Yes, I'd like to speak to clause 20, which is on the exclusive occupation order. We'd like to note that the government has made misleading statements throughout the examination of this bill, indicating that it would lead to one of the partners having ownership of the home. As we see in this clause, this is not the case, as we are talking about exclusive occupation. The exclusive occupation order is extremely problematic for us. Based on the testimony we've heard, it leaves many questions unanswered. It also speaks to the essence of this bill.
I want to read into the record what Chief Maracle of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council wrote:
Bill S-2 is paternalistic. It delegates authority to the First Nation to develop a law respecting the use, occupation and possession of family homes and land on reserve when a relationship breaks down or upon the death of a spouse. It does not [recognize] that family law is and should be First Nations jurisdiction.
I would like to indicate that it poses a number of questions that remain throughout the bill in respect of reaching an agreement between partners on payouts or financial arrangements. Obviously, the question that will be asked is this. Will the woman—if it is the woman who will have occupation of the home—be able to be part of a financial arrangement with her partner to split what this bill says they own and to pay out to the partner the share agreed upon through the courts?
There's also the question of defining the value of the home and the property. Real questions exist regarding assessing value of property on reserve. It is something that is very problematic. As we know, various first nations—