CAP conducting survey on Matrimonial Real Property rights on reserve lands
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is inviting Aboriginal people to complete a very one sided online survey that they say will help shape their position on "Matrimonial Real Property (MRP) On Reserve Lands".
Everyone is invited to share their opinions by clicking here.
From the web site ...
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) has been invited by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Jim Prentice, to participate in a national dialogue to resolve the Indian Act's failure to deal with disputes over Matrimonial Real Property on reserve lands (MRP).
Outside of the reserve context, MRP issues are managed by provincial laws that guarantee that real property (land and homes and other assets tied to land) cannot be disposed of by either party to a relationship that is failing or failed without protection for the rights of the other partner. In all provinces, these rights extend to married persons - they deal with who may possess the marital home during a break-up or in the case of family violence, and prevent either partner from selling the home without providing an equal or equitable share in the home's value to the other partner. In some provinces, these rights are extended beyond formally married partners to common law partners, to Aboriginal customary marriages and to same-sex partnerships.
In this questionnaire, we are asking for your advice and input on what you think is the best way to resolve the outstanding gaps in federal legislation regarding matrimonial property rights on reserve lands. The government of Canada is advancing three main options - the adoption of provincial laws (which vary from province to province), the use of provincial laws with the option of Bands to opt-out of those laws where they create their own laws that meet minimum standards, and a new federal law setting basic standards for MRP rights protection, also with the right of Bands to opt-out of the federal model by adopting their own laws meeting certain standards.
Our main question is simple: which option or approach do you think is most likely to close the gaps in the Indian Act and to help those affected by MRP disputes protect their rights and interests? This may seem to be a fairly straight-forward question, but there are complex issues at play. There are so many flaws and gaps in the Indian Act that amending it on any one issue can invite valid demands to reform the legislation to address other and often closely related problems - like the absence of accountability and governance rules, the failure of the Act to provide appeal mechanisms regarding Band decisions, and major issues associated with the Indian Act's membership and status provisions. In addition, ownership of and rights to homes and land interests on reserve often raise treaty rights issues - since about 50% of all reserves in the country were established originally by treaties. Treaty rights are protected by the Constitution from any negative effect or infringement by ordinary legislation like the Indian Act, and so any change to the Indian Act itself can have un-intended impacts on treaty rights.