Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
In a continued effort to raise the cultural subtleties that should be weighed and examined during the review of a given legislative initiative, I think it is important to emphasize the highly questionable nature of importing statutory measures that are incompatible with parallel tribal mechanisms that better respond to the uncertainties associated with life on reserve. I stress the word “importing” because I would like to use comparative law to illustrate that sometimes transposing into another reality certain rules of law that apply indiscriminately across the country can become a problem. That is what I want to illustrate here.
As I have indicated in many of my previous speeches in the House, life on reserve—and I mean no disrespect—is like living in another galaxy. I spent some of my formative years in my native community on the Uashat reserve. I often tell new visitors that life on reserve is like living in another galaxy. I say this so that people are not surprised at what they see and are prepared for this type of reality. When I say that it is another reality or another galaxy, I mean that life is different there. I will explain what I mean.
I am a lawyer. I am a criminal lawyer first, and I deal with psychiatric cases, but I have also taken on a few civil law cases having to do with, among other things, the division of property and the division of acquests in aboriginal communities. This was extraordinarily complicated.
Under Quebec civil law, in the event of divorce or the dissolving of a civil union, there are required steps that are outlined in the Quebec Civil Code and related statutes. Certain rules apply, particularly to the family home. Often a declaration of family residence is filed. The declaration is meant to protect the rights of the former spouses and their children and, ultimately, the occupancy rights concerning a given home. I would remind the House that the bill currently before us has to do with real property.
These provisions and rules apply equally to everyone across Quebec. However, they can be contentious; there is a reason these matters often wind up before the courts. Courts dealing with matters of family law can spend days hearing a single divorce case. In Quebec, these are big civil law cases.
In aboriginal communities and on reserves, things are different, because the very concept of property is regarded from a different angle. I would point out first of all that, in the vast majority of cases, the houses belong to the band council. At least, that is the case in my situation and in Innu communities on the north shore. People's houses usually belong to the band council, because it is often difficult for family units to obtain credit on native reserves. It is a question of the possibility of seizure. More often than not, ownership of all residences on the reserve lies with the band council.
Let us look at a very personal example: my own family unit. A deduction for the mortgage is taken every month from the allowance that my father receives. Let us say that the mortgage on the home is worth $175,000. For 25 years, a monthly deduction is taken to pay that mortgage or to pay the band council for the house. The band council retains ownership of the house until the final payment is made.
The band council also makes decisions about and coordinates who occupies homes on the reserve. I worked for my own band council for two years and I was often called upon to go to court. The band council gave a directive that it would recognize all civil judgments made regarding custody and child support. As a result, when a judgment is made and grants custody of a child or children to one former partner or spouse, that individual has the right to occupy the house.
That is why it is rather ill-advised and uncalled-for to try to import external principles into a reserve.
People are already coming to their own arrangements. They have gotten together and have come to an understanding. The entire community comes to a consensus. I think that there is some friction related to that. I have seen it when someone dies and it is time to find out which family members will ultimately live in the house. However, we must also consider that our culture is a fundamentally oral one. People have come to a consensus and agreed on something that satisfies each of the interested parties.
I must also point out that although the problems related to sharing real property and the occupation of the family residence following a separation must be considered directly, it is up to this country's aboriginal communities to come up with measures that are culturally adapted to their own particular circumstances.
I will insist on the fact that imposing provincial laws on first nations without their consent is problematic ethically and practically, and it also disregards their inherent rights and their sovereignty. However, that is nothing new. In fact, in the past year and a half, the Conservatives have imposed measures unilaterally, especially in aboriginal affairs.
I am an expert in this area and, as the critic, I often talk about such matters. In this case, the Conservatives are just trying to prove that they have brought forward measures— albeit in a hasty, uninspired and rather disorganized manner—simply to take some credit and to say that they have dealt with the matter head-on.
I submit that it would be preferable to take a reasoned and slow approach, and one coming from and implemented first and foremost by the communities. Then government input could perhaps be added into the mix. However, above all else, these measures must originate with the members, the grassroots, the people in the communities, if we do not want this to be a stillborn initiative.
The government will have to realize that the people who live in these communities, in these sometimes contradictory conditions, are in the best position to evaluate which legislative measures could be implemented.
I submit this respectfully.
