As I said earlier, I would have preferred to see a longer public process for consideration of this bill. It really is a vehicle for information for the public. For me, it's always been a process issue. I think that my colleagues have indicated where some of us are repeating each other around the table, I guess I don't need to do that. I think most of my colleagues have said most of what needs to be said. Mr. Bell in particular outlined things pretty close to the way I see them.
I would agree that the North Slave Metis Alliance has legitimate concerns, but since the Government of the Northwest Territories is not a necessary part of the agreement, I am not sure we are the ones to deal with the issue. It is going to have to be an issue that the North Slave Metis Alliance are going to have to deal with with the federal government.
The one thing I feel very strongly about is I hope the government in the 15th Assembly will make sure that there is an effort made so that all parties to these agreements understand and respect each other's processes or else establish upfront a new convention for how this government is going to deal with them.
I would point out that a couple of years ago, the standing committee suggested that a different approach be taken to dealing with claims agreements, so there was more involvement during the negotiation processes, so that committees were more prepared for legislation when it comes before us. That was rejected by the government at that time.
So I hope the 15th Assembly will reconsider that and look for ways to make sure that everybody is comfortable with how legislation is moved along and how this level of government ratifies agreements.
There is one other concern I would like to address and that is the allegation that there was a secret deal to pass this bill made in committee. Mr. Chairman, that may have come about perhaps because of the way we reported the bill. How I reported the bill in opening comments in yesterday's Hansard on page 3197. I started out by saying the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight has been considering Bill 34. I said further on that we passed a motion to report it back to the House for consideration. I would just like to clarify that there is no set single path for how committee's deal with bills. At the standing committee, all that was discussed was process, whether or not we were going to try to have a one-night public hearing, whether or not we were going to take a break and go out and try to do a week's worth of public hearings. Some even proposed that we extend the life of the Assembly until January and that would give us lots of time to go out and do public hearings. That was the sort of discussion that went on committee, not whether or not to try to pass the bill. It was to try to determine the process. Being part of a democratic process, our issues are dealt with by way of motions, votes in committee. So it was accurate when I reported yesterday that the committee adopted a motion to report it back to the House for consideration. So there wasn't a consensus. It wasn't a unanimous vote, but the majority ruled. We had a majority who wanted to see it back in this House and you have to respect the rule of majority.
I personally wish we had had more time to deal with this bill. I respect the fact that the Tlicho invited us to the table, the Government of the Northwest Territories. I regret that perhaps I haven't had more time to ensure that my constituents are comfortable with what's in this bill. Based on what I have seen of it and my understanding of what has been happening over the years, I voted in favour of the bill at second reading. So I supported the principle of the bill and I will, too, be supporting the bill on third reading. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---Applause