Evidence of meeting #12 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programs.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Okay, if that is the case, Madam Neville, do you want to make some statements with regard to this motion?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the motion here is self-explanatory.
This is an important issue. The committee spent a great deal of time last year in the previous Parliament studying this issue. This issue has been studied by the Senate committee. I know the issue is before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, because I sit on that committee. I know that all parties are committed to trying to resolve the issue, and while it's a very complicated issue, it's an issue on which we have to move forward.
I'm only asking that the report be tabled and that the government take its 120 days—or 60 days—to respond to it, which is a fair length of time.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have two issues with Ms. Neville's motion.
Obviously, no one could be against such a proposition, but is not too early to introduce it?
Tomorrow, members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will begin examining Aboriginal women's rights and the disposition of matrimonial real property on a reserve. The proposal was made by our colleague Ms. Mourani and the committee should be debating it tomorrow. That's my first issue.
Moreover, there's Bill C-289, which was tabled in the House by Mr. Pallister. I think you all know what it deals with. I'm not sure what to do. If we consider the motion put before us now, then in a few months, when we're asked to review C-289, we will be doing the same thing twice over. We cannot address the same issue twice, we simply have to much to do over the course of the coming months.
I'm putting the question to you. I'm not sure what to think. I believe it would be counter-productive to debate the same subject twice.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but my understanding of this motion is that we won't be debating it in this committee; we're simply asking that the report that was done previously by the aboriginal affairs committee be resubmitted to the House for the government to respond to it. So it wouldn't actually take up any of this committee's time, and it wouldn't preclude us from responding to Bill C-289, the private member's bill.
I'm speaking in favour of having this report go forward to the House. As Ms. Neville pointed out, this has been studied to death, and I think it's appropriate that we ask for the report to be resubmitted in order to get some response from the government, and perhaps thereby form a basis for some work that might actually move forward.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Okay, I'm going to go to the government side here.
Mr. Bruinooge, go ahead, please.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
In relation to the motion, I think the point has already been made that in fact not only has the report been submitted previously, but there is currently a private member's bill before the House. This committee is going to get the opportunity to debate that bill as it proceeds through the House, and also I'd like to highlight the fact that the minister is actually going to be meeting with the status of women committee next week. I believe that, in light of these things, our resubmitting of a report would just send the message that we're not identifying the fact that there is actually action being taken right now.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
You never see a response before that, so that's why I'm asking why you wouldn't wait until the minister meets with the status of women committee.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I just want to remind the committee—and I've said this before in this regard—that this committee, as a standing committee of the House, is not the standing committee of government. It's the standing committee of the House, which is all parties. When a report is tabled by the chair of the committee, it's tabled to the House, not to the government, and the government needs to respond to it.
As I brought up before, do you keep retabling reports just because governments change? I think that once it is recorded in the House, there has to be a response by the government. As I'm the servant of this committee, I'll do whatever the committee directs, but as the parliamentary secretary has said, this is going to come forward as a private member's bill, and it will be debated by this committee sometime in the future. I would just put that out there for the committee to consider.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I would just like to respond to that, if you don't mind, for a moment.
I believe this committee has taken the initiative on two previous items, recommendations regarding which were made based on its opinion of the government's direction. However, on this particular item, the government is showing some direction, so I think it wouldn't be the right move to proceed. I would suggest that we do not proceed with tabling this report at this time.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I don't want to prolong the debate, Mr. Chairman.
Referring to the private member's bill that's been tabled, it is the antithesis of what this report has recommended. The private member's bill speaks about matrimonial property being brought in according to the provincial laws of the jurisdiction, which we have certainly heard is not agreeable to many of the aboriginal communities. So comparing one to the other just doesn't make sense.
I'm really genuinely puzzled by the unwillingness of the government to provide a response to a thoughtful report that came about after extensive consultation with aboriginal groups, with community groups. It was done. We've changed government. This government quite clearly has a different approach to the aboriginal community from that taken by the previous government. I don't think it's unfair to ask for a comprehensive, fulsome response. We can't get that in a ten-minute presentation by the minister.
I've met with the minister. I know that he is committed to trying to resolve this issue. It's a very complicated issue. It's not simply a matter of imposing the provincial jurisdictions on the communities involved. It's a very complicated issue. There are many court decisions on this issue.
I think that, as a committee, we are entitled to have a comprehensive, fulsome answer. I'm repeating myself, but it's almost an insult to the members of this committee, to members of the government, to want to avoid or sabotage a response to the committee. It's being put forward in good faith. It is an important issue that people from coast to coast are watching, and, as a committee seized with this, we're entitled to know what this government wants to do or what their thinking is.
They have a long time to respond. This is simply a request for a response. There's a long time before the response has to be tabled, and I really don't understand the hesitation.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Did the previous government table a response to the committee's fifth report entitled “Walking arm-in-arm to resolve the issue of on reserve matrimonial real property“ tabled during the first session of the 38th Parliament?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
The answer to that is yes. We have a response dated October 6, 2005, from the government at that time—the Honourable Andy Scott. There are a number of recommendations in that report. It has been responded to once already by the House—by the government or minister.
Mr. Lemay, and then Madam Crowder.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
If the previous government responded to the report, I would like my friends from the Liberal party to tell me why we should table the same report again. That's all I'm trying to understand. In my opinion, it is a very important matter, and it deserves a response, but would this be a duplication of our efforts? I'm probably missing something because I was just handed a copy of the government's response. Where is the problem? I apologize, perhaps I'm not getting the picture clearly. Normally, I see quite clearly, but it's getting late. I'm simply trying to understand.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Actually, I think I can answer, in part, Mr. Lemay's question. In part the problem is that nothing is happening, and that is the challenge. That's why I take the chair's comments that this committee is a creature of the House—but it is the government that we're looking to respond on this.
On Bill C-289, we cannot presume that the bill will pass in the House; it may never get to this committee. If we wait for Bill C-289.... And I don't have the schedule of debate, but there will be one hour of debate and then, at some later time, there will be a second hour of debate. It may or may not pass, and in the mean time we will have lost many months to press for some action on this issue. Women and men have waited years for some action, and in my conversations with both the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, they are once again being cut out of the loop and not being consulted in a meaningful way on some action on this issue. So perhaps a response from the government would provide a catalyst for the department to take some action on this.
I just feel really strongly that women are more disadvantaged by this not being looked at. It's been an issue that women have been asking to be resolved for many, many years.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I am again going to state that when the minister was here, he did indicate very clearly that this was an important issue to him. He is going to be making a presentation before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on June 22. I believe the minister is being very clear on this. In terms of his response and the department's response, I've never seen something more telegraphed in all my years of monitoring politics. I'm not a veteran, like some of you across the table, but I would suggest that the minister is clearly engaged with this issue. He's always talked about it in the past, and I would once again ask that we not proceed at this moment with this motion.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Because Mr. Lemay was so generous to the government side in the last hour, I'm going to give him the last say, and then I'm going to call the question.
Mr. Lemay.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I quickly glossed over the document. I have a question for the government side members. If the minister thinks he is going to appear before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on June 22nd, he might feel very lonely, unless the MPs across the floor tell me we will still be sitting. Indeed the information we've received today, namely that Bill C-2 will probably pass Tuesday, is to the effect that the House will possibly adjourn Wednesday night, on the 21st.
4:55 p.m.
Some honourable members
Hey! Hey!