Yes, Madam Chair.
This one is the division of the value of matrimonial interests or rights. There are a couple of pieces I want to touch on in this clause.
One is that the technical briefing notes say there was a gender-based analysis conducted on this piece of legislation. One thing pointed out was that women could be impacted differently from men. The notes indicate that according to the 2006 census, women headed up 74% of the lone-parent families on reserve and that because they were more likely to be the caregivers than men, they were more likely to retain occupation of the family home. As a result, more women than men may be required to financially compensate their spouse or common law partner for their share of the family home.
We have heard—it was in Wendy Grant-John's report—other testimony about making funds available for women so that either they can borrow money or there would be some sort of compensation fund, because many women are underemployed or have been working-from-home mothers and so will not necessarily have the financial capacity to compensate their spouse. That's a significant part in terms of looking at the division of the value of matrimonial rights and interests.
The other piece of it is one we have raised a number of times, about looking at the application of provincial law to reserves, where housing situations are quite different. The technical briefing document said that housing on reserves varies among first nations in policies, rules and customs. Housing may be divided into two broad categories, including “band-owned” housing, which consists of an estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of all housing on reserves. So that's band-owned housing. The question then becomes how the valuation happens on that. The balance is individually-owned housing.
The technical briefing document went on to say that many first nation families rent homes on reserves from their first nation or from another first nation member. The interests or rights of individuals renting on reserves are not as clear as those off reserves, nor are the regulatory powers of band councils that rent housing, because provincial tenancy statutes likely do not apply.
So we have this complex situation wherein again we're going to be asking provincial courts to step into a field in which they don't have the background and the expertise. We're just pointing this out in terms of the challenges that could present themselves when we are looking at the division of matrimonial property and evaluating the interests.
Thank you.