Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would again like to welcome the Minister and the department here today. Like my colleagues have already indicated, we’re very pleased with the final end product, but I think it’s an opportunity at this time to do a little bit of rear-view mirror analysis of how we got here today.
The Minister was right; this was a very unique and collaborative effort right from the get-go. I have to admit that there was a bit of concern in terms of how the GNWT’s close involvement with NEBS in the
development
of
this
bill
may
have
compromised, to some degree, the objectivity of the department and the bill being presented as it is. I’m hoping that in the future if the department is to undertake such initiatives and using co-sponsors to the bill that we may want to be very careful to go down that road again. I believe we need to have objectivity moving forward, and having the ability of a non-elected, non-political contributor that is sitting at the table with the Minister during public hearings that might have set I almost consider a dangerous legislative precedent, which may prompt other interest groups to expect to enjoy a similar close relationship with the Minister and department in developing legislation. I’m trying to keep impartiality at bay in saying that.
As I said, using a rear-view mirror approach, the term “meaningful consultation” came to mind. Although the committee was presented the fact that there was, or at least indicated that there was meaningful consultation, it was clear on two separate occasions, the first of which was on September 25, 2014, and then on October 17, 2014. It was apparent with the turnout of stakeholders who were here to demonstrate their concerns for the bill, clearly showed that there was a lack of consultation. Again, I do caution the department; I do caution Ministers who are bringing forward bills that consultation could be considered an important attribute that we need to look at. We not only have to walk the talk, we also have to make sure that we are living true to those terminologies.
At the end of the day, I’m pleased with the final result. I think that we did have some ambiguity at the beginning of this process within the definitions
of “defined” and “targeted.” I think we’ve got that clear now. I think the stakeholders who have been involved
in
providing
committee
the
recommendations, now see clarity in those terminologies. So I believe, moving forward, we may not yet have every aspect of every stakeholder’s wish in terms of bringing all those wishes forward. But I could assure the public and I can assure Members that the committee looked at every aspect and tried to be fair and balanced in taking into consideration all consultation and public input.
I’m really pleased with the final result. As I said, we may not hit a home run with every stakeholder who had a concern, but I think at the end of the day, when you add up all the dots, we have a bill before us and we have a bill before Nunavut which clearly echoes and mirrors the wishes of the residents it serves. With that, those are my comments. Thank you.