Jackie, I just want to clarify something. You mentioned something to the effect that a non-aboriginal would be able to take possession of a house on the reserve, and then there'd be all non-aboriginals living on the reserve. But that's not what this bill is about. The bill would give temporary access to the home—they wouldn't be able to keep it. For example, in the event of a death, if there was a non-aboriginal married to an aboriginal person, that non-aboriginal would have up to 180 days, let's say, to get their affairs and things in order, and then they would have to leave. I just wanted to clarify that.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Frontier Centre. Joseph Quesnel is a policy analyst for Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He said:
The continuance of federal jurisdiction and paternalism for a temporary period for the sake of providing...justice and protection for women seems like an honourable compromise, especially from the perspective of women denied equal rights.
They did a study—I think it was in 2010—and they asked three questions to male and female respondents in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. First, they asked if they were in favour of an equal division of marital assets in the event of marital breakdown. Some 77% responded “definitely” or “perhaps”.
Second, they asked the same number of respondents whether they thought the band government was doing enough to protect on-reserve women from violence, usually from domestic partners. A troubling 42% of respondents across the province said “not really” or “never”.
Do you find this troubling?
I will ask the chiefs, starting with Grand Chief Fiddler?