A very quick answer. I think the point for the committee to consider, as I think you alluded earlier, is a question of a legislative gap. So if it were adopted, the legislation would not say women and children have to stay in the matrimonial home on reserve, it simply creates a different option. Some may want to go to emergency shelters in Vancouver or elsewhere, but right now the problem is that the option doesn't exist as something that the courts can enforce on reserve.
On April 25th, 2013. See this statement in context.