Status of Women Committee on June 4th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Yes, it's the first amendment.

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

May I speak to that? I think the very first sentence completely changes the intent of my motion. I want to call on Parliament. I don't know about you, but I hear from my constituents all the time, “You need to work together”. My call is Parliament. We need to address this and take responsibility for this together. Yes, the government wants to bring things forward. Obviously you disagree because you didn't support it, but that's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Before we get into a big debate on this, as chair I think it changes the intent of the original motion. I know it speaks to the same basic premise, but it also goes much further and asks for a set of actions that are different from those of the original motion. So I'm saying I can't accept it as an amendment. Certainly the chair can be ruled out of order. The chair can definitely be challenged on this. But I think it's a separate motion, which of course we could deal with as well.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I am going to challenge the ruling of the chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay, and that's fine.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, as I said, the advice we had was that while it extended the process, it didn't change the intent of the motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay. I think the mover of the original motion is definitely making a good point when she's talking about government and when she's talking about Parliament. Those are two different things.

The clerk is showing me something here. We need to ask what the will of the committee is.

(Ruling of the chair negatived)

Carry on, Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I come back to my basic premise, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You're now speaking to the amendment?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm speaking to the amendment and I'm speaking to the legal obligation to consult with first nations communities. I'm speaking to the importance of not determining for others what their laws and lifestyle should be. I'm speaking to the importance of the collective in aboriginal communities.

First and foremost, I support the concept of matrimonial real property reform for aboriginal or first nations women. That's non-negotiable, but it has to be done appropriately.

This government in fact hired an eminent, well-regarded member of the aboriginal community, Chief Wendy Grant-John. She provided a report, which I was going to bring, but it's literally inches thick. I didn't bring it with me because I didn't want to carry it. She made recommendations about the importance of consultation and about the importance of the collective. The government chose to totally disregard it in the legislation that they introduced and that was referred to the aboriginal affairs committee. I'm repeating myself, but I see this as an effort to do through the back door what they couldn't do through the front door.

When we have any discussions or make any decisions that affect the rights of aboriginal peoples in this country, I think it's incumbent on us to understand the responsibility of the duty to consult. Therefore, I'm putting forward this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Madame Demers, would you comment on the amendment?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I agree with Ms. Neville. I'm sorry people opposite are uncomfortable with this, because we have the same goal, the same objective in mind, but hope to achieve it through a broader consultative process. We have seen the effects of a lack of consultation on pay equity. Perhaps if we bothered to consult before deciding what is best for someone, we would make fewer mistakes.

I tend to agree with Ms. Neville's comments. Nevertheless, I would like to propose a subamendment. I would simply like to add something to her amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Yes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

The amendment would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women calls on the government to support First Nations women living on reserve by conducting consultations, as per its legal duty to consult as stipulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with those affected by marital breakdown. This should include First Nations women and families, First Nations communities, Regional Aboriginal Associations and National Aboriginal Organizations. The consultations should ensure that an appropriate resolution to the issue of matrimonial real property is found that meets the needs of all those who are affected.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

It would be “as stipulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

Do you want to accept that as a friendly amendment, or do you wish that to go as a...?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I would accept it as a friendly amendment.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, for too long now we have unilaterally decided what is good for First Nations. They are mature and they have been around much longer than we have and are capable of deciding for themselves what is truly important to their communities and which rights and laws must be brought in to address their real needs, not perceived ones.

We are talking about the same rights for all women. These may not necessarily be the same rights than aboriginal women need. They need similar, but not necessarily the same rights. They need rights that are applied differently because the reality they experience as members of First Nations communities is different.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to say perhaps a few things. In response to Ms. Neville's comments about in through the back door what's not through the front door, I have a more general observation. I feel that in this committee that's solely what we've been looking at, instead of many of the very incredibly important areas that we could be looking at. To date, we have been doing front door and back door types of things, instead of looking at the aboriginal women who are dying, technology, and media. I truly would suggest that this is something we need to think about in the future in terms of how we look at what we're going to do in this committee.

My understanding is that there was a comprehensive consultation process--and we're not into debating this specific bill--and that within this bill there are very solid mechanisms for community-level decision-making about how they would actually implement it. So what we would be doing is creating immediate protection for women and then respecting the ability of communities to come up with their own systems. I would go back to really preferring to support the original motion.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to say that I think part of the problem here is that the current members from the government party, except for yourself, Madam Chair, were not here when the committee had an extensive investigation into matrimonial real property rights. We invited in first nations groups and individuals and actually came up with quite a thorough report.

What was very clear from that report, from those consultations, was that first nations women and men were asking that the model not be based on provincial legislation, the provincial model that is currently part of the legislation that we see in front of the House of Commons. By virtue of the fact that we've heard--I know that a number of us have heard--from the AFN, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, we know they are very concerned by what is currently in front of the House. We should be supporting them and respecting what they said in regard to the kind of process they want.

The process that was presented to first nations people was rushed. Unfortunately, Chief Grant-John only had about three months to consult with 643 communities. There is a rhythm to consultations, and if they are to be respectful, they have to take time and they have to be done on the basis of respect for how a community functions.

In that light, I would support the amended motion from Ms. Neville, because I think it does indeed attempt to do precisely what should be done, and that is to meet first nations on their ground in a respectful way.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Ms. Hoeppner.

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

I have to be careful that I don't get too emotional on this one, because I am meeting and dealing with women daily. I'm sorry, but if this is not an example of playing politics on the backs of women, I don't know what is.

Ms. Demers, maybe I missed it, or maybe it was lost in translation, but when you say that aboriginal women don't need the same rights that we do, I disagree, and I think we're playing politics on the backs of aboriginal women. There's a reason that maybe some of the chiefs don't like this: it's absolutely taking the power out of their hands and putting it into the hands of grassroots women.

And you know what, folks--friends--you can say the government has an obligation to do this.... It's Parliament; we all have an obligation to take care of this issue.

Anita, you see it as well. You said that you see the women who are suffering. At a minimum, I know what our legislation.... We don't want to debate the actual legislation. But what we need to do is support this so that then aboriginals can develop some programs that work within and that are culturally appropriate. I absolutely agree with that.

I lived on a first nations reserve for over three years. My kids went to school on a first nations reserve. I went to church with women living on first nations reserves. They're still my friends. They are suffering, and if you think these groups are speaking on their behalf, you are wrong.

We are here to stand up for those who don't have a voice, so if at a minimum we put through something just so there's some basic law so that they can have real property rights, we need to do that. Is it a perfect solution? No, because we want to make sure it's culturally appropriate, but we need to put something in place. That's why my motion said that I'm calling on Parliament, because I'm looking to all of us to work together. I will leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

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

I just want to reiterate Ms. Hoeppner's motion and her words. I myself am coming from having taught on the Burnt Church reserve, a native reserve in New Brunswick, and I certainly saw first-hand how much we need to stand up for these women.