Evidence of meeting #77 for Status of Women in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Karl Jacques  Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs, Department of Justice
Andrew Beynon  Director General, Strategic Planning, Policy and Research, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Jo-Ann Greene  Senior Policy Advisor, Lands Modernization Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

11 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

I would like to call the 77th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to order.

I see Ms. Ashton has her hand up. Go ahead.

11 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to start off by making a motion that we reconsider what happened at yesterday's committee meeting, which unfortunately ended up shutting down the voices of important aboriginal women who have something to say about this bill.

We saw that they left in very frustrating circumstances. They felt disrespected, and I would like to ask this committee—and I appeal to the government members who have certainly shown that they wanted to hear from these witnesses—to consider a motion that we have these witnesses back so that we can let them finish their testimony, so that we can ask them questions. I specifically refer to the Native Women's Association president, Michèle Audette, Ms. Teresa Edwards, Chief Phillips, Ms. Janice Makokis, and others who did not have a chance to be heard.

I appeal to the other side because I feel that this has certainly shown a great deal of disrespect to witnesses, including national aboriginal organizations, and in that I also include the Assembly of First Nations, which also felt it was shut down in this debate.

Madam Chair, I believe that, if we do not do this, it contradicts our duty to pass due diligence on such important bills, but also, as members of Parliament, to show the utmost respect to rights holders in this debate, which in this case are first nations people, the very people who this committee—and through the government's wishes to limit the debate—are being silenced as a result.

Certainly our side, the NDP, will not stand for this kind of utmost disrespect, for the silencing of these voices, and we would appeal to all members of the committee to refrain from going on with this bill unless we hear from these critical witnesses, who have everything to say about this bill, before we can engage in these deliberations.

11 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

So you are introducing a motion, Ms. Ashton. Is it an official motion? If so, I will turn to the clerk to find out if she has the wording of the motion.

11 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Yes, it is an official motion.

11 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

The clerk has the wording of the motion. So I am going to read it. Ms. Ashton can confirm it.

The motion reads as follows:

That the committee invite the witnesses scheduled for the meeting of May 8, 2013 to return before it to answer questions—

11 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

That's before we enter into the clause-by-clause.

11 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

—before the committee enters the study of clause-by-clause.

Is that clear to everyone now?

The motion is in front of us now. We will now debate that motion. I have a speakers list.

Madam Crowder.

11 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Of course, I'm looking at some of the media coverage of the committee yesterday, and here's a headline: Status of Women committee shuts down testimony on controversial First Nations bill.

This is on iPolitics.

I'm not clear, Madam Chair, that this is the kind of reputation that the status of women committee would like to have.

What we have before us is a bill that will have far-reaching impacts on first nation men, women, and children, and part of our responsibility as members of Parliament is to exercise, as Ms. Ashton referred to, due diligence. It's our responsibility to ensure that we give a thorough review of a piece of legislation.

I might point out to committee members that this is the first time that matrimonial real property has been before a parliamentary committee. It has been before the Senate, absolutely, but it has not been before a parliamentary committee. It's our responsibility to ensure that we thoroughly review the bill and that we ensure that we have had sufficient testimony in order for us to make sure that the bill is achieving the aims it is purported to achieve.

What we had yesterday, unfortunately, is something that I have not seen in my entire career here in Parliament. We had key witnesses on the piece of legislation who were not allotted what is customary time to present their point of view, and there was no time at all for the members to pose questions to these witnesses.

I would argue that delaying the clause-by-clause consideration in order for us to make sure that we've covered all the bases is something that, as responsible parliamentarians, we should undertake. So I am supporting Ms. Ashton's motion and I would urge all members to support this so that we can demonstrate, as a committee, that we understand our responsibilities and that we are respectful of the witnesses who have made the effort to come before us.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Madam Truppe, you have the floor.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair, and would we go in camera?

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

It's a non-debatable motion, so we'll proceed to a vote.

11:05 a.m.

An hon. member

A recorded vote.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Sorry, a recorded vote. Madam Clerk....

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Since the motion was carried, we will continue the meeting in camera. I will ask all those who cannot be here to leave the room.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Before we continue with the topic on our agenda, I would simply like to introduce three guests. I took the liberty to invite them so that they answer any questions we may have.

Please briefly tell us your names and your roles, so that we know who you are and what types of questions you can answer for our committee today.

11:20 a.m.

Karl Jacques Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs, Department of Justice

I am Karl Jacques, from legal services.

11:20 a.m.

Andrew Beynon Director General, Strategic Planning, Policy and Research, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

I am Andrew Beynon, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

11:20 a.m.

Jo-Ann Greene Senior Policy Advisor, Lands Modernization Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

I am Jo-Ann Greene, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

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.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to speak to a couple of items in clause 2.

When we heard the acting chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, at the end of his testimony he posed three questions that the committee should consider. He said: First, will the proposed legislation provide women with fair access to justice? Second, will the proposed legislation ensure women will be able to access their rights in a safe way? And third, do first nations communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems, and if not, what can be done to correct this problem?

I'm going to start with the last point. What we consistently heard from witness testimony is that first nation communities do not have the capacity because they simply do not have the resources. It takes a significant amount of resources to be able to develop matrimonial real property. Certainly, a number of us have had emails from Chief Shining Turtle, who had been attempting to work with the government for a number of years in order to have his nation's matrimonial real property code passed. After seven or eight years it still hasn't been passed.

It speaks to not only the first nation's capacity, but questionably.... We didn't hear testimony to this effect, but it would have been interesting to pose to the department its capacity to work with first nations that were developing a matrimonial real property code.

There are two other points I want to touch on with regard to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Fair access to justice, again, is an issue around resources. When I'm looking at the interpretation in clause 2, it's about a family home. Of course, one thing we did hear in testimony from witnesses was around the fact that many nations have a severe shortage of housing.

When you're talking about remedies, it doesn't appear possible that a first nation community would be able to accommodate the family. If the goal is to ensure that when a couple splits up, one person of the couple ends up with the matrimonial home, presumably the other half of the couple could stay within the community in order to have the family continue to try to work around parenting and support.

The other issue around housing, of course, is that there are multi-generations living in some houses sometimes. We hear stories about 10, 15, sometimes even 20 people living in a house. You could have grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, all living in the same house. So if a court order comes down and only one part of the couple ends up staying in the house, what happens if the in-laws are living in the house? That's a question we've never been able to resolve. Do the grandparents have to move out because they would have, perhaps, access when the other family member would want to continue to visit? We haven't dealt with any of those questions.

Madam Chair, I think it's troubling that we're being asked to consider a piece of legislation when we don't have a full analysis of the impact on the ground if this legislation moves forward.

Thank you.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Madame Crowder.

Madame Crockatt.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to point out that we did also hear from the Haida. They said they had their own matrimonial property legislation and that they were happy to share that with other reserves. I think it's interesting to remind the committee that we did hear from them on that point.

Thank you.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Madame Crockatt.

Mr. Jean.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I am a visitor to this particular issue and this committee, but I'm very interested in this issue and that's why in part I'm here.

I'm just curious as to why Ms. Crowder would say that. With the application of matrimonial property law on reserves it's going to mean the judicial community has the right to decide what happens with other people within that home. It applies in essence the laws of this country for the last 200 years and before that Great Britain for many years. It applies the common law terms to the matrimonial property decision by the judge. The judge has a tremendous amount of leeway to decide what would happen in a particular home based upon the particular factual circumstances. That's my understanding of the matrimonial law.

What it would do in essence is reverse the decision of Derrickson v. Derrickson, or at least reverse it by way of legislation to allow the 1986 decision, to allow the courts to then be able to have jurisdiction on reserves. They do this every day in divorce courts and in provincial courts for matrimonial property acts right across this country already, and they've done it for a long time. So their ability to do so would be guided by the principles that they've already used for hundreds of years.

I don't understand what Ms. Crowder is suggesting in that there would have to be new fact situations or something special for this. This is Canadian law that has happened for hundreds of years and will continue to be applied by judges. It's just that now the court will have the opportunity to have jurisdiction on reserves and treat them exactly the same as all other Canadian women have had the right to be treated for many years. It seems absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it would go any other way.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Madame Crowder, you have a bit more than a minute.