Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe under our rules, I do have a chance to conclude debate before we go to a vote. Mr. Speaker, there's been a suggestion that this could have been referred to SCOL and I'm glad that the debate is, in fact, taking place here on the principle, so the onus was not placed on SCOL or committee of the whole to delay the issue further. It's important, I believe, that we deal with this in a very responsible fashion at second reading and the public would be very upset if further ways were found to delay something that has been in the works for so long.
I note that some Members have given reasons why they cannot support the principle. For example, our Premier vows she cannot support the bill because there are no reasons in the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I didn't put a whole bunch of reasons in the bill is because I got the very best legal advice that's available not only in this government but other governments and also other legal people in town. They told me that if I had said, for being drunk and disorderly, then people would attack the principle of the bill and would say they don't agree it's a big issue in the territories and there are other issues far more important than that.
And, if I had gone with a list of reasons, I would never have the list in such a way that everybody would agree that that is a principle they could support. So, I left if very simple, on the advice of the best legal brains I could get hold of to keep it simple because if I didn't do that, people would attack the principle of the bill on the grounds that it didn't go far enough or went too far, and so on. The principle is a simple one because of the advice I was given. That was the only argument that I can hear from the government for not supporting the bill, because we don't have reasons in it. That was the main point made for the Cabinet, presumably, on whose behalf the Premier spoke, on why the Cabinet can't support the bill. It is because of the advice of the people who also advise them.
Mr. Koe has raised the point that this can be dealt with now, he supposes, but he has concerns about the details. Many people will have concerns about the details, Mr. Speaker, but the problem is, if we defeat this bill now, we will again be the privileged ones. We are the only ones who can talk about this bill, nobody else can, just the privileged people in this House. It will never get to the public and it is to serve that purpose that I wanted to get it to where it could be thoroughly debated, because at last we will be dealing at least with something that has to do with accountability.
I appreciate Mr. Koe's comments and I agree with him that there are things that perhaps could be made better in this bill. Because, like everybody else, I'm an imperfect human being and I've tried many times to improve it by sending it around and changing it, accommodating, trying to find ways of solving this person's problem and that person's problem. I've done the best that I can. I can't do any more work on it. I need the wisdom of the public now. It is only in that way that we can make the bill better than it is.
Now, I come to the most unusual comments that I've heard and they came from my bearded friend from Yellowknife North, Mr. Ballantyne.