Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I guess I look around the room and it's pretty obvious where the numbers are so I'm going to have to say, first and foremost, I'm going to have to respect the Assembly's direction on this. There's no point in debating it at endless length and pleading when the decision has already been made.
Mr. Chair, one of the calls to action when I was in my election campaign in 2003 was to find solutions for the drug and crack problem. A number of people told me face to face that we had to come up with solutions. They were looking for something. If anything, they were looking for some leadership and some action on this problem because up until that point, not to say nothing was being done, but up until that point, there was a feeling of almost a surrender or a defeatist point of view. Mr. Chairman, I take this quite personally, this act, because I've had a number of constituents -- I happen to be the MLA for downtown and certainly if, God willing, the constituents choose to send me back, I hope to continue to be the MLA for downtown -- but, Mr. Chairman, the fact is the downtown has a number of crack houses and I've continually received calls from constituents regarding crack houses downtown. I've passed all of those on to the RCMP and rightly so, and in many cases it's taken quite a bit of time and quite a bit of pressure. In some cases, we've had very good tenants. In other words, we have crack dealers who know the law, they pay their rent, pay their power, you know, do all the right normal things, but they sell drugs. Some of these are located right next to Mildred Hall. Some are located right down next to our medical clinics. Some are located right next to our seniors downtown. All of that is sort of a mute point at this time. I mean, RCMP know.
Mr. Chairman, I am slightly disappointed, I'm not going to deny that. Even though I've said it twice now, but drug dealing is against the law. As long as we continue to find reasons to stall solutions, I mean, I will say I do respect many of the points brought forward. I've had a chance to read if not every one, almost every single one of the e-mails, and a few have come in especially as of late. I also have the right to disagree, too, as well as they have the right to disagree with me. But how are we going to solve this problem? Everything was sort of a doom and gloom position as opposed to how can we make this act work? I think the Minister has responded quite handily because committee came forward and said that they would like this, this, and this to address their needs and I think the Minister has come back. But that's neither here nor there because there's obviously a lack of will or interest to re-look at this to see if there's a way to possibly make it work.
Something that needs to be said also is the fact that the regulations have not been drafted on this bill. So what do regulations mean? Well, I mean, we've got the structure of the bill and we've got possibly a year, maybe even two years to design the mechanics of how it actually works. Even if, again, I'm fortunate enough to return and find that civil liberties are put to the test that they're just truly unacceptable, I'd vote for the removal of the money in the budget. Essentially, as I've said earlier today, I'll pull the Conservative trick on the gun registry: choke the money, don't kill the gun registry, just take the money away. So I would take the same principle in the future on this, which is if it doesn't find a balanced approach. What we're voting against, or, sorry, referring back today is the structure that I thought was a solution. I'll concede that the greater Assembly feels at this time that it isn't the solution and I'll respect that. I won't take the Assembly's wisdom on this in vain; I'll take it with respect that a little more work needs to be done.
I just want to say one more thing, which is Mr. Ramsay did highlight the need to focus, I mean really focus on the fact that drugs in our community are a problem and we are fooling ourselves if we can find a way to defend this by slowing any process down that tries to hone in on that problem and deal with it. I am a strong and absolute committed believer in the fact that fighting drugs is only 50 percent of the problem. We also have to offer treatment so then there is nobody interested in buying them because they don't feel the need to have that desire fulfilled. So it's a two-part process. I've never, never thought otherwise for a moment. So I wouldn't want anyone to think that I don't believe that. I highlighted today my concern about not getting an additions centre here in Yellowknife in this term and I'm hoping that that will be a success the next term. But the fact is, I think it's a two-part process.
So, Mr. Chairman, although this is a referral, deep down inside I think it's more of a recycling bin referral. It's really up to the next Assembly whether they decide it's a priority or not. We should really say what it is today, which is it's the Assembly's refusal to consider this or to modify this to go forward. I'll accept that and I'll put faith in the next 16th Assembly to possibly re-examine this and see if they can accommodate some of the needs, and I'll say the very good needs and suggestions brought forward in many of the e-mails that I've seen. I do agree with some of the intent; sometimes maybe I was just so excited to see something come forward that I was willing to accept the product being offered. Maybe that was my excitement of a solution being put forward today and maybe by all of us stepping back, including myself, we will have a better product in the end.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I want to thank committee's time. I definitely want to thank the Minister, who I know has worked hard; there are a lot of staff that have worked hard and, of course, committee has put a fair amount of time and energy into this bill. So respecting all that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.