As I understand it, what Mr. Arreak said is that NTI is mindful that a referendum can be a very divisive exercise in any democratic circumstances, and in Canada we've seen some fairly unhappy referendum exercises. I think Mr. Arreak recited some of the examples. The Charlottetown Accord was a disappointment. It didn't contribute to Canadian unity. It actually left a lot of bad feeling behind. There were issues around conscription and the referendum about that. Perhaps that was a necessary way of dealing with that issue at the time when Mackenzie King was prime minister, but there was certainly a legacy of bad feeling about that.
We've seen in recent times, like everyone else, the vote in Britain on Brexit. These aren't necessarily nation-building exercises. They might start out with everybody's high intentions, but the other side of it, I guess, as Mr. Arreak emphasized, is that at NTI we have a high respect for Parliament's role in making important national decisions, and if each party adopted a very clear alternative before the next election, then Canadians would have a chance to make a decision as to whether they think that party's proposal should be part of putting that party into power.