Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. The Standing Committee on Legislation report on Bill 25, the Education Act.

Overview

The Standing Committee on Legislation has spent the past two months reviewing Bill 25, the proposed Education act. This report details our findings. The report begins with a brief description of the development of the proposed act, moves to a description of the review process and ends with the details of the issues and concerns raised during the review and how the committee addressed those issues and concerns.

Developing A New Education Act

Consultation on the development of a new Education Act has been ongoing since the Special Committee on Education was established in 1980. Detailed efforts began in 1990 with a series of workshops across the north and the development of a paper called "Help Improve The Education Act."

From March to April 1994, the department consulted with students, trustees and school board officials in a series of focus groups to discuss strategies for education program delivery and legislation in the north.

In May 1994, the discussion paper, Voices: Direction for Improving the Education Act, was widely distributed with a questionnaire to education agencies, municipalities and band councils, cultural organizations and other interest groups. The discussion paper was based on comments and direction received by the department since 1990.

The department also received public and stakeholder input in preparing A Strategy to 2010. In addition to the view of northerners, much of the direction for improving northern education was founded on current educational research, the directions of the Legislative Assembly in Reshaping Northern Government, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and the philosophy of education presented in Our Students, Our Future: An Educational Framework (1991).

A legislative discussion paper containing a preliminary draft of the legislation was developed for consultation and comment. The department distributed the paper to people and agencies in the north to encourage discussion and provide further direction in order to refine and improve the draft legislation prior to introducing the new Education Act in March 1995.

The Standing Committee on Legislation conducted an internal review of the paper and suggested a number of improvements. The proposed bill reflected not only the input of the committee, but many of the thoughts and suggestions the department received from the education boards early in 1995.

The Committee Review Process

Community Consultation

The Education Act affects, either directly or indirectly, the lives of all northerners. The committee believed very strongly that all northerners needed a final opportunity to comment on the bill before it was discussed in the Legislative Assembly. To provide this opportunity, the committee undertook an extensive consultation process across the Northwest Territories.

The proposed act received second reading in the House on March 10th. Between March 13th and 16th, packages were mailed to all major stakeholders. These included aboriginal organizations, communities, band councils, schools and special interest groups. These packages included a letter explaining the consultation process and a copy of the proposed act.

Advertisements ran across the NWT during the final week of March. These advertisements detailed the community consultation process and explained how people could get more information or arrange to make a presentation.

During the final week of April, a second series of advertisements ran in northern papers, again reminding people of their opportunity to comment on the act. Additional reminder letters were sent as well to specific organizations.

Beginning on May 8th, the standing committee broke into two five-person teams. One team travelled to Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay. The other team travelled to Inuvik, Fort Smith and Fort Simpson. Arrangements were made to hear from people in the surrounding communities in these centres. The committee, as a whole, returned to Yellowknife for the last of the public hearings May 18th and 19th. In each community, there were public hearings scheduled both in the evenings and during the day. Anyone who wished to make a comment to the committee was encouraged to do so.

During its travels, the committee heard from 33 organizations, 19 education bodies and 42 private individuals. A list of all presenters is attached to this report. There were many important issues and concerns raised during the public consultation. The committee found this input very useful in evaluating the bill and its potential impact.

Mr. Speaker, I will now ask your permission to ask my colleague, Mr. Pudlat, to continue this report.

I think it was a good idea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister responsible for Renewable Resources. It's kind of a distasteful question, Mr. Speaker, because it deals with the annual caribou hunt that occurs in this area in the fall and during most of the winter. It is a concern that is raised by people who have cottages and cabins out on the lakes: Gordon Lake, Prelude Lake, Prosperous Lake and other lakes in that area which are accessible to the public.

It appears that at times caribou are killed and taken to spots closest to the road. They are processed there and the hides and entrails are left on the ice in front of the cabins and by the road. It causes great concern. I realize that it's organic material, but I wonder if Renewable Resources has any regulations which determine where processing of large numbers of animals can take place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce and recognize some members of our Polish community in Yellowknife. Mr. Eugeniusz Buczynska and his daughter Malgorzata Buczynska, and their friend Iwona Marczak. Eugeniusz is visiting for three months and he is certainly looking forward to our hospitality. Iwona is hoping to immigrate to Canada.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. The Department of Health and Social Services, the various regional health boards and Stanton Hospital have made great progress in treating more northerners in the north. Not only does this save money in travel costs, but also allows northerners to receive their treatment closer to home and to feel more comfortable during what is often a difficult and stressful time for themselves and their families. The closure of the surgery unit, even if only temporary, may create a perception that Stanton is a second-class facility. I would not like to see this fine institution's reputation diminished because of this.

I understand that Stanton Hospital expects to reopen the surgery unit in August or September when a second general surgeon, a second orthopaedic surgeon and a second ear, nose and throat specialist will be hired. The hospital has also provided assurance that no patients are being diverted south because of the closure, that no one is being placed on a waiting list and the hospital can reopen the unit very quickly if patients require it. I appreciate those assurances. However, I still feel it necessary to express these concerns. I want to build both the usage of this fine facility and it's image. I would not want to see that image affected by this temporary measure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, before we returned to the Assembly, I held a constituency meeting to find out the issues the residents of Yellowknife South wanted me to raise in this House. One of the issues most often raised was the closure of the surgery unit at Stanton Yellowknife Hospital. While surgery is still being performed in the hospital, the actual surgery area has been closed since March.

The day surgery unit is still very well used by patients whose surgery does not require an overnight stay in the hospital. But those who do have to stay overnight are placed in beds in other units, particularly paediatrics and medicine. I understand the hospital has some legitimate reasons for having taken these steps. The number of patients requiring overnight stays for surgery has been very low lately and the hospital feels that the temporary closing of this unit lets them reallocate resources -- beds, nursing staff and so on -- in the most effective manner.

However, I do have some concerns. First, some of my constituents who have recently undergone surgery at Stanton were concerned about having been placed in other units. Some especially did not appreciate being placed in paediatrics where the presence of sick children who require much more care may have led to disturbing noises and they had concerns about infections. While I still have full confidence in the capability of the qualified and dedicated staff of Stanton Hospital, I understand the concerns expressed by my constituents.

As well, I'm very concerned that this closure may blur the perception of Stanton Hospital as a well-equipped territorial hospital that we are trying to develop. The Department of Health and Social Services, the various regional health boards and Stanton Hospital have made great progress in treating more northerners in the north. Not only does this save money in travel costs, but also allows northerners to receive their treatment closer to home and to feel more comfortable during what is often a difficult and stressful time for themselves and their families.

The closure of the surgery unit...Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the recommendations are good ones, but it leaves a lot of latitude that allows the government to make certain decisions to try to rectify what is perceived to be a problem now, and perhaps it is a problem. I do know a number of liquor inspectors who take their job seriously and they go about doing what they have to do, and the peace officers likewise. But I'm not sure whether it's the government's restrictions that are hindering peace officers. It may be the laws themselves that disallow certain things to go to court, search warrants to be required and all kinds of technical stuff like that. A peace officer can do so much, but once they've done their job, then this falls into the hands of the courts. Often it's not dealt with in the manner, I suspect, that the mover of the motion would like to see -- and I think a good number of the public would like to see as well. I think that's where some of the problem lies.

Likewise for the second portion of the motion concerning the substantial increases in fines or penalties for bootleggers. Bootlegging is looked at as a joke in many places. The public in those communities, the public in Yellowknife, the public in Rae, Wrigley, Simpson and Iqaluit know who the bootleggers are. I don't think it's entirely the responsibility of the police to enforce that and bring these people to justice; it's the public themselves.

I was quite surprised and happy to see that one community, not too long ago, reported who the bootleggers were. It took on a different character by doing that where the public themselves are the ones who are going to enforce this law; enforce it by not participating in the purchasing of illegal liquors, participating in terms of enforcing it by reporting who the bootleggers are and assisting the peace officers and the liquor inspectors to carry out their jobs. I think a lot of responsibility does fall on the police.

In terms of penalties, we give a fine to a bootlegger. I support the motion, it's just that the fines are so low it's a cost to doing business. The mover is correct that when you see a person going to the liquor store and going out with a couple of cases of mickeys, for example, you know that if they're intending to have a banquet or a party they would probably purchase the more economic containers -- the larger, the cheaper -- instead of these small things. You know that this is hip pocket stuff and it's going to be sold illegally on the street. I think it should be treated as a serious matter, rather than just giving them a small fine for this thing, and I support what is being said here.

Again, I say that the public are the ones who would be able to eradicate bootlegging. They would be the ones who would be able to eradicate any misuse of alcohol, even in licensed establishments, by reporting infractions or people who are abusing and putting into jeopardy a privilege that other people who don't abuse the system, enjoy.

I support the motion but I want to make those comments so the inspectors and the peace officers will know the public are behind them, so the courts will know the public is behind them, as well, when it comes to dealing with people who misuse alcohol, who violate the rules we set down, or who put the public in danger by selling illegal alcohol. I just wanted to make those comments. I'm supporting the motion but the public will react to these suggestions a little more strongly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, these are the remarks from the Report on the Review of Rewriting the Liquor Laws of the Northwest Territories: A Legislative Action Paper. The Standing Committee on Legislation read into the record its Report on the Review of Rewriting the Liquor Laws of the Northwest Territories: A Legislative Action Paper, on March 19, 1995.

The standing committee found this paper difficul to review insofar as the paper did not endorse a specific course of action for legislating liquor in the NWT. The paper did, however, invoke much emotion and discussion.

Although unanimity on specific areas for change was not reached, the standing committee clearly heard from the public that now and more progressive liquor legislation for the Northwest Territories was required. The Standing Committee on Legislation strongly urges the government to begin the drafting of new liquor legislation for early introduction in the 13th Assembly. That's the report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was pretty much involved with the Standing Committee on Legislation in its review of the rewrite of the Liquor Act. I heard a lot of concerns expressed about alcohol in the territories, the use or misuse of it, and the concerns this was causing people. We heard a lot of concerns and some suggestions, but I don't think we came across with anything that was really definitive. There were as many opinions as people who made presentations. We wrote our report accordingly. We found that the paper was difficult to review in so far as it did not endorse specific actions, but, I, nonetheless, stand by our report.

I don't think that putting a plebiscite out to the public at this time is the way to deal with this issue. There are more issues under the Liquor Act than just this one item. If we're going to have a plebiscite on every item in here, then I think it's not an effective way of dealing with it. I believe that plebiscites are instruments to deal With fiercely contended burning issues of the day, rather than issues such as the one we're going to be dealing with here. I feel that from many points of view -- I speak as a parent, as a social worker and as a Member of this Legislative Assembly -raising the drinking age to 21 is not the answer. If the intent is to find that out, then I think this is not going to resolve any of our problems.

We have made some suggestions in the report as to how we can best deal with this matter. Until the next government that comes in is prepared to make some changes to this law, I think we've done what we have been assigned to do. I can't second-guess the committee on this, and I won't. Therefore, I won't support the motion. Thank you.