I, too, support the motion on the principle that, because of the de Weerdt decision, basically there is a real cloud over exactly what the clarification or definition is of the section 35 rights for a lot of the land claim agreements and self-government agreements in regard to section 25 and how aboriginal people have special rights in regard to the Constitution of Canada. Also through those rights flow the treaties which presently exist in the Northwest Territories. We have land claim agreements which have been basically settled under section 35. Also, the self-government agreements, once they are concluded, will have to be protected somehow through the Constitution. I think if you only read it in the context of the Charter of Rights, there is definitely a grey area that is going to be there because there will be aboriginal institutions established through land claim agreements and there will be institutions established through the self-government agreements. There will be the question about delivering programs and services and whose rights override other people's rights.
I think if you use the precedent that has been set in this court case, there is no real protection there for aboriginal people if this is the reading of the law as it stands right now. I strongly encourage the government to move on this as soon as possible and get the clarity that everybody wants in the North, to see exactly what is meant by aboriginal treaty rights and also what protection aboriginal people have with the land claim agreements and self-government agreements they are going to negotiate. I, for one, feel that it is imperative that this not only needs clarity for the Northwest Territories but for other places in Canada, including the Yukon and the provinces, where there are now aboriginal claims being settled. I think this could have a long-term implication if it is not clarified as soon as possible. Thank you.