Bill S-2 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 27, 2011
- Debated in principleOct. 31, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 30, 2011
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Nancy RuthSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rona Ambroseexplicitly backs the bill as important legislation for aboriginal women.
- Susan Truppestates the bill removes a factor contributing to violence and gives similar legal protection.
- Wai Youngstates she is pleased to speak in support of Bill S-2
- Shelly Gloverexplicitly states pleasure in supporting the bill and notes long wait for needed legislation.
- Candice Bergendescribes the bill as giving basic human rights and property rights to aboriginal women on reserves.
- Ms. Michelle RempelDefends the bill as necessary legislative change to achieve women's equality rights on reserves.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 28 September 2011, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves (Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act), in the Senate and it was given first reading. The bill addresses issues relating to family real property on reserves by providing that a First Nation has the power to enact laws relating to “the use, occupation and possession of family homes on its reserves and the division of the value of any interests or rights held by spouses or common-law partners in or to structures and lands on its reserves” (clause 7(1)). Where a First Nation does not have such laws in force, whether established under the bill, under the First Nations Land Management Act, or under a self-government agreement, provisional federal rules established in the bill will apply.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2013-04-17 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsMobina S. B. JafferReplace lines in clause 17 to allow court to extend duration of order beyond 90 days on rehearing.Adopted · Nov. 29, 2011 · Senate record
- delays or defersMobina S. B. JafferExtend transition period in article 56(2) from one year to two years.Voted down · Dec. 1, 2011 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,656 words introduced, 14,256 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose and definitions but underwent extensive revisions during passage, with 72% of the introduced text removed or replaced. Formal updates included assent dates, chapter numbering, and completion of truncated provisions on reserve land status.
- Added royal assent date and chapter designation to the final statute.
Before: “FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011”
After: “ASSENTED TO 19th JUNE, 2013 BILL S-2”
- Completed the provision on reserve lands under the Constitution Act.
Before: “(c) reserve lands continue to be lands r”
After: “(c) reserve lands continue to be lands reserved for the Indians within the meaning of Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.”
- Updated session and regnal years in the header.
Before: “First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60 Elizabeth II, 2011”
After: “First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60-61-62 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012-2013”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act mixes some fixed dollar amounts and time limits with repeated subjective tests such as 'considers appropriate' and 'reasonably be regarded'. These open-ended phrases dominate the operative provisions on orders, consent, and enforcement.
Open to argument
“subject to any conditions that the court considers appropriate”
Leaves the content of every order to judicial discretion rather than fixed criteria.“the portion of the structure that may reasonably be regarded as necessary for the residential purpose”
Uses a reasonableness standard that invites argument over what counts as necessary.“to restrain the improvident depletion”
Employs an undefined and evaluative term open to prolonged dispute.
Clear-cut
“a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both”
States exact maximum penalties that can be applied without further interpretation.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is granted to courts to set conditions, extend deadlines, and decide necessity, plus broad regulation-making power to the Governor in Council and publication choices to the Minister.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'considers appropriate' and 'exceptional circumstances' could support a Charter s. 7 vagueness or overbreadth challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. Most breaches turn on court orders whose scope is defined only after discretionary findings, making factual disputes difficult to resolve without litigation.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The 2017 departmental evaluation found limited success in awareness and only 11 First Nations (about 1%) had enacted their own laws under the Act by mid-2017, with most communities defaulting to provisional federal rules amid challenges in training, judicial designation for emergency orders, and capacity. No subsequent official reviews, audits, or comprehensive evaluations were identified, though limited court applications and academic analyses highlight persistent implementation barriers and preference for community-specific approaches.
- Evaluation of 1.1.2 - Implementation and Enforcement Supports for the Family Homes On Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (EPMRB, CIRNAC, 2017)evaluationOnly 11 communities had enacted their own MRP laws by 2017; awareness and training efforts had partial success but judicial and enforcement gaps remained significant.
- Assessing Matrimonial Real Property Law on First Nation Reserves (Elysa Darling, University of Calgary thesis, 2019)studyFHRMIRA provides some protections but faces jurisdictional confusion and implementation challenges, recommending Nation-specific laws instead.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.