Debates of April 17th, 2013

Employment Equity Act: Annual Report 2011

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #657

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill S-2--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before this House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will be a 30-minute question period, and, as has been customary in the past, preference is given to members of the opposition to put questions in the course of this 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks an inauspicious day for the government. It is a record that no government would ever seek to have, because today breaks the all-time record for the invocation of closure, the shutting down of debate, the use and abuse of the powers, the guillotine. The Conservatives may clap for this, but Canadians will not because they have also done it at a pace exceeding the previous Liberal government, which they used to criticize.

The Prime Minister, the House leader and the Minister of Foreign Affairs used to criticize the Chrétien government for shutting down debate time and again. The current government is doing it almost every seven sitting days of the House, five times faster than even the worst abuse of power previously.

Parliament exists for two fundamental reasons. Members of Parliament are elected to do two central things. The first is to speak on behalf of those we represent with all the capacity and ability that we have. The second is to hold government to account. However, how can we perform the roles that members of Parliament are meant to do if we have a government sitting in majority that consistently and without shame abuses the power that is given to it under our system?

Time and again the government has to justify not only muzzling its own MPs, shutting down debate in Parliament, but ignoring the wishes and hopes of Canadians. There will be a time of judgment for the government for the abusing of the powers that were given to it under our system. The government has no shame, has no recourse and Canadians will decide its fate come the next election.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member fails to mention or consider is that there is an important part of the Canadian population that happens to be aboriginal people, first nation mothers and families, that for years have lacked the same degree of protection and rights as all other families outside of reserves have in our country.

I know opposition members do not care about aboriginal women and children, but we do. After 25 years, the time has come for action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it is believable that the New Democrats do not support aboriginal women and children. We are consistently in the House day after day speaking up on those issues.

Our House leader has ably pointed out that this is the 31st time the Conservatives have shut down debate, and it is a very sad record in Canadian history. This time we have Bill S-2 on matrimonial real property and once again it is an example of the government unilaterally imposing its legislative agenda on first nations without allowing appropriate debate. The bill has been before the House a number of times, but on this occasion it has been barely debated in the House and it has never before made it to a parliamentary committee.

Why does the minister not want all the members in the House to perform their duties as parliamentarians and have an honest, legitimate debate on this very important legislation?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that since 2005 to 2007, this matter has at times been before the House and unfortunately it has never passed to become law. During all this time, it is the aboriginal families living on reserve that pay the price of inaction. After all those hours of debate that have taken place in the last few years, we simply want to render justice to that segment of the Canadian population.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to make note that this is now, as has been pointed out, 31 times in which the government has chosen to use time allocation to try to get legislation passed through the House of Commons. It is, indeed, unprecedented.

I would look to the government House leader to respond to the question as to why his government has failed in its ability to negotiate a way in which legislation could pass through the House in a more timely fashion that would ensure that members of Parliament would be afforded the opportunity to contribute to debate, not to be constantly limited in terms of how much time they would have to spend on very important legislation.

As I say, there have been 31 occasions now where the government has brought in time allocation with respect to things such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the pooled pension plan, the copyright bill, back-to-work legislation, financial systems review, budget legislation and the list goes on.

The question I have for the government House leader is why the government has failed to sit down with opposition parties? Why has it not be able to negotiate in good faith a time frame that would allow for adequate debate on the many pieces of legislation that need to pass through the House?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if we look at the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act and we look at the hours that it has been debated and studied, five hours in the House on a previous incarnation of Bill S-2, in the Senate for another number of hours—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The Senate?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is where it originated. Again, there were more hours at the committee level. I know those members like to speak for the sake of speaking, but there comes a point where we must take action.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians undergoing a breakdown of a conjugal relationship or the death of a spouse or a common-law partner, there is legal protection to ensure that the matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably. For couples living on reserves governed by the Indian Act, sadly this is not the case.

For more than 25 years, since the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Paul v. Paul and Derrickson v. Derrickson, aboriginal women and children living on reserves have not had the same rights to matrimonial real property. For them, the breakdown of a relationship or the death of a spouse or a common law partner could mean insecurity, financial difficulties or homelessness.

Now is the time for action. I do not know why the members opposite do not support women having rights on reserves.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-2 would help fill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to justice for first nation communities and, in particular, for aboriginal women?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, matrimonial real property, or the family home, is without question the most valuable piece of property that a couple on a reserve owns. Upon the breakdown of a marriage or a common law relationship, the division of property affects all involved, both spouses, their children, their families and, by extension, the broader community.

In this case, time allocation is necessary to ensure that women and children living on reserve do not have to wait any longer to benefit from the same rights and protections that people living off reserve are afforded. They deserve and expect no less.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister deals with the government's constitutional obligations in this case in particular.

The minister must know that the government's constitutional obligations to consult and to accommodate go hand in hand. Will the government meet its obligations in this case?

From what I see and based on the correspondence on this issue, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations are complaining that they have not been heard in this case.

Can the minister answer the following question: has the government met its constitutional obligations to consult and to accommodate as it addresses the concerns that have been expressed?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member should know that aboriginal rights are protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

What we are talking about here is a flaw in the Indian Act. Based on two Supreme Court decisions, it prevents aboriginal couples on reserves from enjoying the same matrimonial rights as other people in the province they live in.

Broad consultations were held for almost two years. There were some 100 gatherings in 76 locations across the country in order to consult with first nations on the issue. To answer his question, yes, there was ample consultation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 31st time allocation motion. The motion we are debating is not about the merit or the lack of merit of the bill; it is about limiting debate. It is an affront to democracy. If there is anything the government is becoming infamous for, it is its undermining of democracy, everything from the omnibus bills to 31 time allocation motions.

We have seen some legislation go through this place that did not have proper review and has now been turned back by the courts. We will likely see more because this place is not allowed to function properly under the Conservative government. The backbenchers over there are not allowed to speak most of the time. We are seeing some of that these days. They jump up and down like they are trained to do, which is a sad affront to democracy as well.

What does the minister have to fear about allowing proper debate and proper hearings, so the good and the bad points of legislation can come out, so this place can pass legislation that will stand the test of time? What does the minister have to fear?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this. It is unacceptable that people living on reserve have for decades been deprived of the same rights and protections afforded Canadians living off reserve simply because of where they live. This is not the first time this has come before the House. This year our government is determined to see this legislation pass so the injustice that aboriginal women and families on reserves have suffered for 25 years will be finally corrected. That is why it is important that we act now.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, this is the fourth time that we have discussed this issue in the House. One of the key recommendations in the ministerial representative's report on on-reserve matrimonial real property issues, which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 20, 2007, was that the legislative measure include a way for first nations to exercise their legislative power in this area.

In response to those recommendations, Bill S-2 provides for two ways in which on-reserve matrimonial real property rights and related protections can be guaranteed. First, it allows first nations to enact their own laws to reflect their culture and traditions and, second, it provides for provisional federal rules.

Could the minister describe how the ability to enact their own laws would empower first nations and what role the centre of excellence for matrimonial real property plays in the implementation of Bill S-2?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for her excellent question.

As the member said, under the proposed legislation, first nations can choose to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights and interests— legislation that would address their own specific needs and respect their customs—or to apply provisional federal rules.

By allowing first nations to enact their own laws, Bill S-2 respects their diversity. As a result, they could pass laws that are aligned with the needs of their communities, enabling them to take a different and effective approach to matrimonial real property rights issues on their respective reserves.

The bill also provides for an implementation period so that first nations have the information and time they need to enact their own laws on matrimonial real property rights.

That is why we made a commitment to create an independent centre of excellence for matrimonial real property that will help first nations either to enact their own laws or to apply provisional federal rules.