Status of Women Committee on April 25th, 2013

[Jo-Ann Greene]

Yes, before it was a double majority required. We were told and we heard that it was—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Difficult to get—

[Jo-Ann Greene]

—onerous and that most first nations felt they couldn't meet that high a standard. So now it's just a set participation rate of 25% of the eligible voters who are over the age of 18 and are community members, and that's to include on- and off-reserve members. It was requested so that they would be sure the community had input into what the community matrimonial real property laws might be like.

I think we had a lot of misunderstanding before, with the verification process that was removed. It was always just intended to review the process, not the law itself. We want to reiterate that again, that the department or the minister has no say at all in reviewing, disallowing, or cancelling anything in the first nation law. It's just up to them, between the government and the first nation members.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon), Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Bateman.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being with us again today. I had done all the reading, but I really feel that I know the information much better now.

There's one piece I'd like more depth on. If we have time, I'd love to talk about the four phases to your approach, which I very much appreciate.

But I also want to hear about the centre of excellence, because my understanding is that the centre of excellence is going to be a tool that can be accessed by all first nation communities wanting to achieve what the 22 have already achieved. Is that the case?

[Andrew Beynon]

Yes, I would agree.

It has several elements to it. Sure, first nations will be able to turn to the centre of excellence for advice on the contents of matrimonial real property laws, but more than that, they can turn to it for advice on the federal provisional rules. If you don't choose to make a law, what is this default federal system that the legislation calls for?

I think that will help first nation governments to make a decision on the comparison—what is it that we like in this, and what is it that we don't like? So, if we move to develop our own law, what features would we want to keep perhaps in our own law, and what would we want to customize and make more appropriate to our community?

I would fully expect that the centre of excellence, as an aboriginal institution, will look across to the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, which assists first nations under the FNLMA, in the development of all of their laws, not just matrimonial real property laws. Those laws are public. They can be obtained. So first nations, either through the centre of excellence or directly themselves, can look at existing examples of laws.

The last point I would just make is that six months ago, I think, we were at 20 FNLM matrimonial real property laws; now we're at 22. The FNLM regime is expanding, and I know there are many other first nations that are in the course of adopting their own matrimonial real property laws.

So if this legislation goes forward, right now the comparison factor is 22. I would expect it to go to 35 or 60 over time. There will be more FNLM matrimonial real property laws to compare with, both for the centre of excellence and individual first nations.

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

Go ahead.

[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.

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

That's a wonderful distinction. I wasn't aware of that distinction, so I very much appreciate your adding that.

If you have a minute, you were going to tell one of my colleagues an anecdote about a woman who would have been well-served by this, and you got cut off. Ms. Greene, if you would like to use my time to share that anecdote or to finish that anecdote, I would very much appreciate it.

[Jo-Ann Greene]

The one about my community…?

I'm not sure…related to the emergency protection orders?

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

Yes.

[Jo-Ann Greene]

Through the emergency protection orders, if you don't have permission of the applicant, you can seek permission to apply for an emergency protection order on behalf of someone else. The court can grant that permission. In that instance, the daughter of the woman, fearing that something was wrong when access wasn't granted to see her mother, she could have sought that permission to seek an emergency protection order that would have possibly helped in that situation to de-escalate—

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon), Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Sorry. Thank you. Time's up.

I want to thank you for being with us again today, and thank you for your words of advice and understanding. We certainly appreciate the time you've taken to be with us.

I now call for adjournment.