Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend the committee for the good work it did in consulting with regions of the Northwest Territories. I was quite impressed with the manner in which consultations were undertaken in my constituency.

In particular, I was delighted that the committee responded to a request from students to consult with students by taking the trouble to make a special visit to the school the day after the hearings, where I think we had a very lively session about the new bill and got some good advice from students particularly on student discipline matters.

I would also like to say that since the committee began its hearings, I believe, in the territories in my constituency, there has been an awful lot of changes made to the bill. Of course, I should certainly give some credit to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment and his staff, but I do believe the committee also deserves significant credit for having encouraged substantial amendments and, I think everyone would agree, significant improvements to the bill. So I want to commend the committee for the progress that has been made.

One of the most astonishing accomplishments of this committee is the agreement that was reached, unprecedented in the history of the Northwest Territories as far as I know, that regulations drafted pursuant to the act would not be finalized until affected groups had been consulted. I think that was one of the major criticisms of the bill, and, to me, it's remarkable that this major amendment was made which will basically change the way we do business in the Northwest Territories, at least as far as education regulations are concerned. I suspect this amendment may also affect and set precedents for other bills that may be brought to future Legislatures, recognizing that regulations are often a very critical way of describing the rules by which people must govern themselves in the territories.

I am not totally convinced that this is the right way to go because the problem with the consultation on the regulations is that there is no guarantee that those groups consulted with will be satisfied. It will also certainly delay the implementation of the new act, and I think the department has taken upon itself quite a staggering responsibility if it's to take this requirement of consultation on the regulations as seriously as most people would like it to be taken.

I think, for me, the jury is still out as to whether this will work. I understand the argument that flexibility has to be built in to the act and that it can be done best through the regulatory regime, but I want to point out that this is a significant departure from the approach we have taken to regulation-making up till now, and it will be very interesting to see just how it works.

I do want to say that this has eased a lot of the concerns that I expressed in my intervention about not knowing what the regime is actually going to be. Now at least we'll have a chance to see the draft regulations and comment on those. I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that one of the major issues which had to do with the choice of language of instruction by communities has been dealt with, in my view, satisfactorily, with the bill as amended. Again, I think the committee is to be commended for having encouraged the Minister and his staff to fix that problem up.

Another area that was of great controversy and concern in my constituency had to do with religious education. I believe that the provision that is now in the bill may somewhat ease the concerns that had been expressed about disrupting the current practice in many communities in the Northwest Territories. I think the relevant provision has been softened and should perhaps pose less of a threat to existing programs of religious instruction that are in place in the schools in the Northwest Territories.

I want to commend the committee and the department for those and many other changes; I know there have been over 80 amendments. I haven't been able to participate in every day of the committee's deliberation, even though I was accused yesterday of hanging around the committee. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to hang around for all the good stuff. I know this represents a lot of work and a lot of compromise -- and I think politics is the art of compromise -- and I'm delighted to see that so much compromise has occurred.

However, I must say, Mr. Chairman, in my general comments that I have not seen very much willingness to compromise and reach out to the Francophone groups in the Northwest Territories concerned about French language education rights under the Charter of Rights. It's been an exercise in frustration for my constituents and for myself. I recognize and respect that the committee says in its report that they are now satisfied as a result of legal opinions the committee received that the bill, as amended, addresses the requirements of section 23 of the Charter.

My problem, Mr. Chairman, as an ordinary Member is that I haven't been able to see any of these legal opinions. I've been told that they are privileged, that they are confidential advice given to the government, that they may... it's like a lawyer's advice to his client in contemplation of litigation and that I have no right to see these opinions. Since they were prepared at public expense and with lawyers on the public payroll, I would have hoped that there might have been some way found to make these opinions available to Members of the Francophone community who I know desperately wanted to see them to be satisfied that their fears, perhaps, had been dealt with by the bill but that has not been possible.

I know that the Minister himself has met with the associations and their representatives and there has been no resolution of their concerns. Mr. Chairman, I'm left with the dilemma of being told by the committee, we got legal opinions, everything's okay, there's no need to worry, the Charter provisions have been dealt with. Yet my constituents, Francophone groups in the city of Yellowknife and the territorial association, are all saying we're not satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, these parents and children especially, who want to receive education in their first language, they're a very small minority in the Northwest Territories. I am under no illusions that this is an issue in many constituencies in the Northwest Territories. However, I want to say that as a representative of a community that does have proportionally one of the largest Francophone populations in the territories, these rights are very important to my constituents. They've worked very hard to establish a first language French program in Nakasuk School in my constituency and they've worked alongside Inuit organizations and parents who are promoting the Inuktitut language and have achieved considerable success. I'm sure that Members of this Assembly would want to give them every respect the same as we give respect to aboriginal parents who want to see their children educated in their first language.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this is my main problem with the bill. Only today -- and I haven't even had a chance to send this across to my colleague, Mr. Nerysoo but I will do so now -- only today have I received a legal opinion, a copy of a legal opinion which has been prepared in draft by the counsel for the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada. We may not relish being told by Ottawa or by a federal government institution whether our bill meets the requirements of the Charter or not, but this opinion has been prepared by a lawyer, Mr. Richard Tardif, who works full time, I'm told, on section 23 across the country. The draft opinion, which I understand Mr. Tardif has authorized for public release, states that the bill as drafted does not meet the requirements of the Charter and spells out in detail why not.

Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister of Education has read all the cases, he's studied this aspect very closely himself, he's received legal advice from several lawyers, and I know the Minister is convinced that the bill is adequate and that anyone who says less should sue. Mr. Chairman, I'd rather not see that happen.

I think it would be very unfortunate if we couldn't solve this without resort to the courts. I want to, at the beginning of this debate, let Members know that I hope we can have a discussion while the bill is before the House about these problems, examine the independent views of the counsel for the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who I don't think anyone would say would be a person who would want to have an interest in taking sides in the Northwest Territories, and see whether some of the criticisms that were laid out in this legal opinion can be dealt with in a cooperative fashion while this bill is before this committee.

I have reviewed the opinion and believe that the bill has to only go a little further towards meeting the concerns that are identified in the opinion. I think it goes some distance. I understand, Mr. Chairman, full well that a statute cannot be expected to spell out every detail of the school system that is being contemplated, but the point made in the opinion, and I won't get into it in detail as I'll have a chance to table it, share it with Members and discuss it in more detail when we get to those sections, but the point made in the legal opinion is that the essential framework for governance has to be spelled out in the bill and cannot be left to regulations. So the structure necessary to guarantee the exercise of constitutional rights to instruction should not be left in the hands of the Minister or in the hands of regulations.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this one. Generally, I'm positive about the progress that's been made on this bill, and many of the concerns have been dealt with.

I have to say, though, Mr. Chairman, there's one area that I think we need to still work on. We have three or four days now to devote to this bill. I hope the Minister will take the constructive criticisms that I've made here today and the advice offered in this opinion in a positive manner, and look at a way of perhaps making a few more changes. I know some have already been made, but perhaps look at a way of making a few more changes so we can all leave this Chamber as one happy family and say we've dealt with the aboriginal language issues, we've dealt with the concern about the consultation on the regulations, we've dealt with concerns about religious instruction, we've dealt with concerns raised by divisional boards, and the Francophone parents -- the few there are in the Northwest Territories -- are not going to be threatening that the only way they can get their rights recognized is by litigation.

It's a big order, but, hopefully, we can make everyone happy and deal with this bill in a constructive manner and make the final polishing touches so that it will reach out to everyone. I have to say that I've tabled some press clippings today; whether we like it or not, this issue of French language minority rights is a very volatile issue in the country. I think we have to be concerned if the Commissioner of Official Languages' legal counsel says the bill doesn't quite hit the mark, and if the Commissioner of Official Languages is writing our Minister saying if legal proceedings are revived, I will have to give serious consideration to seeking leave from the court to intervene. We don't need this problem, Mr. Chairman, with all the issues that are facing us with the Government of Canada. Let's try to fix it up here in this committee, so that we don't have to draw national attention to ourselves by appearing in any way to be trampling on the constitutional rights of a minority.

That's my concern, Mr. Chairman. I hope in the next few days we can deal with these problems in a spirit of goodwill and not defensiveness. I have an open mind, I'm very anxious to hear the Minister's views on some of the concerns that I'm going to dare to express on behalf of my constituents. I hope that he won't take my criticism personally. It's not intended in any way to be a personal criticism or to indicate a lack of respect for the Minister, but I feel that I have a duty to my constituents to raise these issues. So that is the one problem I have with this bill, Mr. Chairman, but I'm optimistic that we can deal with it with goodwill. Thank you.