Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is too bad that the other two political leaders had to leave, and I would like to thank them for being able to come for the period of the time that they were able to come in.
I would first of all like to commend the people who have been involved in the discussions regarding the constitutional reform, but from what I can see at this point, as far as my constituency is concerned, timing on the referendum is interfering with the land claim ratification in our area, simply because they are only a week apart. I do not believe that there has been enough time to really digest many issues that were raised, as far as constitutional discussions are concerned. I know that in our area, Nunavut, the size of our land is probably larger than the population itself, but we have an opinion, I have an opinion, and members of my constituency have differing opinions.
At this point, when we talk about inherent right to self-government as a broad definition, I cannot really understand where we have a defined right as aboriginal people. When Members are talking about significant progress, how much we have moved forward, I liken it to a brick wall where I am standing on one side of the brick wall, and our aboriginal leaders are banging their heads against that wall. Occasionally, they crack the wall, and today when we talk about significant progress, I think, we finally have a leader who has thrown an anchor over the brick wall, and is going up it. That is what I see. That is significant progress. I think there is more to be made in the future.
When we talk about perfect/imperfect documents regarding the Constitution, I do not think we should get that far. We do not even have a legal text whereby we can say this is what is going to be in the legal text. We have a campaign that is saying "yes" to this referendum, and a "no" campaign, and then we have a non-partisan group that is giving out facts about something that does not have legal text, something that no one here in this room is really able to say this is what will be agreed upon.
I was disappointed to learn that it would be on the October 26, and again in this room, there is really nobody who is able to say whether this referendum will take place on this day, or another day, because it interferes with the land claim agreement that we are trying to ratify.
My constituency has just been going through a series of discussions on the agreement, they are trying to digest the agreement, now we are coming up with another very difficult question with a lot of varying issues, very difficult questions, and within a week apart of each other, they will be voting. Over the last few days, there has been discussion, or talks, in the media about the access of legal text, and on the political accord. I wanted to get an idea of those Members who have given their support, or have given positive responses, not necessarily their support, but positive responses to the referendum question? Will they still be in agreement if the legal text cannot be prepared, and agreed to, prior to referendum? If there is a contingency plan for each of the Members, and I say again, that it is too bad that our President for I.T.C. was not able to stay, but I would have liked to hear what she had to say about when it has been completed. The second question to that would have been if they have a contingency plan, if there is a "yes" vote in the referendum, and they cannot agree to a legal text? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.