I echo Ms. Bennett's plea to the other side to show some initiative and explain why this should not be in place. I have another amendment afterward, so if they don't like this one, they can work on that one.
Once again, it's clearly evident that the problem is also with the nature of this legislation. This is federal legislation. Changes to it have to be done in Ottawa. If the Government of Nunavut determines that changes are needed, and it most likely will in a short period of time, the ability to get this on the parliamentary agenda is going to be severely hampered. Without this review, the people who have to deal with the legislation, the people who take care of the work on the ground, the people who want devolution, who want more control over their own affairs are going to be hampered in every way.
Why would we not consider providing to the people of Nunavut an opportunity to ensure they are happy with the legislation? What is wrong with that?
What spirit of Canadian ethics do I not understand from the Conservative side on this? What is driving the Conservative agenda to demand that these types of bills be put in place without any of the thoughtful amendments brought forward by the people of Nunavut, their representatives and professionals in the field?
What is driving the Conservatives' agenda here? Is it to continue a colonial structure in the north? Is that what is behind this, to hold on long enough to make sure their vision of how the north will be run is the one that carries forward, rather than that of the people who live in the area?
By their silence, I think I have to say there's consent on what I am saying here. I have to—