I am a visitor to this particular issue and this committee, but I'm very interested in this issue and that's why in part I'm here.
I'm just curious as to why Ms. Crowder would say that. With the application of matrimonial property law on reserves it's going to mean the judicial community has the right to decide what happens with other people within that home. It applies in essence the laws of this country for the last 200 years and before that Great Britain for many years. It applies the common law terms to the matrimonial property decision by the judge. The judge has a tremendous amount of leeway to decide what would happen in a particular home based upon the particular factual circumstances. That's my understanding of the matrimonial law.
What it would do in essence is reverse the decision of Derrickson v. Derrickson, or at least reverse it by way of legislation to allow the 1986 decision, to allow the courts to then be able to have jurisdiction on reserves. They do this every day in divorce courts and in provincial courts for matrimonial property acts right across this country already, and they've done it for a long time. So their ability to do so would be guided by the principles that they've already used for hundreds of years.
I don't understand what Ms. Crowder is suggesting in that there would have to be new fact situations or something special for this. This is Canadian law that has happened for hundreds of years and will continue to be applied by judges. It's just that now the court will have the opportunity to have jurisdiction on reserves and treat them exactly the same as all other Canadian women have had the right to be treated for many years. It seems absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it would go any other way.