Debates of May 27th, 2013

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health cannot keep her mouth shut at this point, so I would just say that they know full well that first nations communities can actually have jurisdictions within their own areas. Some have already proven it.

Instead, why will they not address the concerns of access to justice and dispute resolutions and remedies to address that?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to assure everyone in the House that we have an obligation to listen and to represent all of these people. We have heard witnesses and all these people at our meetings and that is exactly what we are doing. We are moving forward.

This bill would allow the first nations to enact laws regarding on-reserve matrimonial real property. This legislation is not about inherent rights and it does not define any right to self-government. Including a statement of recognition that the first nations have inherent jurisdiction over matrimonial real property would raise questions about the nature of this right, its scope and content and who holds the right. This in turn could lead to uncertainty over jurisdiction and litigation of these issues.

The government is of the view that the implementation of a right to self-government is best achieved through negotiation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to be clear that there is an obligation for the federal government to work with our first nations in developing legislation.

My question is a fairly straightforward, simple question for the member. Can the member provide to the House any indication of what first nations communities were consulted prior to the legislation being brought to the Senate? Did the government actually consult and work with our first nations leadership in coming up with the legislation we have before us?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member opposite that we are taking a leadership role in this issue. I ask the member opposite to get on board and support this important issue.

He asked with whom we were speaking. In 2006, our government initiated an extensive consultative process that included over 100 meetings in 76 sites across Canada at a cost of over $8 million to taxpayers. This helped lead us to the legislation we have here today. It is time to move forward. There is no time to sit back and not allow this to happen. As a result of these measures and on further consultation with first nations, a 12-month transition period was added before the federal provisional rules come into force.

The government recognizes that some first nations are well advanced in developing their own laws and transition periods. The transition periods would provide time to enact their laws under this legislation before the provisional federal rules take effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak to this piece of legislation today.

We have heard the members of the Conservative Party characterize this as an urgent situation. I need to point out—

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

It is.

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

The Minister of Health is continuing to heckle in the background about how it is.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I want to point out is that Bill S-2 was passed in the Senate back in December 2011. Here we are in the spring of 2013, finally debating it here in the House. If it was so urgent, first, why did the Conservatives not introduce that piece of legislation here in the House where we could have the kind of debate that is required, and second, why have they waited so long to bring it forward?

Once they decided that the House should actually debate the bill, they then invoked time allocation so that we could not have a full debate in the House. Then they moved a motion at the status of women committee limiting the time that we could call witnesses.

Contrary to what the members opposite have portrayed, what we actually heard from a number of witnesses is some very grave concerns with this piece of legislation.

First, let us recap this situation.

It was not urgent enough to bring it forward for a timely debate. It was not worth the kind of deliberation and consideration that the House should be taking because the Conservatives invoked time allocation, both in the House and at committee. They disrespectfully shut down witnesses and did not allow the opposition an opportunity to question key witnesses, such as the Native Women's Association of Canada. They are expecting us to just roll over for a piece of legislation that will not achieve what they are claiming it would achieve.

One of the things the Conservatives like to assert is that this bill is about protecting aboriginal women against violence, but I have to point out to the Minister of Health is that the bill does not talk about violence against aboriginal women. It talks about family violence, which is mentioned eight times only, and only in the context of emergency protection orders. Just because one says it is so does not make it happen.

If the government were truly serious about tackling the issues about violence against aboriginal women, it would endorse Motion No. 444, put forward by the member for Churchill, which calls upon the government to:

...develop, in collaboration, with the provinces, territories, civil society and First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and their representatives, a coordinated National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women, which would include: (a) initiatives to address socio-economic factors...; (b) policies to prevent violence against women...; (c) benchmarks for measuring progress...

and so on.

There is a whole series of very concrete steps that the government could take if it were serious about dealing with violence against aboriginal women and children, but instead, it continues to put forward the empty words that would not keep women and children safe.

I also need to point out that many people recognize that matrimonial real property is a family and a community issue and that it is absolutely something we should be tackling. The problem is that the solution that the government puts forward is, as always, going to fall far short.

In a letter we sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we outlined the concerns we have with the bill. I will read this letter into the record:

I wanted to express the profound concerns of the New Democratic Party regarding the current government's approach in dealing with the legislative gap related to matrimonial real property rights and interests on reserve.

During committee hearings on matrimonial real property (MRP) legislation currently before the House, we heard legal experts, First Nations' representatives and women's organizations speak against the current approach because they do not believe it will protect women from violence while also infringing on the collective inherent rights that women hold as members of individual First Nations.

In order to successfully address the issue of MRP, a collaborative process is necessary so that an appropriate and effective solution can be found that is supported by all stakeholders.

I would like to propose to you that we work on a new approach to MRP following all of the recommendations proposed by the Ministerial representative that would respect First Nations' jurisdiction and the principles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (to which Canada is a signatory).

To ensure full participation a key aspect of this approach is meaningful consultation on any proposed legislative solution, not just consultation on the principle or issue the legislation is intended to address.

Any MRP legislation should also be accompanied by non-legislative remedies to serious problems, including:

Timely access to remedy;

Ending violence against Aboriginal women through a national action plan;

Addressing the housing crisis on reserves including funding for women's' shelters;

Better access to justice including increased funding to legal aid especially to remote communities;

Increased financial resources to support First Nation governments to actually implement new process; and

Access to alternative dispute resolution.

In order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, we hope that you will follow up with us on this new way forward.

There is another way that matrimonial real property could be addressed. However, sadly, what we have here is a Conservative government track record of ramming through legislation without seriously looking at the consequences.

While I have the floor, I also need to correct the record around the Manitoba NDP. We hear members talk about this consistently.

In the Manitoba Hansard of December 6, 2012, the Attorney General of Manitoba made this clear:

...we can't deny the fact there are serious concerns that have been raised by people across this country about the process by which this bill was created, the content of the bill and then the subsequent impact of this bill on First Nations....

The Conservatives fail to tell people that it was a private member's motion that was introduced by a Conservative. Of course people support the principle of matrimonial real property, but as is clearly outlined by the Attorney General in Manitoba, they have grave concerns about this particular approach to it.

One of the witnesses who came before the committee was the Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Acting Chief Commissioner posed three very important questions that I would argue the Conservative bill fails to address.

First, the acting Commissioner asked, “Will the proposed legislation provide women with fair access to justice?” The second question was “Will the proposed legislation ensure women will be able to access their rights in a safe way?” and the third was “Do first nations communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimony real property systems, and if not, what can be done to correct this problem?”

I would say that to all three of those questions, the answer would be no.

With regard to fair access to justice, the members opposite like to say that because we will make legislation, somehow or other fair access to justice will be in place. Well, we know that first nations in reserve communities have virtually no access to legal aid, and second, when it comes to getting to courts or having access to the court system, it is very difficult.

One woman from Quebec told us that when she was going to court, she had to travel in the same vehicle as the spouse she was separating from. There was no transportation to where the court system was and there was no money to provide for both parties in the dispute to go to court, so they had to travel in the same vehicle.

In terms of fair access to justice, there have to be legal remedies available, the court system has to be accessible for people, particularly in rural and remote communities, and some education and training should go into the court systems.

We have heard members opposite also talk about the centre for excellence. Let us think about it for one moment in terms of fair access to justice.

The Conservatives are saying that this centre of excellent would provide tools and resources for first nation communities who want to develop their own matrimonial real properly codes. This sounds pretty good. We would support that. However, in one year, first nation communities are not going to have access to the resources and tools they are going to need to have that code in place by the end of the year, because what has to happen is a very respectful process in order to develop that code.

The Acting Chief Commissioner's second question was “Will the proposed legislation ensure women will be able to access their rights in a safe way?”

We heard from a number of witnesses, and it was in the ministerial representative's report, that there are no non-legislative remedies attached to this piece of legislation. In terms of being able to access rights in a safe way, I want to talk about non-legislative remedies.

We understand there is a housing crisis in many communities. We also understand that in many communities, generations of families are living in one house. If a court order says one person or another will have the house, what happens to the rest of the family members who are living in that house? Where will they go if, for example, they happen to be related to the spouse who is not able to live in that house anymore? Where will people go on reserves where there are already very serious problems with housing?

The Acting Chief Commissioner's third question was “Do first nations communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems...?”

It comes as no surprise that there is no money in this legislation and that the likelihood of first nations communities being able to develop their matrimonial real property codes in a timely way is nonexistent. The NDP proposed an amendment to this legislation that the coming into force be changed from one year to three years to allow an adequate period of time for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes. If the government were serious, it would support first nations having the time and resources to develop these codes.

When the Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before committee, he referenced a tool kit for developing community-based dispute resolution processes in first nations communities. Although this tool kit is about alternative dispute resolution, it would be useful in terms of providing support and some guidelines for first nations who want to develop their own codes. As well, it was developed in conjunction with a number of first nations communities, so it has cultural relevancy and an understanding of the process in communities. The tool kit references article 34 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.

That would seem to be a very good starting point in terms of developing matrimonial real property codes.

The tool kit goes on to say that there are four stages to developing an alternative dispute resolution. They could also be used in developing matrimonial real property codes. They include “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 tool kit talks about the fact that developing these kinds of processes can also be an educational process within the community.

It goes on to talk about developing a regional dispute resolution process that could provide reduced costs for human and financial resources for all of the communities involved, the opportunity to begin developing a broader aboriginal human rights system and the chance to demonstrate how equality principles are being implemented in the community. With the appropriate time and resources, it is quite possible that the matrimonial real property codes that could be developed within first nations would more reflect their own customs, practices and traditions.

There are a number of problems with this legislation. I know I am not going to have time to go through every one of them, but I want to touch on a couple.

One is the whole issue around property. I sometimes wonder if the members opposite actually understand the complexities of the land codes that are facing first nations communities.

The briefing document that was provided to committee, Issue Paper No. 7, talks about how housing on reserve:

...varies among First Nations in terms of policies, rules and customs. Housing may be divided into two broad categories, including “band-owned” housing, consisting of an estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of all housing on reserve, and “individually-owned” housing. Band-owned or individually-owned housing allocations may be applied in nearly any combination to the broad range of landholdings on reserves, whether individually-held (e.g. individual with a Certificate of Possession) or communal (First Nation social housing on general band lands).

It also goes on to say:

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 here we have this very complex system of housing on reserve. To say that Bill S-2 would somehow or other allocate housing based on an off-reserve housing model simply is not going to wash.

Members opposite continuously point out that this legislation would make first nations women's lives better. As is pointed out by Issue Paper No. 10 on gender-based analysis, that may actually not be the case, and women may in fact be disadvantaged by this legislation. It says:

Because women are more likely to be caregivers of dependent children and/or adults, men may be less likely to retain occupation of the family home on breakdown of a conjugal relationship. 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.

That could be a problem for many women. They may be women who work in the home and do not have access to any additional income. They may be women who are underemployed, or they may simply not have been able to put away money that would allow them to buy their family homes from their spouses.

One of the measures called for in the ministerial representative's report is access to a compensation fund that would allow men or women to buy out their spouses. None of that is included in this particular piece of legislation.

One issue pointed out in the ministerial representative's report was that first nations could be placed in a Catch-22 situation in which they would be held to the same standard as provincial governments but would not have the resources and capacity to achieve it. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses that.

There are a number of other issues I would like to cover in terms of non-legislative measures. However, I will not be able to do that in the limited time available.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give third reading to 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, because it:

(a) is primarily a Bill about the division of property on reserve but the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did not focus on this primary purpose during its deliberations;

(b) fails to implement the ministerial representative recommendation for a collaborative approach to development and implementing legislation;

(c) does not recognize First Nations jurisdiction or provide the resources necessary to implement this law;

(d) fails to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the community level;

(e) does not provide access to justice, especially in remote communities;

(f) does not deal with the need for non-legislative measures to reduce violence against Aboriginal women;

(g) makes provincial court judges responsible for adjudicating land codes for which they have had no training or experience in dealing with; and

(h) does not address underlying issues, such as access to housing and economic security that underlie the problems on-reserve in dividing matrimonial property.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Health.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as an aboriginal person, what I know for sure is that the NDP and the Liberals do not support equal rights for non-aboriginal and aboriginal women.

The legislation is very simple. It is about equality of non-aboriginal and aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights. The members can come up with a laundry list of all the excuses around tool kits, infrastructure and what have you. I am sure that they have gone through the process of coming up with excuses not to support something as simple as equality.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. They deserve the same rights as non-aboriginal women in Canada.

When it came to the matrimonial rights of non-aboriginal women, did the Liberals and the NDP come up with a laundry list to not support the rights they take for granted as non-aboriginal people when it comes to matrimonial rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite sad that the Minister of Health stands and asks a question like that when, instead, what the Minister of Health should be talking about are the kinds of investments the NDP for years has been calling for to actually protect aboriginal women and children on reserves.

I want to again reference the national action plan on violence against women the member for Churchill has proposed. The government has stalled any kind of inquiry on violence and on the murdered and missing aboriginal women and children in this country. The government has refused to allow the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to conduct an inquiry on violence against aboriginal women and the murdered and missing aboriginal women.

The government has failed to look for remedies in terms of access to legal aid, access to alternative dispute resolution, access to adequate housing and access to transition shelters. If the government were truly serious about equality, it would implement some of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review report. The government has no legs to stand on when it talks about equality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would provide some comment on the Government of Canada's obligation to meet with the leadership of first nations communities in developing legislation. It is not for the government, on its own, to go to the House of Commons or the Senate and say what it wants and to then impose it. There is an obligation to work with first nations to come up with legislation that makes sense and that has wide support among first nations leaders. Would she not agree with that statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous Supreme Court decisions that have reaffirmed the duty to consult, but the duty to consult does not stop at the duty to consult. It is the duty to consult and accommodate.

Government members will say that they have spoken to people. That is great, except that what they then did was disregard what they heard. The ministerial representative, who was hired by the former aboriginal affairs minister, Jim Prentice, a number of years ago, did a thorough analysis of what was required in the legislation and the process for it. The government has largely disregarded what its own ministerial representative recommended.

Then there is article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which talks about free, prior and informed consent. The government, after much pressure, became a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and then promptly disregarded its obligations under it.

The member is absolutely correct. The government has not only the duty to consult but a duty to accommodate. It also has a fiduciary responsibility such that when it puts forward legislation like this, first nations actually have the tools and resources they need to implement the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the member for Miramichi, the parliamentary secretary and now the Minister of Health, both in committee and here in the House.

In terms of the legislation itself, this bill has a huge flaw, specifically concerning common-law spouses in some provinces such as Quebec and Saskatchewan, if I am not mistaken. In fact, the law is unenforceable in cases where spouses do not have access to property rights under provincial legislation. That is a serious problem. It means that this bill can hardly be described as equal or fair.

Another important point is the fact that first nations have spoken out against this bill. Perhaps we should listen to them. Furthermore, two votes were already held, when first nations representatives were here. I could quote Michel Audet, among others. We could look at the record. Two votes were called in the House to prevent these people from speaking out. All they said was that they did not have enough time and that we should wait to pass the bill.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. First, there are some serious concerns about whether provincial court judges currently have the background to deal with some of the issues related to the complex property codes. Also, the member rightly pointed out the issues related to common law status in provinces such as Quebec and its recognition by provincial governments.

What we would actually be doing is setting up a regime that would have different rules applying to different first nations across the country. There would not be any confidence that if one lived in one province, one would have access to the same property rights one would have in another province. That is certainly one problem, and it is a problem a number of witnesses identified in terms of both the current provincial court rules on matrimonial real property division and a judge's ability, currently, to interpret those complex land codes.

The second matter the member raised in her question was, of course, the whole process of how the bill came forward and how we were able to hear from witnesses. Witnesses were limited in their ability to testify. Certainly we were limited in our ability to pose questions. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do that due diligence when we have legislation before us to make sure that we understand the legislation and its implications.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually the Liberals and the NDP who are attempting to stall the protections for aboriginal women. One of the NDP's convoluted arguments is that our government did not pass the legislation fast enough. Then it complains that the government wants to get the bill through. All the while, the NDP is opposing the legislation.

The public needs to know that the NDP has complained that the government has not consulted with every single aboriginal community in Canada, when, in fact, we have spent $8 million and have consulted with 103 communities. Bill S-2 would save lives. It would help 100,000 people gain protections.

I would like the NDP to address the issue of how it can vote against this bill that would help save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case the government has failed to notice, it has been in government since 2006, and it finally introduced this bill in the Senate, back in 2011. Then it delayed bringing it forward in the House. Somehow or other, it is the New Democrats' fault, because the government failed to bring a bill forward for debate. When it finally did bring it forward for debate, it wanted to eliminate debate.

It does not actually want people to stand up and speak about it. It does not want to call witnesses and hear from them. It does not want to have the ability to question the witnesses.

Part of our job as parliamentarians is to hear from witnesses, on all sides of the House, to consider the legislation before us and talk about whether the legislation is feasible and whether it can be implemented.

The members claim that the legislation is going to save lives, yet they are not putting any resources into these communities to deal with it. What about extra policing costs? What about access to the court system? What about access to alternative dispute resolution? What about access to legal aid? What about transition shelters? Not one dime is going into those measures.

If the government is serious, I would call on it to move forward on a national action plan to address violence against aboriginal women and children. Where is its action on that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear throughout the process for Bill S-2, the Liberal Party does not question the need to address the legal gaps and other problems surrounding the family breakdown for first nations living on reserve.

However, the political rhetoric of the government members regarding this bill has been absolutely shameful. It is reprehensible for the minister to stand in the House and say “I know opposition members do not care about aboriginal women and children, but we do.”

This partisan approach, this simplistic approach is completely against what the members on this side are objecting to. This problem will only be solved in a holistic way and if it is in keeping with the advice of first nations leaders and organizations and first nations women themselves.

The truth is that this bill will not effectively deal with the problem of matrimonial breakdown on reserves and fails to provide first nations with the tools to implement appropriate measures for families to resolve disputes safely in a culturally appropriate way.

Furthermore, the assertion of the government that the bill is the answer to the disproportionate levels of domestic and other violence against aboriginal women is appalling. It is patently dishonest for the Minister for Status of Women to stand in the House and claim emergency protection orders alone will save lives.

The fact is the government's decision to move forward with this legislation, without dealing with the issues of access to justice and gaps in enforcement capacity, could actually make matters worse.

When Mr. David Langtry, acting chief commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission, testified before the Status of Women committee, he asked parliamentarians to consider three fundamental questions. First, would the proposed legislation provide women with fair access to justice? Second, would the proposed legislation ensure that women would be able to access their rights in a safe way? Third, would first nations communities have the capacity they needed to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems?

Although I would broaden the questions to include first nations men, I believe answering these three questions provides an ideal framework to analyze Bill S-2 in both its scope and effectiveness. As one reviews the limited evidence the House of Commons committee was willing to hear, experts who testified before the Senate and the many stakeholders who had provided comments outside the committee process, the answer to all three of these questions was a resounding “no”.

The government's own ministerial representative on matrimonial real property on reserve, Wendy Grant-John, noted in her report:

The viability and effectiveness of any legislative framework will also depend on necessary financial resources being made available for implementation of non-legislative measures such as programs to address land registry issues, mediation and other court related programs, local dispute resolution mechanisms, prevention of family violence programs, a spousal loan compensation fund and increased funding to support First Nation communities to manage their own lands.

She went on to say:

Without these kinds of supports from the federal government, matrimonial real property protections will simply not be accessible to the vast majority of First Nation people.

The Liberal Party is very concerned that the government disregarded her advice and that of first nations from across the country and brought forward legislation without these non-legislative supports.

The potential solutions under the interim rules imposed by this legislation rely heavily on access to provincial courts.

As we have heard from many witnesses, many first nations communities are in areas with limited access to courts or lawyers and provincial courts may not be financially or even physically accessible for many first nations individuals.

Michéle Audette, president, Native Women's Association of Canada, put this issue into context when she told the committee:

Canadian women find it difficult to access justice because of the high costs involved, or, in the case of those who live in remote areas, because of the long distances to be travelled.

Therefore, imagine what it is like for women in our aboriginal communities. It is even worse.

She went on to say:

—it would be difficult for a woman who lives in a remote community such as Attawapiskat or in other communities in other provinces, such as in Quebec, to find a lawyer who knows family law and the Indian Act.

The persistent underfunding of legal aid systems across Canada have left them ill-equipped to deal with current demand. It is clear that they will be unable to deal with the additional burden of the unique legal and cultural realities of property division on reserve.

Another fundamental challenge facing the provincial court systems relates to a lack of experience with and understanding of these matters.

To mitigate these issues of access and cultural sensitivity, we heard time and again about the importance of the availability to alternate dispute resolution mechanisms in first nations communities to deal with matrimonial breakdown if there was no commitment to provide funding for alternatives to the court system, which would be more cost effective and culturally appropriate.

The government does not have a comprehensive plan to deal with these realities, which will deprive first nations individuals of practical access to the legal rights the law claims to provide.

The government has tried to frame this legislation in terms of responding to violence against aboriginal women. As noted earlier, it has emphasized that this legislation provides for emergency protection orders for women living on reserve and claims this will save lives.

Unfortunately, the government's decision to move forward with legislation, without non-legislative support, maybe the opposite for many first nations women.

Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould addressed this in her testimony when she said:

—preliminary research we have uncovered shows a correlation between increased harassment and threats of violence against women who file for protection orders in instances where there are issues with their enforcement. We question the capacity and ability of such orders to be effectively enforced, particularly in remote communities with limited access to police services.

This very telling quotation must be viewed in light of the lack of funding available to first nations police forces and the fact that some first nations communities have far greater police presence than others.

While we are happy that the government is finally listening to first nations and Inuit police forces and the communities they serve by providing a longer-term funding agreement, it is clear that the government is still not providing these essential services with the resources they need to do their job.

In other communities serviced by the RCMP or other police services, there is often an inadequate police presence and the enforcement of existing laws is an ongoing challenge for these overstretched offices.

Beyond issues around adequate enforcement, the bill also fails to address the root causes of family breakdown and domestic violence, mainly the lack of housing, inadequate funding for child welfare and inadequate access to legal aid and other services for aboriginal women. For example, only 41 shelters serve more than 630 first nations communities in Canada.

Even Betty Ann Lavallée, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, told the Senate that this bill should address the issue of emergency housing for victims of domestic violence, a recommendation that the government clearly chose to ignore.

We are concerned that many first nations do not currently have the capacity to develop their own rules around matrimonial property and will be left with the provisional rules for an extended period of time. That means communities will have provisional rules that do not reflect their traditional laws, culture or reality imposed upon them without the time or the capacity to move beyond them.

The government cuts to the National Centre for First Nations Governance, tribal councils and other institutions focused on building first nations governance capacity is further undermining the ability of first nations to develop and implement such a review.

The government talks about a promised centre of excellence which would help first nations develop rules of their own, but this will not be up and running until after the passage of the bill and likely after the time frame allocated to most first nations to develop their own rules.

There will only be a 12-month window for the first nations to develop and adopt their own regulations regarding matrimonial real property on reserves, before the provisional rules are imposed.

All the testimony we heard on the issue suggested this was a completely unrealistic time frame. The legislation that brought first nations communities under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act provided a three-year transition period.

We heard from the Canadian Human Rights Commission officials that in their experience that period may not even be enough, but would be more realistic.

Officials from the first nations Lands Advisory Board had more than 10 years of experience facilitating first nations law-making for matrimonial real property rights on reserve and they made it clear that they were:

—concerned about the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the 68 first nations that are presently waiting to become signatories to the framework agreement, and the other communities across Canada.

They went on to say:

Successful enactment of these laws by framework agreement signatories has invariably been the culmination of a multi-year, community-driven, consensus-building process...

The AFN has also suggested 36 months would be a more appropriate transition period and that is the time provided in this very bill to first nations in the First Nations Land Management Act process. Given current capacity issues and the fact that the centre of excellence would take time to develop, it was clear that all first nations should have the benefit of a consistent 36-month transition period to develop their own culturally sensitive matrimonial property regime, but the government refused even that common-sense amendment.

Although general public discussions were held on first nations matrimonial real property in 2006-07, it is important to note that both AFN and NWAC, the two first nations organizations the government engaged to facilitate those meetings, oppose this bill. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and the government members to listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what they hear into the approach. The Native Women's Association of Canada and the AFN have been clear that they are not confident the legislation will resolve the problems associated with matrimonial real property on reserve and have pointed out that the current bill will fail to address many of the recommendations repeatedly raised each time this legislation has been brought forward.

Further, given the recommendations of the government's own representatives and first nations about the need to deal with capacity and resourcing issues before, or at least in concert with, legislation, it is curious why the Conservatives decided to introduce the bill in the Senate where it was subject to increased restrictions on incorporating resources.

Since this bill was initiated in the Senate, it cannot generate any spending.

Then, despite the fact that the legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on behalf of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the bill was sent to the status of women committee to be pushed through with only two weeks of witnesses.

This legislation deals with legal and cultural issues in the first nations, for both men and women.

It was completely inappropriate to, for reasons of expediency, have the study of these complex matters done by a committee with no prior experience with aboriginal issues. The fact that the committee did not allocate reasonable time to hear from organizations with the expertise and experience to highlight some of the challenges was particularly disappointing. The AFN and the first nations Lands Advisory Board had less than 20 minutes of committee time and NWAC was allocated 8 minutes. The Conservative majority then pushed this flawed bill through the committee without accepting a single amendment. This is not the way to produce effective and well thought out legislation.

The Liberal Party will not be supporting this legislation because the government has decided to move forward in a way that not only ignores many of the fundamental issues at stake, but actually may make things worse.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of a history lesson for the member because this is a consistent position for the Liberal Party.

When Conservative Party Prime Minister Borden extended the right for women to vote in Canada in time for the 1918 election, that was a Conservative prime minister extending rights. When Prime Minister Diefenbaker extended the right to aboriginals in Canada to vote for the first time in 1960, that was a Conservative prime minister extending rights to Canadians. When this party and this government stood up to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserve and that party stood against it, that was our Conservative Prime Minister extending rights. Our Prime Minister is extending rights and protections again to aboriginal women in our country.

What is shameful is that member and that party are once again standing up against fundamental rights in our country for people who woefully and rightfully deserve them. When will she join with this party and our Conservative Prime Minister and do the right thing for women in our country?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the member does not understand the basic duty to consult and the need for free, prior and informed consent on any legislation, any policies or programs that affect first nations, Inuit and Metis people in Canada. The bill continues the paternalism of the government thinking “father knows best” and refuses to listen to what native women in Canada are saying. They do not want this bill until it can actually do the job it is intended to do.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments even though the Liberal government put a 2% funding cap that has been problematic for first nations communities with respect to their resources. But while there are obvious gender discrimination problems with MRP on reserves, Bill S-2 will not be possible to implement because of lack of financial resources to support first nations governments to actually implement the law, lack of funding for lawyers, lack of funding to account for limited geographic access to provincial courts, lack of on-reserve housing and land mass that would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserve, no ability to enforce this legislation, particularly in very remote areas, no equipping provincial courts to deal with complexities of land codes on reserves and no dollars to assist women who have to buy out a partner if they are awarded homes.

On that note, I want to reiterate that the first nations are basically seeing this as another assimilation bill. Could my colleague comment on some of the issues that I brought forward, and whether we would see the success of the bill if it were to go forward?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that had the Kelowna accord been implemented seven years ago, the $5.1 billion would have dealt with a number of these issues, particularly around housing, education and the kinds of things that we know are a root cause of violence.

The kinds of resources that native women in Canada are asking for are really important, as the member asked about. They include shelter space, housing and mediation. Women do not have the resources to be able to buy out the partner and the bands have told us time and time again they do not have the capacity to help the woman buy out the partner. This is a piece of paper that cannot and will not work unless the resources and the root causes are dealt with.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, the time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for St. Paul's will have six minutes remaining in questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Cystic Fibrosis

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a terrible childhood illness, cystic fibrosis. May is cystic fibrosis awareness month and in honour of the many Canadian children who have cystic fibrosis, members of all parties got together today to wear the symbol of cystic fibrosis: the rose.

The story of how the rose came to be the symbol of cystic fibrosis gives some idea of the poignancy of this terrible illness. As the story goes, a young child was being told that his sister had the illness, but he could not pronounce the name. Instead, he said 65 roses. That is how the rose came to be the symbol.

Today, outside the House, there is a little boy, Kaiden, at one entrance and there is a little girl, who I know and love very much, Kaelie, at the other entrance. They are handing out roses to MPs as they enter the House in honour of this disease and the search for the cure. This is the largest killer of children, but the death rate drops substantially every year. The lifespan is expanding. We can and will find a cure. I thank all members for supporting us in our cause.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month in Canada. Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal genetic disease affecting Canadian children and young adults. Nearly 4,000 Canadians across the country are affected, and two new children are diagnosed every week.

There is hope, however. In the 1960s, a child born with cystic fibrosis did not live long enough to go to school. Now, thanks to investments in research, 60% of Canadians with this disease live to be adults.

I therefore urge all of my colleagues in the House and all Canadians to stand together with everyone who lives with this disease and to give generously to organizations such as Cystic Fibrosis Canada, whose mandate is to help people cope with this disease and to find a cure.

Mississauga

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about two spectacular events that Mississauga hosted last weekend.

Last Friday, the 28th Carassauga Festival of Cultures, the second largest cultural festival in Canada, opened its doors for a three-day celebration of international tradition, art and cuisine. Carassauga celebrates diversity and demonstrates Canada's resolute devotion to multiculturalism. Carassauga is a profound example to the world of cultural unity and peace.

The spotlight was also on Mississauga this Sunday because of the MS walk for a cure, a community event bringing hundreds of people together to connect with those touched by multiple sclerosis. Together, we raised around $150,000 toward MS.

I want to thank the many volunteers who made these events possible. Without them, Carrassauga and the MS Walk would not have been such a great success. I ask everyone to join me in thanking volunteers across our country for their great work and dedication, making our communities and Canada a better place for all.