Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few comments with respect to the principle of this bill. I am not 100 percent convinced that this bill is actually ready for second reading. There has been a lot of talk in the community about the bill and the concerns different groups have had. There is no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does need to be replaced.
The existing bill needs to be replaced. It is old. It is antiquated. It doesn’t meet the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories clearly. I have to applaud the department. They have been working on this bill for almost 20 years, two decades. There has been a lot of work done.
Listening to the Minister talk and questions we asked in the House, it is clear that they have gone out to people in the public in the past. I know that they talked to groups five, 10, 15 years ago. They have a lot of data to help them draft this act. Unfortunately, a lot of that data is old and things have changed since they talked to some of the groups that they talked to in the past. We need an act that is current and meets the needs of the people. The reason this concerns me is this government has made the mistake before of going ahead with projects or bills based on antiquated data. I will give you an example that I think relates a little bit.
Stanton Territorial Hospital, Mr. Speaker, was built in 1989. The design of that hospital was based on a health care methodology from the late ‘70s. As a result, we built a great hospital that doesn’t really meet our needs because our methodology of providing health care changed. I am concerned that if we move forward with this act based on the data that we collected 10, 11 and 12 years ago, we might be dooming ourselves to the same failure and increasing costs and complexity that doesn’t need to be there.
Regardless, we have moved forward. The majority of the work, in my opinion, that has occurred on this act, has occurred since the Species at Risk Act that was passed in 2009. The Species at Risk Act employed a unique approach to drafting bills. I think the department once again needs to be applauded on that approach of involving our Aboriginal governments and our Aboriginal partners actually in the drafting. It is significant and it does need to be applauded. I think it is a great approach, but they are still basing their design on data collected from many years ago. I question that.
Some other good things have happened. In November of 2010 the department did draw up their draft act on the population. This is really the first time that many stakeholders ever got to see a draft. Everything they were discussing before was based on an old act and what they would like to see in the new act. They didn’t really see any new act until November. The department did something that I thought was actually quite brilliant. They actually included a plain language document, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the first times I have seen this government come out with a brand new act of this complexity and draw up a plain language document, which really helped people or hopefully helped people understand the act that was being presented in front of them.
Unfortunately, this is where I start to have some questions. They only really gave people 54 days to consult on that draft. People say, look, they have had 10 years, but nobody really saw this draft until November. They had 54 days to comment on it, if you insert the fact that there was Christmas holidays right in the middle of the consultation process.
I have asked the Minister a significant number of questions. He has demonstrated to me to some degree that they did listen. I know that there was concern out there that they didn’t actually listen to the people. Some people and organizations clearly felt that they weren’t listened to. To date, that still exists. I have a letter today from the NWT Chamber of Mines where they clearly outlined that there are still questions they have asked the department on this act that they haven’t got responses to. Big questions; questions that will affect industry, tourism, you and me. They haven’t got responses to that. That concerns me, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure that this act is ready and that we have consulted the people. I want to know why we didn’t respond to those people, or if we did, where is the response? Do we get to see it?
We end up where we are today, Mr. Speaker, with an act that, according to comments that the Minister made in the House when asked questions, has actually had changes since that November draft came out in the plain language. We only got to see the act yesterday. It was first reading when it was the first time any one of us would have got an opportunity to look at it, or anybody in the public. It’s hard to tell after one day where the changes are that they have made. I don’t have a summary of where those changes occurred. I would like to see that, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be great if the department could help committee.
It is my understanding, talking to colleagues, that this bill will likely pass second reading today, which means that it is going to take the next step. It means that it is going to go to committee for 120-day review. They have a lot of work cut out for them. They are going to take the time and they are going to listen to people, which is incredibly important, but for them to do a really good job to make sure that everything is truly heard, I think it is important that the department share with committee a summary of the changes that they have made since that November draft, what they heard. I want them to share what they heard in their community consultation with committee. I want them to share what changes they made based on what they heard, also the changes they didn’t make based on what they heard. We are not going to agree with everything that we hear. There is no way. People will be coming to us with requests that may not be appropriate. I would like to know why we said no to certain things. I would like to know why we said yes to certain things. If that information is shared with
committee, they will have the best opportunity to ensure that they come forward with reasonable recommendations to bring this act back in line so it does meet the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories, but that has to be done.
I asked earlier, when I was asking questions a couple of weeks ago, about minutes. I would like to know what the summaries of the different community meetings during this 54-day consultation process were. What did they hear? I want them to share that. I know a lot of work has been done, Mr. Speaker. I know that. I know the department has gone out. I applaud the staff who have gone on and did the work, but I think there are holes.
I think this act is very important. It is going to affect so many people and so many lives in the Northwest Territories. Industry as well, tourism as well. We need to make sure that it is right. I am not 100 percent convinced that it is ready for second reading. I respect my colleagues’ positions. I respect how they vote. I look forward to hearing the community speak when this does go out for consultation within the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure.
I had just a few comments. I am still concerned. I want this to be done right. I want to make sure we have the best act for the people of the Northwest Territories, who are our main concern. Thank you.