Thank you, sir.
I think you're interpreting NTI's outlook correctly. I think there's a perception at NTI that the public expectation in Canada is that we would not have the current House of Commons reform an electoral system on its own without the Canadian public having some further say on the matter. That seems to be a widespread opinion in Canada, and it's probably better to go with that as the current Parliament, rather than to resist it or try to stare it down. If there's a need for some further democratic sign-off on this issue, then the choices are obviously a direct referendum-style vote or a federal election.
NTI has had good experiences with Parliament in terms of the ability of Parliament to respond to Inuit agenda on a number of things. The Nunavut Act itself, the creation of the territory, came about through an act of Parliament; there wasn't a national vote on creating a new territory in Canada. We've had two quite complex pieces of legislation adopted by Parliament to implement the Nunavut agreement, one on planning and project assessments, which essentially replaces the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in Nunavut, and one on Nunavut waters and surface rights.
Since probably the late 1970s, NTI has appeared at parliamentary committees at least two or three dozen times, and that experience has generally been positive. I suspect this might be good news for people doing your work. I think there's a healthy respect for the ability of Parliament to deal with complex issues in a way that's fair and representative. We're here today, of course, as a vote of confidence in Parliament's ability to do that. We don't see the referendum as necessarily an ideal vehicle.