I'll respond in English.
The mandate of Wendy Grant-John is very specific. We've asked her to be responsible for the consultation process and to bring back a specific recommendation on a legislative solution. She's been asked to come back to me in a very specific way, initially in December. If it takes a little longer in terms of consultation, we'll extend the period, but we've asked her to essentially ensure that we have a legislative recommendation from her before us in the early winter, late winter, early spring of 2007. So that's her mandate.
To address your question of why further consultation, there are really two reasons. As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida and Taku cases in 2004 set forth a principle that if legislation is going to be introduced that affects aboriginal rights, there is a constitutional obligation to have consultation. Those cases did not relate to matrimonial real property obviously; they related actually to resource development situations.
So one can argue the legal niceties of how far that duty to consult goes, but at the end of the day, I think most legal scholars agree that there is a duty of some description to proceed with consultation, and frankly, nothing could impact more directly on aboriginal rights than the difficult questions of matrimonial real property and the division of assets between spouses. So I think it's only proper that we proceed with recognition of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Secondly, though, consultation is important to try to work towards building a consensus. As I said, I don't think unanimity is possible, but I think going through community-level consultation will help build support for this initiative. It will ensure that there's buy-in for it--maybe not everywhere, but I think it will help show people that this is not something to be feared. It is something that will ensure that the rights of aboriginal women are consistent with the rights of other Canadian women. I think there will be some positive benefits from that.
In terms of your other question about proceeding with agreement, it is fair to say that there is no agreement in this country at this point on this issue. There have been lengthy reports from both the Senate and the House of Commons standing committees. There is no unanimity on this subject. There are people who do not agree that aboriginal women on reserves should have property rights that are commensurate with those of non-aboriginal women off reserve, and I suspect some of those people will disagree when this matter arrives at the House of Commons.
So I don't think agreement is achievable. I think we're talking about consultation, broadly based, community-based, followed by the House of Commons accepting its responsibility to act in the interests of equality and protecting women.