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.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Mrs. Day.
No one else seems to want to speak.
(Clause 35 agreed to)
(Clauses 36 to 39 agreed to)
(Clause 40—Enforcement of agreements)
Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to speak to clause 40. I believe it once again misses the point entirely, and it speaks to the deficiency of this bill when clauses like this exist without the commitment to non-legislative measures, which we know are absolutely critical in addressing the decisions that happen after a marital breakup.
I want to read into the record the message from Ms. Ellen Gabriel, who indicated that:
High unemployment rates, lack of sufficient housing, a growing population, dispossession of our lands and resources, the imposition of paternalistic values and processes, outdated funding formulas, poverty, and social ills rooted in colonialism have for generations affected indigenous women's ability to enjoy their fundamental human rights.
The government is indicating this is for the well-being of aboriginal women, a statement that is paternalistic to the maximum, in part, because it misses entirely all of these points that Ms. Gabriel raises, which indicate the socio-economic conditions in which first nations live, the crushing poverty, a poverty that first nations refer to on a regular basis as being third world.
I've been to houses in northern Manitoba where there's black mould on the walls, but people have nowhere to go. I've been to houses where there is no sink in the kitchen because there is no running water. People have to go out in -35 degree weather with a pail to get water from a well. I've been to houses where is no bathroom inside the house. I remember an elder in St. Theresa Point who had diabetes, who had to trudge through the snow to go to the bathroom outside. I've been to communities where they received slop pails from the federal government because after H1N1 it was clearly indicated that water and sewer conditions in the community were unacceptable. To add insult to injury, this federal government sent slop pails into the community.
Madam Chair, what members across, and certainly their government, are steadfastly ignoring are these living conditions, which first nations put up with because they are first nations people. The paternalistic, colonialist approach up to now clearly hasn't worked if you look at the quality of life these people lead.
Unfortunately, instead of changing course, this government has chosen, through clause 40 and through the entirety of Bill S-2, to impose legislation that completely discounts these living conditions—third world living conditions, as many first nations indicate—and seems to profess that this somehow is going to end violence, and is going to end the problematic situations that women face on reserve.
I would point them back to what Ms. Gabriel has indicated and how, through Bill S-2, this government is ignoring the very indicators that lead to the turmoil, that lead to social tension and violence, and to the fact that this government is continuing a paternalistic and colonial approach when it comes to first nations people.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Ms. Ashton.
Does anyone else wish to speak?
Go ahead, Ms. Crockatt.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I just wanted to respond to that by saying this bill is intended to save lives. It will save lives, and one life saved is definitely worth this bill being passed, and the NDP and the Liberals supporting it.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.
(Clause 40 agreed to)
(Clause 41—Notice of application)
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This particular clause is dealing with notice to councils and views of councils. It certainly is important to note that this will provide that the applicant send a copy of an application made under the act to the council of the first nation on whose reserve the family home or other matrimonial interests or rights are situated, except in the case of emergency protection orders, and that the council will be able to make representations. The provision requires the courts to take representations with respect to the cultural, social, and legal context, and the views of the council with respect to the granting of the order, into consideration when making orders.
There are a couple of points about this particular section. Certainly the question becomes whether councils will have the resources to actually intervene at the courts. Again, it's an ongoing issue that continues to arise throughout this piece of legislation.
I'll refer back to Wendy Grant-John's report again. One of the sections dealt with the fact of:
Ensuring resources are in place for the capacity building and institution building that are prerequisites for a functioning and comprehensive matrimonial real property regime (for lawmaking, land management, land and housing registries and dispute resolution mechanisms and processes).
The report, in its conclusions and recommendations, also pointed out that by putting this piece of legislation in place without those kinds of resources, “First Nations would be placed in a catch-22 situation—they would be held to the same standard as provincial governments but not have the resources and capacity to achieve it.”
As well, Madam Chair, it is important to note that the courts will be asked to take note of the cultural, social, and legal context. I referenced the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples earlier, which pointed out that, under the UN declaration, “Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs”, and it goes on to also point out the judicial systems or customs.
In the tool kit that was provided, which the Canadian Human Rights Commission has developed in conjunction with first nations, it's interesting to note that one very important thing in this tool kit on dispute resolution is that they point out the four stages. Of course, this bill doesn't deal with these four stages. It points out that the four stages in developing a process are leadership values and principles; capacity building for development and engaging your community; developing your community's dispute resolution model; and implementation, monitoring, and continuous improvement.
The chiefs and councils will be able to make representations to the courts if they have the resources to do it. It would be interesting if they were able to actually go to the courts with a dispute resolution model that had been developed in conjunction with the community and present that as an option the courts might want to consider with regard to looking at the matrimonial breakdown and the division of property and whatever assets there might be.
Again, it's worrying that first nations simply may not have the resources, chiefs and councils may not have the resources, to undertake either that kind of intervention or the development of those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Madame Crowder.
I see Mr. Jean wants to intervene.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just wondering if Ms. Crowder and the NDP are against notifying chiefs and councils in relation to something that might be going on with their bands. Is that her point? I understand the resource issue, but I'm just wondering if she's against this particular clause or if she's for this particular clause. Maybe she could clarify that.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
You're asking a question.
Madame Crowder, you still have a minute.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you.
Yes. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. We will be supporting this particular clause. I think it's very important that band councils are notified. Again, the clause rightly points out that this would not happen in the cases of emergency protection orders because of the confidentiality issues and whatnot.
But we will be supporting this particular clause. My only hope is that first nations will actually have the resources to do that kind of intervention so that it's an opportunity to educate the courts around the different situations on reserves. There isn't another provision to do that.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just would like to get clarification from our officials.
In clause 41 it reads, “without delay”. What if they do delay? Where is the mechanism to follow through there? I'm not sure if “enforcement” is the right word. Where are the mechanisms that follow up if they don't do this? It reads, “without delay”. What if they don't? What happens?
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Planning, Policy and Research, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I would just offer the comment that it's a bit of a signal to the applicant for an order that they have to do so in a timely manner. The court has to deal with the situation that's in front of them and you can't send a notice to the band council six months or a year after the events that you're trying to deal with in the application. So it's just a signal that you need to do that without delay and the expectation is that it will be done in that timeframe.
If an individual fails to do that, then they won't have complied with this particular section, and the court would have some difficulty looking at the entire set of circumstances.
But one of the things that's likely to happen is that the court itself in the application will ask if a notice was provided to the council. So it's one of the steps that one needs to go through as an applicant before the court.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Madam Sgro.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this clause?
(Clause 41 agreed to)
That ends our meeting. We will resume the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-2 at our next meeting.
My thanks to the committee for the work it has done today.
On behalf of our committee, I would once more like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. We will certainly send them an invitation to come to our next meeting as well.
The meeting is adjourned.