Bernard Valcourt

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

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.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in short, the department consulted extensively with aboriginal nations across the country.

We began these extensive consultations in 2006. About 100 meetings were held in 76 locations across Canada, which allowed us to improve the bill at that time. A number of changes were made specifically to address the concerns of certain stakeholders, the first nations and others about the implementation of this bill. We had to ensure that its real objective of protecting aboriginal families living on reserves across Canada would be attained.

Consultations were held and changes were made such that, today, the bill passes the test and achieves its objective.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, currently, aboriginal women in our country cannot go to court and seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on a reserve. The bill extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, which is what the member referred to, a spouse would be able to apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home at the exclusion of the other spouse for a period of up to 90 days, with the possibility of extension.

An emergency protection order is quick. It follows a simple process and is recognized by child and family justice advocates as being one of the most significant means of preventing family violence. Violations of these orders can result in fines or jail time, hence the importance of the bill.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that the importance of the issue escapes the hon. member. He is talking about the economy, but we are talking about fundamental rights here.

Why do families who live on reserve in Canada not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians and children living off reserve?

Anyone who watches the procedures of the House of Commons knows that if we do not limit debate on the bill, then it once again risks not being passed by the House of Commons. With a majority government, we can ensure, once and for all, that Canadian families living on reserve, women and children, enjoy the same protections as other Canadians. That seems to me like a fundamental, valid and justifiable reason to limit debate and ensure that these people will finally have the same level of protection as other Canadians.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this issue has been before this Parliament for many years now. My colleague referred to the majority government. All those families living on reserve in Canada will thank Canadians for having elected a majority government.

This is the fourth iteration of this bill before Parliament. The first bill was introduced as Bill C-47 on March 4, 2008, in a minority Parliament and was debated at second reading and referred to committee. It died on the order paper on September 7, 2008. In all of those months, when the opposition and everybody had a chance to debate the bill, it did not happen.

I will continue with the next question, but the member is going to get the same answer as to why it is time we acted.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, based on an assessment of historical documents going back into the 1940s, the total royalties paid to the Government of Canada from all of the mines located on the Giant claim block, including Giant, Lolor and Supercrest, is approximately $4 million, based on the 4%-5% royalties in effect at the time.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there are in fact senior oversight committees that have been instituted following the January 11 meeting. These oversight committees are meeting regularly. They are making progress, and I hope that in due course we can make them public.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, we are following up with first nations, Metis and Inuit all across this country. In recent months, I have been travelling across the country to hear many aboriginal leaders, Metis leaders, Inuit leaders. We are making progress and we will continue in the quest for reconciliation in Canada.

[Privacy, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this week on the same topic, we take Canadians' right to privacy very seriously. I would like to make clear to the House and to all Canadians that all of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations have been implemented by my department.

[Privacy, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is preoccupied with the kids living on reserve in this country, she should also be preoccupied with all of the families on reserve that are deprived of basic rights, which we in the House are trying to give them. I am talking about the matrimonial property legislation, which will come for third reading soon. I hope she votes on the right side of it if she really cares about native families.