Debates of Nov. 4th, 2014

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

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

moved that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Friday, May 20, 2014, be concurred in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as in the past, I would ask my New Democratic friends, as much as possible, in order to facilitate concurrence motions, to provide some notice.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this motion is actually in the name of the member for Winnipeg North. I assumed he had actually read the report that is before the House, because he actually moved concurrence on this particular report. Therefore, it should not be a surprise. Since he moved concurrence on this report, he should have at least read it.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify as I am trying to following along. Are we referring to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development entitled, “Subject Matter of Wills and Estates”? Could I confirm that?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is correct, yes. The subject is wills and estates. It is the sixth report.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is now responding to the point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is most inappropriate for the NDP House leader to seem to want to disrupt my right to address the House on a wide variety of important issues, and we have seen this over the last couple of days,

I was maybe 30 seconds into my comments before he was up on his feet, eager to cause confusion among members of the House of Commons. I would ask, with all due respect, that I be allowed to deliver my comments without interruption by the NDP House leader.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have not heard anything that would constitute a point of order, yet. The member for Winnipeg North was about 20 seconds into his speech. I know over the last few days, some of his colleagues have reminded him about the rules of relevance, and I have confidence that today he will do his best to speak to the subject matter of the sixth report. As the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has pointed out, the motion to concur stands in his name as well, so I think that is something we can all point to as a sign of optimism.

I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. As he points out, he has the right to speak to the motion, and he has about 19 minutes and 40 seconds left to do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is said that an image is worth 1,000 words. Seeing the face of the New Democratic House leader when you made reference to the fact that we were—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of relevance. He has not spoken except to throw insults. If he has something to say on the motion for concurrence in the committee report, he should speak on it rather than wasting the time of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to go back to your ruling about the relevance of what he should be talking about.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think members have had the opportunity to express their frustrations in the last few minutes, through points of order. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to resist the temptation to continue to do so and speak to the subject matter of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Then I think the House's patience will not be further tested.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that I am somewhat familiar with the report. One of the things we should start off with is a letter that was provided to the committee chair. I know there are some nervous Nellies in the New Democratic fold, so I will cite some specifics coming from a letter that was addressed to the committee. It is on an important issue dealing with wills and estates, which is the name of the report itself, and I ask that members be patient because it is a somewhat lengthy letter, but it is something that is important to share at this time.

It is important to recognize that the Government of Canada would like to thank the members of the standing committee, which is a general acknowledgement, for its study on the report entitled “Wills and Estates”, tabled on May 30. That is when it was brought forward to the minister, which was months ago. The report identifies a number of key issues and challenges that were raised by a number of witnesses. I understand there were about seven witnesses, give or take, who actually made presentations at committee.

I am sorry to disappoint the member; he seems very eager to stand.

The committee met to discuss the issue through to April 29, so it has been a long time of waiting before we have come to the stage of concurrence, where we are today. I suspect if history has anything to do with what is going on, it will likely happen here after I have finished providing some comments. No doubt I will be the only speaker, in all likelihood, but I do not want to limit. In fact I would encourage others to participate, especially if they are moving that the report be concurred in. Members might really want to consider contributing to the debate.

The government states, through the chair, that it is trying to build capacity and autonomy for first nations to improve well-being and provide first nations with self-determination, such as the expansion of the First Nations Land Management Act, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, and the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, which have recently received royal assent.

We need to recognize that the issue of our first nations people is something that has been a challenge for the government to ensure fair representation in terms of what their interests and their will would be and how effective the government is in working with our first nation communities. We have found the government to be very lacking, to be honest. There is a lot more that the government could be doing in terms of working with our first nations to build a consensus, as opposed to what has been a typical style of the government in dealing with our first nation issues, which is to act as opposed to work with our first nation leadership.

Over many years, as a parliamentarian, I have been afforded the opportunity of visiting reserves and just having caucus discussions and meetings with many different first nation leaders and aboriginal communities. I think we are selling them short. The government is missing a real opportunity to make a very strong, tangible difference in not working with the leadership and trying to build a consensus. That is something on which I would challenge the government to move toward.

At the end if the day, if we want to try to have more harmony, if we want to try to make a difference, it is very important that we start co-operating with our first nations leadership. When we talk about wills and estates and in particular this report, it has been pointed out, whether directly or indirectly, that there are many needs out there and there is a general feeling that consultation is something that has not been taking place.

We look to the government to try, in good faith, to make a difference. One of the ways it can make a difference is to start working with the many different strong personalities within our first nations and aboriginal communities.

In the letter addressed to us, we find that the government acknowledges that the land is often the most valuable asset in an estate, and through the enactment of other recent legislation, the government has taken steps to improve conditions for individuals on reserves affected by wills and estates—for example, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which will be fully enforced on December 16. It is happening very quickly. This seeks to provide basic rights and protections to individuals on reserves, including upon the death of a spouse or common-law partner, regarding the family home and other matrimonial interests or rights. It would also enable first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property law, subject to ratification by their members.

Members of the House will be very much aware of the Liberal Party. I almost said “official opposition” and at times we feel as if we are the only opposition inside the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The members laugh, Mr. Speaker. If they allowed standing committees to meet, maybe we would be able to do a bit more on accountability, quite frankly.

The Liberal Party has consistently advocated for progressive legislation. On the whole issue of marital rights, this is a piece of legislation with which we had a great deal of concern. I know even I had the opportunity back then to be able to voice some concerns about the legislation. I was, quite frankly, very disappointed that the government took the approach that it did in regard to the assets.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives try to take the line that they are just trying to ensure that there is equal assets distribution and so forth. They try to simplify an issue that is very complicated. It was obvious that the Conservatives were pushing this legislation through. If only they were to consult with the first nations, as we did in opposition. I can assure members of the fine work that the first nations critic from the Liberal Party did in terms of consultation and working with people and advocates to get a better understanding of the legislation that the government ultimately passed.

It was only because of the government having a majority that it was successful at being able to pass the legislation. I know where we stood as a political entity on it. Had there been a minority government, whether it would have passed would have depended on the day and if the members showed up to work. I say that because ultimately I believe that most, if not all, opposition members opposed the legislation in question.

I recall first hand many of the discussions and debate that took place. Having said that, this is one of those pieces of legislation that were time allocated.

As the Liberal Party in opposition, we face a government that persists and insists on time allocation to avoid parliamentary accountability. Then we have the NDP, which, in order to avoid parliamentary accountability, opposes the holding of meetings by standing committees. At least there is one political entity in the House that is consistent on parliamentary procedures and the issue of accountability. Whether it is a matter of time allocation or of being lazy and not wanting to go into committees, we are prepared to ensure—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we have been very patient. The member has been ruled out of order on three consecutive days because he has this obsession of attacking the official opposition. He just loves to go into that.

He was doing well. For the first time, he was actually speaking to a report. Given that it was a report on which he had moved concurrence, we would have expected that. However, for three days in a row he has been ruled out of order because he has gone off on these weird, bizarre tangents, belching all kinds of personal insults. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have him respect the rule of relevance by speaking to wills, testaments, and land tenure in first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we have to be very careful on the issue of relevancy, because many of the words the member uses now could in fact be used in the future.

On the relevancy issue, when I was being critical of the government on time allocation and parliamentary principle, the NDP House leader did not stand up and say I was being irrelevant. It is only when I point out the deficiencies within the New Democratic Party, and there are many, that he chooses to stand up on a point of order. I suggest he should not be so cherry-picking in his points of order.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the content of this report may have some relevance to the question of relevance. I was reading the report now, and the introduction says that the committee did not have the opportunity to devote as much time to the matter of wills and estates as it would have wished. To my mind, the fact that the committee has not met since June 3 of this year and does not have time to do some of its work, in particular its work on wills and estates, is actually relevant to the report.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am having real difficulty seeing the relevancy, especially since, as the official opposition House leader has mentioned, the member for Winnipeg North has attempted to raise these types of points for three days in a row, and three times the Chair has indicated clearly that these points are irrelevant to the debate on the motion before the House.

Until about the last 20 to 30 seconds of his speech, the member for Winnipeg North was very much addressing relevant comments to the motion before the House. I would ask him to go back to that, but not to move off into the area that he appeared to be going into when he was last speaking. I would also advise him he has less than five minutes to complete his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek your advice. It is an important area for us to get an opinion from the Chair. Is it appropriate, whether one is a New Democratic, Liberal, or Conservative member of Parliament, to be critical of another political party inside the chamber?

I believe we can be. I ask for an opinion from you on whether or not it is fair comment to be critical of another political party inside the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I do not think there is any question to that. It is surprising to hear that question coming from a member who has been here as long as the hon. member has been. It is obvious that at times it is appropriate and relevant for members to be able to criticize other political parties, and I suppose even criticize one's own party.

That is not the issue before the House right now. in terms of the speech being given by the member for Winnipeg North. Rather, it is an issue of relevancy. He has been told three times now by the Chair that the point that he seemed to be driving at in those last 20 to 30 seconds of his speech today was clearly going to be irrelevant, based on the prior rulings.

Therefore, to answer his basic question in his point of order, it is proper at times to be able to criticize political parties; however, it does have to be relevant to the context of the debate that is before the House at the time.

I would again ask the member for Winnipeg North to continue his speech and complete it. He is now down to less than three minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the procedures at the Manitoba legislature—and obviously the House of Commons has different rules—is that because points of order can be lengthy, often they are not included in the time remaining for the member's opportunity to speak. I understand that we lost two minutes or so because of the points of order, and that might be part of the strategy of the official opposition.

I have been completely relevant, as you have even pointed out, throughout the debate on the concurrence report. As my colleague attempted to state in his point of order, I recognize that this committee met on four separate occasions to deal with this issue. As in all committees, there is always a need for more time on virtually every issue that comes before them, and it has been pointed out that the last time this committee met was on June 3. We have a problem with that.

The report states the following:

One of the primary challenges presented during the land management hearings had to do with what witnesses described to the Committee as “legacy issues”. These issues surface when individual interests in land are not formally documented or otherwise lack formal legal recognition. Not surprisingly, these undivided interests in land and uncertain tenure of reserve land holdings can have serious implications for First Nation individuals when determining the descent of property, often resulting in difficult and protracted disputes.

The point is that this is not an easy issue. It is a very complicated issue. If a report is to be concurred in, at least let us consider talking about the report. At least let us consider allowing committees to meet to discuss the report.

All of these are important points, and I look to members recognizing and respecting our first nations and aboriginal issues by allowing our committees to meet and have dialogue so that we can continue the debate on issues such as this.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Winnipeg North could comment on the importance of being able to bring in some of our new members. I am thinking of the member for Macleod, who has been unable to attend the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is important for them to be updated on important issues, such as the concurrence motion we are discussing today. Could the member would speak to the importance of bringing some of these new members into these committees so that they can be part of the overall discussion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is important that we recognize, particularly with respect to the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, that there are numerous issues like the one we have today. Many new members want to participate in committees and have that dialogue, but because of the New Democratic Party's attitude of not allowing concurrence, the committee is not meeting.

I can only suggest to the member that he do what he can to encourage concurrence in the PROC committee report, which would allow those new members to participate. The same applies to the aboriginal affairs committee and many other committees. As has been pointed out, the aboriginal affairs committee last met on June 3.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, upon reading this report and the reply of the government, it seems to me that there is a lot of work to be done. It is no surprise that there is a lot of work to be done on the issues of wills and estates. Ultimately, it is the ownership of land that is the most complicated issue and the most important issue. The sense I get from the committee report and from the government reply to it is that there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of stakeholders to talk to. A House of Commons committee has the capability to do those things.

My constituents in Kingston and the Islands do not care if it is the government's fault or the official opposition's fault that this House of Commons committee is not working. The fact is that the committee has not met since June 3.

Given that the report says that the committee should meet, should we really be debating the report if it is not meeting? I would also ask if the official opposition would like to speak to that aspect in their speeches on this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I suppose I should have said this when the last question was asked. Both questions are obviously directed to issues that the Chair has now ruled three times to be irrelevant to the motion that is before the House. The Chair has made it quite clear what is before the House. It is quite clear in the report that the issue of wills and estates on reserves is the context in which this debate should be taking place.

At this point, I will give the member for Winnipeg North time for a very quick response, but again within the relevancy test that he has now had applied to him three times.