Rod Bruinooge

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to take exception with a number of statements that this member has made.

In her previous intervention, I think in an answer to a question from the member for Churchill, or it might have been earlier, she did mention that she knew that women wanted women's shelters. That is something that she knew unequivocally. That may be the case. Is she also suggesting, as she said in her answer, that we are not sure if women want matrimonial property rights?

I just do not understand this. Why would women on reserve not want access to matrimonial real property rights? Why would a woman on reserve who is going through a marriage break-up not want to have at least the opportunity to stay in her home with her children? Is she suggesting that women would simply prefer to be removed from that home? Why would they want that? Why would a woman want to be removed from her home with her children? I do not understand that, so perhaps she could explain it further to me.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the member opposite. She often presents herself as an advocate for women's issues, so that would come to the root of my question, in part because today the Liberals have brought forward this concurrence motion that she is speaking to.

This concurrence motion is actually preventing us from dealing with the matter of matrimonial real property, so I find it difficult to understand the logic of this initiative in the sense that debate on this concurrence motion seeks to discuss women's shelters throughout our country and how we need to continue to be diligent in that area.

However, matrimonial real property will actually help keep women in their homes. Women on reserve are sometimes subject to the very unfair practice of being removed from their homes when marriages break down. The irony of the concurrence motion is quite astounding.

Does the member not agree that it is important to keep women in their homes and that in fact this is what the matrimonial real property debate was about? Does she not find this concurrence motion rather bizarre?

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a very important part of our committee deliberations over the last almost three years now, wherein we have been able to bring some very progressive, important legislation forward in the House to get a number of things passed on behalf of aboriginal Canadians throughout our great nation.

He speaks to an era where, unfortunately, the previous government placed some considerable financial restrictions on first nations communities and maintained that throughout its entire tenure. That party and previous government liked to promote themselves as being the greatest friend of first nations and aboriginal people. I do not believe it to be the case. It is one of the reasons why I ran for a seat in the House.

One thing he forgets is that in our first budget we brought forward an additional $450 million on top of the previous amount allocated to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which went above and beyond the 2% cap. Although there needs to be continued investment, there needs to be systemic reform. That is part of what we were debating today, which is a massive systemic reform extending matrimonial real property to first nations women on reserve.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this argument posed and continued to be suggested by the member opposite is one that is rooted in fallacy. It suggests that outside external issues will fix this very legislative measure, which is extending matrimonial real property benefits to first nations women.

I would be the first to suggest that there are many issues throughout our country, but for us to bring forward some omnibus super bill that would deal with everything is impossible,although the Liberal Party likes to suggest a massive panacea approach, which was its approach in the last election.

However, a substantive measure needs to be taken on this very specific issue. If we were to pass this, we would see it as a starting point to addressing the larger issues. That is the most important approach, and I do not buy into the fallacy he has brought forward as an argument.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the question speaks to some important matters that our government has begun working on. The investment we made of nearly $56 million toward women's shelters that are on reserve throughout southern Canada has been very well received by the communities.

The member's question was in relation to the north. Of course the north is covered by important territories where our government has continued the process of devolving province-like powers to these entities. Our government tends to believe it is important that territories have the full wherewithal to deliver the services that are within provincial jurisdiction.

We have increased transfer payments to the territories. We are hopeful they will be able to continue their important work in delivering the services that they need to actually take part in for themselves.

The New Democratic Party has voted against all of our budget enhancements in terms of equalization to the territories. Perhaps the member could talk to his leader to change that perspective in the future.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks to important reforms that need to happen in first nations communities across the country.

I wonder though why he sits in that party. That party has set aside so many initiatives and has voted against so many initiatives that would actually improve the system which unfortunately shackles, as he has said, first nations people on reserve.

Even today we are supposed to be debating extending matrimonial real property rights to first nations women, but his party brought forward a concurrence motion which actually delays that debate. It does not make any sense why someone who would want to extend benefits to first nations women on reserve would stand in the way of matrimonial real property. That is very difficult for me to understand.

Our government has taken a number of initiatives and will continue to, including today hopefully, once the Liberals get out of our way.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to this debate today, I, like the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, am quite surprised that the member for Churchill would bring about a concurrence motion stopping important debate on bills such as Bill C-47, which would extend matrimonial property rights to first nations women on reserve, and the Tsawwassen bill and debate later today.

It is surprising that the Liberal Party would bring a concurrence motion in this middle of this, so I feel that on behalf of our government we need to bring forward an important motion. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member has attended a number of aboriginal affairs committee meetings and has provided considerable insight into the issues facing aboriginal Canadians throughout our country and in his own riding.

A few of my questions for him would be in relation to some of the matters he raised. One of the words he used in relation to us bringing forward this bill was the word “revenge”. I am hopeful that was just some sort of word lost in translation because that would never be a motive for our government. I just do not understand how that could come into the context of this discussion but I am sure he will perhaps illuminate us a little more on that.

However, I have a more specific question. He referenced consultation and how he felt that it was inadequate. We held over 109 consultation sessions throughout the country at 64 different locations. Many individuals came forward. How much adequate consultation does the member think a government, any government but, in our case, this government, needs to engage in before we can proceed with such an important bill to deliver matrimonial real property rights to first nations citizens and, of course, first nations women?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member for Nunavut in this regard as she has a long career of advocating on behalf of first nations, Inuit and Métis people throughout Canada.

I would like to explore a few of her comments. She indicated that, as a government, we had not included any of the ministerial representative's recommendations in the bill. In fact, a number were incorporated in the bill, including providing basic protections for individual residents on reserves during and after the breakdown of a conjugal relationship, balancing individual rights with collective rights, including the opportunity for first nations to exercise their law-making responsibility in this area, as well as providing for an initiative that will bring about a centre of excellence.

The member comes from a territory within Canada, where individuals have full access to matrimonial real property, as do I, as a Métis citizen from Winnipeg. The people of my community in Manitoba, who live off reserve, have this opportunity. It is something I know she believes needs to be extended.

In light of the fact that the bill provides first nations with the opportunity to develop their own codes on this matter, does the member not believe this is basically the ultimate opportunity to opt out of what we provide as legislation should a first nation believe it needs additional requirements within its code? Does she not see that as a great reason to support the bill?

[Justice, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, Winnipeg mayor, Sam Katz. told us how he really feels about the Liberal's soft on crime agenda. He said:

The last time the federal government took some initiatives, they were stalled in the [Liberal] senate for a long time.

Mayor Katz, however, is not the only Manitoban fed up with the Liberals. Gord Mackintosh, former minister of justice, said:

I was through enough years with Liberals in Ottawa to know that I always find it amusing when a Liberal asks a question about getting serious on crime.

For 13 years, why were sensible measures not taken to reduce crime?

Who can Manitobans count on for their safety? The member for Winnipeg South Centre, who sat on her hands for 13 years of Liberal inaction? No. The member for Saint Boniface, who flip-flopped and voted against our government's efforts to restrict the use of conditional sentences for serious offenders? No.

Manitobans cannot count on anyone but the Conservative government because when it comes to safety we will not take no for an answer.