Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the -- what the chair of the committee's read in thus far. However, some different points of view, and I'll share other Members' points of view.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations (the committee) was tasked with reviewing Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act. As a Member of the committee, it is important to note that while I agree with some of the concerns highlighted in committee's report on the review to date of Bill 26, there are several important reasons for preparing a dissenting point of view.
First of all, I call it committee process concerns:
I do not agree that the committee's decision to pause its review process for the time being and resuming its review at a later date should the Government of the Northwest Territories (the government) not deliver on its promise of a legislative proposal for phase 2 amendments to the Public Service Act by spring of 2026 and introduce -- introduction of a bill in the fall of 2026.
The first opportunity (October 16th) of 2025 arose after 120 days study period had passed, and committee did not report Bill 26 back per the rules, practices, and traditions of the Legislative Assembly. At the time of the draft of this report, this issue was outstanding, unclear. And as it all appears, Mr. Speaker, it may have technically been worked through.
At the end of the 120-day period, a study period of the bill by standing committee, or special committee, all committees are faced with three options:
- Proceed to clause-by-clause review and be reported as ready or not for further consideration by the Assembly;
- Return to the House and request more time to study the bill as we did today; and,
- Report to the House and report that the bill was found wanting and not allow the House to consider its final direction.
Committee refused to formalize direction on Bill 26, which causes me concern. There is no transparency, explanation, similar to what is seen at the clause-by-clause stage as to why committee formally breached the rules of the Assembly on this bill. I believe this needs to be clearly explained, including the reasons. The current direction that committee has taken constitutes a break of its own rules and proceedings without addressing the formal requirements to report progress on the bill.
Committee, in my opinion, has not taken a formal position to avoid a judgment of Bill 26 and avoid a division (voting) by committee, including the subsequent follow-up in the House.
The refusal to proceed to clause-by-clause review, to openly ignore the Assembly's practice despite objections of some committee members, is concerning. By the time the public engagement period had closed, which tallied approximately 50 days, committee had zero public submissions on the record for Bill 26. All written feedback from the public came after the sponsor of the bill requested more time and after some campaigners in support of Bill 26 had informed some Members that they realized that no submissions had been sent in by that deadline.
Concerns about Bill 26 not ready:
It is my dissenting opinion is that Bill 26 should be reported as not ready and not in good form. My opinion is based on the following concerns:
Direction of intent:
Support for the nursing and health care industry continues to be unwavering but Bill 26 has been presented as solving the nurses' challenges but from the start, it appears to be centered around being a tool to deal with the internal labour politics. Bill 26 may mean well, but it does not address the issues raised by nurses, such as a nurse to a patient ratio, management concerns, shift premiums, etcetera.
Support for all health workers, Mr. Speaker:
As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I have always stated that I would support a health care worker bill that would not exclude other nurses or health care workers. My position has always been no health care worker left behind. Teasing one group out of a larger collective group has the potential of creating upending effects and potentially setbacks that may cause serious damage to all groups, which will be lasting. Therefore, more time must be dedicated to consideration of its implications. This bill has been sold as a rosy picture in which the details will work themselves out; however, this has not proven to be the case.
There are a number of inherent risks if Bill 26 moves forward which, as highlighted during the committee review process, may prove to be a setback if not thought through, from voter rights to long-term setbacks in a new collective bargaining, etcetera.
Many of these concerns raised at the beginning of the Bill 26 review process focused on internal matters. In other words, the Legislative Assembly is being brought to address union versus union issues. This bill was never designed to address the health care concerns raised by the nurses which is based on why this group wants to break out of the Union of Northern Workers (UNW).
The collective of nurses has stated over a lengthy period that their issues are with management, shift premiums, workloads, and more. I know that nurses are very articulate on their issues. The sponsor of the bill is trying to give the impression that nurses are being ignored.
Structural failures in the process may be there as claimed -- sorry, may not be there as claimed. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Bill 26 is meant to be a catch-all. My focus continues to be on the health care industry. No health care worker left behind matters to me. There are many complimentary skills, talents, and rules that work together with nurses. Why put one forward a health care provider bargaining unit rather than a nurses' unit specifically? Teasing one group out of a larger health care group might not be the best solution. I am concerned that the bill is causing a divide in the nursing community. If the bill moves forward, I'm concerned that there will be ancillary services who will be asking for the same thing.
The justification for the breakaway has been that nurses have not been heard. The UNW and sponsors say no one is listening; however, nurses have been very articulate in their position, wishes, and needs. There is no evidence to show that Bill 26 will fix the concerns such as ratios, vacancies, shift premiums, agency nurses.
How it will guarantee that these issues will be addressed:
The purpose of the bill claims to empower nurses, but there is no evidence that it will do that. I have concerns with the validity of the survey done by the College and Association of Nurses of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut (CANN), albeit well intended. I understand that the sponsor of Bill 26 refused to meet with the UNW. I would rather see the union sort their own house out before coming to the legislature. I'm concerned it is not the appropriate vehicle at this point in time. If Bill 26 passes, government may be immediately responsible for extra costs and extensive obligations. We need to appreciate the long game rather than the short game (Bill 26). I worry about the costs that we keep creating, including if we are putting more money into boots on the ground or administration of the legislative process.
Government has limited resources and the decisions such as these becoming significant choices that we have to address in order to meet the challenges. Meanwhile, the issues of a new labour relations board is a hanging concern left unanswered. The government has committed to finding a way through this after the upcoming Public Service Act amendments have been considered. The union and government have some form of discussion to resolve these matters and have committed to working together.
Further concerns, Mr. Speaker:
I worry that if we pull one brick out, the rest of the system may tumble. For that reason, we need to know what is being agreed to before we agree to it If we need to appreciate the risks and the ripple effects. The guarantee of a collective agreement freeze may exist in Bill 26, but it does not mean it will be the foundation of the next collective agreement. The potential for a lesser agreement exists. Section 6 of the bill appears to be a natural assumption that everything will be the same. Don't worry, it'll be fine. But it cannot be the same unless the employer concedes that it will be. It does not present a guarantee what the future will look like. The content of the first collective agreement for nurses is wide open. Further, the provision's actual effect is open to the final interpretation -- final ruling on the interpretation, sorry. There are too many unknowns at this moment, Mr. Speaker.
So in conclusion, for the reasons noted above, I do not, as well as other Members, agree with the pausing of committee's review of this bill is the most important or effective approach. Bill 26 is flawed; therefore, my dissenting opinion is that the committee should respond according and report the bill is not ready. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And, lastly, even though it's not part of the note, it did change -- the tone of the report did change based on the motion just earlier; however, the substance of the principle should still stand. Thank you.