Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to creating an understanding of what we did in Charlottetown, I think that is a shared responsibility that we have with the leadership around this forum, the Legislative Assembly. The people that I represent expect their leaders to advise them, one way or the other, on whether they are satisfied, or not satisfied, with the provisions in the agreement. I think this holds true for your Legislative Assembly as well.
After all, before the people get the information, we have it. We have read it, we have studied it, and we have understood it. So, the responsibility we share is to provide that information, but more than that, to express our personal preference. That is why we were chosen as leaders, not to sit on the fence.
That is why I welcome a debate, myself. I would rather see people get up and say "no", rather than say nothing. I think it is more important that we get the information out, so that people can make an intelligent decision. I know that, from past experience in constitutional matters, from 1982 to 1987, I have seen around this table many faces at those meetings in different capacities. Everyone that spoke here always supported the inherent right to self-government, and why they would not do that publicly now, I think would be kind of amazing in itself.
The responsibility is shared. I am not a member of the "yes" committee. We will not register as a "yes" committee, it is just not the way we do things. We consider ourselves a separate body from the Government of Canada. We will deal with them on that basis forever. That does not mean that I cannot express an opinion. I am obligated to, about the package itself, and to do that does not necessarily tie me with the other individuals who are advocating a "yes" vote, by using extreme arguments.
There are two problems, I think we have to avoid when we deal with this issue. One is, we should not overstate it, but equally, we should not understate it. If you believe, as I do, in the accomplishments we have made, we have to say so. For myself, as national Chief, my responsibilities lie to the chiefs across Canada. We will be meeting, in our own Assembly, on October 14, 15, 16 and possibly 17 to debate the merits of this proposal. There we will discuss the pros and the cons, but at the end of the day, we will decide, collectively, whether to go in favour of it, or to oppose it.
My own inclination, my own prediction, is that after much debate that the prevailing opinion of the Chiefs across this country will be to support the package. At that point in time, their responsibility is to explain it to the people. In the meantime, my job is to get the information to them, as a Chief, which I am doing.
At the same time, in order to make it easier for them to get the information to the people that we represent, we are doing what we can to provide a fact sheet, the pros and the cons of the agreement, for the people, themselves, so they can all have a copy of the assessments we have made. The political assessments and the legal assessments. I agree with the comments that were made earlier, the sky is not going to fall if the package does not survive.
I have stated on more than one occasion that if we do not succeed the test of the people, it just means that we have to do better. It is not the end of constitutional wrangling, quite to the contrary, it just simply means that we have to get together immediately to do better, if it does not satisfy the Canadian people.
On a final note, in response to what was said earlier, I think when you have people like Pierre Trudeau advocating dissent and "no" to the package, you have people as powerful as the National Action Committee of Canada advocating against the package, and you have other people like Preston Manning doing the same, for different reasons, we have to ask them what their opinion is about the aboriginal provisions.
This is our chance for constitutional justice, they should not deny us this chance because of their own causes. Their causes have existed, and their causes have surpassed ours for many, many generations. The issue that Trudeau raised, with respect to sovereignty in the province of Quebec, is a real one, his arguments are genuine. Can he use that, and should he use that, to encourage Canadians to say "no"? By doing that, he is saying "no" to the aboriginal people.
He has to assess, not just his cause, but he also has to assess the cause of the aboriginal people, the same applies to the Native Women's Association, and the National Action Committee on Women's Rights. They have to assess the aboriginal rights, the treaty rights, the inherent rights of the aboriginal people, and whether or not, at this time, people should position themselves as obstacles to constitutional justice. This is all I say.
They are entitled to their opinion, that is true. We all are. At the same time, we live in a country where the aboriginal people have been denied their rightful place, not just for 100 years, but longer. The issues facing our people in Canada are not going to disappear because the people in the "no" forces succeed. They will still be there. I believe myself that if someone, like Pierre Trudeau, is going to take the position that he did, then he has an obligation to explain to our people, what he believes, in relation to our rights, our place in Canada, and I challenge him, as one leader to do so.