It sends the wrong message to the people who we serve. I know there is a tradition, Mr. Chairman, in this Assembly that all issues are resolved in committee. I have been a loyal and active Member of Mr. Gargan's committee. I believe that it has been a very effective committee under Mr. Gargan's chairmanship. We have achieved good things: for example, with the Mining Safety Act. A lot of work was done to resolve the problems.

I believe, however, that the bill we have in front of us should be discussed further in this House, so that our concerns are recorded in Hansard. Then the judge who looks at this can see that this is the spirit in which we would like to have this act dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this bill. I do not oppose the idea that we need to have an act to achieve the purposes outlined by government. I would just like Members to spend a little more time on this bill and see whether, even at this late stage, we can make it a far better bill. Maybe it will just be minor changes. I have said that what the government proposes will achieve some of the things by broadening the idea of competence; by including some concept of assisted decision-making. It is the type of bill, Mr. Chairman, that raises fundamental issues about our northern society and how it is governed. For that reason, although we do good work in committee and resolve many of the issues that are brought to us, this is the kind of thing we should talk about because it tells a lot about our system to the people we serve. Thank you.