Debates of June 4th, 2013

Bill S-2—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I totally reject the unsubstantiated and far-fetched allegations made by the member. As I said earlier, consultations were conducted.

This is the fourth iteration of this bill. On several occasions, and every time that it has been introduced in the House of Commons, numerous Canadians and aboriginals—in the first nations and across Canada—were consulted, and a number of amendments were made to improve the bill.

In fact, contrary to what the member stated, amendments were made. The result: the bill responds to the challenge Canada faces of guaranteeing the same rights to all its citizens. Most notably, it will ensure that women, children, and couples living on reserve are not treated like second-class citizens.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for this bill. I have worked extensively with the aboriginal community and have to say that every woman wants the same rights as every other woman in the country.

In addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, Bill S-2 would allow the courts to consider these factors and provide extended exclusive occupation access to the family home. Emergency protection orders are often provided in the initial procedures in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by an application for exclusive occupation and valuation.

During the time period of the emergency protection order, the spouse or common-law partner could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home. In cases where the need for this protection is extended and where there are children involved, having access or extended access to the family home is very important.

Could the minister please describe the importance of providing access?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the federal provisional rules in Bill S-2 would enable the courts to provide short-long to long-term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of a spouse or common-law partner. The duration of this order could range from a determined number of days to a longer period, such as until dependent children reach the age of majority.

What is important to add is that the bill contemplates that with the extension of such period of time, the judge would take the advice of the First Nations Leadership Council chiefs about the implications this has on the community. Therefore, this provision in the bill would help ensure that spouses or common-law partners who are primary caregivers would have access to housing for their children and/or dependent adults. As has been demonstrated by witnesses during the debate at committee, this would really be an added value to our set of laws for aboriginal people in Canada.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email from Chief Marianna Couchie of the Nipissing First Nation last night. I would like to quote from her email. She stated:

There are some certainties that NFN would like to ensure. We already have our own Matrimonial Rights Property policy in place, that occured quite a few years ago around 2004. (I am concerned about) Will this new Bill have an impact on our Existing MRP Policy?

When we enacted our MRP two matters were of precedent:

1. The safe guarding of the right to preserve for ever our Land.

2. In our Policy/Act the children if they have status own the family home and which ever parent is prepared to raise the children in the family home can do so.

I have two questions on behalf of the chief. If this bill is enacted, will it affect the policy that they already have in place, and would this new bill have an impact on their existing MRP policy? The second question from the chief is this. Does the Conservative government still view first nations as a problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the last question from the chief, the member may tell her that, indeed, the aboriginal presence in Canada enriches this great country of ours. We are attempting to work co-operatively with all chiefs and councils and first nations members in communities all across Canada in trying to reconcile aboriginal rights with Canada exercising its sovereignty.

I will read an important quote in answering the question. I will quote representatives of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples who testified before the committee in November 2011. They stated:

The MRP Act has more significance than meets the eye, because it goes to the heart of the issue-- dignity of the person.... For many years, we’ve been calling for an effective Matrimonial Real Property regime to protect spouses who are forced to leave a reserve.... Promoting the dignity of the person does not erode Treaty or Aboriginal Rights.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 is the fourth iteration of a bad piece of legislation. Will the Conservatives sit down with the first nations once and for all and address concerns regarding the recognition of first nations jurisdiction, access to justice and conflict resolution, for example?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind the member of something. Were he the slightest bit familiar with this issue, he would know that the first nations have already obtained the right to self-government and that they are part of a comprehensive agreement. These first nations already have legislation that addresses these issues.

The bill targets first nations that do not benefit from such a system. It is designed to enable these first nations to pass their own legislation that focuses on their own communities and on the cultural values of those first nations. They will have one year to do this, then the legislation will come into effect. Until this is achieved, even provisionally, federal rules and regulations will remain in effect. The bill was, therefore, developed to fully respect self-government, comprehensive agreements, and, most notably, the rights and treaties that are currently in force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard two members opposite say that maybe it is a bad bill. I find it interesting that they would say maybe it is a bad bill, when it would help women on reserve with emergency protection orders and also give them the same rights that I have standing here.

Critics of Bill S-2 have said that allowing courts to address interests and rights to the matrimonial home on reserve is just too complicated for judges and places too much of a burden on the individual, but these critics want to deny aboriginal women the same rights and protections that many of them take for granted themselves. The fact is that Bill S-2 would simplify the process involved in the breakdown of a marriage or common-law relationship. It would provide individuals living on reserves with access to the legal tools and protections they need.

Could the minister please explain how this bill would aid judges in enforcing matrimonial real property laws on reserves and how it would ease the so-called burden on individuals?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there is no legal protection available to couples living in first nation communities that are governed by the Indian Act. This is what we are attempting to correct here. I would argue that nothing should be considered so complicated or burdensome as to justify not extending these basic rights and protections to one segment of the population.

Throughout the country, judges already deal with the division of matrimonial property off reserve. As part of our implementation plan, we are committed to ensuring that judges will receive educational materials to help them better understand the legislation and the social context in which these matrimonial real property issues arise in first nation communities.

In closing, I would also argue that Bill S-2 does not place too much of a burden on the individual, rather it is the complete opposite.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make it seem as though they are passing legislation in support of the rights of aboriginal women, when in fact they disregard what these women have to say. They are trying to push through legislation without addressing the real, relevant, non-legal problems faced by aboriginal women and their families.

Why are the Conservatives trying to ram through this legislation, despite a great deal of testimony stating that in order to resolve matrimonial real property issues with something more than interim rules, there first needs to be a more comprehensive response by first nations leadership?

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

Mr. Speaker, you would really have to be on the other side of the House, in the New Democratic Party, to seriously contend that the bill is being rammed through, six years after its introduction in Parliament.

The member’s proposal would enable the opposition to delay, if not completely block, a fundamental initiative under which families living on reserve in Canada would have the same rights enjoyed by other Canadians.

I know that the New Democratic Party would like to see the rights of women and children on reserve remain inferior to the rights enjoyed by every other Canadian. We, however, believe that it is time to act, and that is what the motion seeks to achieve.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that we are here debating ending debate, and what we hear from the Conservatives is debate on the bill, not on ending debate.

It is yet another example of the disdain the government has for our parliamentary democracy. It is the 40th time in just over two years, that is one every seven sitting days, that we have had to end debate. We have had to shut the mouths of the parliamentarians. We heard from the Conservative backbenchers how much they liked having their mouths shut, when they complained about the fact that they could not be heard on issues that were of importance to them.

Let us look at the other abuses of parliamentary democracy that we have had in the House of Commons. We have had omnibus bills on the budget that had nothing to do with matters that were raised in the budget, that raised all kinds of other things. Yet this was supposedly part of the government's plan, which was never mentioned in their plan.

Instead of a revered chamber of sober second thought, the Senate has become a place for cracks, hacks and flaks who are doing nothing to make this parliamentary democracy work for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the abuse of parliamentary democracy is the opposition. It is the opposition members using every means they can to prevent the House from adopting a bill that will give equal rights to families living on reserve. That is an abuse of democracy. That is an abuse of parliamentary democracy. The member may gesture with his head as he wishes, but I do not think that is parliamentary.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There are three minutes left in this question period, so I am going to ask members to keep their questions very short so we can accommodate all the members who have been standing since the beginning.

I will go first to the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal women, as you well know, have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. In fact, this morning at breakfast I spoke to Sophie Pierre, the Chief Commissioner for the B.C. Treaty Commission, who said that aboriginal women desperately want to see the legislation passed.

I would like the minister to please explain how time allocation will finally bring this important legislation to aboriginal women.

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

Mr. Speaker, time allocation, as I just indicated, will allow another five hours of debate at third reading. Finally, after 25 years of a matrimonial property regime in this country that excludes aboriginal women, children, husbands and common-law partners on reserve, this allocation will solve an injustice that has been taking place in this country for much too long. Hopefully, the NDP and the Liberals will wake up to the necessity of ensuring equal rights for all Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it was the Conservatives who abused their power when they appointed senators to fundraise on behalf of the Conservatives. That is an abuse of the institution of democracy.

I have a question for the minister. If he knows, could he tell us why aboriginal women and chiefs are against his bill? Does he at least know why? Why are aboriginal people opposed to his bill?

The government is trying to get the legislation passed quickly, but the reason the bill has not been passed is that the Conservatives prorogued Parliament and called elections. The bill was not defeated as the result of a democratic debate in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, true to form, the member brought absolutely nothing to the debate, except for once again making a remark that I cannot repeat because it would be unparliamentary.

One thing is certain: Parliament will be called upon to vote on an injustice that has been perpetuated for far too long. I would invite the member for Acadie—Bathurst to continue, in the tradition of the NDP, to deny the right of first nations members living on reserve to enjoy the same rights as other Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this abbreviated time for debate to raise one point.

It is not enough for Conservative members of Parliament in this place to say that aboriginal women should have the same rights that each of us have. The issue is constitutional. It is about the requirement from numerous Supreme Court decisions that decisions that affect first nation rights must have prior, full, constitutionally mandated consultation. That has not occurred and that makes me fear that the hon. minister is asking us to pass a bill that will be ruled unconstitutional later.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally wrong. There have been consultations.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.