leave reserves and our research tells us that they leave reserves because of experience of violence, difficulty in accessing services and supports, lack of housing, and discrimination in legislation around aboriginal women's rights on reserve. Many reserve communities are not located near legal services or emergency support services and this report summarizes the need for 24-hour services, increased community awareness, emergency support, and the need for transition and support services for aboriginal women and single mothers.

The YWCA is committed to ensuring that women and children are able to live safely and securely. The YWCA is the single-largest provider of shelter services to women and children fleeing violence and provides holistic programming that reaches out to more than one million women and children in Canada.

The YWCA Canada recognizes the rights of aboriginal communities to self-government. The YWCA Metro Vancouver has a long history of supporting aboriginal women and children in our community by providing tailored programs such as infant development, violence prevention, legal education, financial literacy, FASD awareness, housing, and mentorship. We have served tens of thousands of women through these programs.

The YWCA Canada is currently working with 10 member-associations on an access to justice project for aboriginal women dealing with violence. That's just under one-third of our membership. Each of these 10 member-associations have service populations of 65% aboriginal women or higher.

The YWCA Canada identifies interlocking advocacy priorities for women that complement the analysis of Bill S-2 as it applies to aboriginal women who experience domestic violence on reserve, including ending violence against women and girls, access to affordable housing, and achieving women's economic security.

Based on our services, advocacy, and research, the YWCA has the following conclusions and recommendations for ensuring the effective implementation of Bill S-2 to fully support aboriginal women and children. YWCA Canada understands that there needs to be a comprehensive response to Bill S-2 to go beyond the jurisdictional issues and address burdens for aboriginal women and families. YWCA Canada emphasizes the right of aboriginal women on and off reserve to have access to safe and secure housing and shelter, and advocates for a national housing strategy to raise awareness and support for the provision of affordable housing.

The YWCA recognizes that Bill S-2 has the following provisions. In cases of death of a spouse or partner, occupation can be granted for 180 days from the date of death, and in cases of domestic violence, the person who applies for access can be granted 90 days of occupation without the offender in the home. Our research and experience in delivering services with the YWCA finds that 90 days is not sufficient time for a woman to develop and execute a plan to lead an independent life. This is of course in the cases where the women does not hold the certificate of possession. We recommend a review of this timeframe to accommodate the complex needs of women leaving abuse. However it is appreciated that this provision can be modified on a case-by-case basis. We do note the potential additional burden for aboriginal women applying for these additional days.

The comprehensive recommendations advanced by the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada overlap with the YWCA's stated positions on violence against women and economic security. Responses must be comprehensive and consider family support services, emergency support, shelters, effective cross-jurisdictional policing, services to prevent child welfare interventions, and increased awareness of and support for affordable and appropriate housing.

Finally, we note the emphasis on legal remediation—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to apologize for interrupting your time here as well. I know that we had votes, so your time was cut short.

I want to go back to Chief Louie.

I was talking about the provisions under Bill S-2 that deal with one of the issues you spoke about. It had to do with leased property on reserves. There was some concern that if it automatically changes to someone else who wasn't named on the original document, perhaps the upkeep of the home was not going to be there and there were going to be some other issues.

Were you aware those provisions to deal with that specific issue were actually in Bill S-2?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I know you're concerned about the timeframe and about one year maybe being not long enough. I know you're probably aware that there have been four iterations of this particular bill. The planning actually began way back in 2000 or 2001, but consultations across this country started in 2006. I believe there were over 100 consultations spread over 76 different sites.

I just wonder if the reason the timeframe isn't long enough, even given an additional 12 months after this legislation is actually approved or receives royal assent, is that some of these first nations were maybe not in the initial consultations or they have never heard of this. I'm just trying to get an understanding, because some of us around this room.... In fact Mr. Langtry from the Human Rights Commission was here yesterday, and he described this issue of matrimonial real property as an urgent human rights matter.

He said:

Both international and domestic human rights standards call for the equal treatment of women under the law. These same standards also call for the protection of women and their children against violence.

When I hear the word “urgent” and I think that the legislative gap for this has been 25 years and it is growing, and I think of the consultation process and the planning, and we're talking about an additional one year to actually implement your own legislation...I'm having a difficult time understanding why there hasn't been enough time.

But I just want to switch over to something else at this point. It has to do with something I believe you mentioned, Chief Louie. You were concerned about leased property on reserves. I don't know exactly what you said, but there was some concern that the leased property would not be kept up or there could be a problem with that. I wonder if you're aware of the clauses within the bill with respect to leases.

I just want to read something, and I want to make it very clear that where a spouse or common law partner or survivor is granted exclusive rights to a leased premise and is not actually named in that original lease, the provisions deemed in that original lease apply to the person who now becomes the lessee. I know you said something and there were some concerns about someone maintaining or keeping up the property, and I just want to clearly indicate that this bill, Bill S-2, actually covers that, and it should not necessarily be one of the major concerns that you did forward today.

Madam Chair, how much time is left?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

In terms of the funding capacity, what are first nations working with, by and large, to be able to implement or tackle Bill S-2, if comes down?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I appreciate that feedback, because, unfortunately, the debate around Bill S-2 has been reduced to some pretty outrageous statements. Unfortunately, we hear from both of you and certainly your colleagues who are with you, that there are some real concerns and there are ways of getting around these concerns. But by bringing closure to the debate and by preventing the key stakeholders from speaking to us, we are unable to make those changes, and certainly we're keen to see if the government will continue that stand over the next week.

Going back to the limited capacity or no capacity that many first nations face in terms of implementation, I'm wondering if you could speak to that, Chief Wilson-Raybould.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, Chief Wilson-Raybould and Chief Louie, for joining us.

Not only is it unfortunate that we had the votes, it's even more unfortunate that you don't each have an hour to present to us—and not just an hour but beyond an hour—because we realize that the concerns you're raising are not just key but that you also represent, certainly, in the case of the AFN, the stakeholders who are most impacted by Bill S-2. I'm very proud of the fact that our side expressed real opposition to the fact that there hasn't been enough time to hear from the key stakeholders.

I have a quick question. Will Bill S-2 save lives? Maybe we can start with Chief Wilson-Raybould.

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

Thank you.

Chief Wilson-Raybould, I want to ask you this question too. Bill S-2 is about fairness, equity, and providing protections and rights for residents on reserves. We acknowledge that the bill is not going to, nor is it intended to address the broad issues of poverty or housing shortages on reserves.

We heard stories a couple of meetings ago from women who have lost their homes because the men were able to retain ownership, despite the fact that the woman had financed the entire building of the home and renovations. What would you say to these women who have gone to court to obtain ownership of a home they built, only to find it's not possible because the rules didn't apply on the reserve?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank you for coming today. It's important that we hear from you. I'm sorry we were late, but we had a vote.

I want to ask Chief Wilson-Raybould and Chief Louie for the record, have you read Bill S-2 in its current form?

[Chief Robert Louie, Chairman, First Nations Lands Advisory Board, and Chief, Westbank First Nation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for providing me, as chairman of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board, this opportunity to respond to Bill S-2.

The Lands Advisory Board is very supportive of aboriginal communities addressing the topic of matrimonial real property on their reserve lands. This topic has been a critical component of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management from the beginning. In fact, to ensure that everyone would be aware of this opportunity for law-making with respect to matrimonial real property rights, we added clauses 5.4(a) to 5.4(f) in our framework agreement.

The Lands Advisory Board has more than 10 years of experience actively dealing with law-making for matrimonial real property rights on reserve. For example, since 2001, the board assisted 23 operational first nations in completing their matrimonial real property laws, 14 other operational first nations with drafting their matrimonial real property laws, and 30 developmental first nations with planning for their matrimonial real property laws once they have ratified their land codes.

The framework agreement signatories include the only first nations in Canada who presently have laws dealing with matrimonial real property on reserve that are enforceable in the courts. Furthermore, the framework agreement is the only existing mechanism that provides the signatory first nations with the opportunity to address matrimonial real property rights in unique ways, consistent with their own community policies and traditions. I can use as an example communities that choose not use the certificate of possession system as set out in the Indian Act. They must accommodate their own traditions and not someone else's view of what their traditions and customs ought to be.

I anticipate that the framework agreement signatories will be unaffected by the proposed legislation since most, and hopefully all, of our first nations will have their matrimonial real property laws in effect within three years after royal assent is given to Bill S-2.

The Lands Advisory Board is, nevertheless, 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 are very likely to be caught up by Bill S-2 before they have the opportunity to sign the framework agreement.

Based on the Lands Advisory Board's experience and success with matrimonial real property laws under the framework agreement, we would make the following observations concerning Bill S-2.

With respect, the provisional federal laws will apply, by default, to most first nations, due to the challenges entailed in developing their matrimonial real property laws. Successful enactment of these laws by framework agreement signatories has invariably been the culmination of a multi-year, community-driven, consensus-building process addressing values, principles, practices, and procedures related to the governance and management of rights and interests in reserve lands.

Successful enactment of these laws by framework agreement first nations has always been a community-led priority and has required significant external legal and technical advisory support. It is unrealistic to assume that those first nations for whom land governance and management has not been given a priority will be able to expedite development of their own custom matrimonial real property laws in time to be exempt from the provisional federal rules. Community leadership will be sorely challenged in attempting to build a consensus reconciling their matrimonial real property laws and community customs with provincial laws of general application that also come into play in the event of separation and divorce. We know this can be done, but it takes time.

The complexities of these laws on reserves include the need to address and resolve a host of other local governance issues related, for example, to the appropriate balance between individual and collective rights, claims of rights to reside on reserve, housing policy, and distinctions between individual, common, and estate lands. Bill S-2 makes no provision to compensate first nations for the extensive and unavoidable legal and administrative costs entailed in development, enactment, and administration of their own, unique first nation matrimonial real property laws. This lack of resourcing will be fatal to the efforts of many communities to enact their own matrimonial real property laws. Essentially, Bill S-2 is not about community governance at all, because of this forced imposition.

Provinces may be reluctant to participate in adjudication under the provisional federal rules. Through experience with the Lands Advisory Board and the framework agreement, first nations have found provincial governments to be uninterested in assuming any roles with respect to monitoring, dispute resolution, and/or enforcement with respect to first nation land laws generally. Provincial governments cite concerns related to lack of capacity to accommodate the current workload of their judicial systems, uncompensated costs they would incur, and the risk of attracting liability. Bill S-2 does not address, much less resolve, these issues.

The impact of Bill S-2 may be much more extensive than has been anticipated. Canada appears to be working on the assumption that the primary focus of cases subject to the legislation will be a small subset of the 100,000 dwelling units on reserve for which formal land tenure arrangements are in place, pursuant to sections 20, 28(2), 53, or 58 of the Indian Act.

However, the provisional federal rules proposed in Bill S-2 open the door for provincial judges to interpret the definition of a family home, and for the subsequent accumulation of a body of case law that may interpret these laws very differently and more expansively than intended. The definition of a right or interest in a family home on reserve could well be extended through case law to include the right to occupy band-owned housing, which would have implications for housing policies and perhaps financial costs to first nations.

If this were to happen, many more cases could be anticipated. A provincial court could attach a monetary value to the right to occupy band-owned housing, free of rent or other charges, for the rest of the life expectancy of the occupants. The net present value of this stream of housing benefits, calculated like the net present value of an annuity, could amount to several hundred thousand dollars per family home, which would have to be paid to the departing spouse. In many cases, the alternatives of sale or sublease of the property would not generate the funds necessary to meet the award. Such precedents would create significant liabilities to be borne by either the first nation member spouse who retains the family home, or more likely in practical terms, by the first nation.

Based on the Lands Advisory Board's experience and success with the framework agreement, we respectfully suggest that the committee consider the following recommendations regarding Bill S-2.

I have six recommendations. Given the timeframe I will list the headings, and I'm certainly prepared during the answer period to go into more detail, Madam Chair, if that's proper.

The first recommendation, remove the mandatory timeframe and make Bill S-2 optional. The second recommendation, address first nations' jurisdictional concerns. The third recommendation, identify resources for first nations. The fourth recommendation, provide for a transitional first nations mandated agency to support communities. The fifth recommendation, apply the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The sixth recommendation, respect freedom of contract.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I wish I had more time to elaborate further, but perhaps I can during question period. I'm certainly going to be assisted by my very experienced colleagues here.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Certainly.

The third concern that was raised, a fundamental concern, looks to addressing the issues that lead to the situations in the first place, the underlying issues, which I can speak more about in questions.

In closing, I wanted to make note of the work that has been done by the Canadian Bar Association. It has made a number of recommendations with respect to this piece of legislation as it was then, Bill S-4. I would recommend that the committee consider looking at these and other recommendations.

Further, Bill S-2 can and should only be viewed as an interim step, which unfortunately may prove to have more limited benefits than its strongest advocates would suggest.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Regional Chief, British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations]

Gilakasla. Good morning, members. Thank you for having me here.

My name is Jody Wilson-Raybould. I am the regional chief for British Columbia. I am appearing here today along with Karen Campbell from the Assembly of First Nations and as the portfolio holder for first nation governance.

I want to also acknowledge Chief Louie and my colleagues on the First Nations Lands Advisory Board who are here as well.

Let me turn to Bill S-2.

Canada's intention to enact legislation in the area of matrimonial property is of course not new. I have presented twice at the Senate's committee on human rights, once on Bill S-4 and now on Bill S-2. While Bill S-2 contains positive changes from previous iterations, the overriding concerns that I raised previously remain.

Before I discuss these concerns with the committee, let me first say that Bill S-2 should not be characterized as a bill dealing with women's issues and probably should not be before this committee, with all due respect to the members of this committee. This is because these matters are not simply women's issues. For my husband, who is in this room and who lives on our reserve, it is his issue as well.

It has also been suggested that some of those who have spoken out against the bill or are behind the opposition to it are somehow trying to prop up a system that is unfair and that benefits some at the expense of others. While there may be individuals who are content with the status quo, this is certainly not the case for me nor for the organizations nor for the chiefs I represent. We all appreciate that there is a legal gap in the Indian Act that needs to be filled. We all know that many citizens or their spouses may be left at a disadvantage when it comes to settling a divorce, when their spouse passes away, or when they seek access to the family home.

Our criticism of the federal government's approach in Bill S-2, as in other federal bills, is not of the intent to fix the problem but rather of the government's considering it acceptable to design our post-colonial governance for us. Our contention with Bill S-2 is not about the need to fill a gap in the law but rather about who is filling the gap and with what rules.

Family and divorce law, wills and estates, and land law generally are complex at the best of times. When applied on reserve and governed under the Indian Act, they become even more complex. When considered in the light of indigenous legal traditions and our challenges with decolonization, the issues become even more so. Ideally, matters such as matrimonial property rights and interests should not be considered in isolation from other areas of interrelated law but should rather be addressed comprehensively when our nations are rebuilding comprehensive governance reform and moving away from the Indian Act.

Having said this, I appreciate that the federal government wants to do something about filling the gap with respect to matrimonial property. This is not without risk, as the federal government is walking a legal tightrope by making laws in areas that many people, including legal scholars and our leadership, assume are a part of a nation's inherent right of self-government and are protected in Canada's Constitution. Also, it is doing so without our free, prior, and informed consent as articulated in section 19 of the UN declaration.

In the past, and despite its best intentions, I have called the government's current approach to legislation neo-colonial. I know others do not see it this way. There certainly seemed to be a number of conflicted senators, when I presented on this bill at Senate committee, who on the one hand wanted to fill the gap but on the other hand were concerned about being paternalistic. This work is not easy.

For our part, dating back to 2006 the AFN has coordinated a number of dialogue sessions with our first nation citizens on how to approach the division of matrimonial property. There were three main issues that came forward: one, recognition of first nations' jurisdiction; two, access to justice and dispute resolution and remedies; and three, addressing underlying issues, such as housing shortages and the lack of access to temporary shelters. These have since been reiterated in resolutions from our chiefs in assembly.

With respect to jurisdiction, the promise of rights recognition and reconciliation in section 35(1) of the Constitution should require, for legal certainty, the explicit recognition of first nations' inherent right of self-government as part of any legislative solution in which such powers are not delegated. This should include recognition of the full range of powers necessary to effectively govern matrimonial property. Bill S-2 goes part of the way in this direction by recognizing the jurisdiction of first nations to make laws in the area of matrimonial property. However, the bill is not optional and until such time as first nations exercise their jurisdiction, provisional rules designed by Canada will apply.

Under Bill S-2, one of the most significant changes between Bill S-4 and Bill S-2, and something that we requested, is that the provisional rules will not come into force for one year, giving our nations a chance to develop their own laws before the provisional rules apply. I note we had asked for a longer period of time.

Assuming the bill becomes law, it is our intention to do whatever we can to assist those nations that want to enact their own laws before the provisional rules apply, and if not by then, as quickly as possible thereafter. Unfortunately, in the absence of comprehensive self-government options, our nations will have the same challenges as Canada had in developing the provisional rules when trying to figure out how to fit the round peg of a matrimonial property law into the square hole of the Indian Act. These challenges include reconciling the system of land tenure under the Indian Act with the extralegal, the informal rules for customary interests in land that exist outside of the Indian Act, the challenges of wills and estates, and trying to harmonize a nation's law with applicable provincial family law that may be at play at the same time.

With respect to recognition of broader jurisdiction and implementing the inherent right of self-government, we will continue to develop and advocate our own comprehensive governance solutions that support our nations in moving beyond the Indian Act, not simply the piecemeal or stovepipe approach the government is currently following. Where our nations have made matrimonial property laws, they have done so either under a land code made in accordance with the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management or under self-government arrangements, where the various aspects of the law can be considered in the broader context of self-government.

With respect to the second point, access to justice, dispute resolution, and remedies, there is no question that figuring out the provisional rules, seeking an order and then enforcing that order, will be a challenge for many of our citizens. Seeking a remedy in court under Bill S-2, will, we believe, be more expensive than for persons living off reserve. Due to significantly lower levels of income on reserves, it will, therefore, be more difficult for many couples to access the new remedies. Legal aid systems across Canada are chronically underfunded and are not meeting current needs, let alone the future demand created by the potential adoption of this legislation.

The remedies with respect to the provisional rules rely on access to provincial courts. The general assumption of access to provincial courts is unfortunately not practical or realistic in many parts of the country. Furthermore, with respect to enforcement, the 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. A law—any law—is only as good as the ability to enforce it.

The problem of access to courts, and appropriate dispute resolution and enforcement generally, has been one of the impetuses for first nations to develop their own justice systems. It is important to empower our nations in doing this work themselves, particularly given the opportunity for success in enforcing their own laws. While Bill S-2 is explicit on the authority of provincial courts to hear disputes in relation to the provisional rules, it is not as clear with respect to the access to justice for first nations under their own matrimonial property laws, both with respect to the extent of the first nation's jurisdiction and how a first nation could rely on the provincial or federal courts to enforce its laws if it so desires.

The bill would have been stronger had these concerns we raised previously been addressed as previously discussed. At some point, we must tackle this issue. Pushing forward this legislation in absence of a more comprehensive approach—

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

Could you just explain again what concurrent jurisdiction means? Will Bill S-2 apply at Tsawwassen First Nation?

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

So for Bill S-2 as a product...what we're hearing is that it doesn't reflect what was heard, in that there have been a lot of concerns like yours expressed. I think the issue Councillor Jack put forward, the issue of what it is actually like in a remote community without access to a court, with maybe a protection order, where women still have to flee because they're not feeling safe or they don't have access to counselling...that this is not the way forward. Is that it?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

One of the messages we're hearing—and we're looking forward to hearing from the AFN, the Native Women's Association, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and others—is around the consultation process and the real problems there.

You're obviously a councillor—I know, Ms. Baird, you spoke to the situation earlier—but was Berens River consulted?

As a councillor, are you aware of consultations, or even concerns that other first nations have raised, in the context of Bill S-2?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

So on this whole issue of improving the Indian Act and moving towards self-government, do you feel that...? As a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I agree. I think that's great, and I know there are a number of first nations that are following the same path.

That's why I'm a little bit confused about the pushback we're getting in some corners on this legislation. Do you see Bill S-2 as paternalistic in any way? Do you see it as the federal government saying you have to give women equal rights to property on reserve? Or would you say this is the right thing to do?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

That sentiment sounds so important. We would have liked to see it in the deliberations that have led to this point in the formation of Bill S-2.

Just going back to your statement around respect for individual and collective rights, one of the concerns raised is about the way in which this infringes on treaty and aboriginal rights and on the sense of collective rights that first nations have.

Could you speak to that piece and to the importance of that understanding?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

Our question revolves around the fact that discussions did take place with certain first nations. We find that these were inadequate, but beyond that and at the core of it, what a lot of the first nations raised was that concerns with Bill S-2 weren't actually heard and are not reflected in Bill S-2, which, as we know, is the most recent iteration of this government's efforts in recent years concerning matrimonial property rights.

I have before me a letter from Chief Shining Turtle, and I'll read a section of it.

During the period October 2006 to today May 2013, we did not receive any support, advice, consultation, accommodation, from the Federal [government or] Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on any stage of our MRP law development.

This goes back to the fact that Chief Shining Turtle's community, Whitefish River First Nation, has worked at developing their own MRP law for their citizens. Here we can see—and certainly the government should know—Whitefish River First Nation's work on this, and yet they've chosen not to respond to the first nation, certainly not to work with them in developing their own code.

I'm wondering how problematic you find it that first nations concerns haven't been heard and that in fact some of those who have made the effort, as we hear in this case, haven't heard a response.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

So it's a real issue. I think in some cases, when we think of domestic violence, the people who abuse do it because they can get away with it. If someone thinks for a moment that they're going to lose total access to their matrimonial property, or the home they live in or share with their wife or their spouse, and they think there's an opportunity that they might actually lose that possession, do you think that would curb someone so that they would actually take a second look and stop the abuse, or treat the other person in a more respectable way?

Generations and generations back, women fought to have the right to vote. When I think back—before my time, obviously—women were not always treated equally in the family home either. But times have changed.

I have to tell you, though, that not too long ago I spoke to my husband about this very issue, about the need for Bill S-2. He could not believe that in this day and age, here in Canada, a country like Canada, there are women living here—in Canada—who do not have equal rights to matrimonial property and are forced out of their home. He could not believe it.

I guess I'm asking you that question, because although Bill S-2 may not solve all the problems on reserves, certainly it will help some. Do you agree?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I live in the riding of Scarborough Centre; it's part of the GTA. I do not live on a reserve. If I were in a situation of domestic violence, I would not have to leave my home; I would not be there living in fear. Most times the person who is accused, or the abuser, is actually removed from the home and the person who is subjected to the violence has the opportunity to stay in that home. It's a right that I and everyone in this committee and everyone here in this room has equal rights to: the matrimonial property, or where they live with their family.

So when I hear that one of the reasons a woman might have to go to a shelter is because she can't stay in her home, or she's afraid to be there, I can only think that this legislation, Bill S-2, is going to help that issue in particular. There is no legislation that's going to cure all situations and all issues, neither in the rest of Canada nor off reserve.

In your opinion, do you not believe that Bill S-2 will reduce the need for many women living on reserves to have to flee their own homes and go to a shelter?

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

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Langtry. It's nice to have you here and to listen to your presentation.

I want to assure you that our government has always sent a clear message that violence against women, wherever it occurs, should not be tolerated. But women on reserves are being abused and victimized without the protections they need, and especially without the rights and protections that all other women across Canada have.

Certainly we've had lots of consultations for Bill S-2. There have been 103 consultations across 76 communities and our government has spent over $8 million in this study. We see the need to go forward and make this happen.

It's been 25 years since this legal gap has been identified. Everyone, including our witnesses, agree that Bill S-2 is not meant to be a catch-all piece of legislation and that it has been drafted to address a specific legal loophole.

Do you agree that the first nations men and women living on reserves should not have to wait another 25 years for this legal gap to be closed? We need action on this now to protect the lives of women.

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

Bill S-2 enables a peace officer to seek emergency protection orders on someone else's behalf. This means that in situations of family violence, another individual can make the application, rather than requiring the victim of violence to leave the home and confront the violent spouse or common-law partner.

Do you agree that enabling a peace officer to seek emergency protection orders will support individuals on reserves who are experiencing family violence by providing them with more flexible options?

[David Langtry]

It would be our view, and certainly my personal view during my 15 years as a family law practitioner, that the system being proposed in S-2 would be similar, as it affords the same rights for off-reserve people, which is access, in the absence of development of their own matrimonial real property regime in a first nations community, to provincial and territorial courts after the one-year transition period, which would be similar to others seeking recourse. The problem still is, do first nations women living on reserve have access to provincial and territorial courts?

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

Thank you.

Do you agree that Bill S-2 would provide first nations women with matrimonial property protections and rights similar to those that other women off reserve have?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Langtry, for being here today. The purpose of Bill S-2 is to address the inequity in matrimonial real property protections and rights on reserves, especially regarding the matrimonial home and protections for primary caregivers, the majority of whom are women. It also seeks to protect individuals in situations of family violence, separation, divorce, or death.

Do you believe that aboriginal men and women on reserves should have the same access to matrimonial property protections as other Canadians do?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I'd like to welcome you to the 73^rd meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today, the committee is continuing its review 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.

We will hear from Canadian Human Rights Commission representatives: Mr. David Langtry, Mr. Michael Smith and Ms. Valerie Phillips.

Thank you very much for being with us. You will have 10 minutes to make your opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions from members of Parliament.

We will then pause to allow the other witnesses to take their seats, following which the meeting will resume.

Mr. Langtry, you have the floor.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I really want to thank you for being so brave, for coming today and sharing your testimony with us. It is truly, truly heartbreaking to hear your story, which is why we are here today.

I'd love to spend more time sharing our stories, because many of us have, in many different ways, worked with first nations and have walked with them. I have worked to build shelters and homes in the downtown eastside in Vancouver. Many of us in Manitoba, Calgary, and across...we have worked in shelters and with school children who have been similarly evicted and tossed away from their communities, as in the story you've told. We certainly have never walked your walk, of course, but we really want to walk alongside you, which is why we're here today to talk about Bill S-2.

Earlier on we heard testimony from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which supports this new legislation. Vice-Chief Swain talked about the fact that he is now the third generation. His grandmother was evicted from their community and their home, and they have had to spend time away from that community, etc.

So we hear your current stories, and for over 25 years we have identified this legislative gap—we know there's a gap there—so we are presenting Bill S-2, which is legislation to close that gap to give you the rights that other Canadian women have.

If what happened to you happened to me, I would have a different outcome in the courts, right? And you have experienced everything in terms of hanging on through all of the pain, and in fact being evicted from your home and your community, where, in your case, Ms. Courchene, the home was vacant. Is that correct?

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

Within my constituency, we have three reserves. In my last four years, before I became a member of Parliament, I taught at a school on a reserve. I, too, saw many breakups; I encountered them with the children.

What do you see in the bill that will provide protection for the children? I focus on that. Lots of times these children are really in quite a state, trying to come to school and put up with things that are going on. Do you see Bill S-2 as something that is going to help the children as well?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being with us this morning. I'm sure we all recognize that you have a lot of experience to offer with your line of work, and with the fact that you, too, had two breakups. You can see the importance of this bill, and I'm happy to see that you spoke of the importance of Bill S-2.

Now, you know and I know that our government has always sent a clear message that violence against women, wherever it occurs, is something we cannot tolerate. But women on reserves are being abused and victimized, without the protection they need, and especially without the rights and protections that all Canadians receive. Our government is really working hard to make this happen, so there is less violence and so that women have their rights.

MP Ashton mentioned that no consultations had taken place, but we know that 103 consultations across 76 communities have taken place, at a cost of $8 million for the government. That is a prime example to show that our government is sincere and really wants to make this happen.

Would you agree that Bill S-2 would provide first nations' women with matrimonial property protections and would provide them with the rights on reserves that are similar to those enjoyed by all other women in Canada? That is our objective here, because we need these women to enjoy the same protection as other women have across Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I understand.

You just spoke about why you support the legislation, but if I can go back to a presentation that Betty Ann Lavallée made to the Senate committee, one of the points she raised was that she didn't see provisions in this bill creating emergency shelters. What we're hearing from a number of people is that there is no commitment to non-legislative measures. Bill S-2 still does not have any component containing provisions for emergency shelters. How is CAP okay with that? How do you feel about that?

[Ron Swain, National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here with my colleague, Julian Morelli. He's our communications director at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people to speak to you about matrimonial real property on reserve. I am the national vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. As you know, National Chief Betty Anne Lavallée was to speak this morning, but unfortunately she was taken ill and asked me to make this presentation in her place. She sends her regrets.

Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, southern Inuit, and Métis throughout Canada. Today, over 60% of aboriginal people now live off reserve, and this number continues to grow. The congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organizations and advocates on behalf of aboriginal people living off reserve throughout Canada.

The issue of matrimonial real property on reserve is certainly not new. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba addressed this as far back as 1988. At that time, the inquiry recognized the need for an equal division upon marriage breakup under the Indian Act. In addition, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples put forth recommendations on the issue. Over the last ten years, numerous studies and reports have been issued by the House of Commons and the Senate. A number of pieces of legislation have also been introduced by both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples supports matrimonial real property, and we feel it's time to move on. This legislation should not come as a surprise to anyone. Aboriginal organizations, including the congress, along with aboriginal people were consulted on matrimonial real property in 2002 through the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee. In fact, under this committee we helped draft the legislation for the first nations governance act.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Human Rights released an interim report called “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”. This report is still relevant today. It outlines the importance of matrimonial real property for a variety of reasons by emphasizing many of the barriers aboriginal women face, including factors that intensify additional inequality and discrimination toward women in these circumstances.

One story in this report really was quite striking. An aboriginal woman and her five children were forced to leave their reserve. They lost their social support and were left with limited finances in search of a home. This woman sought assistance for affordable housing, but was turned down and ended up living in a rundown boarding house. Child and Family Services intervened and took her children. In the end, she could not take it anymore and in despair took her own life. This is just one tragic example, and there are surely thousands more. Yet these hardships continue today. For example, many women are forced to leave their reserve after a marriage breakdown. Those who leave the reserve in search of affordable housing could find their position quite grim.

Let me give you an example. In 2006 the federal government entered into the off-reserve aboriginal housing sector. They allotted $300 million over three years to the provinces for off-reserve affordable housing. Not one of our affiliates received the full amount of funding. When the federal government gave money to assist off-reserve housing, the money didn't get there. One province under this program received $38.2 million and refused to provide any resources for off-reserve housing. This particular province refused to assist off-reserve housing initiatives because, and I quote, “they had other priorities”. My question is simple. Where are these people supposed to go?

This is why our organization fought so strongly for all aboriginal people to be included under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. People who leave reserves for whatever reason should still have their rights. They are rightful partners in Confederation. They are a federal jurisdiction. Once a person leaves the reserve, they no longer have the same level of services or support available to them. They are simply not getting the help they need.

Obviously, conditions differ in every region of Canada, and individuals have their own unique challenges to deal with. However, I find it appalling that in this day and age aboriginal women continue to encounter discrimination and inequality and are literally being deprived of their rights.

The Constitution Act of 1982, under subsection 35(4) states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

This is not the reality for aboriginal women.

We, at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, understand the complexities of this legislation, but this is no excuse. This is legislation that should have gone through years ago. How land is managed and allotted on reserves plays a big part in how matrimonial real property is exercised. There are reserves that have different categories of land on the same reserve: for instance, a reserve is regulated by the Indian Act or voluntarily adheres to the First Nations Land Management Act or a self-government agreement.

The Indian Act itself is problematic on a number of levels. It does not enshrine the treaty relationship, but in many cases it undermines or seeks to replace it. It was introduced and amended by governments that took a paternalistic view towards aboriginal people. It is more about limiting the day-to-day existence of status Indians and reserve communities than it is about implementing and building relationships with sovereign people who entered into this act without their consent. The lack of matrimonial real property is probably the most honest example of what is wrong with the Indian Act at its root.

Some communities have voluntarily adhered to the First Nations Land Management Act to get away from the Indian Act. A small fraction of those communities have made the necessary steps in recognizing the division of family assets, but there are still difficulties for women when it comes to exercising those rights.

The Standing Committee on Human Rights' interim report states that “the federal policy on self-government calls for the application of the Charter”.

The Government is committed to the principle that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should bind all governments in Canada, so that Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians alike may continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Self-government agreements, including treaties, will, therefore, have to provide that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Aboriginal governments and institutions in relation to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities.

This legislation accommodates for the different land management on reserve. It allows for communities to establish laws that are specific to their culture and their traditions.

It has been argued that Bill S-2 could be interpreted to imply that it impedes on the non-derogation clause found under section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our organization strongly supports the non-derogation clause, in that nothing should abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I honestly believe that ensuring equal rights to both men and women does not impede upon aboriginal treaty rights. On the contrary, I would argue that not backing this bill is disallowing equality for all aboriginal people.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples strongly supports matrimonial real property on reserve. We recognize that by implementing this legislation, many communities will be burdened with an increase in responsibility. For this reason, it is important that communities be provided with the necessary tools and financial resources to assist them in implementing this important legislation. This is an instrumental bill. It is important that we don't impose legislation on aboriginal people and their communities, but rather help aboriginal people by establishing a reciprocal relationship in working together and supporting aboriginal communities to ensure they are able to integrate equality while maintaining their cultural values and traditions.

Thank you for this time.

[Jo-Ann Greene]

Madam Chair, to understand the difference, those first nations that are choosing to go under the FNLM are choosing to opt out of the Indian Act, with about 34 provisions related to land management that currently would apply to them.

Under Bill S-2, they don't have to do that. They can develop laws to address the issue of matrimonial real property in their community, and that bill will stand alone. Through the provisions, they have the ability, should they choose, to have courts apply their law. They can set up whatever form they want. It's up to them. It just has to be compliant, as all laws in Canada, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and now, where applicable, with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It's important to recognize that there's a huge difference between the FNLM group—that's a part of it, the requirement to address those gaps that are present. It's the same for those first nations choosing to go under self-government agreements that matrimonial real property has to be addressed in some way.

[Jo-Ann Greene]

Certainly. I'll speak to that, Madam Chair.

One of the things I know my colleague has mentioned, but I want to reiterate, is that the bill is to address a gap in protections and rights for women, children, and families living on reserve. It only applies to those first nations that have a reserve community, and it is a first step in trying to address some of these problems that arise.

It's not meant to be comprehensive and address them all. It's for a specific purpose, and to that end the ratification part was one of the ways that, during consultations, women said they wanted some form of having input or knowing about the community's laws. So that is part of one of the...from the original it was included, but it has been changed and Bill S-2 actually has been lowered to set participation rate—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sure. What I also hear you saying is that the process, especially in the centre of excellence, is going to be flexible depending on who they are dealing with. They're not going to say, here is Bill S-2 and you have to apply it this way, using this language, and implement it this way. Would that be correct?

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

Good afternoon.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here again.

Yesterday, the Quebec Native Women's Association issued a press release that reiterated its opposition to Bill S-2, Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

The president said that the bill would not comply with standards set out in the Quebec Civil Code regarding the division of matrimonial assets in the case of separation or death. However, given that 40% of native couples are in a common-law marriage, that affects 40% of women.

My question is for Mr. Jacques, from the Department of Justice.

Did your department analyze the differences there would be in the application of the provisions of Bill S-2 in Quebec, knowing that the province did not have the same legal system?

Did the department conduct impact studies on the application of Bill S-2, based on the Quebec Civil Code, to identify possible contradictions or a legal uncertainty?

[Jo-Ann Greene]

The implementation plan unfolds in stages, of course, because with the changes to Bill S-2 before it was introduced, with the addition of the 12-month transition period, the provisional federal rules within the act don't come into force until a year after the first part of the bill, which is the first nation law-making mechanism, comes into force by order in council.

Right off, there are three parts to the implementation plan. It's a communication awareness campaign. The second part is the establishment and maintenance of a centre of excellence over a five-year program at this point, which we talked about earlier. The other part is training and education for front-line officials and officers, which includes training through the RCMP and public safety for the policing and education of Superior Court judges. Superior Court judges are at the level at which the provisional federal rules have the ability to be addressed since they deal also with divorce law.

It's intended to have regulations to help court procedures related to emergency protection orders. We've already had some engagement sessions on potential regulations with provinces and territories. Another session will be conducted in the development of that, and they are to be in place, of course, by the time the second part of the bill comes into force, the provisional federal rules part of the legislation.

Through that time also, the centre of excellence will be operating to assist first nations as that part of it comes into force with the order in council, as well as to also provide information and support—

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

We talked a lot yesterday about violence against women and children in the home, and about why the emergency orders are such an important part of Bill S-2, but nobody has bandied about any figures in terms of how much violence there is.

I think the minister said something about 19%, which is three times the amount that other non-first nations situations have. That, I would think, is quite a bit—three times the amount of violence against women and children.

Obviously we know that emergency orders protect lives. Do we know how many deaths there have been in this area, and what we're anticipating in terms of saving lives once Bill S-2 is enacted?

[Andrew Beynon]

Maybe I would start the answer to that by saying that with regard to the centre of excellence that was referred to earlier, we will have to consider after, or if, the legislation is adopted by Parliament how the centre of excellence will be set up and exactly what the funding level will be.

I would just share with the committee that in the proposals that have been published so far, inviting aboriginal institutions or organizations to consider becoming the centre of excellence if the legislation is passed, the public documents identified a maximum potential funding of approximately $4.8 million over a period of five years. Now, that's subject to, again, the legislation being passed and subject to Treasury Board approval of the level of funding if the legislation is passed, but it gives a sense of the investment.

The other area that I would flag for the consideration of committee members is that in our implementation planning there is consideration of some funding for the RCMP and the Department of Public Safety to assist in advancing the legislation and interactions with the provinces.

I will say that I understand the point the member is making about the broad range of issues that really are at stake. There are housing issues, women's shelters issues, and improving schools issues. There are many issues. On that front, I can only say that these are some of the implementation investments. Those other issues, I think, are a point that the committee can consider and make recommendations on, but in the legislation, Bill S-2, we did not choose to put right in the provisions of it issues around implementation, such as funding of women's shelters.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

How about the piece around the non-legislative measures? It's obviously a real concern around costs incurred to the bands, to the legal systems, and the fact that we're not dealing with.... There are about 40 women's shelters across the country on reserves, out of some 600 first nations, which is obviously completely inadequate. This bill has nothing to do with that.

We're very concerned, obviously, and a number of first nations and stakeholders raised real concerns about how Bill S-2 will simply not end violence against women when all of these other matters are not being dealt with, and when the investments aren't being made by the federal government. Why aren't the non-legislative measures, which are critical, being addressed at all?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you for that, and also working to have real timelines on that, on the before and after.... I mean, Bill S-2 is not Bill S-4. It's Bill S-2, right?

[Andrew Beynon, Director General, Community Opportunities Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Perhaps I could just say this while my colleague is looking that up, Madam Chair. On the request for some details on the exact consultations, which the member asked for, we would be prepared to share with the committee a list that provides information on the consultation sessions held before the formulation of Bill S-2 and afterwards.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

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

[Jo-Ann Greene]

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

Financial Administration Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

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

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

We've been talking a lot about consultation today.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both Minister Ambrose and Minister Valcourt for being here today and speaking on Bill S-2. I know that both of you feel very strongly about this particular piece of legislation, as I do.

This past weekend I spoke to my husband about this very bill. I spoke about the current situation facing aboriginal women on reserves and what this legislation will mean to every one of those women.

Minister Valcourt, I know that in your opening remarks, you talked about this day and age—and my husband said exactly the same thing. He looked at me as if I were speaking a foreign language. He could not believe that in this day and age, in Canada, aboriginal women on reserves do not have the same interest and access to matrimonial property as does every person in this room today. He was shocked. I have to be honest, and I apologize for getting emotional, but as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, this is a priority. We have to pass this legislation

Minister Ambrose, I know that one of the things you said in your opening remarks is that you considered the most important aspect of this bill to be the access to emergency protection orders and temporary exclusive occupation orders. I agree with you on that. I think it's paramount. I think we need to protect women and we need to make it happen now—not in another year, not in another two years. We need to pass this legislation now.

I'll be honest with you, before I became a member of Parliament, before I read this bill, and before I understood the breadth of what this would mean to aboriginal women, I had no idea there was an issue of such inequality on reserves and this legislative gap. I was shocked. I think most Canadian listening to this committee today would be shocked and surprised to hear of this legislative gap. I think they're standing behind this government to make sure this legislation goes through.

Minister Ambrose, this question has to do with the protection of a violent spouse in one's own home, which is currently not extended to aboriginal women on reserves.

If someone were to break into one's home right now—hopefully not in my riding of Scarborough Centre or in any riding across this country—and became violent or abusive, the police would be called and that person would be removed. That's a given, and no one would question that.

When a spouse becomes violent and abusive, they should be the ones removed from the family home, not the victim of violence. Yet on reserves, the opposite is true today. I think Canadians need to understand that, and know this bill is going to protect those women. In cases where the need for protection is extended and where children are involved, having extended access to the family home is crucial.

Bill S-2, in addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, also allows the courts to take these factors into consideration and provide extended, exclusive occupation access to the family home. This is paramount. We need this legislation.

Minister Ambrose, could you speak in more detail to the need for emergency protection orders on reserves and the need for access to temporary exclusive occupation orders? I know you did in your opening remarks.

Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Ministers, for joining us today.

We recognize there is a legislative gap that is important to address—no question about that. But we have real problems with the lack of consultation, the lack of respect for first nations jurisdiction. We've worked closely with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, who have expressed real concern about this piece of legislation, and of course with first nations across the country, who also oppose this legislation.

To both Minister Valcourt and Minister Ambrose, did you consult with all first nations across Canada around Bill S-2?

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

The Supreme Court is bound by the law of the land and the Constitution is clear as to the allocation of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

In terms of what this legislation does, and it is important that the committee consider this, there are two sides to it. The first is that there are provisional rules that will apply throughout first nation communities, but they are provisional until the first nation itself adopts its own laws, which they can. The reality of first nations in Canada is that they are different; they have different cultures and different customs. Now with this bill those who choose to do so will be able to draft and pass their own laws, which will be endorsed and approved by the community, and then be applicable on reserve.

This is why I said earlier that this is not at all paternalistic. This is giving the first nation communities the powers to adopt laws that will deal with the very issue at the heart of Bill S-2. For those who don't, then the federal rules will apply. We know that this will not happen overnight. That's why we have this one-year period from the day the bill receives royal assent. For one year nothing will happen. The first nations who want to adopt their own laws during that year will be able to do so. They will come into force one year after royal assent, just like the provisional federal rules will. At that time, either the federal law applies or the local community law applies.

I think it's a practical approach to a difficult problem in terms of implementation. What you also have to know is that the centre of excellence, which will be set up after royal assent is given to the bill, will help first nations in developing these laws for their own communities.

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

As was alluded to earlier, since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered those decisions 25 years ago, the impact and the effect of those decisions was that the court made it clear that the provincial and territorial matrimonial property laws that aboriginal spouses living on reserve had attempted to use in the past, and had benefited from on occasion, did not apply to aboriginal people living on reserve. So first nation communities that are reserves under the Indian Act do not get the benefit, and that's the gap that Bill S-2 is trying to fill.

This government has been at it now for a number of years, and we believe it's time that the gap be filled.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister for Status of Women]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the committee for your work on this matter and the opportunity to participate in the committee's review of Bill S-2.

As Minister for Status of Women, I feel strongly that this 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 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.

As Minister Valcourt indicated, it's been over 25 years since the Supreme Court of Canada identified this shocking legal gap. This is now our government's fourth attempt to pass this legislation.

Our government is committed to ending violence against women and girls in communities across Canada, and this legislation is part of that process. We are taking action to protect those who are most vulnerable in Canadian society—women in immigrant communities, women living in poverty, and aboriginal women and girls—through essential women's projects, but also through legislation like Bill S-2.

Bill S-2, which you know as the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, will guarantee the matrimonial real property rights and interests of women who live on reserve, and will protect spouses from violent domestic situations.

Most Canadians do not know that aboriginal women on reserve do not share the same basic right to property as women who live off reserve. This legal gap has led to the suffering of countless aboriginal women. Their suffering makes it clear why we need this bill to be passed by Parliament this spring. These women have waited long enough. I urge all parties to vote in favour of this bill.

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. In 2009, close to two-thirds of aboriginal female victims were aged 15 to 34. This age group accounted for just under half of the total female aboriginal population over the age of 15 who were living in 10 provinces. Among victims of spousal violence, 6 in 10 aboriginal women reported being injured. For comparison, the proportion was 4 in 10 among non-aboriginal women.

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

Our government has taken several actions to eliminate violence against women and girls. Since 2007, we've invested over $11 million in funding for projects specifically to end violence against aboriginal women and girls, and $19 million in the same timeframe on projects to empower and protect aboriginal women and girls.

Our government proposes to close this rights gap in the matrimonial property rights law, once and for all, with the passing of this act. This legislation is about eliminating an injustice by giving on-reserve women, including the victims of violence, access to the options that are available to other Canadian women.

I'm particularly pleased, and I know all of you would be interested, that this bill will provide emergency protection orders to aboriginal women and children who are abused. Emergency protection orders save lives. They are recognized by child and family justice advocates as one of the most significant means for preventing family violence.

Sadly, as I mentioned, we know that aboriginal women are more likely to experience spousal violence when compared to non-aboriginal women. 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.

As it stands today, a woman living on a 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 children exclusive access to a family home. Again, I repeat, emergency protection orders 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 usually the male partner, 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 will address this dire situation. For women in the rest of Canada who are not living in this situation, when faced with family violence, the situation is much different.

When emergency protection orders are enforced, as you know very well, abusers can be removed, allowing the women and children to find safety in the comfort of their own family home. If aboriginal women are granted the ability to remain in the family home on reserve, they can escape situations of domestic violence while continuing to care for their children and maintaining vital access to the support of their community. Again, importantly, emergency protection orders save lives.

In addition to the protections provided by these orders, Bill S-2 also provides for the granting of temporary exclusive occupation of the family home. This protection is twofold. First, in situations of family violence, women can 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 is allowed to stay in the home for 180 days. During that time the surviving spouse may apply for exclusive occupation of the family home for a period of time to be determined by the courts.

There has been a need for this bill for a quarter of a century. Our government has brought this issue before Parliament four times now, debating this issue in both chambers and in committee now for over 50 hours. This includes more than 15 hours of debate on this particular bill alone. Yet, after spending $8 million on 103 consultation sessions, as Minister Valcourt spoke to, in 76 different communities across Canada, and after countless reports and studies going back a quarter of a century, the opposition is proposing more talk. But we say it is time to move forward.

We say it is time that aboriginal women living on reserve share the same rights as all other Canadian women, and this committee has the power to do exactly that. Members of this committee in particular have first-hand knowledge of the nature and extent of the problem, having recently studied the issue of violence against aboriginal women. You have heard the stories from aboriginal women and are aware of the factors that contribute to violence in their lives. This committee has a special understanding of what is at stake here.

As the Minister for Status of Women, I sought to address violence against aboriginal women by supporting many projects that address violence in a comprehensive manner and building economic security and developing the leadership skills that prepare women to successfully escape violent domestic situations.

As I mentioned earlier, since 2007, through the women's program, we have provided funding of more than $90 million in support of projects that help to empower and protect aboriginal women and girls. For instance, in the Yukon, the Liard Aboriginal Women's Society is helping aboriginal women transition to violence-free lives by building relationships between aboriginal women, law enforcement officials, and local service providers. These often-neglected relationships between aboriginal women and service providers can make the difference between service providers or law enforcement officers overlooking or recognizing a violent domestic situation.

Similar work is also being done to prepare law enforcement officers at the community level through the development of protocols, law enforcement orientation documents, and community safety action plans.

Our government is also supporting women who have been victims of violence through projects like that of the Creating Hope Society in Alberta. Their projects specifically support first nations women and girls living on reserves within the Edmonton city limits who have experienced violence by engaging first nations groups, service providers, and women and girls themselves.

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, funding over 600 projects now in Canada since 2007, and launching 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've also developed a five-year national strategy aimed at enhancing the response of law enforcement and the justice system to cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls by supporting culturally appropriate victim services and, of course, Bill S-2, which will give aboriginal women equal rights and access to their matrimonial property rights and emergency protection orders in cases of domestic violence.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, let me reiterate that this legislation is about eliminating an injustice. It's about closing a legal gap that creates inequality and leaves aboriginal women vulnerable. It's 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, safety, and security.

In the course of your committee's deliberations on this bill I urge members to consider the previous testimony—of which there has been quite a bit by aboriginal women and leaders across Canada—of Betty Ann Lavallée, in particular, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. She said about Bill S-2:

The bill 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 completely with her statement. Her words are informed by her knowledge of the often-harsh realities of day-to-day life faced by many female residents of first nation communities.

At the end of the day, Bill S-2 is about taking action also. It's been over 25 years since the Supreme Court of Canada identified this legal gap, and our government is closing this gap with this bill. Bill S-2 proposes an effective solution to this injustice and we hope that members on all sides of the House will support this initiative moving forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee during its review of 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.

I am proud to be here today, with my colleague the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister for the Status of Women, to talk about the steps our government is taking to improve the rights of families living on reserves.

I will start by asking all of my parliamentary colleagues and Madam Chair to allow me to first express my consternation and incredulity at the arguments I have heard in opposition to Bill S-2.

If I may also characterize this opposition, what I have heard from the opposition party's spokesperson in the House at second reading was a dressing up of the bill with a lot of the concerns that we all share about the situation of too many first nations in this country. Whether it be housing, water, access to roads, access to electricity, access to legal services, or the health of first nation community members, the suicide rate on reserves, or access to education and employment opportunities, these are all concerns that we share, but they have been raised in the course of the debate as reason to object to the enactment of Bill S-2 as law in this country.

Why oppose a bill about family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests and the bill's remedial provisions because this legislation does not address other concerns? Bill S-2 is not about housing, it's not about water, it's not about access to roads or access to electricity, water, or to legal services, or the specific health problems that first nation members suffer from.

This bill is about the rights of married or common-law couples living on reserve in the event of breakup of their relationship, or at their death. It's about an equitable division of the family assets and, in the case of violent and abusive relationships, protecting the spouse, the child and the children, if any, by allowing the court to grant an individual spouse exclusive occupation right to the family home.

After you undress the bill of the concerns expressed, which the bill is not aimed at, and address it for what it really is, you end up with the pure, simple question of the equality of the status of couples and families on reserve in case of conjugal relationships breaking down so their treatment will be comparable to that of other Canadian couples not living on reserve.

Many Canadians are not aware, for example, that in the absence of legislation like Bill S-2, a spouse who holds the interest in an on-reserve family home can, on his or her own, sell that home without the consent of the other spouse and can keep all the money. Or, that spouse who holds the interest in the family home can bar the other spouse from their home on reserve, without regard to the welfare of the spouse and the child or children, if any. Or, in the event of domestic violence or abuse, a court in this country cannot order the right of exclusive occupation of the family home to the spouse who holds the interest in the on-reserve family home, even on a temporary basis.

These rights are available to all other Canadians not living on reserve, whether they are aboriginal people or not. It is simply unacceptable, I submit to you with respect, that in this day and age, people living on reserve are not afforded the same rights and protections as those living off reserve. Individuals living on reserve should not be penalized simply because of where they live.

Yet for more than 25 years, since the 1986 Supreme Court decisions in two particular cases, Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson, aboriginal women and children living on reserve have had no rights to matrimonial real property. For them, the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse or common-law partner can mean insecurity, financial difficulties, or homelessness.

When the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights studied Bill S-2, they heard first-hand from courageous individuals who came forward to tell their stories about how they have personally suffered the consequences of the lack of legislation governing matrimonial real property on reserves.

Bill S-2 responds to calls for action not only from aboriginal women, but also from international organizations and parliamentary committees. Even Manitoba's NDP government understands the urgency of the situation. At the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba's request, the assembly's clerk informed me that the they had unanimously adopted a motion urging Canada's government and Parliament to pass Bill S-2.

The bill—which I heard in the House—is neither paternalistic nor dictating to first nations. However, I submit that not passing it would be.

Under the proposed legislation, first nations can either choose to enact their own laws related to matrimonial real property rights and interests—laws designed to meet their particular needs and respect their particular customs and culture—or choose to follow federal rules.

By empowering first nations to develop their own laws in this area, Bill S-2 respects the diversity among first nations. They can adopt community-specific laws that may offer different and effective means—from the first nations' perspective—of addressing matrimonial real property issues on their respective reserve lands.

The proposed legislation would also ensure that, until such a time as a first nation is able to create its own laws, federal rules would provide families with the rights and protections they seek and deserve, just like all non-aboriginal citizens and aboriginals living off-reserve.

As a result, all men, women and children living on reserves will have equal rights related to the occupancy, transfer or sale of the family home that were not previously guaranteed to first nation members living on reserves.

More importantly, in situations of family violence, a spouse could now apply, with the benefit of this act, 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. These provisions will allow victimized spouses or common-law partners in abusive relationships to ask for exclusive occupation of the family home for a specified period of time, providing victims and their dependants with a place to stay.

We have committed, as you all know, to the creation of an arm's length centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, which will assist first nations in the development of their own on-reserve matrimonial real property laws or in the application of the federal provisional rules.

Madam Chair, our government has undertaken an extensive two-year consultation process that included over 100 meetings at 76 sites across Canada. We have had ample opportunity to review, discuss, and debate the bill since it was introduced in 2008.

Time is flying, so I will allow my colleague Minister Ambrose to get in her 10 minutes also.

Thank you.

Opposition Motion--First Nations, Métis and Inuit

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, both today and yesterday we have heard a lot about Bill S-2, dealing with the issue of marriage breakdown and the rights of both partners. It is important to recognize that a big part of that has been the requirement of the government to work with first nations and leaders in terms of developing legislation. As opposed to doing that, it has taken a piece of legislation from a specific area and brought it into the House without doing its work. As a result, there is a great deal of resistance on an issue that I would argue there would be wonderful support for and very strong leadership on, even from the first nations.

What is upsetting a number of people is the way in which the government feels it can bring in legislation without working with first nations leaders. At the end of the day, if the government really wants to deal with many of the outstanding first nations issues, it has to recognize there is not only a legal obligation but many would argue a moral obligation to be working with first nations and aboriginal leaders in order to resolve these matters. If the government did that, we would be ahead in terms of making our communities a better place to live.

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

moved:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue; (b) make treaty implementation, as well as the settlement and implementation of land claims, a priority, including in Labrador; and (c) begin negotiations in good faith with NunatuKavut Community Council on their comprehensive land claim that has been without a response since 1991.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Democrats on this important motion before the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

New Democrats have put forward this motion today because of what we have been seeing over the last many years, actually for decades, particularly under the current government, which is that first nations, Metis, and Inuit continue to have their rights overridden by the government in any number of ways.

We have seen unilateral impositions of legislation, evidenced most recently by the fact that debate was once against shut down on Bill S-2, matrimonial real property rights. For the 31st time, the government has invoked time allocation.

One of the reasons we are bringing this forward is the context in which we are operating, but I want to put it in the context of some international documents. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 10 says:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

That seems a very appropriate section of the UN declaration when we are talking about land claims. Treaties, comprehensive land claims, self-government agreements are now part of the Canadian landscape, and unfortunately, from coast to coast to coast, we have far too many examples where the government has simply refused to move forward in negotiating in good faith.

In case Canadians think that this is something new that the government should have some responsibility to take part in, I want to refer to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples where it refers to the 1763 Proclamation. The proclamation portrays aboriginal nations as autonomous political units. It goes on to say that aboriginal nations hold inherent authority over their internal affairs and the power to deal with the Crown by way of treaty and agreement. It also says that land concession is thus to be effected by mutual agreement or treaty.

One would think that a document from 1763 would actually continue to help shape and inform government policy, but sadly, in this country, nations have been forced to the courts to try to get the government to come to the table in good faith. We have any number of court decisions that continue to reaffirm indigenous rights and title. I cannot go through them all, because apparently there are about 180 of them, but there are some very key ones.

In the Calder decision in 1973, this was the first time that courts acknowledged that aboriginal title to the land had existed, and that this significant case would pave the way for addressing aboriginal title in Canada.

In Guerin, 1984, it established that aboriginal title was a sui generis right and the Crown had a fiduciary duty to protect it for aboriginal peoples.

In Van der Peet, 1996, there was established a set of criteria to determine whether an aboriginal right was protected as an existing aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution, and just recently we had the Daniels decision that said all aboriginal peoples in Canada, including Metis and non-status Indians, are included in federal jurisdiction under 91(24) of the Constitution.

We have also had some provincial court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title and the duty to consult. We had the decision in December 12, 2007, where the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Newfoundland and Labrador v. the Labrador Metis Nation, and the Labrador Metis Nation is now known as NunatuKavut.

This was a unanimous decision and the court upheld that the province has a duty to consult the respondents in respect of their asserted aboriginal rights.

Why is this important? We have first peoples in this country who have been here for millennia. They are the people who lived on this land when the settlers came. I will talk a little bit about who the people of NunatuKavut are. NunatuKavut, from their website, says:

Our Aboriginal ancestors lived in Labrador long before Europeans set foot on North American soil. The land was part of them, and they were part of the land.

For Canadians who are listening, these communities line the southern coastal interior waterways of Labrador. They go on to say:

We are the more than 6,000 southern Inuit of Labrador. We are proud of who we are and what we've accomplished. Our rights are protected and enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. No one can take them from us. Our traditions resonate with the ways of our elders. Our respect for the environment, the sharing of our harvest, our knowledge of traditional medicines and practices, and our care for each other can be traced directly to our Aboriginal heritage.

It is very important that what we have here is, from coast to coast to coast, government refusal to respect the honour of the Crown and its judiciary responsibilities, and to respect Section 35 of the Constitution, which protects aboriginal rights and title. This series of court decisions continues to reinforce that duty for Canada to come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

Here is the reality. From coast to coast to coast, aboriginal peoples are being forced to take action to enforce their rights and title as the government refuses to negotiate or honour its duty to consult and accommodate.

On the east coast, we have seen hunger strikes, blockades, and arrests. The NunatuKavut submitted a land claim for consideration back in 1991. To date, this claim has not been accepted for negotiation. I would like to say that this is an isolated case. However, again, what we see from coast to coast to coast is that there are nations that have been in negotiations with the government for decades. The government simply refuses to act in good faith.

I had one elder who said to me that 70 years ago, when he was only nine years old, he sat at the knee of his grandfather. Here we are, 70 years later and his nation still does not have a treaty or a comprehensive land claim. It is shameful that we continue to have to have this conversation when we have such deep roots in our Constitution, in court decisions, in the royal proclamation that say that rights and title were reaffirmed and that the government does have a responsibility to protect and to negotiate.

We do not only have the NunatuKavut, who submitted their land claim in 1991. We heard just yesterday that the Innu will be shutting down Muskrat Falls because of the fact that racism continues in this country and their rights and title are not being recognized. Meanwhile, development continues and the NunatuKavummiut are watching it happen. They have not been consulted and accommodated. As I mentioned earlier, these are people with a very long history in what is now known as Labrador.

On the east coast, we have had this situation since 1991 where the government refuses to go ahead and negotiate the claim that was submitted in good faith by the NunatuKavummiut. On the west coast, we also have the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group being forced to take its case to the human rights commission of the Organization of American States. We have domestic court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title, but now we also have to go internationally because we cannot get the government to the table.

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group has a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the 1884 expropriation of over 237 hectares of resource-rich land from the traditional territories of the Hul'qumi'num peoples on Vancouver Island. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group alleges that Canada has violated international human rights norms by refusing to negotiate for any form of redress for the expropriated lands, which are now mostly in the hands of large forestry companies, and by failing to protect Hul'qumi'num interests while the dispute remains unresolved. They go on to say that in agreeing to hear the complaint, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the available mechanisms to resolve this dispute in Canada, whether through the negotiation or the B.C. treaty process, are too onerous and too constrained in their protection of human rights to live up to the standards of international justice.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come from the Grand Council of the Crees said:

Fair and timely resolution of land and resource disputes is essential for reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada and for closing the unacceptable gap in standard of living facing so many Indigenous communities.

We can see that indigenous peoples in Canada are being failed consistently by the government, despite the fact that we have numerous court decisions that reaffirm the right to their lands and their right to the sharing of resources that are being developed on these lands.

I encourage all members to support this very important motion.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you for the question.

This is a fairly complicated area of law which first nations have considered over years and decades. The complication arises in imposing the transfer of jurisdiction or authority from the federal government to the provincial government. While that may be a decision that a first nation makes, imposing it creates tremendous challenges, in that to isolate a specific jurisdiction, such as wills and estates, does exactly that: it isolates it from the important matters that first nations have also considered and that must be considered together, involving their laws over land and how they deal with non-members on their reserve lands and how land is held and transferred. Issues such as matrimonial real property which is contained in Bill S-2, come into play here as well and certainly can't be considered in isolation.

The impact of transferring this jurisdiction to the provinces creates a challenge for enforcement of provincial jurisdiction or of a provision that does not address the reality of how the land is still held on reserve under federal jurisdiction. It brings up the interjurisdictional wrangling that will have to be resolved, on top of the challenge we have that there isn't any clearly defined way for first nations to do this under the Indian Act right now and the challenges that this creates.

There are additional challenges in terms of access to appropriate persons, whether they be lawyers or others, to assist in wills and estate areas. There is an added challenge of getting access to adjudication around those challenges as well.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for Bill S-2, the previous question, I believe that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound arrived after the question had been read. I do not think his vote should have been recorded.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the consultations in 2010. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights studied an earlier version of the bill. The committee heard from more than 30 witnesses and adopted 12 amendments to improve the bill and reflect the input and comments received from stakeholders, including first nations and provinces. That version of the bill died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament, it but serves as an example of how previous studies and testimony have strengthened the legislation now before us.

In 2011, Bill S-2, the current iteration of the legislation, was introduced. It included not only the 12 amendments but also three additional changes that were suggested and made to the bill.

Therefore, I would say that we have spent enough time on it. This is the time for action. Let us pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Let me start by affirming and stating quite clearly that it is completely unacceptable that men, women and children living on reserve have for decades been deprived of the same basic rights and protections afforded Canadians living off reserve simply because of where they live.

Through this legislation, our government is addressing a long-standing legislative gap and ensuring that women, children and families on reserve can live in safe, stable home environments. I believe that the bill offers a practical, balanced and much needed solution that I wish to insist has been informed by national consultations with stakeholders, numerous reports, in-depth analysis and reasoned debate. I say now is the time for action.

I cannot emphasize enough the urgency of the issues that Bill S-2 proposes to resolve. Every day that passes until a solution is in place is one more day that women and children living on reserve do not have access to the same protections offered those living off reserve. Without the rights to matrimonial real property that other Canadians enjoy, more and more individuals and families, primarily aboriginal women and children living on reserve, are left defenceless, and in many cases, homeless and destitute. They are ostracized from the only community they have ever known and are forced to start life all over again elsewhere.

Bill S-2 offers an effective solution that would provide individuals with the rights and protections they need to ensure that they have access to the family home no matter which spouse is listed as the owner. The effect that the absence of legislation has on the lives on many individuals and families is a compelling reason for the members of the House to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and to pass Bill S-2.

Currently, and no one can dispute that, there is no law in place addressing matters related to on-reserve matrimonial real property and interests.

More than 25 years ago, two Supreme Court of Canada rulings clarified that provincial laws pertaining to matrimonial real property rights and interests do not apply in first nation communities. Given that no equivalent federal law exists, these interests and rights are not protected for individuals living on reserve in the event of a breakdown of a conjugal relationship or the death of a spouse or a common-law partner. This situation is unacceptable and should make endorsing Bill S-2 a top priority for the House.

Individuals who live off reserve have access to the protections and legal recourse set out in the provincial or territorial laws. However, individuals living in first nations communities, with few exceptions, do not benefit from such protections. No judge, police officer or court representative is authorized to intervene if someone throws his or her spouse out of the house or sells the family home and keeps all the proceeds from that sale. In other words, our justice system is not currently in a position to be able to end the harmful discrimination faced by an identifiable group of Canadians.

Canadians should not tolerate this fundamental injustice. The fact that this has been going on for 25 years is shameful.

It is true that a small number of first nations have developed laws pertaining to matrimonial rights and interests under the First Nations Land Management Act or self-government agreements. However, these options are not currently available to most first nations. As a result, over 100,000 Canadians do not have any legal protection in this regard. This has been harmful to many people, families and communities. These injustices have a negative impact on the lives of all Canadians, without exception. The only way to move forward is to enact an effective legislative solution, which is what Bill S-2 seeks to do.

Earlier, I heard the member opposite going on about consultations. Bill S-2 is based on extensive national consultations and Parliament's study of this issue. This work produced a wealth of high-quality information in the form of reports, studies, testimony and analyses. Bill S-2 is the result of all these contributions and analyses. The facts show that previous attempts strengthened the bill—

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to the piece of legislation before us, Bill S-2. This bill marks the fourth attempt by the government to address a serious problem in the first nations community, a problem created by the Indian Act itself. Sadly, like the first three attempts taken by the government, it simply misses the mark.

Bill S-2 is a very simplistic attempt to rectify a very complex problem that stems from the Indian Act.

On reserves, gender discrimination clearly exists when it comes to matrimonial real property. However, Bill S-2 will be impossible to implement for the following reasons: 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.

There are no measures in the legislation to address the systemic problem of violence that faces so many women and that leads to divorce. According to Statistics Canada, first nations women are 3.5 times more likely to be victims of violence than non-aboriginal women, and 35% of aboriginal women have already been victims of violence.

Overcrowded housing has been linked to a number of health and social problems, including higher rates of respiratory infections as well as mental health and domestic violence problems.

In 2006, 14% of aboriginal women and girls were living in overcrowded housing—a proportion three times higher than among non-aboriginal women. On reserves, 26% of women and girls were living in overcrowded conditions, compared to 6% of those living off-reserve.

All the statistics I have just read into the record show that we have a serious problem before us. Those problems require a serious, well-thought-out solution. That is not what the Conservatives have brought before us today. They are once again fast-tracking legislation without addressing all of the relevant non-legislative problems first nations women and families have identified. They are showing that they are not interested in a fulsome discussion of this bill or any other issue affecting the indigenous peoples of this land. I am left with the strong impression that all they want is to quickly enact a bad law, just to say that they have done something.

The problems we are facing require a comprehensive response that is led by first nations communities first and foremost. The Conservatives did do some consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, but then in typical Conservative style, they ignored the results of the consultation when preparing the original legislation. As a result, both the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations are demanding better legislation, because the consequences of passing inadequate legislation are so dire.

One of the basic problems with this bill is that while it removes some of the most onerous parts of previous legislative attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent right and jurisdiction in this matter. As a result, we again have the government telling first nations how they should run their lives, their communities and their systems rather than respecting their laws, their traditions and their inherent right to self-government.

This is the ultimate “daddy knows best” approach taken by the government, and it does nothing to make life better for women who live on reserve.

The Assembly of First Nations determined that three broad principles were key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and addressing underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security.

Bill S-2 does not take any of these three principles into account in any meaningful way.

My province, Quebec, is a good example of the problems this bill will create. According to lawyer David Schulze, the particularities of my province have been overlooked in Bill S-2. Under the Civil Code, common-law partners do not hold any rights to property, but they would under Bill S-2. For example, a first nations member would have rights to his spouse's home on the Uashat reserve, but she would not have any rights to his home in Sept-Îles, across the street.

The lands covered by the most recent treaties, such as the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which applies to large portions of my riding, are excluded.

Under this bill, a Naskapi would have rights to his Innu spouse's home in Schefferville, but she would have no rights to his home 80 km away in Kawawachikamach, which is part of the Category I-N lands under the CN Commercialization Act and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

These examples show the new problems this legislation would cause in my home province alone, and they highlight another glaring problem with the bill: the imposition of provincial law on reserve. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically lacking and practically problematic and ignores the inherent rights of first nations citizens. By taking this avenue, the Conservatives are trying to make a quick fix, the equivalent of slapping a band-aid on an injury that requires major surgery. This approach is lazy and disrespectful toward those women who they claim to seek to help.

This proposed bill also runs afoul of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Conservatives finally endorsed in 2010. According to the declaration, consultation requires consent as well. While Canada has conducted some limited consultations, no consent was given by the rights holders to have provincial laws applied in their communities. Therefore, if the House passes and moves to enforce Bill S-2, we will be in violation of article 32 of the UN declaration, which ensures free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands or welfare of the rights holders.

Given the government's view of the UN declaration, I doubt that it sees that as a problem. Maybe that is why, after 14 months, we are still waiting for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to reply to the request of the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights to study Canada. This approach shows why a bill like Bill C-469 is so important and needed today.

We have a big problem before us. It will require a comprehensive approach to arrive at a solution, one that must be led by first nations communities and be respectful of their own laws and traditions. Simply forcing provincial laws that were not written with those traditions and laws in mind will only make matters worse.

Part of the reason many first nations find themselves in this legal position today is that past governments took the “daddy knows best” approach, telling first nations how they should act, behave and govern themselves without giving any thought to their wishes, their needs, their desires or their rights. Today we know that this approach was wrong and a mistake, yet the Conservative government is determined to force us down the same failed path.

We cannot have true reconciliation and build that better tomorrow for all Canadians until we throw that failed approach into the trash can of history, where it belongs. We must renew a nation to nation relationship that begins with working with first nations communities, not dictating to them.

The Conservatives obviously have a great deal to learn about this. They seem more interested in being seen to do something while doing nothing, which is something they do with great skill. Now is not the time for pretending. It is the time to act and do this correctly right now. I hope that the government will take my words to heart, agree, and start to work with us to get this right, right now.

The House resumed from November 22, 2012, 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Bill S-2--Time Allocation Motion

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this government has decided to move a time allocation motion to limit debate in the House of Commons. Imposing closure on Bill S-2 is simply an attack on our democracy.

This bill requires in-depth consideration by parliamentarians and continued debate. We are now debating this bill under a time allocation motion. We asked for true consultation of aboriginal peoples, and that is not at all what is happening.

Once again, the government is revealing its hypocrisy by, on the one hand, supporting a bill and, on the other, reducing the number of speakers to the absolute minimum. We are condemning the Conservatives' constant denial of democracy.

How can the minister justify such action?

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

Mr. Speaker, currently, as the hon. member alludes to and it is a fact, aboriginal women cannot go to court to seek exclusive occupation of the family home or even apply for emergency protection orders when living in a family home on reserve, a right which every other woman in Canada has.

Bill S-2 extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserves.

In situations of family violence, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home with the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days with the possibility of an extension.

These provisions would allow victimized spouses and common-law partners in abusive relationships to ask for exclusive occupation of the family home for a specified period of time, providing victims and their dependants with a place to stay. That in itself is a good reason--

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me as well that on the majority of reserves, most men, women, and children have no legal rights when it comes to their family home.

In cases of family violence, women victims can find themselves re-victimized by being kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go.

With new provisional federal rules and first nations laws, Bill S-2 will ensure that the rights of first nations people during the occupancy, transfer, or sale of their family home are guaranteed, where there previously was not a guarantee.

More important, Bill S-2 will grant them access to the emergency protection orders and these exclusive occupation orders, which would allow spouses and children the consistency and stability that they need in their lives. I cannot believe the NDP and Liberals would use procedure to vote against this important bill.

Could the minister please detail how the emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders would help protect aboriginal women and children?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it puzzling because we remember not that long ago this government was against the Liberal government when it brought in closure.

However, what is really troubling is the fact that the minister says that there has been proper consultation. The bill came from the other place. No one in the other place was elected to represent Canadians, let alone first nations. For him to say that it is okay not only to bring in closure, but to suggest that the bill, which comes from the other place, is legitimate—and we have about 14 of these bills coming to this place from the other place—is very troubling. How can the minister get up and say that it is okay to bring in closure when Bill S-2 came from the other place? It is a form of closure on our very democracy in terms of representation for everyday Canadians. That is not correct in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for her excellent question.

As the member said, under the proposed legislation, first nations can choose to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights and interests— legislation that would address their own specific needs and respect their customs—or to apply provisional federal rules.

By allowing first nations to enact their own laws, Bill S-2 respects their diversity. As a result, they could pass laws that are aligned with the needs of their communities, enabling them to take a different and effective approach to matrimonial real property rights issues on their respective reserves.

The bill also provides for an implementation period so that first nations have the information and time they need to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights.

That is why we made a commitment to create an independent centre of excellence for matrimonial real property that will help first nations either to enact their own laws or to apply provisional federal rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, this is the fourth time that we have discussed this issue in the House. One of the key recommendations in the ministerial representative's report on on-reserve matrimonial real property issues, which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 20, 2007, was that the legislative measure include a way for first nations to exercise their legislative power in this area.

In response to those recommendations, Bill S-2 provides for two ways in which on-reserve matrimonial real property rights and related protections can be guaranteed. First, it allows first nations to enact their own laws to reflect their culture and traditions and, second, it provides for provisional federal rules.

Could the minister describe how the ability to enact their own laws would empower first nations and what role the centre of excellence for matrimonial real property plays in the implementation of Bill S-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians undergoing a breakdown of a conjugal relationship or the death of a spouse or a common-law partner, there is legal protection to ensure that the matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably. For couples living on reserves governed by the Indian Act, sadly this is not the case.

For more than 25 years, since the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson, aboriginal women and children living on reserves have not had the same rights to matrimonial real property. For them, the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse or a common law partner could mean insecurity, financial difficulties or homelessness.

Now is the time for action. I do not know why the members opposite do not support women having rights on reserves.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-2 would help fill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to justice for first nation communities and, in particular, for aboriginal women?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if we look at the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act and we look at the hours that it has been debated and studied, five hours in the House on a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, in the Senate for another number of hours—

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

Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it is believable that the New Democrats do not support aboriginal women and children. We are consistently in the House day after day speaking up on those issues.

Our House leader has ably pointed out that this is the 31st time the Conservatives have shut down debate, and it is a very sad record in Canadian history. This time we have Bill S-2 on matrimonial real property and once again it is an example of the government unilaterally imposing its legislative agenda on first nations without allowing appropriate debate. The bill has been before the House a number of times, but on this occasion it has been barely debated in the House and it has never before made it to a parliamentary committee.

Why does the minister not want all the members in the House to perform their duties as parliamentarians and have an honest, legitimate debate on this very important legislation?

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

moved:

That, in relation to 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 one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before this 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.

Bill S-2—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few points. First, for far too long, women living on first nation reserves in Canada have been without the legal protections available to all other Canadians. Our government has introduced Bill S-2 to correct this inequality and to provide greater protection for aboriginal women. I must advise, however, that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at second reading 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his very kind, thoughtful and sensitive comments and concern for our welfare over here.

This afternoon, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. This will be the third time that the bill has been debated at third reading. In the previous two days that it was debated, we actually heard from the comments of the New Democrats that they were quite supportive of the bill and that they called for it to be passed without delay. We are asking them to heed their own advice and allow this matter to come to a vote. The government shares the view that it does need to proceed quickly. If we do care about giving people a safe and peaceful Easter now and in years to come, we certainly want to have this kind of legislation in place to protect Canadians and ensure their peace from nuclear terrorism. I hope the NDP will back up those words and allow a vote to occur.

Monday, April 15, when we return from the time in our constituencies, will be the first opposition day of the new supply period where I understand we will debate a motion from the NDP.

Tuesday, April 16, will be the second opposition day, and I understand we will debate a motion from the Liberals.

On the Wednesday of that week, the House will return to second reading debate of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. The bill would finally provide the legal protections for the women on reserve that they have lacked for far too long. This discrimination should not exist. That is why aboriginal people and even the Manitoba NDP have been calling for the passage of Bill S-2. I would hope that the federal NDP would heed that call and allow a vote to take place, giving aboriginal women rights regarding matrimonial property.

If debate on S-2 concludes, the House will then debate at report stage Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I believe that this is also very close to the finish line.

Following that, we would consider Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act at second reading. Thursday, April 18, will be another opposition day for the NDP.

Before I conclude, let me wish all the MPs and the parliamentary staff a happy Easter.

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

Bill S-2 is our latest attempt in the House of Commons to close the gap that exists, which the Supreme Court identified over 25 years ago. It's a rights gap in that aboriginal women living on reserve do not have the same rights to matrimonial property that women in the rest of Canada have. I think this is the fourth legislative attempt to pass this bill, so I do urge all of the members from all parties on the committee to think about that. It's been over a quarter of a century since the Supreme Court ruled that women living on reserve are without access to the legal rights they deserve.

This particular bill, Bill S-2, which you're familiar with, will give women those rights to matrimonial property, and—I think most importantly—it will allow a judge to enforce emergency protection orders and remove a violent partner from the home. At this point, we don't have that protection for aboriginal women on reserve. I think that's a really important part of this, because it addresses the issue of violence against aboriginal women and girls living on reserve. So I do urge all members of the House to support this. Of course, the consultations on this have been very thorough and lengthy. They've taken place over 25 years. This is the fourth legislative attempt. If there are discussions to be had among parties, let's have them, but by all means let's expedite this bill through the House.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

I know that in the first round of questioning, Minister Ambrose, you spoke extensively about the commitment to engage men and boys in the fight to end violence against women. While you were saying that, I was thinking about a member's statement that was read into the Alberta legislature on March 14 of this year by Donna Kennedy-Glans, MLA for Calgary-Varsity. She was a member of Canada's United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and she was speaking about the importance of engaging men and boys in leadership, a position that you have taken, Minister, in this particular area.

I brought it with me, and I'd like to read it in, because a lot of what she says, I think, is really important. I'm just going to read it. Again this is not my personal statement. I'm reading another statement:

Last week I attended the 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women with my colleague from Barrhead—Morinville—Westlock. Our Canadian delegation was very capably led by federal Minister Rona Ambrose. The goal of this session was to identify ways to eliminate and prevent violence against women and girls.

As a mother of three sons it was particularly reassuring to me that the vast majority of the participants at this UN session recognized the need to engage men and boys in preventing violence against women and girls. In fact, this strategic imperative was concretely advanced by the Canadian delegation.

It’s heartening...to know that this approach is already being applied here in Alberta. [Here are just few examples.]

The Calgary YWCA hosts the Walk a Mile in Her Shoes campaign, inviting men to walk in high heels to raise awareness of men’s roles in combating violence against women. The Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters hosts Breakfast with the [Boys] events to bring male leaders together to inform and inspire action to help end domestic violence.

I’m [very] excited about an initiative launched by the B.C. Lions football team, [which] I’m hoping...will be adopted by the Calgary Stampeders and the Edmonton Eskimos. Football meets feminism when high-profile athletes

—I heard a giggle—

stand alongside women as allies.

I think that's really true, though.

Wally Buono, former coach of the Calgary Stampeders and [new] coach of the B.C. Lions, even steps up to share his own story of growing up in a home with domestic violence.

This is not part of the statement, but the next two points I really want to stress because they really drive home the need to engage men and boys.

These initiatives have the potential to be gamechangers. Too often we see gender equality as a women’s movement, dependent on male support and encouragement, yet it isn’t enough for my father, my husband, and now my sons to stand along the sidelines and root for me. They need to get in this game and participate.

I thought that was fitting, and I wanted to read it into the record today. I think the last two points this person made were very fitting as to why we need to bring men and boys into the equation now. So thank you for the good work we're doing in that area.

I wanted to touch very briefly on another point. You mentioned Bill S-2 in one of the first questions. You didn't refer to the bill by name, but you were talking about matrimonial property rights on reserves. I'm just wondering whether you could speak a moment on how important this bill is, how we currently have a legislative gap here in Canada that does not protect women on reserves, and how, in terms of marital breakdown, the fact that there is such inequality right now plays a large part in domestic violence in those particular areas. I'm wondering if you could touch a little bit more on that particular issue.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Now the Liberals are calling for us to build new prisons, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if they know what they want.

The fact is that our prison systems are working to help aboriginal women. We are a leader. Correctional Service of Canada is a leader in terms of the services we are providing for aboriginal women who are serving sentences.

We need to look at the whole issue of why women are getting involved and becoming criminals. I think they are in a vulnerable stage. When the opposition is not supporting Bill S-2, which empowers women on reserve, it is not helping aboriginal women.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has stood for aboriginal victims and victims across this country in an unprecedented manner.

However, if that member and that party want to protect women on reserve, they need to support Bill S-2, which would empower women and let them have the matrimonial rights they are entitled to. It would empower them when they were at risk for violence.

On this side of the House, we actually act to protect women. We do not just talk about it.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of aboriginal women in this country are at a disadvantage when going through a divorce because they do not have the rights to real matrimonial property. Our government is correcting this situation with Bill S-2, which will not only give matrimonial property rights to women living on reserve but will also allow judges to enforce emergency protection orders in situations of family violence.

Shockingly, the opposition is not supporting this basic right for aboriginal women. They are putting political posturing ahead of these rights, rights that every other Canadian woman enjoys. This is shameful.

Our Conservative government will continue to stand up for the rights of aboriginal women. On this side of the House we do not just talk about supporting women: we take real action to make a real difference in the lives of women and to empower them during the most difficult situations, those of divorce or separation.

I call on all of the opposition to stop only talking about helping women and to actually do something by supporting Bill S-2.

Opposition Motion--Missing Aboriginal Women

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

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition truly wants to stand up for aboriginal women, the very first thing they should do is support our legislation, Bill S-2, to protect the rights of women and children on reserve. It is shocking that the opposition continues to oppose matrimonial property rights. For more than 25 years, first nation women have been without the legal remedies that are available to other Canadians. Our government is deeply concerned about missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. That is why I am asking the opposition to support our efforts to stand up for first nation women and children on reserves and give them the same matrimonial rights that we have off reserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first reiterate my earlier statement that I do support the motion.

We have provided great support for projects to help eliminate violence against women and girls. Our government is addressing the large number of missing and murdered aboriginal women. The strategy's wide scope includes improving and better integrating law enforcement and police tools that will help to solve cases and track missing persons, and to support better victims' services and awareness programs for aboriginal communities.

Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, commended these actions, saying:

—what we need is more government action of this breadth and initiatives that address all aspects of the issue, from prevention and prosecution to victim support. These are the kinds of initiatives that have the most impact and that we can all support.

Our government also remains steadfast in moving forward its legislation to give aboriginal women equal property rights. Our government continues to strive to pass Bill S-2, legislation that the parties opposite have consistently opposed. If the opposition is so concerned about protecting the rights and safety of aboriginal women and children, they should join us and support this legislation.

The murder and abduction of women in this country is completely unacceptable. We will continue to move forward with a vigorous criminal justice agenda to address these issues. We encourage the opposition to support our efforts. Our government has taken several key steps to date. We have established the new National Centre for Missing Persons; improved law enforcement databases to investigate missing and murdered aboriginal women; created a national website to help identify and find missing persons; supported the development and adaptation of victims' services so they are culturally appropriate for aboriginal people; supported the development of school and community pilot projects aimed at reducing the vulnerability of young aboriginal women to violence; worked alongside aboriginal communities to develop community safety plans and developed a comprehensive list of best practices to help communities, law enforcement and justice partners in future work; and supported the development of public awareness materials to help end cycles of violence affecting aboriginal people.

All of these actions, plus many more, demonstrate that over the past seven years our Conservative government has been taking concrete steps to help all women in Canada. Through our government's actions we are striving to ensure that one day soon, violence against aboriginal women and girls, and all women and girls, is a thing of the past.

Opposition Motion—Missing Aboriginal Women

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the hon. member's preamble and her question, I think it is important at this point to turn to the language of the motion we are debating today.

This issue has been, by the acknowledgement of the Liberal member who brought it forward, a rather unfortunate part, statistic-wise, of Canada for 30 years, and maybe longer. However, the issue for the government of the day is to demonstrate that it is taking appropriate steps both on reserve and off reserve with respect to this issue and in providing the kind of support services that first nation women need at the time and could benefit from going forward.

I have been involved in my own community with program support for the de-escalation of violence. It is something that citizens of the great city of Kenora were involved in, including first nations, and raised consciousness and awareness.

To the extent that we are having this debate today, we are taking another step forward in raising the prominence of this issue by way of the motion, which says that the issue has been around for 30 years. I would agree with that and say that it is very unfortunate.

When it comes to Bill S-2, obviously we want to look comprehensively at all the instruments available and not just in law, but also in terms of policy measures and the steps that we need to take to get there to address and end violence against aboriginal women.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this will give me a moment to respond to any sense across the way that Bill S-2 is a part of this debate. There will be a number of speeches by members on this throughout the day. Indeed, there have already been some. We need to talk about the fundamental elements that are involved in the protection of aboriginal women and children and the steps that we need to take as members of Parliament to end violence against them. I mentioned earlier that as a nurse, I had a ringside seat to some very unfortunate situations on reserve in particular.

With respect to Bill S-2, it is unacceptable as a starting point for this debate that people living on reserve are deprived of their rights and protections because of where they live. Shelters, while another essential element of the issue and one on which I could deliver a whole speech on how they fit into this debate, are only a temporary solution.

We need to look at the platform from which a strong and principled policy can and will evolve for a host of essential elements with respect to ending violence against aboriginal women, their children and families.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could the Paliamentary Secretary further expound on Bill S-2 and the importance of giving an opportunity to women on reserve to have property rights, because that seems to be an impetus for moving forward on this? I would like him to explain that a little further.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my “neighbour's” question, if I could speak in nomenclature of neighbourhoods and the great northwest Ontario. I appreciate as well my colleague commitment to these kinds of issues in the first nation communities he has in his own riding right next door.

With respect to the Indian Act, Bill S-2 would address an issue that the Indian Act is silent on. We know that we will be debating, probably in the not too distant future, some important first steps to deal with the provisions in the Indian Act, for example, removing any reference to the Indian residential school, a dark legacy of our country that we have taken great strides to move forward from.

As well, for the purposes of this debate, the emphasis or priority ought to be on the welfare of first nation women and children living on reserve. Oftentimes they are already identified as being more vulnerable than the average Canadian. Therefore, we want to focus on the communities and certainly the towns and cities close to first nation communities, or important places where they might go for one reason or another. Enhanced preventative approaches will lead to increased flexibility, including for service providers to implement culturally appropriate and sensitive programs and protection services, which would help improve outcomes for children, youth and their families.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is just one part of the actions the government has taken.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada takes the issue of violence against aboriginal women very seriously. We will continue to work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and first nation people, their leaders and other stakeholders to develop effective and appropriate solutions. We continue to work to renew the family violence prevention program and policy authorities for April 1, 2013, and we consider minimizing the disruption to shelter services a key priority, as an example.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has focused a lot of attention on Bill S-2. Here I think it is important to recognize that the minister's own representative noted a very important issue:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures.... 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 government has not provided any additional resources to help first nation governments to build the capacity needed to address the underlying issues and to meet the new obligations under the bill, including allowing their citizens to have access to the legal system and to develop new community-specific laws regarding matrimonial real property.

Given that the member wants to debate Bill S-2, would he comment on this particular issue?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling.

These are foundational pieces that raise consciousness around a host of structural elements to address the broader issue that is being debated here today. As someone who has spent a professional lifetime dealing with these kinds of matters directly or indirectly, I take the position that this piece of legislation, to which I have devoted a couple of minutes, relates to this issue more directly than perhaps the member opposite feels.

However, I will continue by saying this.

Bill S-2 is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. It is clear that this bill has been strengthened by consultation to facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area.

I believe it is our duty to adopt Bill S-2 and finally put in place a legislative solution that is long overdue. I urge the opposition parties to support us in expediting its passage.

When speaking to the committee during its review of Bill S-2, Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal People, stated:

The bill 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. That has been happening for far too long in Canada.

Given the legislative gap that exists, we do not want to be involved in a process that would make these particular folks we are discussing any more vulnerable than they may be. National Chief Lavallée recognized that Bill S-2 was ultimately about preventing abuse and discrimination, and violence against aboriginal women and children. Her words are informed by her knowledge and the often harsh realities of day-to-day life faced by some residents in first nation communities and across Canada.

I would like to highlight the testimony of two other witnesses at the Standing Committee on Human Rights, including Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, a child advocate, who said:

—the bill is a promising step to protect victims of domestic violence on-reserve and permits some form of asset division when relationships break down.

The following excerpt is from the testimony of Rolanda Manitowabi, a first nation woman living on reserve:

If this bill were in place, I think there would have been an option. If you are in a situation where there is domestic violence or abusive behaviour, you have no choices. When I was thrown out of my home, I had no place to go. That was my home. To this day, I continue to pay for that home. If this bill were in place, it would have given me an option or some place to go.

For more than 25 years, residents of most first nation communities have had to live with this legislative gap. For most Canadians, provincial laws exist to protect matrimonial real property rights and interests. Residents of most first nation communities, however, have no such protections. The family of an abusive spouse has no legal recourse if forced out of their family home. I believe Bill S-2 provides a solution.

That is a fundamental part of this debate and the actions that we will be taking in moving forward. We will continue to support and develop effective and appropriate solutions to end violence against aboriginal women and children. If the parties opposite also want to support aboriginal women and children, I hope they will stand with us and support measures like Bill S-2 so we can take those important steps against violence against aboriginal women.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today on behalf of the constituents of the great Kenora riding and to have the opportunity to speak to this motion brought forward by the hon. member for St. Paul's on the matter of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

This is a matter that should concern all members in the House. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and a member of Parliament for the great Kenora riding, which includes over 40 first nations communities, many of which I have had the opportunity to work in as a nurse, and thereafter in my capacity as legal counsel specializing in areas such as health and wellness, I can say that this is an important issue. It is one that affects me, personally, and my constituents very deeply.

The government has been taking significant, concrete steps to ensure that women, children and families on reserve have access to the services they need to protect their safety and security since 2006. The Prime Minister also reiterated our commitment to addressing problems of violence against women and girls in the June 3, 2011 Speech from the Throne. More importantly, we introduced legislation for the fourth time, in 2011, to provide fairer treatment of marital property on reserve upon the dissolution of a marriage so that women living on reserve would have the same matrimonial property rights held by all other women living in Canada.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the steps we have taken to support aboriginal women, girls and families through the programs and services delivered through the department, such as the family violence prevention program at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the first nation child and family services program, the first nation on-reserve housing program, economic security and prosperity, as well as education.

We know that many first nations communities continue to experience family violence that threatens the ability to safely raise a family.

Ensuring that shelter services and violence prevention programming are available to on-reserve communities is an important element of addressing these serious security concerns. That is why economic action plan 2012 invested significant funds to the ongoing delivery of these important services for aboriginal women and children.

We currently support a network of over 40 shelters serving aboriginal women and children living on reserve across Canada, including five new shelters in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. These shelters are funded through the family violence program. In addition to the 41 shelters, this program funds proposal-based family violence prevention projects, which I might add have had some measurable success in communities throughout the great Kenora riding. They include counselling, public awareness, education campaigns, workshops and community needs assessments. It also reimburses some provincial and territorial costs for services provided to women, children and families considered ordinarily resident on reserve, who are accessing shelters off reserve.

We believe that the best way to address the problem of violence for aboriginal women and children is through prevention. Prevention programs and services in first nation communities must be responsive to the specific needs of the first nation member at that time. We believe that our investments in these shelters and our prevention-based approach help contribute to the enhanced safety and security of on-reserve residents, particularly aboriginal women and children.

Aboriginal Affairs also works with first nations, the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence, the provinces and the territories, and other government departments, such as the Department of Justice and Status of Women Canada to coordinate family violence prevention programming. We will continue to support these programs and services because they make a real difference, a tangible difference, to the lives of aboriginal women and children who through unfortunate circumstances need them. We will continue to do this important work with our partners to ensure adequate support for the shelters and the workers providing these services.

Our government has also introduced a new, enhanced prevention-focused approach for the delivery of first nations child and family services. This new prevention-based approach will give more flexibility to the service providers to implement culturally appropriate prevention programs and protection services, such as kinship care, that are helping improve the safety and well-being of aboriginal children and their families.

These measures mean that government funding can now be used for kinship care, post-adoption subsidies and supports to better ensure permanent placements for children.

Not surprisingly, this new approach was immediately welcomed by child and family service providers, since it allows them to make programming choices for first nations children, youth and families living on reserve.

Through this approach, the Government of Canada works with ready and willing partners on a province-by-province basis. This approach is now being implemented to benefit first nations families and children on reserve across Canada.

Early indications from across the country show an increase in families accessing prevention-focused services. We have seen a rise in permanent placements of children and an increase in the use of kinship care. Clearly, these programs and investments are helping make life more safe and secure for women and children on reserve. We will continue to work in partnership with provinces to implement the enhanced prevention-focused approach to improve outcomes for first nation children and their families.

Finally, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of passing into law Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, in order to protect the rights of women and children living on reserve. More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling on two cases: Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul. In both cases, the court ruled that the legal protections provided in provincial family law for the rights relating to real property and real property interests of spouses do not apply to people living on reserve. Since the Indian Act was silent on this issue and there were no comparable federal laws, the result is a legislative gap.

As a result, in the event of a relationship breakdown or in the death of a spouse or common-law partner, people living on reserve currently have no basic legal rights and protections when it comes to the possession of the family home or any other matrimonial real property interests or rights. Spouses do not have an equal entitlement to occupy the family home until such time as they cease to be spouses and they do not have the option of applying to the courts for emergency protection orders in situations of domestic violence.

While laws are in place to protect Canadians who live off reserve, there is no equivalent for most Canadians who live on reserves in this country. Women and children living on first nation reserve lands are already among the most vulnerable of Canadians. They have been directly affected by this legislative gap and will continue to be until a legal regime is put in place to protect them.

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling sparked a dialogue and an increased effort to identify, develop and implement an effective solution. Over the years, a number of respected institutions, both in Canada and abroad, completed studies and analyses of relevant issues. The overwhelming conclusion of these reports was that legislation is the only effective course of action.

Bill S-2 would provide rights to matrimonial real property on reserve, the family home and, more important, would ensure that people living on the reserve have the same rights and protections as other Canadians. All Canadians should expect fairness, equity and protection of their rights under the law when it comes to matrimonial real property, regardless of where they live in Canada. The bill would finally eliminate a long-standing legislative gap that discriminates against a specific group of Canadians and has led to the suffering of many women, men and families who live on reserve.

Our government believes that this legislation is long overdue. For more than 25 years, women living on-reserve have been without access to the same basic legal rights or protections that are currently available to all other Canadian women.

This is the fourth time that we have introduced this bill since we came to government in 2006. Our government first introduced the proposed legislation in 2008, and then subsequently in 2009 and again in 2010.

However, in each case, the opposition opposed this legislation and the bill died on the order paper.

Each delay in its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on-reserve, particularly for aboriginal women and children.

If the opposition truly takes the protection and safety of aboriginal women and children seriously, the very first thing they should do is support our legislation to protect the rights of women and children on-reserve. It is absolutely shameful that the opposition continues to oppose Bill S-2 on matrimonial property rights.

I want to acknowledge that there have been some other efforts to address the issues around matrimonial real property. For example, the First Nations Land Management Act requires first nations to develop laws related to matrimonial rights and interests as part of their land codes. However, while these solutions have helped those now fully operational under the first nations land management regime, Bill S-2 would ensure that all people living on first nation reserve lands have access to matrimonial real property rights on reserve.

In 2006, our government announced a national consultation process to find a solution to this legislative gap. It was conducted in collaboration with first nation partners and in total 103 consultation sessions were held at 76 different sites across Canada. Hundreds of people participated and expressed a wide range of opinions. To prepare a report and make recommendations for a legislative solution, the government also engaged a ministerial representative to report back to the minister. There was clear consensus emerging from these consultations on key elements of a legislative solution. These elements have been part of all of the legislation introduced in Parliament.

The following elements are in this two-part solution, which is both practical and sensible. First, the bill would provide first nations with the ability to develop and implement their own laws to protect the matrimonial real property rights and interests of members in their community. These laws could be based on the community's customs and traditions. The content of the laws are entirely up to the members and the first nation government, and must be approved by a community ratification process. There is no oversight role considered for the federal government.

Second, a provisional federal regime would apply once the bill was in force until such time as a first nation develops its own law. I want to emphasize the point that these provisional rules only apply to a first nation unless or until it enacts its own matrimonial real property laws under the legislation. This would ensure that laws exists to protect the rights and interests of all Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada.

Parliamentary committees have also reviewed this bill and have considered the testimony of a long list of witnesses and proposed a series of improvements—

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, is trying to change the subject today by talking about Bill S-2.

Is my colleague from Yukon aware that most major aboriginal organizations in Canada and many first nations groups have spoken out against Bill S-2? Does he know why? In fact, I have an answer that ties in with today's debate. First nations need to be consulted and involved in any processes that concern them.

Perhaps my colleague can tell us how this was done in the case of the motion before us today.

Business of the House

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

Yes, I have a plan, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, we will continue today's NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we should finish the second reading debate on Bill C-52, Fair Rail Freight Service Act. Then, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

Before question period on Monday and Tuesday, the House will debate third reading of Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. After question period those days, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-51, Safer Witnesses Act.

On Wednesday, we will debate second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I do not expect that this bill, which responds to views of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, would need a lot of House time. I hope we can deal with it quickly. We could then turn to report stage and possible third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Next Thursday shall be the fourth allotted day, which I understand will see the Liberals choosing our topic of debate.

On Friday, we will resume any unfinished debates on the bills we just mentioned, or we could also consider dealing with any of the many bills dealing with aboriginal issues. That being raised as a concern, we have Bill S-2 dealing with matrimonial property; we have another bill dealing with safe water for first nations; and we have another bill dealing with fair elections for first nations. On all of these bills we would welcome the support of the official opposition. We have not had that to date, but if we do, we can deal with them very quickly on that day. I would be delighted to do that. I will await with interest the response from the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, this government is showing leadership in taking concrete action on this tragic issue. Unlike the opposition, who are against bills like Bill S-2 to protect aboriginal women from violence, as part of our $25 million investment over five years into our missing and murdered aboriginal women's strategy, we have taken a number of measures: implemented recommendations from the January 2012 report; established a national centre for missing persons; enhanced law enforcement; supported pilot projects to reduce vulnerability; supported victim services that are culturally appropriate; and developed a comprehensive list of best practices.

We are working—

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I did reference four previous studies over a period of time that identified a number of recommendations and that has been quite a problem. Those recommendations, as I pointed out in my speech, have actually not been implemented. They have not been listened to and the first nations women who were part of previous testimony have commented about how they are not feeling listened to and that their recommendations are not being heard.

I referenced those four reports. What was concluded was that if the government had actually listened to the consultations it would not implement Bill S-2, this incarnation of the legislation, because of a lack of financial resources to support first nation governments, a lack of funding for lawyers, a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts and a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give spouses separate homes on reserve.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciated the speech from the member for Manicouagan and his direct experience with the first nations' life and living conditions. It adds a lot to this debate.

I also want to take time to acknowledge our critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has done excellent work in the past and also adds a lot to this debate and this discussion.

Today we are talking here about Bill S-2, an act concerning matrimonial real property on first nations reserve lands. It makes changes to the Indian Act to allow for provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserves due to the jurisdictional divide, wherein provinces and territories have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the provinces, and the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” under section 91.24.

The Indian Act does not provide for a division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nations jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada. This has led to major legal cases, such as Derrickson v. Derrickson, 1986, and Paul v. Paul, also 1986, which were dismissed by provincial courts because the provincial laws cannot apply to lands on an Indian reserve. Thus, there is this legislative gap.

Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008, and the NDP has opposed every time it has come forward for debate.

There have been five parliamentary studies that have been conducted on MRP: A Hard Bed to Lie In by the Senate in 2003; Still Waiting by the Senate in 2004; Arm-in-Arm by the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee in 2005; the report by the status of women committee in 2006; and a ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John in 2006.

I just want to mention the latter, which stated that no consensus has been found regarding legislation that could apply to MRP. Among other things, it recommended that concurrent jurisdictional models be used where first nation law was paramount and that the government needed to identify the real costs of implementing provincial legislation on reserves.

All previous bills, and now Bill S-2, neglect almost all of the recommendations made by all of the aforementioned reports.

The Conservatives are trying to say that the recommendations from the 2006 ministerial report by Wendy Grant-John are being implemented, but that is absolutely not the case.

There is no question that this issue needs to be addressed. However, the Conservatives are trying to pass a law that appears to be in favour of first nations women's rights while ignoring the voices of first nations women themselves. They are fast-tracking legislation without addressing all the relevant non-legislative problems that first nations women and families have identified.

The Conservatives are not interested in a fulsome discussion of the bill or any first nations issues. They want to hastily enact a bad law just so they can say they have done something.

The problem requires a comprehensive response led by first nations. This approach must address family support services; more on-reserve housing and shelters; police support services; building first nations capacity to resolve disputes; solutions to land management issues; and resolutions of matters relating to citizenship, residency and Indian status.

Bill S-2 is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a complex problem that was brought about by the Indian Act.

The Assembly of First Nations facilitated a dialogue, which identified three broad principles that are key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. I will identify those: recognition of first nation jurisdiction; access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and finally, addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security.

Based on these principles, I would like to take a closer look at two important themes that underpin the position of the New Democrats on Bill S-2: the absence of meaningful consultation with first nations; and the need to address the non-legislative problems surrounding the issue of matrimonial property rights.

I will turn to what others had to say on this in elaborating on meaningful consultation and non-legislative problems.

Ellen Gabriel, the former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association and AFN grand chief candidate, 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 requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples.

This is a growing trend of the Conservatives thrusting legislation upon Canadians without first consulting.

For example, the fisheries and oceans committee studied several clauses of Bill C-45, including a clause relating to the definition of what constituted an aboriginal fishery. There was an absence of consultation with first nations. It was only a one-way dialogue.

I will offer another quote from Stuart Wuttke from the Assembly of First Nations. He said at the fisheries and oceans committee:

—we feel if there's consultation and accommodation with respect to first nation interests, there may be a balanced approach. We would definitely prefer that, and we would recommend that consultation and accommodation take place in order to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future.

Consultation allows a legislative to find a balanced approach that serves the best interests of all stakeholders and to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future. For example, if the government had properly consulted on Bill C-38, it probably would not have found itself making so many amendments now in bill C-45.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory, consultation requires consent. While Canada has conducted limited consultation, no consent was given by rights holders. Therefore, if we endorse Bill S-2, we will be in violation of article 32 of the UNDRIP, which ensures free, prior and informed consent of any matter relating to the lands or welfare of the rights holders.

I will further add what other first nation women are saying. The Native Women's Association of Canada says:

NWAC is being told by its members that the MRP legislation is too prescriptive and does not adequately support Indigenous legal systems. As well, no financial resources will be allotted to support First Nations Governments to actually implement the legislation, if it were to get passed.

The NWAC testified at the Senate hearings on Bill S-2 and said the following:

—our women and population and constituents have repeatedly told us 12 months is not a sufficient transition period if this bill were to go ahead. First Nations are dealing with governments that are already overloaded with many socio-economic issues.

We are looking at a longer-term plan: two years, five years and ten years. Those are the types of plans that need to be developed in cooperation with First Nations, not government designing it and having patchwork input from First Nations. You will have a holey quilt, if you will. Too many resources will also be spent, and it will not be a satisfactory result for anyone.

We would rather take the time, do it right and stop pushing ahead in a rush to have a quick resolution that might not be a good one for anyone.

The image of a holey quilt is a good one and identifies the need for co-operation with first nations that the government should have.

About Bill S-4, which was a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, Pam Palmater, a professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson, said:

The Minister also said that Aboriginal women are in need of “immediate protection”. If the Minister actually listened to the voices of Aboriginal women, he would have heard that Aboriginal women do not want Bill S-4 as it is currently drafted. He would also have heard that what they do want is gender equality addressed in all of Canada's legislative initiatives....

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Senate amendments to Bill S-4 , changes were also made to the bill before it was introduced as Bill S-2. These changes encourage and assist first nations in developing their own laws. The verification process, including the role of the verification officer, has been removed. First nations are still required to ensure voters are informed of the first nations proposed law and when and where the vote will take place. The ratification threshold for first nations matrimonial real property laws has been lowered to a single majority with a set participation rate of at least 25% of all eligible voters. The lower threshold will help first nations approve their own laws and a 12 month transition period before the federal provisional rules come into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my view, they are trying to deflect attention from the critical need for this legislation to address the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves. 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 someone should have a broader discussion on the concept of inherent rights.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill S-2 offers a recourse to a spouse or common-law partner and his or her children who have been kicked out of the family home. The individual should not continue to be denied basic rights that people living off reserve take for granted. This is why we need to pass this legislation without further delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would ensure that individuals living on reserves have similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as those available anywhere in Canada. That is the same benefits that we have here in the House and outside of the House. We have benefits and rights but women on reserve do not have rights.

Some of the benefits that Bill S-2 would provide are: safety for children and their caregivers in instances of family violence; 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 in the community; the equitable distribution of matrimonial real property assets; and that is just to name a few.

The legislative gap that Bill S-2 would fill has hurt families and entire communities. Moving forward with Bill S-2 to provide individuals living on reserve--

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for London North Centre, the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, for her remarks and for moving this important legislation.

I, too, support Bill S-2, not simply because I am on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women and not because I am a woman, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

There are a number of reasons why I support it, two of which are as follows. First, the proposed legislation would eliminate the inequity that is currently on reserves that causes so much hardship to the women who are currently within our first nations communities.

Second, it would support first nations that wish to develop and implement community-specific matrimonial real property laws on their own reserve lands.

Those are just some of the reasons why I personally support it. I am wondering what the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women feels would be the important benefits of Bill S-2 to first nations women.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of Bill S-2. Many witnesses testified, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

An excerpt of his testimony in November 2011 reads:

The time has come to solve this issue once and for all. We all agree the status quo is not acceptable. It has not been acceptable for 25 years, yet here we are. Without legislation, the legislative gap continues to impact individuals negatively. Most of these individuals are women and children—already among the most vulnerable of all Canadians—and no court can help them.

This statement neatly summarizes why I believe we must lend our support to Bill S-2. We already have more than 25 years' worth of research, analysis, consultation and engagement. I cannot imagine how more consultation would deepen our understanding of the essential issues or influence the positions taken by various stakeholders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This legislation proposes to fill a legislative void that has harmed women, men, children and families living on reserves for far too long. Bill S-2 would provide individuals living on reserves the similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as other Canadians living off reserve. Recognizing the diversity of first nations, it would empower communities to develop their own culturally-specific matrimonial real property laws.

The proposed legislation is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. It builds on previous attempts to enact similar legislation and was substantially altered before its introduction in Parliament to further strengthen the bill and facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area. Bill S-2 would provide an opportunity to finally put in place a legislative solution to a very real problem. Each delay in its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on reserves.

I now move:

That this question be now put.

The House resumed from November 1 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have experienced some disruptions yesterday and today as a result of efforts by the Liberal Party to disrupt our agenda. I was puzzled as to why it was happening right now at this time. However, a news story just broke, which gave me some insight into it, where the young member for Papineau said that:

Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work....

When he was asked if Canada would be better served if Quebeckers were in charge rather than Albertans, he said:

I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so.... Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country--Canada--it belongs to us.

Obviously, the Liberals do not want to see the Conservatives governing, advancing our agenda or advancing our budgetary agenda. Therefore, I think that answers the NDP House leader's question as to why we are facing these delays right now in the House. However, we will carry on, Albertans and all, and the rest of the country, with Conservatives from coast to coast in this government trying to advance the agenda that Canadians believe in.

We will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, this afternoon. Tomorrow we will conclude report stage of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, and third reading will take place on Tuesday. We will start second reading debate of Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, on Monday and the debate will continue on Wednesday.

The finance committee is working very hard to go through Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act. I commend them for their efforts. Our budget implementation legislation contains important measures, such as extending the hiring credit for small businesses, expanding tax relief for investment and clean energy, helping Canadians save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans and improving the registered disability savings plan.

However, I do confess that it does not include the NDP's carbon tax or its proposal for a 1% GST increase. Perhaps that is why its members are opposing it. In any event, we hope to start report stage consideration of Bill C-45 on Thursday, if at some point the Liberals give up on their disruptive delay objective and agree to allow someone other than the member for Papineau to have some say in running the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-8 concerning the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Essentially, the bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the supply of drinking water, water quality standards and the elimination of wastewater in first nations communities.

It also stipulates that these regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations concerning drinking water and wastewater in first nations communities. Access to drinking water is crucial to the health and safety of all Canadians, including the 500,000 people spread out among approximately 560 first nations.

Access to drinking water is also closely tied to the economic viability of various communities. For the past 10 years or more, studies have shown that many first nations communities do not have adequate access to safe drinking water. On September 30, 2012, 116 first nations communities across Canada were subject to an advisory regarding the quality of their drinking water.

In April 2011, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development estimated that 1,880 aboriginal households did not have running water and that 1,777 households did not have sewage services. In total, 807 water systems serve 560 first nations. It is estimated that a quarter of the water systems in first nations communities present a potential risk for the health and safety of the consumers.

I would like to speak briefly about the sharing of responsibilities in the area of water management. On first nations reserves south of the 60th parallel, the responsibility to guarantee the safety of drinking water is shared among first nations communities and the federal government. The chief and council are responsible for the planning and development of facilities that meet the needs of the community, especially in the supply of drinking water.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides funding for the supply of water and its associated infrastructure, in particular for the construction, modernization, operation and maintenance of water treatment facilities on reserve. The department also provides financial support for training purposes and for the issuance of facility operator certificates.

In this debate, it is important to stress that the crux of the problem has to do with under-investment by the federal government. According to a 2011 independent evaluation on water and sewage systems in first nations communities, $1.08 billion would be required to bring existing water and sewage systems in compliance with federal guidelines and protocols, and provincial standards and regulations.

It will also be necessary to put about $79.8 million into work that is not related to construction, such as training operators and preparing plans for protecting water sources and emergency response plans. In total, it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to guarantee that the first nations communities’ water and wastewater system needs are met. That one-time investment of $4.7 billion is in addition to the regular operating and maintenance budget, estimated at $420 million a year.

When we consider the extent of the need, it is easy to understand that the Conservative government’s recent investments amount to only a drop in the ocean. We also have to understand that access to drinking water involves investing in infrastructure, but also funding the science and the regulation.

Drinking water has to be stringently managed and regularly analyzed to ensure that it is safe and to protect public health. The provinces have put legislation and regulations in place to secure their drinking water distribution systems, but those do not apply on reserves.

Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that drinking water quality monitoring programs are in place and has to collaborate with the provinces and territories to make recommendations about drinking water quality in Canada.

Environment Canada is responsible for developing standards, guidelines and protocols for wastewater systems located on federal or aboriginal land, as defined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

These same departments, which are responsible for conducting water management studies based on rigorous scientific standards, are engaging in mass layoffs of dozens of scientists because of the Conservative government’s budget cuts.

It must be noted that over 1,500 federal government professionals and scientists represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada were informed this week that their positions will be affected by the government’s irresponsible budget cuts.

Two thousand professionals represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, including 100 at health Canada, received a work force adjustment notice when the 2012 federal budget was tabled.

As well, in the Public Service Alliance, it is estimated that 1,200 unionized positions will be affected by the cuts at Health Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In short, the Conservative government’s budget cuts could reduce oversight.

In 2005, however, the Auditor General of Canada said that in most first nations communities, drinking water was analyzed less often than required under the recommendations for drinking water quality in Canada.

Why does the Conservative government want to set us back 10 years by making cuts to science and oversight?

In March 2012, I had the opportunity to participate in the showing of Wapikoni mobile in Boisbriand. This is an excellent travelling audiovisual creation project that criss-crosses aboriginal communities in Quebec to give young people an opportunity to tell their stories on film and in music. It is an excellent project, and one that has unfortunately been cut by the Conservative government.

In short, the NDP recognizes that the water supply systems are jeopardizing the health and welfare of the first nations.

But we also find it unacceptable that Bill S-2 proposes only to transfer responsibility for water supply systems to the first nations without giving them the resources they need in order to acquire adequate systems that meet their needs.

Like most first nations organizations that have spoken to this, and I am thinking in particular of the Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the nations that have signed Treaty 7 in Alberta—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. I am going to start differently than I planned because I want to respond to something that both the minister and the parliamentary secretary addressed in their speeches or their questions.

I want to start with a quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 18 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decisionmaking institutions.

Article 19 says:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

It was interesting to hear people describe the consultation process as engagement. It is an interesting twist of words, because when we talk about full, prior and informed consent, I am sure that many nations would argue that engagement does not equal full, prior and informed consent. I want to turn for a moment to some comments about the engagement or so-called consultation process.

The Safe Drinking Water Foundation, in a position statement it issued on April 14, 2009, talked about this engagement process. It said that few first nations voices were heard at the engagement sessions, but enough were present that INAC was able to claim that they were engaged. It said that many first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta did not receive their engagement session invitation packages in sufficient time for people to attend the sessions. For example, George Gordon First Nation received its package on January 25 at noon when the engagement session was taking place the following day in Saskatoon, three hours away. Of course, we know what winter road conditions can be like in Canada at that time of year, so it adds an additional stress.

In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Foundation said that civil servants dominated conversations in each discussion group, offered incomplete and inaccurate information and failed to relay first nations' concerns to the larger audience. The INAC official report omitted all of that.

Consultation is all in the eye of the beholder. There are some guidelines that first nations have proposed in terms of what meaningful consultation would look like. I have been hearing from people who do not feel this process fulfilled that responsibility to consult.

I want to turn to the legislative summary of the safe drinking water first nations act that was put out by the Parliamentary Library so that people understand what it is we are talking about today. In the legislative summary it says:

The bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in First Nations communities...the bill also establishes that federal regulations developed in this regard may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water in First Nations communities.

It goes on to say:

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve First Nations communities is critical to the health and safety of the communities’ residents. Access to safe, clean, potable water is also closely tied to the economic viability of individual communities. For more than a decade, research has indicated that many First Nations communities lack adequate access to safe drinking water. A 2001–2002 assessment found that the quality of almost three quarters of drinking water systems in First Nations’ communities were at significant risk.

I know some of those numbers have changed since then and I will talk about the waste water and drinking water assessments that the government commissioned.

Later on in the legislative summary it indicated some key challenges. It says:

In addition to the absence of a regulatory framework and the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities...core issues relating to the provision of safe drinking water on reserves include the high costs of equipment for, and construction and maintenance of, facilities in remote locations; infrastructure that is either obsolete, entirely absent or of low quality; limited local capacity and ability to retain qualified or certified operators; and the lack of resources to properly fund water and waste water system operation and maintenance.

All of us in the House would agree that there are significant challenges on first nation reserves about access to safe quality drinking water and to the functioning of the waste water treatment systems.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there is the St'át'imc reserve which butts up against the municipality of Nanaimo. We literally have a reserve that is in an urban area and there has just recently been an agreement to allow the extension of the water system, but the reserve has been there for decades.

The ability of the residents to engage in economic development on their recognized traditional lands has been hampered by the fact that they do not have access to clean water. In fact, on one of the reserves they are trekking in water. This is a reserve right beside the city of Nanaimo. We are not talking about some remote reserve hundreds of miles away that is accessible by air only, or ice road, or sealift.

Therefore, this is not just a rural and remote community problem. There are reserves close to urban areas that do not have the infrastructure to not only supply safe drinking water, but to enable them to engage in the economy in a more meaningful way.

Back in 2005, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development also highlighted the problem of drinking water for first nation communities. I want to touch on a couple of points here.

The report noted that when it came to the safety of drinking water:

—residents of First Nations communities do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of people who live off reserves.

It goes on to say that:

Despite the hundreds of millions in federal funds invested, a significant proportion of drinking water systems in first nation communities continue to deliver drinking water whose quality or safety is at risk. Although access to drinking water has improved, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems is still deficient. Moreover, to a significant extent, the success of the First Nations Water Management Strategy depends on INAC and Health Canada addressing the management weaknesses we have noted.

The report talks about a number of management weaknesses between the departments. It goes on to say:

The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented. Given that most First Nations communities have fewer than 500 residents, and that providing drinking water has become more complex, the development of institutions that can provide ongoing technical support is critical to a continuing supply of safe drinking water for these communities.

In part, many first nation communities have relied on tribal councils to help them with technical advice and organizational administration. In the last round of budget cuts, we saw tribal councils had their funding cut. That is going to significantly impact on some of these smaller communities' ability to deal with some of these very complex issues.

The report, “Drinking Water on First Nations Communities” also highlighted some challenges . It is important to state this because it is a very complex problem. It says about location:

Many First Nations are located on the Canadian Shield, or other difficult terrain, making it technically difficult and costly to provide water services. Some reserves are isolated and can be accessed by roads only in winter; some have limited access to electricity or other forms of energy. Water sources are often located off reserves, and it is difficult for First Nations to protect them.

Interestingly, on the difficulty of protecting water, we have just seen a number of waterways no longer included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Many of those waterways on first nation reserves are no longer protected. Did the department do an analysis of what this change in the Navigable Waters Protection Act would have in the context of this legislation? I understand from a briefing from government officials that it has not been done.

It is a very important question. If first nations cannot protect their waters by whatever means available to them, one questions how they would improve the quality of the drinking water.

Other challenges include accountability. The report says:

Federal departments set requirements that make First Nations responsible for providing day-to-day drinking water. It is not clear who is ultimately accountable for the safety of drinking water.

Costs and financing...It is difficult to find and retain operators.

Technical standards. It is not clear which standards are applicable. Provincial guidelines and regulations on drinking water are to be applied except when less stringent than federal standards.

The population growth on reserves has been noted in report after report. This report says that:

On-reserve population is estimated to increase by 230,000 people between 2004 and 2021. It is difficult to estimate population growth and economic development in each community to plan water systems that can meet drinking water needs for 10 to 20 years.

It is a very challenging environment that we are operating in.

In the Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, there was a number of matters that it highlighted.

First, it states:

Pursuing “laws of general application” is too uncertain

If it could be established that provincial laws of general application applied to Indian reserves, legal frameworks would be instantly in place and a great deal of consultative and Parliamentary process avoided. However, in the view of legal counsel to the panel, applying provincial drinking water and wastewater law as a law of general application is “fraught with such uncertainty that it is neither a viable nor effective option.”

We know that provincial laws differ from province to province so there will be a very uneven level of water quality standards from province to province, depending on which province the first nation resides.

It report says that before there is any legislation that there are preconditions that must be in place before legislation moves forward. The first is, “Provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. It says:

The federal government must close the resource gap

First, and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements. While it is tempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment of comparable facilities on reserve....If funding were supplemented to cover only the costs of a regulatory regime, the gap would continue.

We therefore see it as a precondition to moving forward on any of the viable options that the federal government must finally close the resource gap. It must provide, over a reasonable period, the funding needed to ensure that the quality of First Nations water and wastewater is at least as good as that in similar communities and that systems are properly run and maintained.

That is a precondition.

It also goes on to say that discussion with first nations is essential. It says:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court arises “when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.”

As the minister pointed out, it indicates in the preamble that it will work with first nations, but nowhere is that working relationship defined. Because of the ongoing mistrust with the government, that relationship needs to be clearly spelled out about how first nations will be consulted, not just engaged, in the development of these regulations, as we saw from other consultative processes.

I spoke this morning to Bill S-2 about the so-called consultative process that was conducted with matrimonial real property. Wendy Grant-John tabled a very thorough report and many of the critical recommendations were disregarded when Bill S-2 was brought forward. Therefore, not only must the consultation process be outlined and resources attached to it, but there must be a commitment that when that consultation process is completed, the recommendations that come forward be actually incorporated into the regulations.

Finally, one of the other preconditions was, “Deal with high-risk communities immediately”. It says:

—any of the options would take time – probably several years – to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems but...often from individual wells or other water sources.

It talks about the fact that we cannot just wait for the regulations to be developed or legislation to move forward. Rather we have to actually deal with the high-risk systems.

I want to touch briefly on the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems. As I indicated earlier, in early 2000 a significant number of wastewater systems and water quality systems were at risk. That number has come down. I will give the government credit to the extent to which it has invested money over the years, so the numbers have reduced, but we know it has not been enough.

To provide a couple of really important numbers on this, nationally 571 of the 587 first nations, 97%, participated in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems study. That is important.

It says that “12 First Nations have no active infrastructure on reserve lands, in some cases [this was] as a result of recent or ongoing land claim settlements”.

Under the heading “Individual Systems”, the document states that “[a]n assessment was completed for approximately 5% of the individual well and septic systems”. Some of these numbers are still staggering. It goes on to say:

36% of the individual wells sampled did not meet the requirements of the GCDWQ for a health related parameter (i.e. arsenic, barium, bacteriological, etc.) and 75% did not meet the GCDWQ for an aesthetic parameter (i.e. hardness, sodium, iron, manganese, etc.). Approximately 47% of the septic systems assessed had operational concerns identified, which were usually attributed to limited maintenance (not pumping out septic tank regularly), leaching beds installed in inappropriate soils and age....

It then states, “A risk assessment has been completed for each water and wastewater system according to the INAC Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines”. Overall, of the 807 water systems inspected, 39% were categorized as high overall risk, 34% were categorized as medium overall risk and 27% were categorized as low overall risk. Therefore, 73% of the systems have some level of risk.

There have been some improvements. We know the number of boil-water advisories has decreased. However, there are still significant problems with the water systems.

That leads me to a comment that I made earlier around the need to invest in the capacity for these water systems for first nations. Later on in the report, it did indicate:

Small water systems are generally found to have a higher risk rating than larger water systems. In many cases, these small facilities were not designed to meet current protocols and do not have the same level of resources available for operation as larger systems. In addition, the overall risk of a system appears to increase with remoteness.

Of the high risk systems, 150 systems serving 16% of the on-reserve population are flagged as high risk as a result of a bacteriological exceedance.

Of the 532 waste water systems inspected, 14% were categorized as high overall risk and 51% were categorized as medium overall risk. Again, what we are seeing is that there continues to be significant risk attached to both the water quality and to the waste water systems.

The report also made an estimate about what was required to upgrade to meet the protocol. The report said, “The total estimated construction cost to meet protocol is $1.08 billion”. That is a lot of money. However, we are talking about people's health and safety. It says:

[These] requirements...are considered to be related to health and safety, providing minimum levels of treatment, providing firm capacity, standby power and best management practices.

Members can see that the scope and the magnitude of the problem are very serious.

Groundwater is an important source and in a paper that was put forward by Sarah Morales, a submission to Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, she pointed out that it is estimated that 750,000 people in British Columbia, and this is not just first nations, rely on groundwater as their drinking source. She said that protection of this drinking water source had become a major issue in British Columbia where the aquifers, underground sources of water, and so on, were at risk. She also said that the bacteriological contamination of private domestic wells was an issue across the province.

Members can see how important it is for whatever regulation or legislation we put in place to be effective in terms of dealing with water quality. It is also important that first nations have the resources they require to construct and maintain, and to train their operators, and that there is a meaningful consultation in the development of these regulations.

Based on what we have before us, unless there is some serious amendment to this piece of legislation, New Democrats will not be able to support it.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the speeches by my colleagues here in the House. I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-2 regarding family real property on reserves.

From a technical point of view, the bill provides that a first nations community is authorized to adopt legislation “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 provisional federal rules set out in the bill would apply until a first nations group brings their own laws into force.

I acknowledge that the bill is well intentioned: it is meant to fill a legal vacuum in the field of matrimonial law and to grant equal property rights to both spouses in the event of their separation. However, we know what the Conservatives are like. They conducted consultations just to be seen to be doing something; they ignored many serious studies into the matter and they ended up introducing a defective bill that has been rejected by the main first nations spokespersons.

Earlier in the day in this debate, we heard a Conservative member put a price on the consultations. She told us how much the consultations had cost. However, the Conservatives retained hardly any of the recommendations that were made during the consultations, so they were obviously only a facade. It is an enormous mess as only the Conservatives can create.

Before going into greater detail about the reasons why we oppose the bill, I would like to tell the people who are listening to us about the problem we are facing.

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 both at 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 our aboriginal sisters who bear the costs of this legal vacuum. As Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said so clearly, “the lack of a matrimonial property law regime is a denial of women's equality.”

Bob Watts of the Assembly of First Nations spoke about the problem that this poses for women. He said:

While the lack of a legal regime to govern the disposition of matrimonial real property on reserve is a serious human rights issue that must be addressed, this legislative gap merely represents the tip of a much greater iceberg. The legislative gap in matrimonial real property rights on reserve lands is exacerbated by chronic housing shortages that exist on most reserves and difficulties in securing financing to purchase or construct alternative housing on reserve upon marital breakdown, in part due to the restrictions in the Indian Act against mortgaging reserve lands. These factors play an equal if not greater role in imposing hardship on first nation families, and in particular on women and children, who are often forced to relocate to off-reserve locations upon marital breakdown, particularly if domestic violence was a factor contributing to the breakdown in marriage.

Most stakeholders who expressed their opinions in the various forums agree that the status quo is no longer an option. Yet, Bill S-2 does not meet the needs of the first nations, who are speaking out against the lack of consultation, the lack of recognition of the first nations' inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial law, and the need to improve access to the justice system and to alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.

In May 2009, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations published a joint statement to make known their opposition to the bill. The statement pertained to Bill C-8, Bill S-2's predecessor. However, in the end, nothing has really changed. I would like to cite an excerpt from that statement:

NWAC and the AFN (including the AFN Women’s Council), all agree that [the bill] ...will do nothing to solve the problems associated with Matrimonial Real Property (MRP) on-reserve; that the federal government failed in its duty to consult and accommodate the views of first nations; and, as a result, the bill is fatally flawed and cannot be fixed. It should not proceed to committee.

I believe that their point of view is fairly clear. Even though this is the fourth version of this bill and many studies were conducted in this regard, aboriginal people and legal experts who are interested in this issue are concerned that the Conservative government is trying to ram this bill through.

Pam Palmater, who teaches aboriginal law at Ryerson University, has criticized the government's haste: [Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada] appears to be rushing this legislation through the process by introducing multiple bills in the House and the Senate at the same time. This does not allow sufficient time for most first nation communities to become informed or to determine how best to advocate on their own behalf. It is therefore critical that this committee see the issue in its broader context and why first nations are making their right to be consulted such a priority in their submissions before you.

I would also like to remind members that, according to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada has agreed to honour, consultation implies the consent of the people consulted. This point is very important. Although Canada did undertake limited consultations, no consent was given by aboriginal representatives. I would like to emphasize this point. In our opinion, if Bill S-2 is passed without the consent of the principal parties, we will be violating article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires the free, prior and informed consent of the rights holders.

Aboriginal women in particular have spoken out against Bill S-2. They believe that it will only force families to resort to the provincial court. That is not a solution because it is too expensive for many families. Seeking remedies in provincial court, when accessible, can place another financial burden on members of first nations who divorce. The fact is that the bill could create additional obstacles for members of first nations who seek justice, and it will not provide effective recourse for people seeking compensation.

The Conservative members on the other side of the House may claim that they defend women's rights but, as we know, aboriginal women have already condemned this bill. I urge my Conservative colleagues to listen to those who are truly concerned and who will be affected by this bill.

The president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, Beverley Jacobs, is very worried. She believes that:

[The Conservatives' bill] will put women who are experiencing family violence at further risk by forcing them to wait long periods for justice without adequate social supports, services or shelters.

Need I remind the House that, according to Statistics Canada, 35% of aboriginal women have been victims of violence, and first nations women suffer three times as much violence as non-aboriginal women and are overrepresented among homicide victims? Those are very alarming statistics. I would note that the Native Women’s Association of Canada estimates that 510 aboriginal girls and women have disappeared or been murdered since 1980, and this is far too many.

I find the lack of political will on the part of the Liberals and Conservatives, when it comes to the housing problem facing the first nations, particularly egregious. We have to understand that the shortage of decent, affordable housing on reserves is closely tied to the division of property on divorce.

At present, because of a legal vacuum, women have no rights when their marriage breaks down. That means they have no choice but to leave their home. There is no vacant, healthy housing on the reserves. As a result, some women are forced to leave their reserve.

Like the first nations, we will again be opposing this bill. In fact, we will not support any legislation concerning matrimonial real property unless it is accompanied by non-legislative solutions to put an end to violence against aboriginal women, addresses the housing crisis on reserves and ends the systematic discrimination in funding for first nations children.

In closing, I would like to tell the House about recommendations made by the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. I hope my Conservative colleagues will listen to these recommendations.

A report entitled “Walking Arm-In-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property” was published in 2005.

It made five recommendations. It recommended that the NWAC and the AFN be consulted on developing new legislation or amending the Indian Act; that financial aid be provided to first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes; that any new legislation not apply to first nations that had developed their own code; that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to apply to individuals living on reserves; and that Canada recognize the first nations’ inherent right of self-government.

Clearly, the Conservatives did not listen to those recommendations and their consultations were a mere passing fancy. That is how the Conservatives do things: they introduce bills on which there has been no consultation whatsoever of the people affected by the measures in the bill.

I will be very happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today.

Earlier, when the minister introduced the legislation, we suggested that it would be nice if, as the critic for the Liberal Party said, the minister would have the bill go to the aboriginal committee. Obviously, the minster decided against that.

Further, in a question for a member from the New Democratic Party I asked about the benefits of taking the issue outside of Ottawa and having it go into different communities.

I think what we need to acknowledge right at the very beginning is that when the legislation passes the impact will be quite significant.

With respect to the importance of first nation issues, on a number of occasions I have had the opportunity to stand to speak to many of those issues and how important it is that our first nation communities feel they are directly involved. Many, including me, would suggest that they should be playing a leadership role in the development of the legislation. I am not convinced that the government has done a good job in terms of going into our first nation communities and working in good faith with those communities.

When we talk about respecting and working with first nations, the government, in this particular case, has failed to meet that marker and as a result I believe that the legislation has some fundamental flaws in it.

The government has decided to move forward with the legislation and, as has been pointed out by the Liberal Party critic, has made the decision that, after second reading here in the House, the bill would not go to the aboriginal standing committee but to the status of women standing committee.

I think this is interesting. There was a study brought to that particular committee with respect to women and young girls and the issue of social and economic well-being, and the suggestion was that aboriginal women should be incorporated and taken into consideration. It was actually the Liberal Party's seniors critic from York West, who ultimately, through a minority report, said that the status of women committee did not do the study justice, at least in part, in not recognizing the importance of the needs of aboriginal women. Now we have the minister responsible saying that when the bill passes, it is going to that committee.

From my perspective, we have nothing against the fine work the members do at that particular committee. However, I do believe, as the critic for the Liberal Party talked about in her speech, that it is not the most appropriate committee for the bill to go to. The most appropriate committee is the aboriginal standing committee.

We say that because we want to ensure that all the interested stakeholders, and there are good number of stakeholders, have the ability to come forward, provide witnesses and comment on the bill. We ultimately believe that the aboriginal affairs committee is the best committee to ensure that we are doing the best job we can.

Further, we would suggest that if the government were genuine in its beliefs and recognized the importance of our first nations, it would recognize that given the very nature of this legislation there is merit in taking those committee meetings outside of Ottawa. Many, including me, would suggest that having that committee go into provinces such as Manitoba and others, where I know there would be a great deal of interest in being able to present and attend these committee hearings, would be of great value. It would show that the government is prepared to work with our first nation communities.

I think the worst thing we can do, and it appears to be the direction we are going, is to say that we know best. Yes, there has been some work done. I have heard a recital of the history of the bill, where it has come from and why it is here before us today. However, I do not believe we have seen the type of engagement with our first nations communities that would empower them to provide good, strong leadership so that there would be more universal support for this important legislation.

Going into these rural communities would be of great value for us because I think the legislation could be improved upon. Ultimately, it would have that much more credibility if in fact it did reach out into the communities.

I mentioned Manitoba, but I suspect it could go into a number of different provinces. Obviously I have a bias for the province of Manitoba because I believe there is a huge amount of interest there on this particular issue. That is the reason I am calling upon not only the minister responsible but also the Prime Minister to recognize the importance of this issue.

As I pointed out, the issue goes beyond splitting up assets and so forth, to the manner in which we treat first nation issues here in the House. That is why I would suggest the Prime Minister would do well to recognize that and to see Bill S-2 as a piece of legislation that could go a long way to assist in that sense of cooperation and empowerment, by at the very least taking the committee and going into these different provinces.

I would ask that the Prime Minister and the minister responsible take the Liberal Party up on the suggestion that they have the committee meetings outside of Ottawa.

Over the last few decades we have seen first-hand how laws and norms in society have changed significantly in regard to family breakups. For the most part, one will find that it has been very progressive in its changes and in ensuring there is a sense of fairness. Whenever there is a family breakup, the turmoil that is caused has a huge financial impact on everyone having to endure that breakup. It also has a significant impact, both emotionally and socially, in terms of everything from living conditions to friends who are gained or in most cases lost.

It is the lead-up to a family breakup that ultimately causes a great deal of harm. In many situations, and this is a point that really has not been emphasized this morning, because of uncertainly, quite often family situations remain intact because of the threat of the unknown or what is going to happen with the house or living conditions. That is, if people were to leave a relationship, what would be the ramifications of that decision?

That tells me there is a need to provide clarity and for us to look at ways in which we can improve the situation. If we were to work with the first nations and the leadership within first nations, we would find they too have answers and solutions to many of the problems that are caused within family units when a family unit has to break up. We have to be sensitive to the differences, for instance, between reserve property versus property that is outside the reserve.

From a personal point of view, we have to ensure that women and children are protected to the nth degree when it comes to family breakups. All members of the House support taking measures that ultimately ensure there is a sense of fairness and that ensure people are out of abusive relationships. There is a sense of equality, but there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I would suggest that the government has missed the mark on it. Therefore, I know the Liberal Party is not going to support the bill, for a number of reasons. The government has not been able to get the type of support for the legislation that one would have expected it to get, in particular from first nations.

The other point I want to pick up on is the issue of government policies and the types of things government does or does not do that have a significant impact on the family unit. Over the years, I have experienced different types of government policies and their impact. When sufficient resources are not provided for housing, that will have an impact. If we do not provide or encourage sufficient economic development in certain areas, it does have an impact on the family unit. We have to ask what impact government policy is having on keeping families together with regard to the types of policies we develop and programs we provide. Are they helping or are they hurting? Whether it is keeping a family together, or in the case where a family does break up, to what degree is the government supporting families that have to break up?

I would suggest that the government can do more. One of the more common issues I have had to deal with in the past is an excellent example, and it is the issue of gaming and the profound impact it has had on the province of Manitoba. When gaming first came to Manitoba, which was one of the first provinces to get into the whole gaming industry, the province was totally amazed at the amount of revenue it started to generate.

Through that revenue, it seemed to get a lot of public support. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and the government was more than happy to take in that money. However, what the government did not recognize was the negative impact of gaming policy. The reason I use “gaming policy” is because this is 100% government policy. When we talk about government policy and the way it impacts people in a real and tangible way, this is a great example. The government gets addicted to the revenues but fails to recognize the social costs.

I had the opportunity to be the critic for lotteries in the province of Manitoba many years ago. We would hear of cases which would ultimately involve families breaking up. We would have people becoming addicted to gaming. As opposed to providing food for their families, they would spend their money in the LT machines. We had young children in the parking lots of large casinos and the parents were inside the casinos spending money. The social costs involve everything from suicides, to breaking up of families to individuals ending up in jail because they steal in order to feed their addiction. One might ask how that relates to this particular bill. I suggest that we would have a lot more family unity if there were a more progressive way of looking at government policy and how that policy affects our communities.

The aboriginal community, in this situation, has been profoundly affected. I have had the opportunity to gain first-hand experience of how that policy has ultimately led to family breakup. I see governments taking action in what would appear to be an arbitrary fashion, taking it upon themselves because we have not seen the leadership coming from our first nations. We know the first nations want to be engaged, but we do not see the government seeking that engagement. The first nations leadership, even though I am sure it would welcome some of the issues this bill would deal with being resolved, is equally concerned about some of those other issues. That is why there is great value in having more of those stakeholders involved. It is not just one focus.

This legislation is focused purely on the breaking up of families and how the government is prepared to assist in that. It fails to recognize there are other things the government could be doing that would assist families, whether keeping them together or allowing them to break up. At the end of the day, I am hopeful the Conservatives will recognize that the government has a strong role to play in both situations. This particular piece of legislation does not have the type of support that is necessary to go to committee because the Conservatives do not have support from our aboriginal community. Unfortunately, because they have a majority, I believe the bill will ultimately get to committee, and even though it is the wrong committee, we ask that the Conservatives seriously consider going into the communities so they can hear about the family breakups and some of the government policies that ultimately contribute to that.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Halifax for a speech that was well said, and as usual, she is bang on.

Bill S-2 is an act concerning matrimonial real property on first nations reserve land. It makes changes to the Indian Act to allow for provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of matrimonial breakdown or on the death of a spouse or common-law partner. While the intention of this act is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of separation, the bill cannot be implemented for many important reasons enumerated by first nations stakeholders. Parliament has heard these serious concerns again and again. The Conservatives have ignored these concerns in the drafting of Bill S-2. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically and practically problematic and ignores their inherent rights and sovereignty.

The federal Conservatives went to the trouble of consulting with first nations and the Native Women's Association 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 legislative attempts, it still refuses to recognize first nations' inherent rights and jurisdictions in this matter.

The Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations both demand better legislation because the consequence of passing inadequate legislation is so dire. New Democrats oppose this bill along with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and many nations and experts across the country. Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of similar legislation that the Conservatives have tried to pass since 2008. The NDP has opposed these every time they come up for debate.

The Assembly of First Nations facilitated dialogue and found three broad principles are key to addressing matrimonial rights and interests on reserves. One is the recognition of first nation jurisdiction; two is the access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and three is addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security. Bill S-2 does not deal in a meaningful way with these three key principles.

There are two kinds of property: real and personal. Real property includes lands and things permanently attached to the land, such as a house. Personal property includes things that can be moved, such as furniture and money. Bill S-2 deals with matrimonial real property on reserves, property shared between spouses in a conjugal relationship or between common-law partners. There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserve due to a jurisdictional divide between provinces and territories, which have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the provinces, and the federal government, which has jurisdiction to legislate Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

The Indian Act does not provide for the division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nations jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada. This has led to major legal cases, which were dismissed by provincial courts because the provincial law cannot apply to lands on Indian reserves. Thus, a legislative gap was identified. Five different parliamentary studies have been conducted on MRP.

In 2003, “A Hard Bed to Lie In” identified the legislative gap and the fact that women have no rights in marriage breakdowns and that resulted in the fact that they have no choice but to leave their homes. It recommended that provincial civil law be applied on reserve.

In 2004, “Still Waiting” highlighted the need for precipitous action on MRP and recommended that issues be referred to Aboriginal Affairs and that consultation be conducted in a timely manner. It identified the lack of clarity for the rights of women on reserves as a human rights issue that was incurring reprimand from the UN.

“Walking Arm in Arm”, in 2005, was the first study to consult the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations, among other first nation stakeholders. Among its recommendations were, one, that the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations be consulted in order to draft legislation or amendments; two, that funds be provided to help first nations draft their own MPR codes; three, that legislation should not apply to first nations that draft their own codes; four, that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to apply on reserves; and five, it stressed that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations inherent right of self-governance.

The Status of Women report, 2006, identified the barriers to the solutions proposed by MPR legislation, including insufficient funding to implement it, chronic housing shortages on reserves and lack of high-level consultation. Again, the need for consultation and funding was a recommendation.

In her ministerial representative report in 2006, Wendy Grant-John stated that no consensus had been found regarding legislation that could apply to MPR. The report recommended, among other things, that the current jurisdictional model be used where first nations law was paramount and that the government needed to identify the real costs of implementing provincial legislation on reserves.

All the previous bills, and now Bill S-2, neglect almost all of the recommendations made by all of those reports.

In this version of the bill, a first nations own matrimonial real property law would have a lower ratification threshold. In the past bill, a majority of band members had to vote in favour of the law, 50% plus one. Now the law must be approved by a simple majority of those who have voted, with set participation of at least 25% of eligible voters.

The bill would introduce a 12-month transition period. This period would be too short to deal with many issues that need to be addressed, such as lack of housing and lack of funding to access provincial courts and lawyers.

This version of the bill would eliminate the requirements for a verification officer to approve first nations own laws on matrimonial real property.

First nations with pre-existing processes would have to re-ratify those processes, if this legislation passes, and notify the minister and the provincial attorney.

Laws based on consensus or other traditional processes would not be accepted. This goes against the treaty and inherent rights.

After hearings in the Senate, the bill was amended to extend the period of time for which an exclusive occupancy order could be made to over 90 days.

Bill S-2 is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a complex problem brought about by the Indian Act. While there are obvious gender discrimination problems, the MPR on reserves bill, Bill S-2, would not be possible to implement because of lack of financial resources to support first nations government to actually implement the law, lack of funding for lawyers, lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts and lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserves.

According to a 2001 press release from the Native Women's Association of Canada, the problem requires a comprehensive response led by first nations and the federal government. This approach must address family support services, more on-reserve housing and shelters, police support services, building first nations capacity to resolve disputes, solutions to land management issues and resolving of matters relating to citizenship, residency and Indian status.

According to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory, consultation requires consent. While Canada has conducted limited consultation, no consent was given by rights holders. Therefore, if we enforced Bill S-2, we would be violating article 32 of the UN declaration, which ensures free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands and the welfare of rights holders.

Finally, New Democrats will not support any MRP legislation that is not accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems, including ending violence against aboriginal women, addressing the housing crisis on reserves and ending the systematic funding discrimination against first nation children.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her excellent speech.

She also gave an interesting overview of the situation and of what is presented in Bill S-2. She pointed out that the government did not listen at the consultations and did not pay attention to the recommendations in some of the reports tabled in the House.

I also think she touched on a very interesting point, which is that the first nations currently receive inadequate funding.

I would like to hear my colleague speak more about the fact that we should have listened to aboriginal women's groups on this subject, and that we should have examined other important issues for the first nations, such as providing adequate funding but also scrapping the Indian Act.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will proudly be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I have been listening to the debate this morning, starting off with the Minister for Status of Women, who kicked it off. My analysis of what I have heard so far is that the minister and the Conservative members of the House, who stood to speak to the bill, are being paternalistic. Members may wonder how that can be as they are women. It is still possible for women to be paternalistic. That is what we are hearing in the House.

The minister made a comment in one of her answers about the opposition saying that we should consult, consult, consult, that we have had enough with consultation and it was time for action. What does it mean if the government consults when it actually does not take those recommendations? Is that actually consultation? I do not think it is. It is bogus consultation to gather everybody in a room together, nod thoughtfully, with the appropriate tsks and yeses, and then totally ignore everything that was said.

The Conservatives have put together a bill that is not based on consultation. They stand here all sanctimonious saying that the opposition will not stand up for women, aboriginal women and first nations people. We are standing up for women. That is what I am doing right now. I am standing up for human rights in Canada. What the Conservatives did is not consultation. It is disrespectful and paternalistic.

The intention of the bill is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of separation. We know that same sex marriages are legal in Canada, that is something I am really proud of, but in the majority of cases we are talking about on reserve and, in this case, historically that is generally a man and a woman. What the bill tries to do is effect equal property rights distribution. However, we do not believe it can be implemented for lots reasons, many of which have been enumerated by first nations stakeholders.

Parliament has heard these concerns time and time again, but the Conservatives keep ignoring them. Imposing provincial legislation on first nations without their consent is ethically and practically problematic. It ignores their inherent rights and sovereignty.

If I were drafting a bill about matrimonial property rights on reserve, who would I consult? I would probably consult widely, but put a lot of weight on any testimony or any opinion that the Native Women's Association had, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.

The Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations both demand better legislation because the consequences of passing this legislation are so dire. Therefore, we oppose this bill, along with those two key groups and many experts across the country.

I mentioned that the Conservatives were ignoring that consultation. What exactly are they ignoring? The Assembly of First Nations facilitated a dialogue around matrimonial property rights and found the following three broad principles that would be key to addressing matrimonial property rights on reserve: first, recognition of first nations jurisdiction; second, access to justice, dispute resolution and remedies; and third, addressing underlying issues such as access to housing and economic security. That is what came out of the AFN-facilitated dialogue. Bill S-2 does not deal in a meaningful way with any of those issues.

What else do we know the Conservatives are ignoring? There is a 2004 Senate report called "Still Waiting”, which highlighted the need for action on matrimonial property rights. It also recommended that the issue be referred to the aboriginal affairs committee.

We have heard lots of folks in the House talk about the fact that this will go to the status of women committee and not the aboriginal affairs committee. There is another solid recommendation that has been ignored.

We also had an aboriginal affairs committee report in 2005 called “Walking Arm-in-Arm”. This was the first study to consult with the Native Women's Association and the AFN, along with other first nation stakeholders. That is a positive step.

These were their recommendations: first, that the Native Women's Association of Canada and Assembly of First Nations be consulted in order to draft legislation, or Indian Act amendments; second, provide funds to help first nations draft their own matrimonial property rights codes; third, legislation should not apply to first nations that draft their own codes; fourth, amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to apply on reserves; and fifth, stress that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations' inherent right of self-governance.

Not all of these recommendations are being taken into account in Bill S-2. That is what is being ignored. The bill is an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify what is really a complex problem that is brought about by the Indian Act.

I am not, contrary to the minister's accusation, saying to continue to consult and consult needlessly. I am saying that we should listen to the consultation, take the ideas that came from it and use them, because it would be impossible to implement Bill S-2. It looks nice on paper, but it would be impossible to implement because of a lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law. It would be impossible to implement because of a lack of funding for lawyers and legal advice. It would be impossible to implement because of a lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts. It would be impossible to implement the bill because of a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on the reserve.

What does it mean when it is printed on paper and is passed and enacted? What does it mean if we cannot realize these rights in first nations communities?

We have heard from a number of my colleagues, and I agree with them. The NDP will not support any changes to matrimonial property legislation that are not accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems. That would include ending violence against aboriginal women, addressing the housing crisis on reserves and ending systematic funding discrimination against first nation children. Those are the key things that need to be present if we are to look at the issue of matrimonial property rights.

I have stood in the House and listened to the debate. I have listened to the heckles from the sideline. I have listened to the member from Portage—Lisgar saying that we should be hanging our heads in shame over here. I have listened to her heckle from the other side saying that it is really important to recognize aboriginal rights and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for standing in the way of that. Well, if she will not listen to opposition members, if she refuses to do that, maybe at the very least she will listen to Ellen Gabriel, former president of the Quebec Native Women's Association and AFN grand chief candidate. 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 requires 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.

While no one will argue against the fact that solutions must be found on the issue of gender discrimination in regards to MRP or that we must work together to find ways to help First Nations communities to have access to safe drinking water. Sharing equal responsibility requires the means to effectively implement measures that do not create further burden upon communities; financial or otherwise.

Should Ms. Gabriel hang her head in shame? Should she be ashamed for refusing to acknowledge women's rights?

Maybe the Conservatives will listen to Dr. Pam Palmater, who is a practising lawyer and professor of aboriginal law at Ryerson and a member of the Mi'kmaq Nation on the east coast. She talked quite a bit in committee about why the legislation was bad, why it should not be brought forward and why it should not be passed. Should Dr. Palmater be hanging her head in shame for not standing up for first nation women's rights? I hardly think so.

If the Conservatives refuse to listen to the opposition on this, at the very least they should have the respect to listen to the men and women who testified at committee, who have spoken out loud and clear on this issue and who are the real experts about how this will play out in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House on behalf of my constituents of Kanesatake who have outwardly expressed their opposition to this. I have consulted with the band and spoken with Ellen Gabriel, a member of the band of Kanesatake, and can clearly and without reservation say that first nations do not agree with this legislation.

Bill S-2 makes changes to the Indian Act that will allow provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or a partner. While the intention of the act is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of a separation, the problem is that the bill cannot be implemented and that the government completely ignored any consultation when preparing the legislation. Otherwise, it would have known that the bill could not be implemented.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserve due to the jurisdictional divide between provinces and territories, who have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within provinces, and the federal government, which has a jurisdiction to legislate regarding “Indians and lands reserved for Indians”.

The Indian Act does not provide for the division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nation jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada in this area. This is a problem. However, anyone who is paying attention to the situation and issues facing first nations in Canada knows that it is the Indian Act that is flawed beyond repair.

New Democrats support the will of the Assembly of First Nations and the many individual nations that have explicitly called on the House to scrap the Indian Act of 1876. We need to begin anew. We need to do this through a broadly consultative process with equal partners. That is key. We need to understand that we are talking about equal partners in Confederation. That is the only way we are going to move forward out of this existing colonial structure.

We need to write laws for indigenous peoples that are not founded on colonialism and racism, like the Indian Act is. We need to do it while recognizing that first nations have an inherent right to their land and to govern themselves. That would be the way to move forward, through collaboration, consultation and in good faith. I believe that Canada can take effective steps toward de-colonialization of aboriginal peoples in this country. The Indian Act is not the road map toward de-colonialization; it is a template through which Canada colonized indigenous peoples in the first place.

The legislative gap surrounding matrimonial real property, MRP, is a problem created by the Indian act, which neglects to account for the division of property in the event of a matrimonial breakdown. It is a function of the Indian Act to place all reserve land and care for status Indians under the fiduciary responsibility of the Government of Canada. I do not think it is a matter of opinion at this point in history that Canada has not lived up to its responsibility and that it continues not to provide equality for first nations, as exemplified by the fact that first nations child welfare and schools continue to be grossly underfunded compared to non-first nations children by about 30%, according to the Auditor General.

When it comes to matrimonial real property, the obvious problem that arises from the jurisdictional gap created by the Indian Act is that an aboriginal woman is often not entitled to the lands or home she once shared with her spouse. Therefore, it would seem logical from a very shallow perspective, like the government has, that we should simply write a law that gives women on reserves the benefits of provincial matrimonial laws, thus neatly filling a legislative gap. However, this simply does not work in reality for the women living on reserve. First nations people do not own the land they are on. They cannot simply sell or divide the land in way that a non-first nations person can own, sell and divide land.

Even if the band council wanted to give a woman her own property on reserve, it would not be able to do so, as there is not enough land. We are seeing this problem in Kanesatake. The government is constantly causing problems and delays and changing the rules of the game while Kanesatake is trying to move forward. It is trying to have jurisdiction over its land for future generations. The government is not doing that for them; it is just continuing to cause problems.

We cannot talk about land without actually addressing the problem that first nations do not have jurisdiction over the land, or do not have the ability to control what is going on with their land, and cannot access the lands that are traditionally theirs.

As I was saying, the trouble with Bill S-2 is that, practically speaking, it is impossible to implement. Therefore, Bill S-2 has become an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a very complex problem caused by the Indian Act.

There are obvious gender discrimination problems with MRP on reserve, but the reason we cannot implement it is the lack of financial resources to support first nations governments actually implementing laws, including a lack of funding for lawyers. This is a problem, again, in Kanesatake. It is resulting in more and more debt whenever it has to defend its land from a mining company.

There is also a lack of funding to address first nations' limited geographic access to provincial courts. First nations, particularly aboriginal peoples living in remote areas, cannot necessarily easily access a provincial court, where they would have to go to defend MRP.

Moreover, there is a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserve. In a sense we would be doubling the amount of land needed for some people. The land just is not there. The housing is not there. There is the difficulty of getting more resources to maintain and build more homes on reserve, let alone the lack of space to put them on.

The government would know all of this if it actually took the trouble to consult and actually do the consultation required. By the way, consultation does not mean the government receiving a letter from first nations indicating what the latter want and then ignoring it. It means actually having a real discussion and coming to solutions together on equal footing.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, consultation requires consent. Canada has conducted limited consultation, but no consent was given. Therefore, Bill S-2 is in violation of UNDRIP, something to which we are a signatory, although it was difficult to get us on board. The Government of Canada, in all its previous forms and its current one, does not actually want to address meaningfully the problem of colonialism and racism toward first nations people. UNDRIP requires free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands and welfare of rights holders—not to mention the fact that we are basically continuing to ignore the Constitution Act, which states that first nations have jurisdiction over their own internal affairs.

Accordingly, New Democrats are not going to support this legislation. We need to have non-legislative remedies to problems that are occurring in the government's relations with first nations. We need to actually address violence against aboriginal women. What we have been doing up until now has not actually been addressing that. If the government were on the ground, if it had consulted, it would know this. If it had not ignored the testimony given at the status of women committee, it would know this.

We also need to address the housing crisis. We need to end the systematic underfunding that is perpetuating discrimination across generations.

The Conservatives just want to put a law on the books and say that they have solved the problem without actually dealing with the underlying problem. They continue to ignore first nations women's voices that are calling for us to have a meaningful discussion, to stop managing first nations like colonial subjects and to truly understand that they are partners in this confederation.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech on Bill S-2. This is an extremely important perspective that the House must be made aware of. We must take the time to listen to what members are saying in their remarks.

My colleague said something that is very interesting. Many recommendations were made and many studies were conducted in the parliamentary system, but almost none of those recommendations were included in the reports produced by the Senate and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The government is cutting back on its consultations with the groups involved and is not taking into account the recommendations made. Does my colleague believe that this is becoming too much of a habit for the government when introducing bills?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so insulting that the member is asking me such a question. Clearly, I am aware of the fact that there is discrimination among aboriginal people with regard to certain rights, particularly in the case of divorce. Everyone is aware of this and wants the problem to be resolved. But even representatives of aboriginal women are against this bill because consent was not obtained from the first nations.

The government held consultations, but it did not take into account the recommendations made by the first nations. Aboriginal people's self-governance is not being respected. Many lawyers are saying that this is not just a matter of discrimination but of giving first nations the resources they need to have decent living conditions.

We must tackle the problem of affordable housing and housing in general. We must tackle the problems of health and poverty. We must improve access to legal recourse. We must resolve the lack of basic justice. Bill S-2 is a complete botch-up that does not address any of these issues. It is very insulting that this government is not able to recognize that.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

As we have heard in a number of speeches delivered today, Canada's aboriginal women are in an extremely tough situation. Statistics show that, compared to the rest of the population, first nations women suffer more spousal violence and are at greater risk of living in poverty.

The many legal voids with respect to reserves leave aboriginal women even more vulnerable. In family law in non-aboriginal regions, when a married couple divorces, the division of family, real and personal property is determined by provincial legislation, which is not at all the case on the reserves, since they are under federal jurisdiction. In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the courts may not enforce provincial law on reserves. That decision by the highest court in the land confirmed the legal void, and many reports since then have emphasized the need to find a solution in the interests of first nations peoples.

A solution to this legal void is very urgently needed. Currently, aboriginal women who get separated or divorced lose everything. They have to leave the home and are often deprived of their children, and if their name does not appear on the title of ownership, judges cannot rule that they may keep the house or retain any part of their matrimonial property.

Where they are victims of family violence, the court cannot issue an order for exclusive possession of the family home or a restraining order, that is to say an order prohibiting the abusive spouse from approaching or communicating with his spouse. A number of protective mechanisms have been put in place over the years to protect women from spousal violence, but they cannot be enforced on reserves.

Note that, according to Statistics Canada, aboriginal women suffer violence three times more often than non-aboriginal women. It is therefore really necessary to take action, as everyone will agree.

In 2003, a Senate committee emphasized that measures previously taken by first nations to resolve this issue had to be acknowledged.

In 2005, a report by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development underscored the importance of acknowledging first nations' inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial real property and of authorizing aboriginal people to adopt their own regimes, which is not at all recognized in Bill S-2.

By virtue of the inherent right to self-determination acknowledged by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada has signed, the federal government must obtain the consent of aboriginal peoples before adopting legislation that will alter any matter directly affecting aboriginal lands. Unfortunately, as has been repeated many times today, this is not at all what Bill S-2 contains, any more than previous bills.

The opinion of the first nations, the main parties concerned here, has not been considered. They may have been consulted, but there has been no consent by the parties concerned, which means this bill is an affront to the principles of self-government and self-determination. What is the problem?

In 2006, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development held nationwide consultations on the issue of matrimonial property. The goal was to find a solution to the legal vacuum and to ensure that the rights of first nations women were taken into consideration, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was respected and that there was an acceptable balance between first nations individual and collective rights. The consultation process involved planning, consultation and consensus-building. The parties consulted did not reach a consensus, which means that, in introducing Bill S-2, neither the Senate nor the Conservative government is being respectful of aboriginal peoples. Both are imposing their way of thinking and their way of doing on the first nations.

The consultations also shed light on substantive problems, such as the lack of access to courts for those living far from major urban centres, the acute shortage of housing on reserve and the lack of financial resources to arrive at fair solutions in divorce cases.

The Senate bill provides no solution to any of these basic social issues. However, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development clearly recommended that financial assistance be granted to the first nations so that they could develop their own code for matrimonial real property and that any new piece of legislation would not apply to the first nations who had developed their own code.

It is worth reminding the government of the deplorable living conditions on the reserves. A study by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ranks the reserves 63rd among the nations of the world in terms of quality of life, that is, among the third world countries, according to the United Nations human development index.

According to Health Canada, 12% of first nations communities must boil their water before drinking it, and about one quarter of water systems on the reserves present a high risk for human health. Housing density is twice as high as it is among the general population. Nearly one in four adults lives in an overcrowded home. Approximately 423,000 people live in substandard and overcrowded housing that is deteriorating rapidly.

Since this government came to power, it has done absolutely nothing to address the lack of social housing. The United Nations have called on Canada to act on a number of occasions, but this government prefers to discredit the UN and its representatives. There is no point in passing a bill that cannot be implemented. Even if matrimonial property is divided up, where will the spouses who leave the family home go to live if there is a shortage of housing?

Here is a statement that clearly describes the misery experienced by aboriginal women:

An aboriginal woman committed suicide earlier this year after the authorities apprehended her children. The woman, who had five children, was forced to leave her reserve due to a chronic housing shortage. However, she could not find affordable housing off the reserve. Due to her financial situation she was forced to live in a rundown boarding house with her five children. She sought assistance from the authorities to find affordable housing for her and her children. The authorities responded by apprehending her children. At that point, the woman, sadly, lost all hope and took her life.

According to the Native Women's Association of Canada:

The bill will put women who are experiencing family violence at further risk by forcing them to wait long periods for justice without adequate social supports, services or shelters.

Bill S-2 has other major flaws. Its community approval process does not respect aboriginal traditions of consensus. Bill S-2 does not require a majority of people to participate in the vote; it only requires a participation rate of 25%. This is not very democratic, nor is it representative of all band members.

The bill constitutes a one-dimensional approach to a very complex problem. The chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, believes that Ottawa is acting unilaterally by introducing this bill, and that aboriginal peoples should solve the problem. Why is this government incapable of listening to and working with first nations? Instead of working with them to solve problems, it prefers to impose trusteeship on aboriginal governments, as it did in Attawapiskat. In 2012, this paternalistic approach should no longer be acceptable. This is not the colonial era.

The federal government must treat first nations with respect and recognize their right to self-government. Members of the official opposition believe that this bill should not be passed. This is a shoddy bill and it does not respect the rights of aboriginal peoples whatsoever. It should be replaced by another bill, ideally a good bill that addresses the lack of financial resources to help first nations governments apply the law, provides legal aid and better access to courts in remote areas, and provides financial assistance to build housing on reserves.

A western-style legal approach is not the only solution. In fact, first nations people have their own traditions when it comes to conflict resolution. A good bill should reinforce traditional aboriginal institutions. In order to find lasting solutions to social problems on reserve, aboriginal governments expect the federal government to recognize their right to self-determination. I would like to quote Ellen Gabriel, a former Quebec Native Women's Association president:

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 requires 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.

Some first nations have adopted a proactive approach and have worked with their communities to develop rules and policies related to matrimonial property. Bill S-2 flies in the face of the values of first nations and only does more harm to first nations families. We simply cannot support such a bill, because it completely disrespects Canada's aboriginal people.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing the list of organizations, aboriginal women and leaders who oppose Bill S-2.

This government is perpetuating a colonial and paternal relationship in which it wants to impose its own vision instead of respecting aboriginal women, instead of respecting the fact that they are the ones who must take the lead, and instead of respecting and focusing on the consultations.

We, and Canadians, I am sure, think that the government is being old-fashioned by trying to introduce a bill without consultation, when we know that aboriginal women and organizations are opposed to the way it is being presented.

We have moved on. They should move on with the rest of us.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that the government has lowered its standard of debate; although, I am not surprised because we see it everyday on that side of the House.

I take encouragement from the other side that Conservatives are looking at recommendations that have been made by parliamentary studies. I wish they would look at all of the recommendations made, which are ones that New Democrats have referenced as the reason we cannot support Bill S-2.

Let me be clear on the concept of consultation. This is not a new concept. It is a concept that is enshrined in our Constitution and our commitment to the UN declaration. It is absolutely shocking that the government wants to discount the commitments we have as Canadians. That is the very problematic point.

I would really love to hear from the government as to the full extent of the action plan it has to work with aboriginal women, so that they are not the most marginalized people in Canada and they do not face the levels of violence and poverty they are facing. Let us look at the bigger picture. Could the government answer why it has cut aboriginal women's organizations to the point that some of them do not exist? Perhaps it could spend its energy on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, both parties are indicating that they do not think Status of Women Canada should end up with this bill and that Aboriginal Affairs should. I have a report in my hand from 2006, which I would like to share. It is a report from the Standing Committee on Status of Women, which states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee reviewed matrimonial real property rights on reserves. Your committee heard evidence on this matter, the result of which is contained in this report.

This was one of the recommendations:

Whereas immediate solutions, not further study, are required to move this issue forward;

The member opposite indicated that aboriginal rights are not the same as everyone else's rights and that aboriginal women have rights too. We know that. That is what Bill S-2 is about. We are trying to give aboriginal women the same rights we have. I would like to ask the member opposite, will she give aboriginal women rights?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House as part of the official opposition to raise our position, which is very much founded on true consultation with partners, aboriginal women, aboriginal organizations and the voices in this country that are seeking real justice and real leadership from the federal government.

Today we are talking about Bill S-2, but as we know from what we have heard in this chamber, there is a lot involved in this debate and in the debate around standing up with aboriginal women in this country. I am amazed at how the federal government is making so much noise on the issue of the human rights of aboriginal women when, in fact, time and again, it has done nothing but let aboriginal women down.

We all know the painful history of colonialism and the kinds of situation that aboriginal people have lived with for centuries. We know this has left a mark on the kinds of lives that so many aboriginal people in Canada are living today.

As the MP for Churchill, I have the honour of representing 33 first nations. All of them have signed historic treaties with the Crown and all of them have seen the treaties and their treaty rights broken and disrespected by government after government, and that has certainly been a hallmark of the present federal government.

Some years ago, we had an apology from the Prime Minister that so many residential school survivors took very seriously. It was an apology that so many of us were proud of and that our former leader, Jack Layton, was very involved in shaping. However, after that apology, we saw a complete reversal of the very sentiment that the Prime Minister and Parliament shared with aboriginal men and women.

We saw massive cuts to organizations, some of which deal directly with the healing residential school survivors need. We saw organizations that deal with the intergenerational impacts of residential schools be cut by the current federal government.

I would like to point out that nowhere is the intergenerational impact of residential schools more evident than in the national tragedy of missing and murdered aboriginal women. It is chilling for every member of the House to know that we are part of a Parliament that could take action on this national tragedy. However, instead, we see a government that not only ignores the problem but actually cuts the very organizations that were there to support a solution.

The Native Women's Association of Canada put together a world-renowned initiative called Sisters In Spirit, which was cut two years ago.

The First Nations Statistical Institute, which gathered statistics on aboriginal women, was cut. It was done away with completely in the last budget.

The National Aboriginal Health Organization, which maintained a particular focus on the health of aboriginal women, was completely eradicated by the present federal government.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation offered state-of-the-art community-driven healing programs, many of them run by women who worked with female elders and women who live on the margins of their communities and societies. Every single one of those community-based programs was cut by the current federal government.

The Women's Health Research Network, a network of academic and grassroots women working in health and security, whether on the streets of Winnipeg or in communities in northern reserves across the country, was completely eliminated by the current federal government.

There are countless examples of organizations that deal particularly with aboriginal women to establish the kind of statistics we need to know the scope of the problem, not just in terms of murder, but in terms of violence, poverty and health challenges. They are gone. The programs are gone that gave services of healing, counselling and support for learning a language that has been beaten out of generations of aboriginal people. Programs are also gone—thanks to the federal government—that were there to support women, to engage them in research and to engage them in job opportunities, that allowed them to look at their own challenges and their own aboriginal communities.

When we hear that the federal government cares about the rights of aboriginal women, I say that is wrong, as we look at every single one of the Conservatives' actions including the fact that this weekend in Winnipeg there will be a national provincial-territorial symposium on aboriginal women known as NAWS. My question to Canadians is: I wonder if they know which level of government has refused to play any part. The answer is the federal government.

The past two historic gatherings of NAWS were recognized at the international level and were co-hosted by the federal Government of Canada. So little is its care for the status of aboriginal women in this country that, in an age where violence against aboriginal women has gripped people, has gripped the imaginations of so many Canadians like those in my home province of Manitoba, it is not even willing to co-host a discussion among levels of government and the grassroots to be able to come to a solution.

When Conservatives tell us about the equality and rights of aboriginal women, I would like to see their actions, and their actions have spoken for themselves. They are nowhere to be found and they are gutting the very foundations of a system where people have tried to come together and stand with aboriginal women for a better today and a better tomorrow.

That brings us to Bill S-2, a bill that I and my colleagues have clearly said we cannot support. It has fundamental problems. After decades of work to be able to establish a true partnership with first nations, whether it is recognizing the duty to consult, whether it is recognizing the government-to-government relationship and what the NDP wants to see as the nation-to-nation relationship, one would think the federal government would understand how important the duty to consult is, but it does not.

Bill S-2 is a bill we have seen in other forms, over five different parliamentary studies conducted on matrimonial property rights. As one Senate report found, women face real challenges when they have to leave their homes, and that is a point that we do not discount at all. It is a fact. I know it from the communities I represent. I hear it from the women with whom I have the honour of working.

However, the Senate in its conclusions made five key recommendations, and these are the recommendations that are fundamentally disregarded by Bill S-2: that the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations be consulted; that funds be provided to help first nations draft their own matrimonial rights property codes, something that first nations have indicated an interest in working on. Let us hear from those first nations. It recommended that legislation not be applicable to first nations that come up with their own code. One of the recommendations was that there be amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to apply on reserves. The Senate stressed that all recommendations be Canada's recognition of first nations inherent right to self-government. That reference to the inherent right is a critical one, because the federal government, through its disrespect of treaty rights and aboriginal inherent rights, has built a very dangerous kind of discourse when it comes to engaging Canadians.

The government makes it sound as though aboriginal peoples' rights are the same as everyone else's rights, but what it disregards is that aboriginal people, being the first people on this land, have what are called inherent rights and have treaty rights.

None of this is a hidden fact. People in my constituency know very well the writings of Tom Flanagan, one of the Prime Minister's former and maybe even current top advisors, who wrote a book entitled, First Nations? Second Thoughts, which is essentially focused on the concept of assimilation. Obviously, that is an unutterable notion to discuss in Canada in 2012, as it should be, because the concept of assimilation is not only racist but is a dark part of our history. We have moved on.

However, if we scratch the surface, the ugly head of that notion of assimilation appears and reappears in the current federal government's dealings with aboriginal people. That is a fundamental injustice to aboriginal people and to all Canadians, when we know that our nation was built on the idea of respecting that treaty relationship between first nations and the Crown.

In 2003, a legislative gap was identified that affects the rights and needs of first nations women. Nearly a decade later, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, Parliament has failed to solve the problem. As I noted, five separate parliamentary studies have consulted first nation organizations and women, and four bills have sought fit to ignore several of their most crucial recommendations.

Bill S-2 is no exception. That is why we stand opposed to the bill. Until the government understands that it requires aboriginal peoples' full consent to amend the Indian Act, New Democrats will continue to oppose this kind of legislation.

Let me point to some of the things that are problematic. Bill S-2 would address property shared between spouses, including common law partners. We have heard that it seeks to address gender discrimination. However, we note that the government has failed to do so in previous attempts across a broad range of areas with respect to aboriginal women.

Bill S-2 lowers the ratification threshold. It has a 12-month transition period, something we believe is too short a period to address issues. It eliminates the requirement for a verification officer to approve a first nation's own laws on matrimonial property rights.

Based on the kinds of agreements we have come to as Canadians, have we not learned that it is absolutely critical to consult with and allow first nations to decide how they want to address what they know is such a critical issue in their own communities?

First nations would have to re-ratify their pre-existing processes if Bill S-2 is passed. They would have to notify the minister and the provincial attorney general. The first nation's laws, based on consensus or traditional processes, would not be accepted. It is ridiculous.

Bill S-2 goes against treaty and inherent rights.

Finally, I want to note that consultation requires consent. It is quite clear the government does not understand that concept. It is not about having a meeting with a few people or getting a sense of what somebody says. It is about a true consultation process where the people who are consulted provide their consent to do that very same thing. That is nowhere to be found in the process leading up to shaping Bill S-2.

Bill S-2 connects to the Indian Act, which is firmly rooted in colonialism, racism and misogyny. According to principles of sovereignty and human rights, to negotiate such laws instead of redefining the relationship between Canada and first nations is the wrong path to take.

Inherent gender discrimination written into the Indian Act is responsible for the problems we now face with matrimonial real property. The worst thing we could do right now is to write new laws that commit the same mistakes as the old. We must not act paternalistically toward aboriginal woman. We are bound ethically and by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to incorporate not some but all of their recommendations. It is not a selective project.

Bill S-2 unfortunately fails to do that.

The Assembly of First Nations does not support it. The Native Women's Association of Canada does not support it. The majority of aboriginal women do not support it. We as New Democrats are listening to their voices and we stand in solidarity with them. We do not support it.

We do not claim to know what is best, but Bill S-2 is not only ethically problematic, it is also logistically impossible to implement for various reasons. Let us go into those reasons. It is all fine and well to talk about legislation, but I know many of the members across the way are familiar, in part because some of them represent first nations, with the very real challenges that first nations face.

There is a lack of financial resources to support first nation governments to implement law. Let me give an example on a slightly different note that truly indicates the lack of resources first nations have.

I was visiting Bunibonibee Cree Nation in northern Manitoba, also known as Oxford House, two weeks ago. It is a community that has struggled with young people living on the margins, young people who drop out of school and who engage in activities that involve violence and abuse. Leaders in that community want to provide ways for young people to live healthier lifestyles.

They wanted to apply for a grant offered by Public Safety Canada to get money for a recreation program for these young people. They heard about this grant quite late because they do not have enough staff in their office to be able to go through all of the messages and memos they receive from the office in Winnipeg. They do not have enough staff to fill out the application and the letter of intent.

After it was filled out, just because bad things sometimes happen in threes, there was a power outage in Oxford House, Gods River, Gods Lake Narrows and the Island Lake area. The storm that knocked the power out was so bad that the people from Manitoba Hydro could not come in and fix the power. For two and a half days, people were shut out of their offices, the two and a half days prior to when this application was due. A community that needs this grant more than so many others, and along with so many others, was unable to do the very basic task of submitting the application.

We can blame it on weather when it comes to the power outage, but we cannot discount the fact that the community has said time and time again that it does not have the resources to hire people who can help them get the kind of programming and support it needs.

There is a lack of funding for lawyers. There is a lack of funding regarding limited geographic access to provincial courts. I represent 22 isolated communities. Bands have barely enough money to make do, as I noted, with basic services, let alone travelling out to access lawyers and provincial courts.

Fundamentally I would like to end with perhaps the greatest injustice. If we really wanted to address the kinds of violent situations that aboriginal women face in terms of unsafe housing and the kind of marginalization that they face in their communities, we would talk about the lack of on-reserve housing and the land mass that exists today on first nations across this country.

These are third world conditions, conditions that day in and day out shape the lives of aboriginal women and provide immense challenges to their moving forward and to Canada moving forward.

I would ask that the government be genuine in its attempt to stand with aboriginal women, look at getting rid of Bill S-2 and truly make a difference for aboriginal women in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my question to the minister and again insist that the bill needs to go to the aboriginal affairs committee, not to the status of women committee.

Regarding the record of the status of women committee, including its recent study, “Improving Economic Prospects of Canadian Girls”, I would refer the members to the dissenting report of the Liberal Party, including the hon. member for York West. We were appalled that despite all of the evidence gathered from people such as Vivian O'Donnell and Susan Wallace, the committee refused to include any recommendations in the report, stating that it would exceed the mandate of the Minister for Status of Women. It thinks its mandate is the 40-year old written mandate for status of women committee, as though it were the responsibility of the current Minister for Status of Women.

It is clearly an issue, as my colleague from the NDP has said, for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Given the complexity of dealing with property and aboriginal rights, those can only be properly studied at the aboriginal affairs committee. I cannot repeat that strongly enough. It is totally inappropriate that this go to a committee not used to studying legislation, and which has, in its very last study, refused to deal with the issue of aboriginal girls and young women, stating that it is not the specific responsibility of that minister or her department.

The Liberal Party does not question the need for legislation to address the legal gaps and other problems surrounding family breakdown for first nations living on reserve.

Many national and international reports have called on Canada to address the legislative gap with regard to matrimonial real property on reserves, and a number of parliamentary committees have examined this issue.

However, the bill would not effectively deal with the problems associated with the division of matrimonial property on reserve and would fail to provide first nations with the tools to implement appropriate measures for families to resolve disputes safely and in a culturally appropriate way.

Bill S-2 would not improve gender equality for aboriginal women, as claimed by the Conservative government. Instead, it would create the potential for new open-ended interests for non-first nations individuals on reserve and would fail to address the root causes of family breakdown and domestic violence, namely the lack of housing, inadequate funding for child welfare and inadequate access to legal aid for aboriginal women.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that all legislation, or policies concerning aboriginal peoples, requires the government to work with, nor for, aboriginal peoples, as we promised to do in the original treaty relationship and as expressed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It commits Canada to uphold indigenous rights and ensure first nations enjoy the same quality of services and care as other Canadians. It explicitly says that there must be free, prior and informed consent on any issues dealing directly with first nations in Canada.

We also must recognize and affirm aboriginal or treaty rights as laid out in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Canadian courts. As well, it is imperative that we provide sufficient resources so as to guarantee that aboriginal communities have the capacity to implement the legislation and our policies on which we have worked collaboratively. Unfortunately, yet again, the government has failed to meet any of these criteria in the approach to matrimonial real property on reserve. It is raining down legislation in “thou shalt” kinds of ways without the resources and the support to actually achieve the objectives of the legislation.

Yet again, consultation has been inadequate. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and the government to listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what it hears into its approach. Although consultations were done on MRP in general in 2006-07, consultations were not done specifically on Bill S-2, in particular prior to the introduction of the bill.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is not confident that the legislation will solve the problems associated with matrimonial real property on reserve and has been clear that the current bill fails to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time the legislation has been brought forward. NWAC held meetings with first nations women from its provincial and territorial member associations and produced several reports that included their views to address MRP. Bill S-2 still neglects most of those recommendations.

The Conservative government failed in its constitutional duty to consult the first nations when drafting this bill and did not take into consideration the serious problems identified by stakeholders when the Senate examined Bill S-4, the previous version of this bill, in the last Parliament.

The non-derogation clause in Bill S-2 does not sufficiently affirm constitutional rights to self-government, that is nothing in the act shall be construed “so as to abrogate or derogate from...aboriginal or treaty rights recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. This is not acceptable.

As my colleague from the New Democratic Party has said, the resources are inadequate to achieve the objectives of the bill. As I said In the letter I sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs a year ago August, it is completely unfair to legislate when the resources are not there to implement the objectives of any legislation.

This afternoon we will see the same thing on the water act, that “thou shalt have clean drinking water” and there are no resources to make sure it happens. This is exactly the same thing. In the objective of the bill on matrimonial real property, there are just not the resources to actually give women real choices with their families for them to remain safe in situations of violence.

Any proposed measure must be based on a holistic approach designed to address family breakdowns and domestic violence in aboriginal communities and tackle the problems of poverty, the housing shortage and the tragic legacy of the residential school survivors and their families.

In 2006, then INAC minister, Jim Prentice, announced that the nation-wide consultation on MRP reserves would take place, and appointed Wendy Grant John as the ministerial representative.

The report of the ministerial representative proposed establishing new stand-alone federal legislation that would be based on recognition of first nations jurisdiction and respect for aboriginal and treaty rights, while establishing interim federal rules that would apply until the first nation had exercised its jurisdiction and enacted its own laws on MRP.

The report of the ministerial representative also noted:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures...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.

At the time that report was tabled, the time we were able to see it, everybody who we spoke to said it was imperative that the government of the day not be allowed to cherry-pick this report. Yet cherry-pick the report is exactly what the government has done.

The government has not provided any additional resources to help first nation governments build the capacity needed to address the underlying issues, meet their new obligations under the bill, or allow their citizens to have access to the legal system or develop new community-specific laws regarding matrimonial real property.

The provisional federal MRP rules are based on a provincial court system and require first nations and their citizens to take on additional costs to access the court system.

In many rural and remote communities, the cost of legal access, including transportation, can be prohibitive. Yet there is also no commitment to provide funding for alternatives to the court system, like community-based dispute resolution, which would be more cost effective and culturally appropriate.

Further, Bill S-2 was tabled without a plan and without resourcing to address the myriad issues that contributed to family breakdown on reserve and the disproportionately high levels of domestic violence against women.

Witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee mentioned the chronic shortage of housing on reserve, the underfunding of child welfare and the lack of shelters and temporary housing. These are substantive issues that must be addressed as part of the federal government's MRP approach.

The government has made no commitment to provide resources to help first nations move past the provisional federal rules and develop their own MRP code, other than to promise to create a centre of excellence, subject to further future Treasury Board approval.

The government's approach to developing the bill has been misguided and the resulting legislation is totally inadequate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before the House 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. The minister who just spoke talked about this being an act to address inherent discriminatory practices against women. However, it is interesting that the title of the bill does not mention that.

The bill deals with matrimonial breakdown, which generally speaking is between a man and a woman, although same sex relations are legal in this country, so it could be between a same sex couple. One of the challenges we have before the House in dealing with the bill is the need to balance the rights of women and men who are involved in a marital breakdown against inherent rights within first nations. It is a very difficult balancing act, and I want to lay out some context on how we got to this place today.

Others in the House have noted that the bill was introduced in the Senate and is now referred to the status of women committee. Although this is a very competent committee with very capable members, there are questions arising, first of all, about why the bill was introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons, where one would think it legitimately should have been introduced. The second is why the bill was not referred to the aboriginal affairs committee, which is the committee that has the mandate to deal with matters within the Indian Act and other matters facing first nations, Métis and Inuit in this country

We hear the member opposite positioning the act to deal with discriminatory practices against women. However, arguably it is an act that deals with a much broader matter facing first nations communities.

In terms of context, I want to turn briefly to the “Report of the Ministerial Representative Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” by Wendy Grant-John and her colleagues, who did this report for then minister of aboriginal affairs, Jim Prentice. She included a lengthy laying out of the history. I will not start with the pre-colonial period and work through to the modern day, but she included a quick summary of 1990 to present.

In her summary, she indicated there have been several commissions of inquiry in Canada drawing attention to the issue and that eight UN human rights bodies have expressed concern. There has been litigation. There have been Senate and House of Commons committees, and there have been various pieces of legislation. However, here we are today, in 2012, still dealing with this matter.

In terms of the broader context, there have been many reports, but I will refer to the “Discussion Paper: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”, which is an excellent report. It lays out both the context as well as many of the challenges facing any government in terms of coming up with a legislative approach to this matter. I mentioned a couple of the reports, studies and conventions that have been cited, but this particular report cites:

The lack of remedies under federal law for married women on reserve that are typically available to married women off reserve under provincial law has been characterized...as a violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights....

It has also been cited in a 1998 report from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which noted concern with:

...Canada's failure to ensure equal protection of the law as between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women in respect to matrimonial real property:

It also notes the final report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, AJIM, which recommended that:

The Indian Act be amended to provide for the equal division of property on marriage breakdown.

I will not read the various statutes in the study, but the report indicates that:

A few words must be said about the larger historical and policy context in which the issues of matrimonial rights on reserve is situated.

Prior to European colonization efforts, many First Nation societies were matriarchal in nature. Missionaries and other Church officials discouraged matriarchal aspects of First Nation societies and encouraged the adoption of European norms of male dominance and control of women. According to the customary law of the Mohawk nation for example, the matrimonial home and things in it belong to the wife and women traditionally have exercised prominent roles in decision-making within the community.

It is interesting, as I noted earlier in a question to the minister, that these discriminatory practices are long-standing in this country.

The minister also noted the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in her speech. First of all, I want to note:

Section 91(24) [of The Constitution Act] therefore would appear to allow federal legislation applicable on reserve to provide remedies on separation or divorce such as interim possession of the matrimonial home or forced sale of the right to occupy. While rights of ownership to reserve land cannot be created under the Indian Act...individual rights of possession in relation to parts of reserve land can be transferred or sold among band members. Individual band members can own homes or other buildings on reserve.

This is an important context. When we are talking about division of property, we are dealing with a different land regime than we are dealing with off reserve. It is important to note that in this context. When we are talking about division of matrimonial property, often the occupants of that home will not have title to the land. There are some anomalies there with certificates of possession and other matters, but it is an important note. This is noted in the Constitution.

The royal commission also noted this:

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) recognizes existing inherent powers of Aboriginal peoples as an aspect of a right to self-determination within Canada, and as a constitutional right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The (RCAP) analysis includes jurisdiction over marriage and property rights in respect to First Nations lands (such as Indian Act reserve lands) as part of the core area of First Nation inherent jurisdiction that can be exercised without negotiation of agreements or other forms of recognition by federal or provincial governments.

This is an important point. At the outset, when I talked about the very difficult challenge of balancing discriminatory practices against women and the need for remedies—again, I believe all members in this House would agree there is a need for remedies—there is also this other jurisdictional aspect that first nations have. It has been cited in many court decisions.

The royal commission continued:

In the context of matrimonial real property issues on reserve, such an analysis would recognize how First Nation women historically have experienced racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination as a result of the Indian Act. For example the imposition of non-Aboriginal concepts of private or individual property rights combined with numerous forms of patriarchal bias have led to First Nation men being the primary holders of Certificates of Possession on reserve. This in turn contributed to the displacement of many First Nation women from their traditional roles as women, negatively affected their gender relations with men and the relationship of First Nation women to First Nation land. With respect to matrimonial real property, the collective impacts of colonialism...have resulted in many women finding themselves in a disadvantageous legal position when their marriage or common law relationship breaks down.

The royal commission report went on to say:

In addition, many women in submissions to the RCAP and other processes have drawn attention to the problem of women being affiliated automatically with the bands that Indian Affairs records show they were connected to in the past through their fathers or husbands. Many women now apply for membership in their husband's band. On breakdown of the marriage, women can encounter difficulties resuming their affiliation with the band they were born into, and asserting residency rights there. In this regard, Indian Affairs has acknowledged that “[r]egistrants would much prefer to be affiliated with a band closer to their domicile or to a band with which the mother or wife in a marriage is affiliated”.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report did make a number of recommendations, and I want to touch on a couple of them. They summarize it as follows:

Family law falls within the core of (inherent) Aboriginal self-government jurisdiction and as such, does not require negotiation of a self-government agreement to be exercised.

The recommendations of the RCAP clearly favour a recognition of Aboriginal inherent jurisdiction to adopt laws addressing family law issues generally, and see the exercise of this jurisdiction as the most immediate way of ensuring culturally appropriate legal responses are developed as quickly as possible. The exercise of this jurisdiction is seen as the best way to take the immediate action required to address the serious areas of legal vacuum respecting matrimonial real property on reserves. This exercise of inherent jurisdiction would take place pending the negotiation of broader self-government arrangements...

One of the RCAP recommendations was:

working out appropriate mechanisms of transition to Aboriginal control under self-government;

In 1996 there was a clear road map laid out for how to deal with the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve. Here we are, in 2012, continuing to have this conversation. Most of the recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples were never implemented. In fact, a couple of years ago there was a report from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which gave, not just the current government, but any government since 1996, a failing grade on moving forward on what was seen with many first nations, Métis and Inuit as a good faith exercise. We continue, I would say, to talk out of both sides of our mouths. On one hand in the House, we commission very important reports, and on the other hand we simply do not act on them.

With regard to case law, what happened previously was that there was an application of provincial laws to reserve lands on matrimonial breakdown. There is a well-known case, Derrickson v. Derrickson, in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial family law could not apply to the right of possession of Indian lands. More specifically, the court determined that provincial laws entitling each spouse to an undivided half interest in all family assets could not be applied to land allotments on reserve. The court stated:

The right to possession of lands on an Indian reserve is of the very essence of the federal exclusive legislative power under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It follows that provincial legislation cannot apply to the right of possession of Indian reserve lands.

The court was able to make an order for compensation, taking into account the value of the land allotment for the purpose of adjusting the division of family assets between the spouses under the relevant provincial family law.

In the case of Paul v. Paul, the court said that even if this were the case, the provincial legislation being relied on was in conflict with the Indian Act provisions and, applying the doctrine of federal paramountcy, the federal provisions would prevail.

There were a number of other court decisions. The summary stated:

The overall result of the case law is that provincial and territorial family law legislation does not apply to reserve land in any way that can affect individual interests in unsurrendered reserve land. Such legislation is considered to be in conflict with the provisions of the Indian Act....

A number of court decisions have said that provincial law does not apply. Now we have a piece of legislation that is supposed to be an interim measure that will allow provincial provisions to apply on first nations lands where the first nation does not have a code in place to deal with matrimonial real property. I want to talk about ability to look at some of those codes in one moment.

Some questions have arisen out of this. Of course, we know that the provinces and territories all have different provisions around division of assets for people living within the province off reserve. It then becomes that we have a federal government that in some ways is abdicating its responsibility in developing legislation that would apply across the country from coast to coast to coast and abdicating its responsibility to the provincial governments in the matter in which, previous cases state, provincial legislation does not apply. It is an interesting question in terms of what the federal responsibility is versus provincial jurisdiction. We have seen the government rely increasingly on provincial jurisdiction in matters facing first nations, Métis and Inuit.

Currently there are first nations that have custom codes in place and there is a provision under the First Nations Land Management Act where first nations can develop their own codes. I will go back to the report that was commissioned a number of years ago on matrimonial property. It outlined the following:

In order to clarify the intentions of the First Nations and Canada in relation to the breakdown of a marriage as it affects First Nation land:

(a) First Nation will establish a community process in its land code to develop rules and procedures, applicable on the breakdown of a marriage, to the use, occupancy and possession of First Nation land and the division of interests in that land;

for greater certainty, the rules and procedures referred to in clause (a) shall not discriminate on the basis of sex;

The reason I am raising that is because there are mechanisms right now where first nations can develop these codes.

The First Nations Land Management Act has a waiting list of nations that actually want to participate in this process. Therefore, one of the doors that could be opened to first nations to develop their own marital property relations codes is closed due to a lack of resources. If the government were serious and committed to a respectful nation-to-nation relationship with first nations, it would put additional resources into the FNLMA to assist first nations in taking part in that regime and developing those codes.

I do not have a lot of time left, but I want to quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that affect them.

Article 44 states:

All rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals.

After enormous pressure, the government finally did endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and indicated that it would take the next steps to move forward on it. Of course, we have seen no action since that happened.

However, this declaration that speaks of free, prior and informed consent is at the heart of much of the opposition to Bill S-2, because although the minister claims there were all kinds of consultations, the reality is that appearances at committee do not constitute consultation.

The Hon. Jim Prentice, the then minister of the day, did set up a process wherein there was a ministerial representative who developed an extensive report. A lot of the recommendations in the report were simply ignored in developing the legislation, and I want to touch on a couple of them.

In one of the recommendations, Wendy Grant-John outlined a preamble and what the sections of the act should include. She included things like acknowledging the importance of the principle of reconciliation in respect to existing aboriginal and treaty rights and the sovereignty of the Crown; the need for co-operation and reconciliation between first nations and the Crown on matters relating to matrimonial property on reserves; the importance of including women at all levels of decision-making as equals; and the need to take into account the interests of other family members and first nations' cultural interests.

In part, the legislation does talk about the interests of other family members, but does not specifically address the other cultural interests.

There was a case regarding the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination. It issued a report back in February or March 2012 with regard to the division of property on a marital breakdown and made some very specific recommendations. It is interesting what those recommendations included.

The recommendations to the state were to provide housing commensurate in quality, location and size to the one the applicant was deprived of; provide appropriate monetary compensation for material and moral damages commensurate with the gravity of the violations of her rights; recruit and train more aboriginal women to provide legal aid to women from their communities, including on domestic violence and property rights; and review its legal aid system to ensure that aboriginal women who are victims of domestic violence have effective access to justice.

Despite the long-standing recognition that there are serious problems facing aboriginal women in this country, we have not seen the kinds of measures put in place that would help women and their communities deal with the violence against aboriginal women, and their lack of adequate housing and access to remedial measures and conflict resolution.

It is one thing to put a piece of legislation in place and another to not then put the resources in place to help women, their communities and families deal with this very serious problem.

Based on the concerns that we have, the New Democrats will not be supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, who has done an incredible job championing the rights of women. I know that she will do an excellent job working with her committee colleagues on all sides of the House on this issue.

The legislative gap that Bill S-2 will close has hurt families and entire communities, but most specifically it has hurt aboriginal women living on reserve. It is our position, as a government, that it is unacceptable that on-reserve residents, particularly women who are the most affected by this legislative gap, are deprived of their rights and protections because of where they live. That is unacceptable. For most Canadians undergoing the breakdown of their conjugal relationships or marriages, or in the event of the death of a spouse, there is legal protection to ensure that their rights, including property rights, are protected. In this situation, there are no laws that protect the rights of aboriginal women living on reserve. Their interests are not protected and, in the case of emergency protection orders due to family violence, their safety and security are not protected.

This has been a long time coming. I hope that all members of the House, especially women, see fit to see the bill finally through so that aboriginal women would have the protections they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to ask the Minister for Status of Women a question that would help vulnerable women on reserves, not only in the London area but all across Canada. I have heard from women in my riding and they have told me that the bill is needed now more than ever. I am proud of the many women's groups in my city of London that work tirelessly to promote and strengthen women's rights. This bill would accomplish both.

Can the Minister for Status of Women please explain to the House why it is so important that we move ahead with Bill S-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member's comments mean that she will support an end to this human rights gap and she will support Bill S-2 to ensure that aboriginal women living on reserve will finally have protection under the law, as do other women who live off reserve.

I know the hon. member is a woman who believes in women's rights, as I do, so I cannot imagine that she does not share my concern that, for this many years, since the Supreme Court ruled 25 years ago, this legislative gap has existed. I cannot imagine that she will not support Bill S-2.

There have been attempts to go the non-legislative route. The hon. member knows that. There have been attempts to encourage and in many ways to work with first nations to ensure that matrimonial property rights are addressed on reserve. Unfortunately, there are very few first nations that have achieved that.

We are now at a place where I think we have to act. There are women, as the hon. member well knows, who encounter severe violence on reserves every day. These aboriginal women need us to act.

This is a legislative gap that has been identified by not only domestic but international human rights bodies as something we have to address. As a woman who believes in equality for women, it is unacceptable to me that aboriginal women do not have the same protections on reserve as women who live off reserve. It is time that ends.

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

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act .

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, a very important piece of legislation for aboriginal women.

I want to focus today on a key element of the bill, namely the provision that allows for emergency protection orders in situations of family violence affecting aboriginal women on reserve.

Court order protection from domestic violence has long been available to Canadian women living off reserve. It has long been recognized, by law enforcement and those working to address violence against women and girls, as critical to the safety of women.

Simply put, access to emergency protection orders saves lives. Extending these same rights to aboriginal women living on reserve will save more of them.

I draw the attention of the House to what the latest addition of Statistics Canada's Women in Canada report states with respect to spousal violence against aboriginal women:

Previous studies have shown that higher proportions of Aboriginal women experience spousal violence compared to non-Aboriginal women....

In 2009...15% of Aboriginal women who had a spouse or common-law partner reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. In the case of non-Aboriginal women the proportion was 6%....

The report goes on to state:

There is evidence that many Aboriginal women who are victims of spousal violence experience severe and potentially life threatening violence.

In fact, the Statistics Canada report stated that:

In 2009, 58% of Aboriginal women who experienced spousal violence reported that they had sustained an injury compared to 41% of non-Aboriginal women.

It goes on to state:

Almost half (48%) of Aboriginal women who had experienced spousal violence reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a gun or knife. A similar proportion...[just over 50%] of Aboriginal women who had been victims of spousal violence also reported that there were times when they feared for their life.

All of us have heard the statistic that aboriginal women are five times more likely to be murdered than non-aboriginal women. Those are the cold, hard, ugly facts about the situation aboriginal women face day in and day out with, at the very least, the same protection afforded to women who live off reserve.

It is no secret that many of these women are forced to flee their homes and communities to escape violence. Many end up homeless, alone and even more vulnerable than before. They become vulnerable to trafficking and further abuse and violence.

If it is possible to enforce emergency protection orders, abusers can be ordered to leave the home and women can stay in the home. The ability to remain in their home would ensure that aboriginal women on reserves could continue to care for their children, could access the support of the community around them, but most importantly, could escape violence.

Let me be clear. Today there are no protections for aboriginal women living on reserve. This means that, 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 man, to leave the home even on a temporary basis. The spouse who holds the interest in the on-reserve home, which is almost always the man, can sell an on-reserve family home and keep all of the money. As well, the spouse who holds the interest in the on-reserve home, which is almost always the man, can also bar the other from the on-reserve family home.

The proposed legislation in front of us would provide basic rights and protections with respect to the fair division of the family home to on-reserve aboriginal individuals facing the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse. The legislation would also provide protection for women in the event of family violence. These rights and protections are available to all other Canadians through provincial and territorial laws, which of course cannot be applied on reserves.

It is unacceptable that first nations people, especially women, do not have access to the same protections simply because of where they live. This proposed legislation would offer protection to more than 100,000 individuals who are currently living without legal matrimonial real property protection. This is a very important change, but it is also a very big change, so it is planned that the implementation of this legislation would also include education and training for key officials, including police officers on reserve and judges. It is also planned that there would be a public education and awareness campaign.

I would like to take a moment to look at the history of women's property rights, because historically a woman's property was under the control of her father, or if she was married, it was under the control of her husband. This issue first began to be discussed in the 1850s in both England and France. In Europe, of course, the law sided with men, who provided women protection but not equality.

In the United States at the same time, women themselves began to speak out about the most important civil rights challenges that were facing women in that day. In Canada at the turn of the century, where marriage is a provincial matter, of course, most women still saw their property rights transferred to their husbands when they got married. However in 1911, the provinces began to examine the issue of a woman's right to property ownership after marriage dissolution. Married women in Manitoba, P.E.I. and Saskatchewan were finally permitted the same legal capacity as men with regard to their property.

I have to say that, in my role as Minister for Status of Women, I find it difficult to accept that 100 years later aboriginal women living on reserve have not yet achieved the same rights. More than 25 years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling on two cases that are very important to this issue: Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul.

In its 1986 landmark decision on Derrickson v. Derrickson, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that courts cannot rely on provincial law to order the division of matrimonial real property on reserves. In doing so, the court underlined a legislative gap that has since meant that women residing on reserves and facing the breakdown of a relationship have not been able to access the Canadian legal system to resolve matters concerning their real property.

In other words, aboriginal women who live on reserve do not have rights to property or protection on reserve. They are frankly being denied their very basic human rights, and we believe this must end. Without access to the same rights shared by other Canadian women, these women have been left vulnerable for far too long. Until on-reserve matrimonial real property laws are in place, aboriginal women who are living on reserve will continue to face the reality that in the event of spousal violence, separation, divorce or death, the law does not protect their property. It does not protect their interests. It does not protect their rights, but most fundamentally, it does not protect their safety.

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling did spark a dialogue and a larger effort to identify, develop and implement an effective solution. Over the years there have been a number of respected institutions, both in Canada and abroad, that have completed studies and analysis of relevant issues in this subject matter. Since 1986, a host of both domestic and international human rights bodies have studied, referenced and called for action on this matter.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is one of them. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have all studied this issue. The overwhelming conclusion of these reports was that legislation is the only effective solution and the only course of action.

With this bill, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, I am proud that our government is moving to tackle this critical issue. It is not just for aboriginal women and children on reserve but also as an important part of the continued fight for equal rights for all women. This legislation would finally eliminate the longstanding human rights gap and in doing so contribute to the end of the suffering of many women and families who live on reserve.

I do want to acknowledge that there have been some efforts to address the issue of matrimonial property rights already by first nations. The First Nations Land Management Act does require first nations to develop laws related to matrimonial property rights and interests as part of their own land codes that they are developing. However, while these solutions have helped a handful of first nations, Bill S-2 would ensure that all women and individuals living on first nations reserves would have access not only to emergency protection orders to ensure their safety and security but also to equal matrimonial real property.

In 2005, the Government of Canada initiated preliminary consultations on this issue. In 2006, we announced a national consultation process to find a solution to fill this legislative gap. This consultation process was conducted in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, so that they could engage and consult with individual aboriginal communities across Canada.

Along with these sessions, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada held consultations with and provided funding to a wide range of other aboriginal organizations. This is an important point because aboriginal women have waited for 25 years to see this type of protection, and it is a big change. The government has recognized this. There has been opposition to it by some parties. However, let us remember that, in total, to date, 103 consultation sessions have been held at 76 different sites across Canada. Hundreds of people have participated and expressed a wide range of opinions.

To prepare a report and make recommendations for a legislative solution, the government also engaged a ministerial representative, a respected entrepreneur and former first nation chief.

Due to the complexity of this issue and of course the diversity of views, consensus could not be reached on every aspect of what the legislation should entail. Consensus did emerge, though, on the key elements of a legislative solution. These elements, I am happy to say, are all part of the legislation that is being introduced to Parliament, which is Bill S-2.

One of these elements is a two-part solution that is both practical and sensible. First, the bill would allow for first nations to develop and implement their own laws to protect the matrimonial real property rights and interests of community residents. These laws could be based on the community's tradition. The content of the laws would be entirely between the members of the first nation government, and must be approved by a community ratification process. The second part of the solution is a provisional federal regime that would apply, once in force, until the time the first nations develop their own laws.

I want to emphasize the point that these provisional rules would apply to first nations unless or until they enact their own matrimonial real property laws under this legislation. This would ensure that laws exist to protect the rights and interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live in Canada.

As well, parliamentary committees reviewing these bills have considered the testimonies of a long list of witnesses and proposed a series of improvements. All of these amendments are also in Bill S-2.

The simple fact is that the legislation now before us represents the culmination of decades of work to find an effective solution. Now is the time to implement this solution. Aboriginal women who have lived on reserve have waited too long.

Bill S-2 also includes additional improvements that were made to the bill prior to its introduction in September of 2011. These improvements respond directly to concerns that were raised by stakeholders.

Bill S-2 also features another improvement over previous versions, a significantly lower ratification threshold. Several witnesses who appeared before committee expressed serious concerns about the ability of some first nations to engage enough voters to secure a meaningful result under a double majority, which requires that a majority of eligible voters must vote and that a majority of those who vote must vote in favour. Now, with the changes that we have made, a first nations council would be responsible for informing its members of the content of its laws and secure the approval of a majority of voters. It must also inform the minister of the results and provide a copy of the approved law to the minister, any organization that may be designated by the minister and the respective attorney general.

More important, I think the changes we have made to Bill S-2 are consistent with the direction this government is taking in terms of diminishing the role of the federal government in the day-to-day administration of first nations and handing those responsibilities over to first nations, where it belongs.

Finally, when the Senate adopted Bill S-2, it did so with two additional changes that would allow judges to extend emergency protection orders beyond 90 days. This would allow judges to exercise discretion on the duration of the order upon the rehearing of the case or when changing or revoking emergency protection orders. This is very important for the safety and security of aboriginal women living on reserve.

The Senate passed Bill S-2, as amended, on December 1, 2011. Bill S-2 is informed by many years of study, consultation and debate. The proposed legislation builds on previous attempts to enact similar legislation. It incorporates a series of amendments adopted by parliamentary committees in response to stakeholder testimony, and was substantially altered before its introduction into this Parliament to further strengthen the bill and to facilitate the development of first nation laws in this area.

I believe it is our duty to adopt Bill S-2 and finally put in place a legislative solution, which is long overdue, to support aboriginal women on reserve.

I also want to point out that some of the criticisms raised of the bill are based on false information. For instance, some people believe that the proposed legislation could take away the property rights of first nations. The view that a non-member of a first nation could gain ownership of reserve lands is completely false.

The bill, in clause 5, explicitly states:

(a) title to reserve lands is not affected by this act; (b) reserve lands continue to be set apart for the use and benefit of the First Nation for which they were set apart; and (c) reserve lands continue to be lands reserved for the Indians within the meaning of Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The legislation is very clear. At no point would the collective ownership of first nation lands be jeopardized under Bill S-2.

Another criticism refers to what is actually not in the bill, namely that Bill S-2 does not include specific funding to improve access to the courts, to emergency family shelters and to on-reserve housing. Bill S-2 is not about policy or funding levels. It is about eliminating a cause of injustice and closing a legal loophole that creates inequality and leaves aboriginal women vulnerable. It is about ensuring all Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve, have similar protections and rights when it comes to family homes, matrimony interests, security and safety.

Consider the testimony provided by one aboriginal leader before committee during its review of Bill S-2. This is what Betty Ann Lavallée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, had to say. She said:

[Bill S-2] is addressing the real human issue of an aboriginal person, something taken for granted by all 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.

That has been happening in Canada for far too long.

National Chief Lavallée recognizes that Bill S-2 is ultimately about preventing abuse and discrimination. Her words are informed by her knowledge of the often harsh realities of day-to-day life faced by many women residents of first nation communities.

I agree completely with Chief Lavallée's eloquent words and I believe that Bill S-2 strikes an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

Here again I must return to my role as the Minister for Status of Women. We also know that this issue is critical to future generations of aboriginal children. We are working hard to advance equality for women and to remove the barriers to women's participation in society and eliminate violence against women. This includes aboriginal women.

As the Minister for Status of Women I am very concerned with the pattern of violence against aboriginal women and the impact it has on the families and the communities who suffer from it. Today we have a chance to make a change. This issue is a responsibility that we all share and by working together we can better address it.

I call on my colleagues in the House to support the legislation. For more than 25 years women living on first nations communities have had to live with this human rights gap. For most Canadians that protection exists. For women on reserve, that protection does not exist.

I call on all of my colleagues in the House to move this forward and end this human rights gap once and for all for aboriginal women living on reserve.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing Bill S-11, the food safety bill. It was introduced by this government in the Senate to bring about changes that would strengthen our food safety system further following the implementation of the 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report, which further strengthened our system.

I believe the comments, to which the member referred, by the Conservative caucus were not about the NDP obstructing the bill in the Senate but rather about statements that had been made by NDP members previously following the introduction of the bill that the NDP would oppose the bill. Of course, the issue we are looking forward to is having it pass successfully in the Senate. We hope that people will see the urgency more clearly, that we will get the support of the Liberals and that we will see its rapid passage here in the House. We would be delighted if we had support to do that very quickly from the NDP and other parties.

Now for the business ahead of us.

This afternoon, we will continue our safe streets and communities week with second reading debate on Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

In last year's election, the Conservative Party promised to put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal. This bill follows through on our commitment to Canadians.

We will resume debate tomorrow, when I am optimistic, based on discussions, that debate will end—and, then, we will have concluded the first three weeks of our hard-working, productive and orderly fall sitting.

On our constituency week, I hope all members of Parliament and staff in this place will have an opportunity relax. Many of our pages will have their first opportunity to go home since they started the year here. I hope on our return we will all be ready to be productive and work hard because we have much to do.

On Monday, October 15, before question period, the House will start the second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. We will also debate this bill on Wednesday and Friday of that week. This, of course, is designed to continue to make Canada and, in fact, the whole world, a safer place.

After question period on October 15, we will kick-off debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which shares the same objectives. It would implement Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 16, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see the House debate a Liberal motion. We eagerly await the content of that motion.

Thursday, October 18, shall be the sixth allotted day when we will consider the New Democratic proposal.

It is my personal hope that having given the NDP three chances already this fall to articulate to the House and to all Canadians how it will implement its $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax that it will finally choose this as its subject for debate. I hope the NDP members will seize that opportunity and let Canadians know once and for all the fine details of their scheme to raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and winter heat.

Should we have additional time that week upon our return, or even this week if we move quickly, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Of course, I am always open to suggestions from the opposition. If they are willing to accelerate any of those bills for quick passage, I will call them.

Finally, I wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that everyone has a productive and hard-working week working with their constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his kind comments about co-operation. It is true that we have been working together in a co-operative fashion on the bills he mentioned. In fact, without utilizing time allocation, after nine days of co-operative debate on things that everybody agrees on, we have been able to have one vote on one bill at one stage. If members wonder why it is difficult to get things done, that indicates why: we all agree on something and it still takes nine days to get one bill to one vote at one stage.

Anyway, this afternoon, we will continue with our helping families in need week with second reading debate on Bill C-44, which will undertake several steps to help hard-working Canadian parents in times of need.

Based on discussions, I expect that we will finish debating Bill C-44 today. If so, I will then call Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), tomorrow.

I understand that there is interest in all corners of the House to see this legislation referred to committee quickly. I hope so, because I believe that all parties want it passed. We may be able to make that happen.

Next week we are going to focus on making our streets and communities even safer. From Wednesday through Friday we will consider second reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which will firmly show that Parliament does not tolerate criminals and fraudsters abusing Canadian generosity.

On Monday and Tuesday, we shall have the third and fourth allotted days. Both days will go to the official opposition. I am eagerly waiting to see what we debate those days. Perhaps the New Democrats will use the opportunity to lay out their details for a $21 billion carbon tax which would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Perhaps I should correct the record; it would be a $21.5 billion carbon tax. I know there are some in the press gallery who want us to be precise about that.

If we have a hard-working, productive and orderly week in the House which sees debates on Bill C-44, Bill C-21 and Bill C-43 finish early, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which the official opposition supports, despite debating it for four days last week; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved 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 first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill: 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.

[Michael Wernick]

I appreciate the question.

I think this committee will get ample opportunity to discuss this when the bill arrives for your consideration shortly. This will be the fourth attempt, I think, to pass matrimonial property legislation.

The situation was created by court decisions almost 20 years ago, which voided the application of provincial law in this area. It meant that spouses on first nations reserves, male or female, who had a marriage breakup because of death or divorce had nowhere to go to get recourse and no security in terms of matrimonial property division. If you or I had to do it, we'd always have the provincial courts to go to. First nations people don't have those, and so there is a very hard burden on first nations' women and their dependants. It has gone on for a very long time. There have been many attempts to wrestle with this.

We were talking about consultation and engagement. There was a process that cost nearly $8 million and criss-crossed the country. There was a special representative, Wendy Grant-John, for this. It's not an easy subject. There are a lot of technical issues in terms of administration and application. The government has retabled Bill S-2, and I understand that it is headed towards this committee.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm pleased to be here today in this committee room, which I think I've spent a little bit of time in before.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the supplementary spending estimates of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I appreciate the role that the committee plays in reviewing the department's expenditures.

The investments included in supplementary estimates (B) support the Government of Canada's plan to improve the quality of life of aboriginal peoples and northerners across Canada. As members of this committee recognize, this plan includes strategic and important investments in infrastructure, funding for programs and initiatives, and the implementation of agreements such as the Indian residential schools settlement agreement.

I'll do my best to answer your questions in a few minutes. First, though, I'd like to provide details about a few key items listed in supplementary estimates (B). The allotment of $179.4 million to the independent assessment process for the residential schools settlement is the largest single item on the list. This amount includes $136 million in new funding, and $43.4 million reprofiled from last year.

This investment supports the Government of Canada's commitment to respect the terms of the court-ordered Indian residential schools settlement that was agreed by all parties. The additional funding will respond to the increased application levels to the independent assessment process.

The Government of Canada remains committed to concluding agreements with former students and their families. Continuing the implementation of the settlement agreement builds on our government's commitment to moving towards healing, reconciliation, and resolution between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

The second largest item in the supplementary estimates is $109.1 million for the assessment, management, and remediation of federal contaminated sites. The Government of Canada is committed to the health and safety of all Canadians. This money will support our government's ongoing efforts for safe and timely environmental cleanup. Our government continues to work closely with first nations, Inuit, and northern communities to remediate contaminated sites. Budget 2011 allocated $68 million over two years to the federal contaminated sites action plan. Most of this investment focuses on priority sites in the north such as the Giant Mine in Yellowknife and the Faro mine. In the past two years, the Government of Canada has committed more than $330 million to projects at hundreds of sites in the north and on reserves across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to highlight a few other items listed in the supplementary estimates and explain how they relate to this government's broader goals. Improving the quality and availability of first nations child and family services is a case in point. Significant improvements have been made in recent years as a result of a series of tripartite agreements between Canada, first nations, and provincial governments. The services delivered under these agreements focus on prevention and early intervention, leading to better outcomes for first nations children, youth, and families.

Two items in the estimates support this goal. There is $6 million to fund an agreement in Manitoba, and $1.2 million for a dedicated database to track results. Agreements are already in place in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. This means that nearly 70% of all first nations children who live on reserve have access to services delivered under the new model. We hope to complete agreements with other jurisdictions in the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to highlight a few other items that are listed. Bill C-22, for instance, which I'm happy to note just received royal assent yesterday, completes an agreement to establish the Eeyou Marine Region and authorizes first nation groups to co-manage and protect islands in James Bay and southeastern Hudson Bay. Bill S-2 proposes to close the legal gap that exists in matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. And Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, is part of the government's commitment in the 2011 Speech from the Throne to support democratic, transparent, and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses and audited consolidated financial statements.

I'm also committed to reintroducing a bill that will propose a mechanism to set standards to safeguard the quality of drinking water in first nation communities.

A goal of these and other legislative initiatives is to create the accountability mechanisms needed to foster economic and social development. This committee will have an important role in moving the agenda forward. I believe the study currently under way on sustainable economic development will be valuable and pertinent.

In June, the Auditor General's status report analyzed why so many Government of Canada programs fail to deliver the intended benefits to first nation communities. The key factor cited in the report is that many programs have no legislative base. Should a program fail, no one can be held accountable. To ensure that programs and investments achieve their goals, this government will continue to develop and implement appropriate legislative remedies in collaboration with our stakeholders.

Another element of the Government of Canada's strategy to promote economic and social development among northern and aboriginal communities is working with willing partners. I'm proud to note that this past June, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and I announced the Canada-first nations joint action plan to improve the lives of first nation people across Canada. The action plan expresses our joint commitment to work together to improve the long-term prosperity of first nation people and all Canadians.

Strategic partnerships with provincial and aboriginal groups that continue to improve education outcomes in a growing number of first nation schools are another instance of the work that we do with willing partners. Collaborative initiatives to improve the educational outcomes of first nation students are now under way in seven provinces. Engagement sessions were held last year, helping to inform improvements to aboriginal economic development programs, including efficiencies in program delivery. Strategic partnerships have also inspired significant progress on specific claims and first nation access to safe drinking water.

The Beaufort regional environmental assessment is another example of a strategic partnership, among Inuvialuit, the oil and gas industry, territorial and federal governments, regulators, and academia, to prepare for oil and gas activity in the Beaufort Sea. Together they have supported research and actions that will provide information and data in support of efficient and effective regulatory decisions.

The larger goal of the government's plan is to ensure that all citizens, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can share in and contribute to Canada's prosperity. The investments included in the supplementary estimates are designed to complement existing programs, partnerships, and legislative initiatives. I'm confident that the items under review will lead to further progress for aboriginal peoples, northerners, and all Canadians.

Thank you very much. I'll do my best to answer any questions the members of the committee may have about supplementary estimates (B).

[Chief Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

It's an honour to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people to present you with some priority issues of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

With me today is our new vice-chief, Dwight Dorey, who will be speaking to you concerning the Daniels case and subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. My presentation to you will focus on remaining discrimination in the Indian Act, matrimonial real property, band membership, along with aboriginal citizenship, education, and the long-gun registry. There are many more issues that will need to be discussed at a later date, including health, economic development, housing, homelessness, language, and culture.

Since 1971, the congress has been at the forefront of the aboriginal people's movement in Canada, advocating for our constituency of forgotten peoples. We advocate for the rights and interests of status and non-status Indians living off reserve and Métis. The year 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of our organization. Despite the successes that have occurred over the last 40 years, the Canadian public continues to associate aboriginal issues with Indians living on reserves. The reality is that 80% of the ancestral aboriginal population now live off reserve, with 60% living in urban areas. This is the most significant demographic factor for policy makers, yet it's the one where the least action takes place because of jurisdictional issues.

On May 18, we were pleased to learn that Prime Minister Harper had changed the name of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This was an important step, better to reflect the scope of the minister's responsibilities for all aboriginal peoples. This type of straightforward thinking and inclusive decision-making is what we need to make progress.

The Indian Act remains the principal expression of the federal government's jurisdictional policy over Indians and lands reserved for Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. The political and social reality affecting aboriginal peoples is based by and large on this outdated legislation. The Indian Act status and membership rules have a long history of impacting the lives of aboriginal peoples. For example, of the almost $10 billion per year that the federal government invests in aboriginal-specific programming, almost 90% goes to assist on-reserve status Indians. This outdated policy framework needs to be reshaped and recast to reflect the fact that the federal government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity for all aboriginal peoples.

This was the central finding of the largest, most extensive inquiry undertaken in Canadian history, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In 1996, it reported that the relationship between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples needed to be fundamentally restructured. The facts of aboriginal life have changed, and it's time for policies and frameworks to reflect the new reality.

CAP is pleased that the government has reintroduced Bill S-2 concerning matrimonial real property. This legislation will address a longstanding gap and will better protect the rights of aboriginal people, particularly women living on reserve. For many years, we've been calling for an effective MRP regime on reserve. Aboriginal women on reserve face unfair and unconstitutional discrimination in the exercise of their right to a fair share of matrimonial real property after the breakup of a marriage or common-law relationship. We view the bill as a positive step to ensure that aboriginal women and children receive equitable distribution of matrimonial real property assets in the event of divorce, separation, family violence, or death.

The congress has never bought into the Indian Act, and we have a long history of fighting this legislation. Back in 1974, with financial assistance from our organization, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell was the first non-status woman to bring a challenge to the Indian Act. Today, our women continue to be discriminated against through the Indian Act, but through the brave work of people like Sharon McIvor, Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, as well as many others, we are taking this legislation apart piece by piece.

I'm a registered subsection 6(2) Indian. Under the law, my son is not entitled to be registered as an Indian. We are graded like cattle or grades of beef. It is unadulterated discrimination, and fighting this is the central priority for the congress.

In January of this year, Canada proclaimed into force Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. This was a direct result of the McIvor decision, which took 20 years to move through the courts. Because this legislation is very narrow in scope, sex discrimination, unfortunately, remains in the status registration provisions. Not all descendants of the Indian women who lost status through marrying out have gained status back. The first generation was covered by Bill C-31 in 1985, the second generation through this year's Bill C-3, but further generations remain cut off from Indian status.

The only way to be sure that such discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act is to place descendants of status Indian women on the same footing as descendants of Indian men. Today aboriginal women are not treated equally as transmitters of status. As a result of this discrimination, thousands of their descendants have been forgotten.

Another remaining problem relates to the post-1985 Indian Act registration rules and how they operate in cases of unstated paternity. In 1985 Canada went from a one-parent descendancy rule, which favoured Indian men, to a new system called the second generation cut-off rule. Now whether you were an Indian man or woman, mixed parenting is only allowed for one generation. After the second generation of mixed parenting, a person is no longer an Indian. Today, when a status mother does not disclose the father's identity, the child's registration can only be based on the mother's entitlement. From 1985 to 1999, this resulted in the downgrading or outright loss of Indian status to approximately 50,000 Indian children.

The new second-generation cut-off rule will result in a drastic reduction of the status Indian population over the course of a few generations. Status Indians, like many other Canadian citizens, fall in love and have children with people from other cultures. This common social occurrence, when paired with the second-generation cut-off rule, has the perverse result of depriving the children of these unions of either their Indian status or the ability to pass status to their own children.

It has been estimated that within 60 years only one-third of the descendants of the current status Indian population will be entitled to status. The number will continue to decline. Academics and demographers alike have argued that the Indian registration rules introduced in 1985 will lead to the legislative extinction of status Indians.

A clear solution to this problem would be for Canada to return to a one-parent descendancy rule for Indian status and apply it equally to men and women. However, everyone here can acknowledge that the capacity of courts to deal with these issues is very limited. CAP is seeking a political commitment to examine and address aboriginal citizenship, with all the associated broader questions.

Since the passage of Bill C-3 in December 2010, the federal government has launched the exploratory process. It is not a consultative process, which we like, and I'm pleased to say the government has not pre-determined or pre-defined the agenda or questions with regard to Indian registration, band membership, and aboriginal citizenship. CAP is currently engaged with the process and we're hosting dialogue sessions across Canada.

Section 74 of the Indian Act allows bands to elect chiefs and councils according to their own customs. Currently about 30% of bands have adopted their own custom codes. Under these rules a band can admit to membership people who do not have status. They can also deny membership to any status Indian except Indian women restored under paragraph 6(1)(c).

Despite this apparent opportunity to break away from the Indian Act, 30% of the bands have adopted membership rules that are more restrictive than the Indian Act itself. CAP was pleased when the Conservative government delivered on its promise to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Since 1977, section 67 has shielded bands from complaints of discrimination stemming from membership codes plus other issues.

In June of this year the transition period ended. We expect that many of the custom election codes will now be challenged under the Canadian Human Rights Act. My understanding is that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has not provided any resources to the bands to review and update their membership codes or to ensure they are in compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is really unfortunate, because there are some bands that are being very proactive in addressing this issue. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

In regard to aboriginal citizenship, CAP takes the position that the right of aboriginal peoples to determine our own citizenship is an inherent right derived from the Creator and protected both under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our right to self-government was never distinguished.

We view the exploratory process as the beginning of a long process of questioning and thinking, and as we move towards self-determination and citizenship, we are being given the chance to come up with the solutions to long-lived problems we've had to face.

The possible self-government structures for urban aboriginal peoples are wide-ranging. CAP has been working on these challenging issues for many years and at the same time struggling with the reserve focus of federal government policies and programs. Federal and provincial wrangling has slowed progress for urban aboriginal populations.

With the resolution of the federal government's responsibility regarding Métis and non-status Indians, aboriginal and state relations will be very clear, and some of the on-reserve and off-reserve distinctions will be resolved.

My colleague Dwight will speak further to that.

The education of our children and youth is a priority of the first order for us. Aboriginal youth have the highest dropout rates, the lowest levels of literacy, and the lowest levels of skills development. The odds are better that our youth will end up in jail than that they will graduate from high school. It is education that will improve our economic situation and our lives. It is education that is integral to reducing poverty in our communities and eliminating our dependencies.

At the Summit on Aboriginal Education held in February, we were encouraged by the discussions about strengthening aboriginal success in education. The provincial and territorial ministers of education have recognized that in the next 15 years, aboriginal students will represent over 25% of the elementary student population in some provinces and territories. We encourage the Prime Minister to call a first ministers meeting on education at which an interjurisdictional commitment to improve school experiences for our students could be mobilized.

Last, I want to talk to you about the Canadian firearms registry. Currently, aboriginal firearms owners who are not compliant with the Firearms Act can incur criminal liability for unauthorized possession of non-restricted firearms under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. In the last couple of weeks, the government gave notice concerning the bill to abolish the long-gun registry.

CAP joins many other aboriginal organizations across Canada in calling for an end to the long-gun registry. We view the licensing and registration requirements imposed by the registry as an infringement on our right to hunt. Aboriginal hunters and harvesters are not part of the crime problem, and the registry is ineffective and wasteful. The infringement on aboriginal treaty rights to hunt, trap, or fish is not acceptable to our organization. CAP remains supportive of regulations requiring hunters and harvesters to secure an acquisition licence and to follow rules for the safe storage of firearms.

In conclusion, I wish to express our appreciation for the attention the Prime Minister has brought to aboriginal issues by meeting with national aboriginal leaders. In the days ahead, my colleague and I look forward to active engagement with various House of Commons standing committees that have an important role to play in moving the aboriginal agenda forward.

At this point I'll turn to my colleague, Vice-Chief Dwight Dorey, to speak on the issue of section 91.24.

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you for the question.

We actually deal with a fair number of private members' bills and private senators' bills. In terms of government legislation, I hasten to add that the government will decide whether to pursue legislation or not, and Parliament will decide whether to adopt it. There were a number of statements of intention in the Speech from the Throne and the budget to proceed with legislation in this Parliament—and there are others that were being discussed, which will need a cabinet decision as to when and whether they go forward.

To pick up on the question from Ms. Duncan, there are still some first nation consultations to be done before we would think about tabling a bill.

Not strictly speaking in the scope of this chapter, you'll know that Bill S-2 has already been tabled. That's the matrimonial property issue coming back for the fourth time. Hopefully, Parliament will find a way through that in the next little while.

You'll see a number of bills that are related to land claim settlements and treaties. There will probably be at least three or four of those in the next year where you have a specific agreement and you need implementation legislation.

There are probably two that are the most relevant to the chapter. One is water standards legislation. There was a bill on this in the previous Parliament, and we're now in discussions with first nations groups about whether we can make it more palatable. I think you'll see water standards legislation within a matter of months at the outside. That goes straight to one of the issues in the chapter.

The big, elusive one is probably first nations education. We're going through the exercise with a national panel, that is, as a joint project with the Assembly of First Nations—and not without controversy in first nation circles. Once we have that report around Christmas, the minister and the national chief will have to decide how to move forward. I think there's a very good chance of government legislation on first nations education in calendar year 2012.

Opposition Motion--National Suicide Prevention Strategy

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has spent a lot of time on the health committee and has a number of things that she has already spoken of today.

I will go back to one part of my presentation that I did not get to develop as much as I would have liked. It is in relation to Bill S-2 and what we would be implementing in relation to matrimonial property rights. I think this would be a fundamental improvement to the lives of first nations people where women, in particular, when a marriage breaks up, would be able to have access to the family home via this new legal vehicle. I believe it is perhaps the first time in our history as a country that aboriginal people on reserve would be able to remedy situations that they find themselves in with this legal device so that they could actually retain a family home instead of perhaps having it simply taken from them in a marriage breakdown, even though they have young children and would prefer to live there.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this topic today as it reminds me of one of those occasional days in the House when we do have meaningful debate that sets aside a lot of partisan-charged rhetoric. These kinds of debates allow us to have really good discussions and allow us to bring good ideas forward. That has happened today, and I want to commend the mover for bringing forward this motion.

Coming from an aboriginal family and living in an aboriginal community for much of my life, I have seen this issue unfortunately occur in many families. Others in the House have talked about that because we have all experienced the effect of suicide in our lives.

I do recall hearing a simple statement over the years and it is a simple statement that bears repeating, and that is that no one ever wants to commit suicide, he or she just wants the pain to end. So that is where I will start.

I would like to also extend my sympathies to all of the families that have been affected by suicide throughout the years. This tragedy exacts a terrible toll in grief and heartbreak, and leaves no one unaffected.

My hon. colleagues today have spoken about initiatives undertaken by the Public Health Agency of Canada regarding this issue. I want to speak a bit about how, through its initiatives and investments, our government is working with its partners to break the cycle of hopelessness and despair that still exists in some aboriginal communities.

Our government has invested in many programs and initiatives that are playing a critical role in improving the quality of life for aboriginal people, building safer, healthier and stronger communities. In the time I have today, I will only talk about a few of them.

We recognize that it takes more than bricks and mortar to build and sustain a healthy community. That is why our government is working with its partners to strengthen what is the cornerstone of any community, the family.

I would like to point out that we introduced just last week Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill offers a balanced and effective solution to long-standing injustice that affects people living on reserves, particularly women and children.

In the event of a relationship breakdown, death of a spouse or common law partner or family violence, many of the legal rights and remedies relating to matrimonial interests in the family home that are available off reserve are not available to individuals who live on reserve, with potentially very serious consequences. I am looking forward to the passage of this important legislation because I truly believe all parties in this place would prefer to see women and children protected rather than being left vulnerable by this legal void.

In order to further support the family our government initiated and continues to be engaged in an ongoing reform of the first nations child and family services program with a focus on results. We are working with our partners in the provinces and first nations themselves to implement what is called an enhanced prevention focused approach aimed at providing better outcomes for children and their families.

This is a new model designed to ensure the best practices in prevention-based services are brought to first nations communities. It broadens the tool kit of culturally appropriate services, which will help first nations family and child services work with families during breakups and keep children in their homes.

We launched this model in 2007 with a signing of a tripartite agreement with the province of Alberta and Alberta first nations. Today, tripartite agreements are also in place with our first nation partners in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. With these six agreements in place, enhanced prevention services are reaching close to 70% of first nations children who live on reserves in Canada.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada also works with a broad range of stakeholders on the co-ordination of family violence programming to better protect the interests of first nations women, children and families.

Partners in this effort include the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and of course the provinces and territories as well as many of the departments within our federal government.

By providing family violence prevention and protection services, we can enhance the safety and security of first nation women and children, and achieve a more secure family environment for children on reserve.

We recognize, however, that even with the best efforts at prevention, crises can befall families, first nations families, all families in Canada. This is partly why Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development provides operational funding of some $18 million a year to support a network of 41 shelters, serving approximately 300 first nations communities.

Every year, approximately 1,900 women and 2,300 children access these services. We would prefer they were not needed, but it is a reality throughout society that we must face.

These are just a few examples of what our government is doing to protect the welfare of first nation children and families, to keep those children safe, to keep families together and build stronger, healthier communities.

This group of government programs I have described do not work in isolation. They are part of a much broader, co-ordinated effort by our government, developed in partnership with aboriginal people and organizations.

We continue to listen to aboriginal people and we have heard their concerns. We are taking action, and will continue to do so. For example, in June, the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations announced a Canada-First Nations joint action plan. The goal of the action plan is simple: to improve the lives of first nations people across Canada, and in doing so, contribute to a stronger and more prosperous country.

The action plan is based on common goals and shared principles. It states our commitment to work together to achieve concrete and practical progress, to build effective, appropriate and fully accountable governance structures, which is important, and empower the success of individuals through access to education, opportunity and property. It reflects our commitment to implementing the programs and investments that enable strong, sustainable and self-sufficient communities, and to creating conditions to accelerate economic development opportunities for all Canadians.

Of equal importance, this action plan reflects our shared commitment to respect the role of first nations culture and language in our history and in our future. The plan also specifically has important goals in relation to four areas, education, accountability, transparency, economic development and negotiation, and implementation.

I would like to speak a bit more, though, about education, as I see it as a key and important area which will help alleviate much of the hopelessness that we see in first nations communities. This engagement process that I spoke of recommends a framework for providing modifications to the way we deliver K to 12 education in first nations communities.

The national panel is holding a series of round tables and other activities across the country to engage parents, students, teachers, elders, educators and anyone, in fact, who has an interest in improving first nations education. These round tables are enjoying strong participation.

The panel will make recommendations to the minister and to the national chief on options for positive change for first nations students. This could include the possibility of new legislation to improve the governance framework and clarify accountability for first nations elementary and secondary education. We look forward to receiving this panel's report and recommendations by the end of the year.

The action plan commits Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to pursue initiatives that increase the transparency and accountability of first nations government through their respective constituents. This would include initiatives to improve first nations electoral processes, such as those advanced at regional first nations organizations, such as, the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs, which has called for a common election day as well as a four year cycle. Changes such as this will greatly improve the transparency process of their electoral practices.

In many remote locations, first nations communities can be especially vulnerable to fire, flood and other natural disasters. The action plan also includes a joint commitment to continued development and implementation of emergency management frameworks.

Perhaps the most vivid illustration of our action and real improvement in the aboriginal quality of life is Canada's economic action plan. When the government unveiled the first action plan two years ago, we made sure that this comprehensive blueprint for economic renewal focused on priorities that were and remain foremost in the minds of Canadians: the construction of more reserve housing; improving on-reserve health; developing training and skills development opportunities for young people taking part in these construction activities; and accelerating ready to go projects in first nations communities in three key areas: schools, water and critical community services.

By means of the economic action plan, we invested $1.4 billion over the past two fiscal years on things that matter most to all Canadian families, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. I believe all of these investments have made a difference in supporting our first nations communities and I look forward to the opportunity to see the fruits of all of this investment in the years to come. Unfortunately, though, it does take time.

I believe that our efforts as a government will continue to put aboriginal people's interests first and I look forward to being a part of that plan.