Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Tlicho people on their significant achievement. I was at the signing ceremony in Rae and I know how important an historic event the signing of the agreement was. I voted in favour of the principle of the bill on second reading, so from what I have seen of the bill and the agreement, it appears to be good, but therein, Mr. Chairman, lies the problem: time; the amount of time that I have had to see the agreement. Until a couple of weeks ago, the government kept telling us that we would not be dealing with the Tlicho legislation, so I had thought that we had some time to get to know and understand the agreement and the legislation that would be ratifying it, and then at the last minute we are being pushed to conclude the legislation quickly. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I guess I hadn't properly understood the whole process myself because I had thought that there would be a really significant amount of time to consider ratifying an agreement. In fact, in June of 2000, I questioned the Premier; I pointed out to him that I was hearing from some of my constituents that they understood the negotiation of self-government was a form of constitutional development and they were wondering how they would be involved in knowing what was going on as those negotiations took place. So I asked the Premier on June 30th, if before the government signed self-government agreements if those self-government agreements would be presented in this House for ratification. I asked him if at the end of the negotiation there would be a willingness to present whatever it is that the government is prepared to sign --not what they had signed -- but that they were prepared to sign. So before it was signed by this government, would they present it in the House? The Premier, on June 30, 2000, replied yes. So I had always understood that we would have an opportunity to consider these agreements as they came forward with some time to really look at them meaningfully.
As things progressed and we saw legislative proposals coming from the government on Tlicho legislation, at one point we wrote back to the government and said these are different forms of agreements, there is a different thing happening here. This isn't the usual way government works, don't you think you could involve the committee in a more consultative process as things go along so that they were ready to consider the legislation when it appears in front of us. In 2001, the government wrote back and said no, we are satisfied with the usual process; we'll develop the legislation through the second reading and then send it to committee. So again, the message always was that the usual process would take place. Well, our usual process is that we have time to consider legislation; we have time to get comfortable with it to make sure we really understand what is there and make sure that the legislation is exactly what everybody wants to see. I suspect that the public probably doesn't understand that Regular Members aren't intimately involved in a lot of what is happening in government so we don't know what is happening at the negotiations table. Sometimes we need some time to get to know what is in a deal that the government may have negotiated.
Mr. Chairman, this is really complicated, in my mind anyway, because there are surveys that show that the public generally holds politicians at pretty low esteem. Surveys have shown that many Canadians don't trust politicians although we fare quite a bit better in the Northwest Territories than what the Canadian average would be. But I know I have heard from some constituents who ask what is the rush, why are you rushing this through, is there something in there that we should be concerned about? Is there reason for the rush, are you hiding things?
We are in a situation now, as Mr. Bell said, this should be a celebration, we should be celebrating an historic document. I think it could have been if we had spent some time on it or if we had time for the consultation process and for the committee to take the legislation around the Territories and discuss it with people. We would have gotten a better opportunity for understanding. The public hearings would have offered people a chance to become more comfortable with what is there. It would have offered us a chance to talk to the public about how we can't change what is in the agreement. I understand that and accept that. I understand and welcome the choice that the Tlicho people have made to establish a form of governance that recognizes the Government of the Northwest Territories. They didn't have to do that, but we don't have a chance now to go around the Territories and help people get comfortable with that position, and to understand that this is an historic event, and that there has been a choice made here.
I have often heard that because this is a new deal, we have to look for new ways to do things. But if we are really partners we should respect each governments' traditions, and ours typically allows time for people to get comfortable with legislation, particularly important legislation. Yes, I know there are examples of legislation that we have pushed through without wide-ranging public consultation, but anytime that has happened it hasn't had a big impact on governance in the Northwest Territories. The legislation we are looking at today does and I think we should have taken the time, if for no other reason than it would have allowed more people to become more comfortable with what is encompassed by the legislation. I think that that would have happened with more time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.