Status of Women Committee on May 9th, 2013

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, Madam Chair, of course we're past debate, but what I would argue is that the situation on reserves is very different from that in most communities off reserve. We've had a consistent number of reports that have come before the aboriginal affairs committee, and the House as a matter of fact, that continue to point to the severe shortage of housing.

Most communities off reserve do not have those kinds of overcrowded situations and multi-generational families. There are circumstances where that does happen, but that's not the norm. So when you're dealing with situations on reserve, I'm sure provincial judges are very learned but their knowledge of the different kinds of land codes on reserves is limited. It's a very different situation, so you can't unilaterally just impose provincial law on reserve lands without the consideration of the different factors.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Madame Crowder.

Seeing that there are no other speakers, I will call for the vote on clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(Clause 4—Purpose)

We will now move to clause 4.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to speak to clause 4, under “Purpose and Application”. Obviously, this is one of the problematic clauses that purport that what is being done here is okay. This is clearly not the case, as we've heard from many witnesses. It's clear that this government is not listening to first nations on a nation-to-nation basis. The Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, and many nations across the country who oppose this bill, have spoken directly to the lack of nation-to-nation consultation. Certain first nations have been heard by the ministerial representative, but as has been the case previously, their concerns have not been incorporated into this iteration of the bill, and there are certainly some key concerns.

I want to read into the record a press release from the Native Women's Association of Canada when Bill S-2 was presented.

The Native Women's Association of Canada...express their concerns with Bill S-2.... NWAC is not confident that the legislation will solve the problems associated with Matrimonial...Property [rights] on reserve; and that the current Bill fails to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time this legislation has been brought forward.

Obviously, one of the real concerns here is that this is an imposition by the federal government on first nations. Janice Makokis yesterday was quoted as saying, “I want to focus my comments on how this bill is in violation of our treaties and the treaty relationship. This bill undermines indigenous laws and the inherent rights we have. Finally this bill further oppresses the roles of indigenous women within our nations.”

This bill does not solve the problems that it seeks to address and certainly some of the problems that this government has raised. We've heard this from women, communities, and families who will be affected. This government has said that the purpose of this bill was to end violence against aboriginal women. This bill has nothing to do with ending violence against aboriginal women as it provides no effective, timely access to remedy. It does not involve a national action plan. It does not address the housing crisis on reserves. It does not make any reference to funding for women's shelters. As we know, for 663 first nations, there are only 40 women's shelters. It does not allow for better access to justice, including increased funding to legal aid, especially for remote communities. It does not include financial resources to support first nation governments to actually implement the law. It does not allow access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which, as we know from witnesses who have brought this forward, are often critical to resolving the situation during marital breakdown.

I'd also like to read into the record, as I believe it certainly speaks to the opposition to clause 4, the statement by

Quebec Native Women:

Quebec Native Women would like to reiterate its opposition to Bill S-2... ... Bill S-2, in its present form, does not take into account the jurisdiction of First Nations over reserve property by granting jurisdiction to the provincial courts for enforcement and will not provide funding or resources to First Nations to access these provincial courts which would therefore be too costly or complex for them to use. The unilateral approach taken by the government to resolve this issue through legislation will also fail to address systemic problems such as lack of housing and violence against women in the communities.

Finally, I would like to indicate that clause 4 sets the tone and certainly makes clear the plan of this bill and obviously, the plan of this government, to impose legislation on first nations regardless of their opposition, regardless of the indication that first nations must be consulted according to section 35 and according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to which Canada is a signatory.

Therefore, we stand with the many voices of first nations, first nation organizations, and first nation women who have come out and spoken against Bill S-2, including clause 4.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Ms. Sgro, go ahead.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I have similar issues with clause 4. I don't think the government realizes that if they just followed what Wendy Grant-John, the ministerial representative, had suggested, we probably would all be on one side on this bill, which means supporting it.

The fact that there isn't the support for mediation and the assistance is very much misleading people to think that they have the support out there that they clearly don't have, because they're only going forward with a part of this whole issue. They're not going through with the whole package of making sure that you have the mediation, the funding for the centre of excellence, and the other issues that are important.

The Liberals will not be supporting clause 4.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Since no one else wants to speak, I will call for the vote on clause 4.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Before we move to clause 6, we have amendment LIB-1, which proposes that clause 5.1 be added.

Ms. Sgro, would you like to propose this amendment?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, I would like to move that amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

One moment, Ms. Sgro. Some members of the committee are asking whether there is a paper version of the amendments. You must have received the email asking you to print copies. However, we can check to see if there is a way to do it.

[An hon. member]

We have extra copies.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

We have extra copies. So, if you would like a copy of the proposed amendments, please raise your hand and someone will provide you with a copy in the language of your choice.

Ms. Sgro, go ahead. You can now talk about amendment LIB-1.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Currently, there’s a great deal of mistrust—I think that would be agreed by everybody—among first nations regarding the government's agenda and what it will mean for first nations’ rights.

Also, a number of concerns were raised, through the testimony we heard, about the consultation managed on the bill, and the amendment now is meant to help reassure first nations that this bill will not interfere with aboriginal rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

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

The NDP will be supporting that motion.

I want to quote from the “Report of the Ministerial Representative: Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves”. It says: I have taken note of the following statement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in R. v. Adams and which has been quoted subsequently by the Supreme Court in Haida and Mitchell.

In light of the Crown’s unique fiduciary obligations towards aboriginal peoples, Parliament may not simply adopt an unstructured discretionary administrative regime which risks infringing aboriginal rights in a substantial number of applications in the absence of some explicit guidance.

It goes on to say that there is a need to “seek to accommodate the existence of aboriginal rights”.

It's very important that this amendment be included in the legislation.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Jean, you have the floor.

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

I was wondering if this particular amendment is valid. Is it in order? It seems to be outside of the scope.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

The amendment is in order, according to the chair.

No one else seems to have anything else to say about the amendment.

(Amendment LIB-1 negatived)

We have another amendment from the Liberals, amendment LIB-2.

Ms. Sgro, would you like to propose this amendment?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, it was an attempt to clarify the issue of first nations’ inherent jurisdiction over these matters. We again heard from a variety of witnesses who would like clarification in the legislation that first nations do have jurisdiction over these matters and that it's not simply a matter of delegating the authority of the federal government.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

It is the chair's decision that this amendment is out of order, because it goes beyond the scope of the bill. It seeks to define the right of self-government, whereas the preamble of the bill states that “this Act is not intended to define the nature and scope of any right of self-government”. As a result, the chair rules against this amendment, because it is out of order.

We will now move to clause 6.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(Clause 7—Power to enact First Nation laws)

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.

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

We defeated the amendment, but did we actually vote on clause 5?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Yes, we did before we went to the amendment.

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

It was before the amendment?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Yes, the amendment suggested a new clause, clause 5.1, so we voted on clause 5 and then we went to the amendment. Okay?

We are now dealing with clause 7 and we have an amendment.

I will give the floor to Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

This is an attempt to clarify that, once a first nation adopts its own matrimonial property laws through the process set out in S-2, they will have the option, but not the requirement, to use the provincial court system as an enforcement mechanism for those laws.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

The chair thinks this amendment is in order.

Seeing that no one else wants to speak, I will put the question now on amendment.