Status of Women Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

You're looking for a quick answer, but the reality, too, is that the intent behind the legislation is something else. There is certainly no direct correlation between passing this legislation and saving lives. The bill deals with the division of property upon the dissolution of the marriage, marriage breakdown, or death.

The reality that we found through meeting and speaking among our chiefs is that this bill doesn't address the underlying issues or the ancillary issues that go along with marriage breakdown, or the reality of the current housing shortages that exist on many reserves. It does not address in a significant way the challenges that we have in terms of access to justice and many other issues, which have been raised by the Assembly of First Nations and our leadership, that fundamentally need to be addressed outside of legislation in order to ensure that there are the necessary protections, not only for women but for all of our citizens on reserve. This is something that we're looking to the government to commit to. Not necessarily will these issues in any way, shape, or form be addressed by this piece of legislation that is being moved forward.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Chief Louie, do you have anything to add?

[Chief Robert Louie]

Yes. I can say that, from experience in dealing with matrimonial and real property laws and understanding and hearing from first nations across the country that have, in fact, implemented matrimonial and real property laws, it's been a good thing.

Whether it's saved lives, I don't know. I think it's avoided problems. I think that members in various communities understand, because they're involved in the development of what it is that they want in the community. They understand fully that, if there are disputes or if there are matrimonial issues or things of significance that affect the matrimonial home or the children, these matters have to be appropriately dealt with.

So whether it saves life, I guess that's a very debatable question. I think you'll want to avoid controversy and have a process and procedure that's at least accepted by the community, and know that at the outset.

[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.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you for the question, and the previous question.

I certainly recognize the intent here is to fill a gap. As we all know, the legislation is part of the solution moving forward, but it's not the entire solution. I think having my colleagues here—and I'm also a director on the Lands Advisory Board—to reflect an option that first nations have undertaken, in terms of broader land management powers.... One of the obstacles for first nations pursuing those broader land management powers and removing themselves from 25% of the Indian Act is that the federal government is currently playing gatekeeper to the numerous first nations that want to enter this process—some 68 in number—because there aren't the dollars in order for them to do that. That's one example. Beyond the 23 matrimonial property laws under the framework agreement, there are numerous other MRP laws in comprehensive self-government arrangements, as well as those traditionally enacted by various first nations.

So, you know, I think that it's important to look at this issue in that broader context of nation-building, and what communities are actually doing, and the opportunities that they have.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

One minute.

[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?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

As I understand it, there's been some discussion around a centre of excellence that was proposed to support first nations in developing capacity. But I think my colleague here quite clearly articulated the challenges, not only in terms of their resources but in terms of the community engagement that is required to look to in passing a law. The support that is needed is not necessarily articulated in terms of being an addition or something that has been considered in conjunction with this law being passed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Maybe just quickly, is there a trend here that is problematic? We're dealing with a number of bills on first nations. This bill should be in the aboriginal affairs committee. There are other bills that are coming through there where there are real concerns around consultation and listening to the concerns of first nations.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Very quickly, please.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Absolutely. This piece of legislation, in its fourth iteration, is one of a number of pieces of legislation that are being put forward, as I mentioned, by this government. They seek to tinker around the edges of the Indian Act and deal in a stovepipe or compartmentalized way with specific jurisdictions without the fundamental need to have that broader discussion among our communities about comprehensive reform—

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I have to interrupt you. Sorry, about that.

I'm turning to Madam O'Neill Gordon, for a seven-minute round.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I'll be sharing my time with Roxanne James, and she will be starting.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Tilly, and also, Chair.

Welcome to our guests.

I actually had a question. I'm going to direct this question both to Chief Wilson-Raybould and Chief Louie.

In both of your opening statements—and I'm just going to try to quote this as best I can—when speaking about the legislation, I know that Chief Wilson-Raybould, you did give some recognition to the government for allowing first nations to implement their own legislation first, but you said the problem is that it's not optional.

One of the recommendations, Chief Louie, that you had indicated—and it was the first one, actually, you made it very clear—is that we should remove or modify the timeframe or allow it to be optional.

I'm just trying to understand—maybe you can help me with this—which first nations? Who would not want to implement matrimonial real property laws on reserves? Who would not want to, and what would the reason be?

[Chief Robert Louie]

I don't think that there is a first nation that doesn't want to. I think it becomes one of timeliness and the time it takes to do it properly. I think everyone wants to. We all take matrimonial legislation very seriously. It's a very serious issue. It's a very serious matter, but it takes time. In some communities we find that it takes a longer time than others. The cost of and the burden of doing it properly varies from community to community and this is an issue, I think, that has to be considered.

A centre of excellence that will be a resource body may help, but even if it does come into existence, then it has to be properly resourced and there has to be involvement of first nations in the design of that.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

When you say optional, you didn't really mean to opt out?

[Chief Robert Louie]

No.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Chief Wilson-Raybould, could you comment on that too? Because I find that when I hear the word “optional”, it's like I'm hearing that there is no need for it. I wonder if you can think of any first nations across Canada that would feel that the equality of women with regard to MRP legislation should be something that is optional and is something they would want to opt out of.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

I agree with Chief Louie. I know that all of our nations see this as something that is a priority that needs to be addressed, and we have, in various ways across our nations, been addressing that issue, whether that be through self-government agreements or in the framework agreement. Those are options that first nations can enter into to develop their laws, but it is their option to do so.

The problem or the challenge here is that when legislation is imposed upon our first nations, our nations know that we have the inherent right to self-government and to be able to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the priorities and the traditions and the cultures of our communities. The provisional rules that will come into play one year afterwards do not recognize that jurisdiction, but the federal government grants it or provides it.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

So you really don't mean that the problem is with “not optional” either.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould]

We want to avoid the imposition of somebody else's laws on our own first nations that are in the process and that want to do that themselves.

[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?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

You have one minute.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay. There is actually one other point I want to make on that.

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

Madam Chair, I tend to be the one who will be given only two minutes after the Conservatives have had two full sessions. This is really not the way the time should be divided at this committee.