Clause 47 to 50, does committee agree?

Clause 51 to 60, does committee agree?

Clause 61 to 70, does committee agree?

Clause 71 to 80, does committee agree?

Clause 81 to 89, does committee agree?

Clause 90. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that bill -- no.

Sorry, I need to get agreement on 90 because it's a new clause. So clause 90, does committee agree?

Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the committee reported this bill back as not ready but we have called it and we are sitting here and we are reviewing it and at -- you know, it's not even the 11th hour I think at this point in the Assembly. It's the 12th hour. But we're sitting here with this piece of legislation that on one hand is very important. At the end of the day, the point of this bill is to make sure that private industry gets paid for the work that it does and the material it provides to do that work. At the same time, we've identified as committee a number of issues with this bill and a number of concerns. And so I'm bringing forward this motion here today because it's -- and I know that a lot of people don't like stat reviews. It's not a recurring stat review. It is a one time off review to be able to look at this legislation, how it is serving private industry, and to do a statutory review of it so that we can ensure that we're serving private industry and their objective and making sure that the objectives of this bill are meeting those to the best of our ability. So I think that this is a really important clause to kind of meet in the middle if this piece of legislation is going to go forward to make sure in short order that we are actually serving its purpose and ultimately serving the people of the the Northwest Territories. We need more business in this territory, Madam Chair, not less. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I don't really like stat reviews ever. I don't even know if I want to review the act. To me, what I would have liked to see is basically two paragraphs added. One is that this act binds the Government of the Northwest Territories and then another one that says for further clarity, public lands can't be subject to sale or seizure.

I do think it's that simple. I get all of this other conversation about Indigenous land and municipalities and the nature of the infrastructure. It's similar to BC's legislation. Got roped into this, and then we kind of went down this spiral. And then I get that prompt payment legislation got tied into all of this and I -- but I really do think you could just bind yourself and then exempt yourself from sale and call it a day. That's really all I -- if that review accomplished that, then I don't even need a review. If that legislation was introduced in the next Assembly after the department gave it some thought, that would make me very happy, and I would not feel so begrudgingly voting for this presently. But, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Minister of Justice.

I don't have a problem generally with -- you know, with -- I wouldn't generally have a problem with something like this. You know, like the Member from Yellowknife North, I'm not a fan of the recurring statutory reviews. As a Regular Member, I've been part of those. I found that, if anything, they hinder progress on amending acts. But, you know, we just discussed the UNDRIP Act and, you know, we're moving in a different direction in the coming Assemblies. And in this -- even in this government, we have introduced protocols and processes that limit the amount of legislation that we can do. And going forward, it's going to take longer to do legislation. We're going to -- we're going to be forced to do less pieces of legislation unless the federal government decides that they actually want to, you know, give us the kind of money we need to operate the Northwest Territories. And so I don't want to burden that limited group of people who are tasked with these types of statutory reviews with doing that work because in six years, when this review would be scheduled, there could be more pressing things that need to be dealt with. And so I don't want to bind future operations. I want them to be able to make that decision. I share the Member's concern that we have this piece of legislation that for decades has really pretty much gone untouched but I won't be supporting this, this provision. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.