Status of Women Committee on May 9th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mrs. Day.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I don't know whether I just need a point of clarification or whether there is a problem with the translation, but the translation came through that Ms. Anne-Marie Day had said that my colleague, Mr. Jean, “spoke as a white person”. Although that comment was not made directly to me, I find it very offensive, and I'm not sure what exactly it means.

I don't know whether it was a problem with the translation or whether that was really said, but I would like to understand what it means to speak as a white person. I find that very offensive in this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. James.

Madam James, was that a direct question to Madam Day, or just a comment?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It was a point of clarification. Is that exactly what was said? Because the translation came through as that, and I find it unacceptable. I can imagine if it had been said about any other colour of skin what would have happened in this committee. I find that very offensive and inexcusable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

There's no point of clarification, but if you ask a direct question, I can ask Madam Day to answer.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair, I would like an answer to that, please.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

So the question is whether that is what she said?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Madam Day.

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

I apologize if Mr. Jean was shocked.

But my argument is that we live in big comfortable houses, with one or two children, maybe three, whereas Aboriginal peoples, whose colour I shall not mention, have 12, 13 or 15 people living in one small house. Those conditions are significantly harsher.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you for clarifying your comment, Mrs. Day.

Mr. Jean, you have the floor.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm not insulted at all. I'm quite proud of my aboriginal family.

She may not know this, but my riding is 20% aboriginal, in which there are seven or eight bands and reserves. In fact, I am very proud to say that I've seen tremendous success in northern Alberta with the aboriginals that are tied in with revenue from the natural resource sector.

But I would advise her, just so she knows, that I have been called a “backwards apple” many times, and I think she can figure out what that means. I have a trapline up in northern Alberta and I'm very proud of my aboriginal family. I've seen many of them on the reserves and have seen this particular plight affect them. That's why I am here today, to fight for them, for the aboriginal people who can't fight for themselves.

But the Conservative government is here for the same thing. We're fighting for aboriginal women and children on reserve who don't have the rights that you have and that many other white people across this country have. It's not correct. It's not right, and it has to end.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

We did get the resources.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you.

I see no other speakers.

(Clause 22 agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Before we move on, let me remind all the members of the committee that, if you have something to say, say it to me, not directly to another member of the committee, in order to avoid...

Do we still have problems with the interpretation? Let me check. The interpreters do not seem to be able to hear what I am saying.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sorry—

[A voice]

We can hear, but I think it's hers—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—I'll put it in the front piece because sometimes this cuts in and out.

Thanks.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Okay. If there are any other problems, do not hesitate to let me know.

I just wanted to remind all the members of the committee to address the chair in order to avoid any unfortunate exchanges.

(Clause 23—Interest or right not affected)

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

[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.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 28—Division of value)

Madam Crowder, do you want to speak to clause 28?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Yes, Madam Chair.

This one is the division of the value of matrimonial interests or rights. There are a couple of pieces I want to touch on in this clause.

One is that the technical briefing notes say there was a gender-based analysis conducted on this piece of legislation. One thing pointed out was that women could be impacted differently from men. The notes indicate that according to the 2006 census, women headed up 74% of the lone-parent families on reserve and that because they were more likely to be the caregivers than men, they were more likely to retain occupation of the family home. 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.

We have heard—it was in Wendy Grant-John's report—other testimony about making funds available for women so that either they can borrow money or there would be some sort of compensation fund, because many women are underemployed or have been working-from-home mothers and so will not necessarily have the financial capacity to compensate their spouse. That's a significant part in terms of looking at the division of the value of matrimonial rights and interests.

The other piece of it is one we have raised a number of times, about looking at the application of provincial law to reserves, where housing situations are quite different. The technical briefing document said that housing on reserves varies among first nations in policies, rules and customs. Housing may be divided into two broad categories, including “band-owned” housing, which consists of an estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of all housing on reserves. So that's band-owned housing. The question then becomes how the valuation happens on that. The balance is individually-owned housing.

The technical briefing document went on to say that 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 we have this complex situation wherein again we're going to be asking provincial courts to step into a field in which they don't have the background and the expertise. We're just pointing this out in terms of the challenges that could present themselves when we are looking at the division of matrimonial property and evaluating the interests.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Madam Crowder.

(Clause 28 agreed to)

(Clause 29—Variation of amount)

Madame Day wants to speak to it.

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

Madam Chair, once again, this clause is problematic in relation to the Civil Code of Quebec. Women in common-law relationships do not have the same rights as married women. On this issue, Quebec Native Women said:

...the proposed Bill will be incompatible with the Civil Code of Quebec concerning the distribution of matrimonial property in case of separation or death for common-law partners.

Have the witnesses considered this aspect of the bill?