Tina Keeper

[Petitions, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two petitions on behalf of people in the Churchill riding on the issue of marriage.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago today, aboriginal leaders, premiers and the previous Liberal government launched meetings that led to the Kelowna accord. It was a historic moment for Canada. During the election the Conservatives falsely promised that they would adopt the accord, but now they dismiss it completely.

Another Conservative promise made and then broken as they swiftly cancelled the $5.1 billion. One year later there is no sign that they plan to deliver anything substantial to close the gap for aboriginal Canadians. They promised aboriginal Canadians that they would deliver. How can the Minister of Indian Affairs--

[Indian Act, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a Cree first nation woman from the Norway House Cree Nation and on my maternal side I am from the Muskrat Dam First Nation, I feel especially privileged to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-289 sponsored by the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The objective of this bill is to amend section 90 of the Indian Act which focuses on matrimonial real property and immovables, insofar that it would extend the application of provincial matrimonial property law to include reserve lands.

Matrimonial real property describes the family home and the land upon which it is situated, and provincial laws determine how to divide the property in the event of a marital breakup or divorce.

At face value it sets out to carefully address a delicate matter. Instances involving conflicts in regard to matrimonial real property do, without question, affect all Canadians and, of course, first nations citizens as well.

This bill however seeks to amend a portion of the Indian Act and, therefore, I trust that my parliamentary colleagues will lend their attention to the complexities that surround Bill C-289.

The urgency to address matrimonial real property on first nations is by no means a recent issue. Over 20 years ago the legislative gap was brought to the fore by the Supreme Court rulings of Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul. The result of these rulings was that provincial and territorial laws relating to the division of matrimonial real property, upon marital breakdown, do not apply on reserve lands.

This is an issue that has been explored, as my colleague mentioned, in many reports and in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In June 2005 the committee released a final report entitled “Walking Arm-In-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”.

Since the report was finalized, the Native Women's Association of Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have sought to seek a resolution on matrimonial real property.

I wish to remind the member for Portage—Lisgar that there are key considerations. First, there are aboriginal and treaty rights. The courts have affirmed aboriginal and treaty rights over reserve lands and, accordingly, they are protected by subsection 35.(1) of the Constitution Act. This is the fundamental starting point for discussions to address the legislative gap.

Recent court cases have confirmed that the federal government cannot unilaterally proceed with enacting legislation that has the potential to infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights or affect aboriginal interests without first consulting first nations.

There has been judicial recognition of first nations jurisdiction over land use on reserve lands. Additionally, in respect of the inherent right to self-government, there must be recognition of first nations jurisdiction over family law matters. To do otherwise infringes on the rights of first nations to be self-governing, as recognized by the Constitution of Canada.

Additionally, in May 2005 an agreement was signed by the Assembly of First Nations and the previous Liberal government of Canada. This agreement is known as the “First Nations-Federal Crown Political Accord on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nations Governments”. It laid a fresh framework for a collaborative federal policy development process that would guarantee first nation participation.

Bill C-289 makes absolutely no mention of these essential conciliatory processes and legal mechanisms.

Given the past and present hardships experienced by Canada's first nations, I think it would be considerably counterproductive to proceed any further on a bill that was not the outcome of a successful, cooperative and collaborative effort.

If indeed it is the intent of the member to address critical issues facing first nations women and children, then I find it difficult to understand why the member would not have supported the motion in this House put forward by the member who represents the Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River riding to honour the implementation of the Kelowna agreement, entitled “First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap”. It was reached between the first ministers of this country and national aboriginal leaders, including the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

The Kelowna accord was a first step which would have provided over $5 billion to address critical issues affecting first nations women and children, including the day to day urgent needs in: housing, safe drinking water, education, health care and developing capacity in the health care field, economic development, and addressing governance structures which is absolutely essential for aboriginal people to move forward in self-determination. That, I might add, is a key health determinant.

The answers must come from the people themselves and earlier this year, on June 21, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a nationwide consultation process on matrimonial real property. These regional dialogue sessions are necessary and they are a means toward achieving a meaningful and lasting solution.

I encourage the member to consider the impacts of attempting to supercede a process that is currently underway. In fact, I encourage all members of the House to consider how momentous this process is to involve first nations and aboriginal women in a cooperative and collaborative process with the federal government. In order to best reinforce the integrity and focus on the genuine intention of the regional dialogue sessions, and the good faith of the consultations, it is not judicious to pursue this bill any further.

Although I support the issue being resolved, I can assure the House that Bill C-289 is undermining the legal process that is currently being pursued. To reiterate and conclude my position, out of respect for the ongoing process that is currently underway between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, I cannot find any constructive purpose in supporting this bill.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today the world is celebrating the adoption by the United Nations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The theme of this year's National Child Day is the “Right to be Heard”.

It is a shameful fact that no group of young people in Canada faces a greater gap in life chances than aboriginal children. Last year's Kelowna accord targeted $5 billion over five years to close the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in areas such as education, health, housing and economic opportunities. Yet the minority Conservative government cancelled the $5.1 billion accord.

Canada's aboriginal children deserve better. All of us in the House must make Canada a nation that listens to the needs of our aboriginal children and youth. It is their right to be heard.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.

During the election Canadians were duped into believing a Conservative government would honour the Kelowna accord, but that promise was broken with the Conservative budget which cancelled the $5.1 billion agreement.

The Conservatives claimed the money was never booked, but one of its own MPs has admitted the money was there. The only way that money could have been taken off the books was by the finance minister or the Prime Minister.

Why has the government broken its promises to aboriginal Canadians?

[Remembrance Day, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep gratitude that I stand in the chamber today to honour our country's greatest men and women during Veterans' Week and on the eve of Remembrance Day.

Tomorrow, November 11, Canadians across the country will unite to remember the sacrifices of Canadians and their families during the first and second world wars, the Korean war and indeed all missions where Canadian soldiers have fallen.

In my riding of Churchill ceremonies will be held throughout the region to commemorate this day, at Legions in Thompson, Churchill, Cranberry Portage, Flin Flon, Gillam, Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake, Snow Lake and The Pas.

In my home community of Norway House Cree Nation a ceremony will be held to honour aboriginal veterans who have fought in every major battle on behalf of Canada.

As the daughter and granddaughter of veterans, I express my unconditional gratitude for the courageous contributions of all our veterans.

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the second reading debate of the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette's Bill C-222, the heritage, hunting, trapping and fishing protection act.

The bill hopes to recognize that recreational hunting and fishing have played a significant role in shaping Canada's social, cultural and economic heritage and that recreational hunters, trappers and anglers have made important contributions to the understanding of conservation, restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources.

As a member of Parliament who represents a large rural constituency in northern Manitoba, I can assure my hon. colleagues of the importance of hunting, trapping and fishing within our country. These activities are deeply ingrained in our history, heritage and culture. They represent a common economic activity and a pastime during all seasons of the year, and are an economic contributor in my riding.

However, due to the importance with which we as legislators must regard legislation, it is important that we understand whether it is suitable legislation. Referring to hunting and fishing in the context of heritage, it is important that we understand the intent of the bill and the intent and usefulness of the bill are unclear.

The mandate of Canadian Heritage states that it is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians. In the context of Canadian heritage and the department's responsibility to set policies and programs in this area, we have to look at the current jurisdictional issues and structures on fishing and hunting.

I would contend that mainly the conflicts would arise with provinces, but there would also be potential conflicts with aboriginal and treaty rights with first nations, Métis and Inuit throughout Canada. For instance, in my home province of Manitoba there is existing legislation in the area of conservation, hunting and fishing. These include legislation such as the conservation agreements act, the endangered species act, the polar bear protection act and the wildlife act. Given this fact, we must be careful not to intrude on the province's jurisdiction. I know as well that provinces across the country have legislation similar to Manitoba's legislation.

In addition, the proponent of the bill is well-informed in aboriginal and treaty rights which are entrenched in section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1982. Where there has been jurisdictional debate on section 35 for the Métis nation, it was clearly stated in the Supreme Court of Canada's Powley decision in September 2003, a unanimous decision, that the Métis right to hunt is protected by section 35 of the Constitution.

There is uncertainty on the implications of the bill and what it would create for aboriginal peoples. Does the bill potentially challenge treaty and aboriginal rights? In regard to Canadian Heritage's responsibility for policy and programs on this matter, what would it mean? These are merely some of the questions I am sure members and Canadians would ask.

Despite the general spirit and intent of the bill to embrace this important part of our collective heritage, the uncertainties of jurisdictional conflicts draw concern for me. To this end, I understand that since the initial tabling of Bill C-222, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette realized some of the potential infringements that this bill may have done and he has addressed the matter. In fact, he made a recommendation to the committee that clauses 1, 2 and 3 be replaced with one single clause stating, “That a person has a right to hunt, fish and trap in accordance with the law”.

I join many of my colleagues when I applaud the spirit of the bill, but I would argue that this issue is dealt with through our provincial laws and through section 35 of the Constitution, and as a federal heritage matter, it is not clear in its intent and implication. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.

[Petitions, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions in the House today comprising hundreds of signatures from people in the Churchill riding, both of which state that the government's child care plan does not address the needs and demands of rural ridings.

The petitioners therefore request that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development reinstate the early learning and child care initiative as instituted by the former Liberal government.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it would be nice to get an answer.

The Manitoba-Canada labour market partnership agreement was a valuable resource for the people in my riding as well. It was designed to address current and emerging labour market challenges and to create an inclusive labour market. It meant $129 million over five years in Manitoba.

For youth at risk, aboriginal youth, who had programs to develop literacy skills and essential skills that would give them the opportunity to step into the labour force, the loss of their programs is devastating.

Would the minister explain why she has not honoured this agreement?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the people in my riding relied on the national child care strategy to build spaces.

On the pressing matter of the precarious feature of the early learning and child care spaces, the minister cannot tell us how the government proposes to address the tax credit proposal to build child care spaces within first nations that have a different tax environment and are the fasting growing demographic in the country.

The minister has identified that a ministerial advisory committee exists to examine the development of child care spaces. Would the minister tell us how many members of that committee are first nations?