Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today we have a great number of nurses joining us in the gallery. I hope people look up and see them and acknowledge them, and you may even recognize them. These are the nurses who have been helping you when you get sick or injured. They've been treating your family members, caring for your community members and neighbours. They are here now because they need our help. They need us to care about them.

A recent independent survey by the nursing association revealed that 85 percent of nurses in the NWT want a separate collective agreement. This is important to a large number of nurses, far more than those who could be here today, so it needs to be important to all of us if we care about a strong healthcare system. In the past few months, there have been almost 40 residents, just that I'm aware of, that have been writing to their MLAs in support of this from multiple regions, not just from Yellowknife. I've also heard from nurses working in small communities that they support moving forward with this bill too, and it could help in recruiting more nurses to small communities.

I also want to take this moment to offer my sincere mahsi cho to the member from Monfwi, the seconder of this bill, who has offered her strong and steady support since this idea emerged.

Now, this bill has been framed as MLAs interfering with the way workers organize themselves, interfering with the internal business of the union. But that's backwards. Because the way things are now, our legislation already profoundly interferes with how workers can organize themselves. The Public Service Act tells all workers you have no choice but to accept the Union of Northern Workers as your bargaining representative. You are not allowed to have any other options. It tells nurses, you must have your voice swallowed up by the much larger group of public servants even if their job is nothing like yours, even if their workplace challenges are nothing like yours. Currently, we don't allow nurses to have a choice of their own at the bargaining table, and that is interfering with workers' freedoms and workers' rights.

For too long, we've all recognized there's a problem here. At least I've heard every leader in this room acknowledge that there's a problem. But we've been paralyzed by the idea that there's nothing we can do about it. At least nothing we can do any time soon. I won't accept that.

I put together a bill that creates a new way for nurses to be able to have a choice, to have an option of voting amongst themselves on who they want their bargaining agent to be, the option of having a separate collective agreement focused on the specific workplace challenges that they face as nurses. I would love to be able to change the Act to give all workers this same freedom to choose, but I can't. The government has to be the one to initiate that change. I am truly encouraged that Cabinet has recently announced it will be setting out down that path in collaboration with the Union of Northern Workers. The recent joint press release declares a willingness amongst both parties to work on changes to the Act, even during active negotiations, which are due to begin late this year. And that is good because that is the only way progress can be made during the life of this Assembly. And I want to believe that that will happen. But nurses need change sooner than that.

We are currently losing nurses faster than we can recruit them or put new ones through college. Right now, we don't have any assurance that this joint path that the GNWT and the UNW are on will actually get anywhere. It's too early to tell whether the goodwill that has suddenly appeared between both sides can be sustained.

Nurses, I believe, are justified in wanting to keep exploring a path that they might have more control over, the option that is proposed in this Private Member's bill. And the government's path towards more comprehensive changes to the Act does not cancel out the need for this Private Member's bill. They do not work against each other. They can complement and support each other.

So often we feel like the system is so big, nothing we can do will ever make a difference or change is so slow that it feels futile. Here we have a chance to actually make a difference and try something new. Our instinct, especially as Regular MLAs, is always to defer to the government when it comes to big change. Who am I to bring forward an idea? Well, I'm not the expert. Well, who are we? We are all legislators. That means we all have an important role in creating and changing laws. Not just to say yes or no to laws the government brings forward, but to reimagine how things can be done. We don't have to be the experts. That's what our committee processes are for, for inviting expert witnesses to share their perspectives with us, hold public hearings so we can examine a bill from all angles.

This is not the final vote. This is second reading. You're not supposed to be sure now about what the final outcome of the bill should be. We're just asking for you to let the bill have a chance to be examined and debated. I want us to have some faith in ourselves and have some faith in the process. Give this bill a chance to go through second reading, let committee take a discloser look, get that input that can help us improve and refine the idea, and maybe committee will decide it won't work at all and maybe it doesn't pass third reading. And that's okay. But if we kill this bill before it even has a chance to begin, we become the ones who are actively interfering with workers' freedom, the freedom they are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The nurses of this territory are watching to see if we're listening to them, to see if we are even interested in listening to them, if we're interested in giving them a chance to present to committee their vision for a separate collective agreement. If you're not really interested in hearing from them, that's fine, and you can vote against but make no mistake, that sends a clear message that will have negative consequences on our healthcare system all across the territory. Let's send a clear and resounding message that we want to listen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I think we all look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the principle of the bill. Member from Yellowknife South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today we're being asked to consider a Private Member's bill that touches on an issue that is important and deeply felt not only in this House, not only in our healthcare system, but obviously throughout the Northwest Territories and the Northwest Territories public service.

And let me begin saying clearly, Mr. Speaker, that nurses are essential. We don't want to see them leave. Their contributions to this territory's healthcare system are invaluable. Their contribution to the health and wellness of all Northwest Territories residents is invaluable.

The GNWT must support nurses as a profession, support healthy workplaces in all of our healthcare settings, support safe and reliable access to health care for residents which, in turn, may include looking at things like patient care ratios, scheduling, and effective workplace communication.

There have been significant public statements of late about healthcare workplace conditions, about morale, about ensuring frontline service delivery are included in decision-making, and about whether the current representation structure is best suited to the realities of nursing. There is much happening across government to change the delivery of health care and also to change the delivery of human resource services. Of course, Mr. Speaker, more can always be done to improve our services, including our services to our own staff. Some of those things, Mr. Speaker, indeed a great many, are not the subject of collective bargaining. And so then the question today is whether Bill 26 is the right tool at the right time to create positive, effective, efficient, and lasting change for all workers across the Northwest Territories, including healthcare workers.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories has been engaged for several years now in a comprehensive modernization of the Public Service Act. We don't always speak about our work when it's just underway, but we have been taking those steps in the last little while to bring folks better up to speed with the efforts that we've been making.

The first phase of this work is nearing its completion, and legislation is expected to be introduced this fall. It will include important updates related to safe disclosure protections, job evaluation and classification, hiring processes, and labour relations frameworks, to reflect a modern and inclusive public service.

One single part of that Act was set aside from this first phase, and that is section 41, which governs how bargains units are structured and certified. There are two aspects that we are committed to explore, both the right to determine a bargaining association and the entity that represents the association. Those two aspects are typically satisfied through an acceptable certification process by an independent entity. This section, section 2, is a focus of phase 2 of our modernization effort, and work is already underway to review certification frameworks used across Canada to consider the legal and constitutional requirements and to ensure that any changes are grounded in fairness, transparency, and the principle of employee choice.

Importantly, this work will include engagement with the Union of Northern Workers and PSAC, both longstanding bargaining partners for the GNWT. The UNW and PSAC are experts in organized labour space, and they will have an invaluable and unique perspective to contribute. And as the union and the employer, we have engaged respectfully about all other contents of phase 1 of our Public Service Act amendments and that draft legislation, as I said earlier, will be tabled this fall and will be the better for this process.

I'm aiming to begin the engagement on the Public Service Act, phase 2, that is to say section 41, over the summer and continuing into the fall, and it will also include not only the unions but of course our public service with opportunities for the public as well.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Private Member's bill was not developed in the same manner with the same process with the same level of consultation or the same engagement. It does not address the public service as a whole. It does not address the healthcare profession as a whole. And so, Mr. Speaker, the issue of how nurses are represented at the bargaining table, we realize has clearly struck a chord. Although the preamble of the bill speaks to some of the broader workplace issues, I do hope it is clear this vote on this bill is not a vote about the workplace safety of nurses, the importance of nursing, or the importance of providing healthy workplaces more generally.

And so, Mr. Speaker, while I do not support this bill in its current form or its process by which it was developed, I will recognize that it reflects these issues, and so it is important to explain why this process and this proposal is not receiving my support.

First, Bill 26 proposes to legislate a structure that would allow for the immediate formation of a separate bargaining unit without, however, a neutral or independent certification process. That is a serious departure from how union representation is structured in every other Canadian jurisdiction. It would bypass employee-led certification through a labour relations board or tribunal or some other similar entity and, instead, it is requiring the courts to play a role that they are not designed to fulfill.

Second, there are questions about whether a Private Member's bill is truly the right legislative tool for this kind of reform. New structures can require funding, require regulatory oversight, may require government operational changes. This can, in turn, require procedural challenges and policy updates may be required. There are questions about financial authority and constitutional compatability, of this is best addressed through comprehensive legislation. It's the kind of comprehensive response that would be appropriate for a government-led bill, and it's one that will take time. But, Mr. Speaker, again, we are well onto that path, that work is underway, both for the public service as a whole as well as for section 41.

And beyond these legal and structural issues, there are concerns about process generally and whether legislating a solution now, before a consultation process is complete or before system-wide impacts are better understood, will it bring the kind of lasting change that nurses deserve or fix the challenges of morale felt not only by nurses but by the public service as a whole.

The Minister of Health and Social Services has now spent the last several months meeting directly with frontline care workers across the territory. The Union of Northern Workers and PSAC are also conducting their own outreach, including a series of regional meetings with healthcare members. And just last week, GNWT, the UNW, and PSAC issued a joint statement reaffirming our shared commitment to resolving section 41 issues and concerns collaboratively even as we may be entering active bargaining this fall and winter.

The GNWT is already committed to revisit what would be required to bring the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority into the public service. Again, we want to ensure that there is choice, and making the choice to join the GNWT's public service is not one that should be presumed without properly going back to all affected employees. As well, bringing this pension in at an unknown cost requires a fulsome update and analysis. But, again, that work is underway, and I'm pleased to confirm that this work's been assigned to the health system sustainability unit and will be ready for update by this fall.

And last, but far from least on concerns of process, Mr. Speaker, this bill treads into an area of work that if we are not thoughtful, inclusive, and transparent during the development of the legislative changes being proposed, we could be seen as undermining the independence of collective representation or seen as interfering with the union that is the representative of workers.

Finally, I want to speak to some of the evidence used for this bill. Bill 26 notes that a separate collective agreement would increase the likelihood of targeted benefits and allowances for nurses that do not necessarily apply to the entire GNWT workforce and that this would support better employee retention or higher morale. Mr. Speaker, the current collective agreement is structured to do this. Appendix A10 as well as several memorandums of understandings does focus on public service nurses and health care professionals specific to hospitals and health care facilities. Appendix A10, along the job share MOU, the labour market supplement MOU, the professional development MOU, all provide nurses with increased monetary benefits, additional professional development time, and job share opportunities.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the department of finance very actively monitors salary and benefits across all Canadian jurisdictions. We want to ensure that we remain not just competitive but truly attractive as a place to work. And Mr. Speaker, the recent survey conducted by CAN, which of course I realize is being relied on, and I note really was for the purpose of information gathering only and meant to inform ongoing policy discussions and to contribute to the understanding of the workforce. The survey was publicly available. It was not limited to nurses or controlled for the number of times one individual could respond. And so -- and not restricted only to CAN registrants or even NWT residents, and it only had a response rate of 31 percent. However, of the questions posed or were in addition of the questions posed, Mr. Speaker, not all of those initiatives are solvable by a collective agreement, such as the availability of housing.

That said, to be clear, again, this survey does provide helpful information. The Minister of Health and Social Services and myself have already committed to bring our teams together to review the list of questions on that survey and see what progress we can make now without looking into other processes elsewhere. Again, much of the issues around workplaces require this kind of collaboration and much work is happening in both places and under both departments. But this survey alone is certainly not a mandate to proceed to change without a proper process.

And so in short, Mr. Speaker, the Private Member's bill does not provide a proper channel for core fundamental change to the Public Service Act that is needed, and it is not one that is providing a channel that will apply to all public servants or all healthcare professionals. It is not a complete solution to the many and very challenges facing healthcare professionals or nurses specifically. Any workplace that we know is under strain.

The work to improve the situation of not only nurses but all public servants is urgent. I have seen the strain on the public service morale since COVID. It has not improved. In that sense, it is urgent, and I'm committed to this work. I believe we have a path forward for a complete Public Service Act that is not driven by urgency but is driven by thoughtfulness and engagement. That collaborative work has already begun and is so far proving successful. It's a path that we are on. It's a path I believe will lead us to stronger representation, greater fairness, and a more responsive system for everyone involved. As such, those are the reasons for which I'm not supporting Bill 26 as the best path or channel for change.

That said, Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of this House that makes us different from a traditional partisan Assembly is that it is MLAs who exclusively do the work of legislative committees and, traditionally, Private Members do have the opportunity to bring forward ideas and policy options through Private Member's bill for review by committee. Cabinet, in these circumstances, abstains, and that allows committee to govern their own processes. We will be continuing that tradition today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife South. To the principle of the bill. Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think what we can all agree on is that the current Public Service Act is a mess. What we do not agree on is the road to fix it.

Nurses have described longstanding internal union governance issues. I believe those concerns to be real. They deserve a solution and to be supported as they find that solution for themselves and, crucially, they need to drive that change. They need to organize.

I believe that the Member for Yellowknife North saw this problem and wants to try her level best to address it; however, what truly needs to happen is something she is restricted from doing, which is to create a labour board or similar statutory body. A labour board has independent processes from this House and its political influence and can uphold public service employees' Charter right to freedom to assemble.

Last Friday, something notable and unique happened. The Minister of Finance and leadership of UNW and PSAC put out a joint press release stating that they intend to work on legislation even while bargaining that will address the longstanding issues of section 41 of the Public Service Act, to enact change that will uphold Charter rights for all public servants.

Nurses have spoken to me and asked me if I supported the draft bill that the MLA put forward or if I support more robust changes to the Act. I have told them that I support robust changes to the Act, including the creation of such a labour board that will provide for them the freedom to collectively choose their own union, as is their right. There is some confusion around why I have said, and continue to say, why it is not right for in I politician to interfere in the bargaining relationship between employees and their employer. Political interference in case law is contemplated at length in other jurisdiction, most commonly when workers are legislated back to work from a strike. I also disagree with that practice for what it's worth.

The NWT is a unique legislative regime where the container is prescribed to public servants on how they bargain in section 41. I also disagree with this. In our context, which is indeed strange and novel, the Member for Yellowknife North is effectively acting as union representation and labour board by proposing these changes as a legislator to legislators. This is not a free and impartial process driven by employees. There is no way to verify that all nurses are being heard effectively through committee processes or participating in the election process she has prescribed in her bill.

When I was a public servant, I only presented to standing committee once after seeking deputy head permission which was granted due to the fact that the issue in question that I was presenting on had nothing to do with my job in the public service. Even if a legislator is acting with the absolute best intentions, which I believe the Member is, I do not feel comfortable giving a legislator the power I've just outlined. This very issue has been discussed in the past of this House, most pertinently in 1990 on the topic of classroom assistant unions.

I could speak at extensive length around my past experiences as a unionized member of the public service and one who was elected to represent her fellow workers, but I am no longer that person. I am a legislator who chooses not to interfere in how workers collectively choose their own path forward. I should note that the Minister of Finance is in an odd by very prescribed position which is whereas that she is both the political representative of the employer and a legislator.

There are checks and balances in the processes that ensure that she does not interfere in bargaining. Last Friday's press release is carefully worded so as not to prescribe an outcome to the work to solve problems with section 41 quite deliberately because that change must be driven by employees. Creating the avenue for independence and choice of bargaining agent belongs in the hands of the workers, and I hope expeditiously a labour board that provides independence and freedom of association. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the principle of the bill. Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of the bill for the reasons that the Member from Yellowknife North has laid out in her preamble to the bill. I support the work done by the Member. You know, we are -- this is second reading, Mr. Speaker. This is what we do. We are legislators. We look at bills, we take them to committee, and then we decide at third reading, whether or not we can make an informed decision on the information that we've gathered. This is not passing the bill, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate some of the things that the Minister has said here today, but I do think that this work does deserve to go through the process that committee undertakes and that the bill should be referred to standing committee. And then once that's done, we can then make an informed decision in third and final reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. To the principle of the bill. Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the principle of the bill. Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, similar to the previous speaker, I am in favour of the principle of the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, my primary reason for that today is that I think that we are having a very important conversation, and I would like to see that conversation move forward into committee where we can have a fulsome discussion about this issue, about the various issues around why this bill has come forward, and hear from all parties on it in a public manner through a fulsome committee process. And I think that that is really important. Similar to other speakers, I don't know what the ultimate outcome of that process will be, and that's what the committee process is for. And so I just want to be crystal clear this is second reading of the bill. The next step is it would go to committee for review. We're not putting a piece of legislation in force today.

Ultimately, I think a wider amendment to the Act is necessary so that all workers have the option to collect as they see fit and as they have a right to do under the Canadian Constitution. And for that reason, I -- Charter, Constitution as well. We know what we meant.

So I very much appreciated the joint news release from Cabinet and the Union of Northern Workers and was very happy to see that movement come forward, but I want to talk a little bit about the history of how we got here. And as the Member for Yellowknife North pointed out, this is something that has come up for a very long time, and nurses have been facing a significant amount of resistance to moving it forward. And so we were not seeing any indication this was moving forward in a timely manner, and it's not until the Private Member's bill became public that things started to move. And so I think that it -- that indicated to me that the Private Member's bill was necessary. It was necessary to get movement going.

As the Minister pointed out, there are some potential shortcomings to the bill. That's what second reading is for. We can explore this at committee and get into it in detail and figure out through that iterative process what the pros and cons of the bill are and whether committee is going to recommend it go forward. But generally speaking, I just wanted to note also, you know, I've heard from a number of nurses who I represent, and every single person that has gotten in touch with me -- and that includes people beyond nurses that work for the public service -- has been in had favour of this and has been asking me, and some of them with quite a fair bit of desperation, to support this initiative. Desperation coming from a workplace that we've talked a lot about in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, where there's a lot of various pressures coming from different sides and a hope that this will give them the opportunity to represent themselves with their employer in such a way that gives them what they need to stay here, to do their jobs, to remain safe, and all the various other things that can come from being able to bargain collectively specifically for your profession.

So, Mr. Speaker, that wraps up pretty much what I have to say about it today. I just wanted to note that I think that this conversation is really important, and it's an important one for a number of different reasons, but one of them was the resistance that was being faced, and I think that this bill has started to open up that conversation and so I'd like to see that conversation continue. I think that the committee process is the place to have that conversation, at least in part, and I look forward to supporting the bill today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. To the principle of the bill. Member from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, feel on both sides that the intent of healthcare reform is very much needed. I'm always of the opinion that if you want to make a factual decision, you do your factual research. As recently as a couple days ago, I was at the Stanton Hospital, and I hear our Minister of Finance setting out the engagements of consultation. That could be copied from Hansard when the time arrives. But for the immediate situation here, and as highlighted in my Member's statement today, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to fix the problem now. And we've always said a fundamental component of management is our legislatures using those principles of engagement to make an informed decision. And that means going to the communities. Taking the bill to second reading allows you to do that. It allows you to go to Fort Good Hope and hear the problems and hear firsthand, then you can make an informed decision at the third reading, appropriate time.

We do have a lot of problems and to measure our scale of those problems, I've said it numerous times in this Assembly, the Sahtu region's seen 448 medevacs in three years. Now, if that's not going to hit home for some people that we do have a problem, I think you better take that seriously and really find out and do your own research on the many problems we have. If we can fix the beginning of the problem at the end of the journey, it'll help you with satisfying your decision in saying, yes, we not only recognize a problem, but we extinguished the problem or minimize the problem. And it's always been my goal since I heard the shocking statistics on 448 medevacs, if I can make a difference in reducing that to 200, I'll be greatly appreciated for the efforts of this government to stand behind that goal.

So given the benefit of the doubt and given the respect that the small communities and the communities outside of Yellowknife and in Yellowknife as well -- because this is a pan-territorial healthcare system, we need to respect our citizens on making that decision.

So in closing there, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour to move that bill, take it to the communities, and let's hear from our residents. Mahsi.

Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. To the principle of the bill. Member from Monfwi.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll do it in my language. [Translation] INSERT* [Translation Ends]. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the principle of the bill. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since entering this building, the 20th Assembly, I certainly made sure health care is on my mind, front of mind, all the time. As a matter of fact, many of the issues that I've been raising, well -- you know, as well as with my good colleague from Range Lake is many of the issues that affect the people here in our gallery today in support in it different ways, and certainly in support of the system to reflect and improve, Mr. Speaker. I want to caution people to assume that this bill is going to solve everything and I'm going to contextualize it like that first before I get into the next part of my comments.

This bill won't fix the folks, their management experience. This is not that type of bill. This bill won't look at pay or pay premiums, retention, agency locum nurses, and phasing out. This bill is just to establish potentially -- potentially, to establish its own unit.

Now to keep in mind that those things won't change tomorrow, those won't change if there was a third reading passing this today. Those are still the same problems we're working on and trying to highlight and deal with and raise continually as long as I can stand and echo how important those types of things are. So, Mr. Speaker, ensuring that I'm staying on topic, this bill doesn't address any of those problems. We can pretend they will, and we can hope they will, maybe we could even dream they will, but the fact is those will still be pillar issues, giant rocks we got to find a way around and get through and figure it out.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does commit a lot to the second, third, fourth, and fifth step that needs to be taken. It's easy to say we're going to create a unit. We could do that today. No problem. We could. But keep in mind that all the complementary services and investments of the structure of government that need to go, and I fear that a lot will need to be reset and relooked at. So I say that in the context of I want to say last week when the joint letter came out between the collaboration of the UNW and PSAC, I want to stress in some ways it might not be the silver bullet or answer they were looking for, but it was a groundbreaking moment of reflection. For months, several of us have been saying we almost need like a health care bargaining unit.

Now, I know there will be individual nurses both in the gallery and in the public who will say, no, we need nursing only. And I respect your passion. I really do. I'm not saying you shouldn't think that way. And I suspect we'll hear other folks will step forward and say they want the same thing, only us, only us. I mean, I don't know what's right. But I can assure you that I view it from a perspective of no healthcare professional left behind. Because I understand that the nurses in a negotiating point of view and even healthcare workers, if we're going to extend it just a little further, may not have the same issues as the tire guy at the shop down the road. And we're going to spend a lot of time on different issues, and maybe they're a little bit different than the corrections officers. Maybe they're a little different than, you know, other types of admin. So it makes sense to me that certain things come together a little easier and hence this may be the first -- I'll call it baby step to ask that question, to recognize maybe the current process, whether it feeds up through its established current way is right or wrong, I don't know, but I'm going to say is I've been saying for months that I think that the primary question is why do we have everyone spread around who is so different than each other.

So to bring it back tightly here to the motion, Mr. Speaker, a nursing-only piece does worry me deep down inside. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying the confusion worries me that we're going to leave a lot of people out that really should be working together. And for sake of not missing anyone, I'm not going to name any folks; you guys know the industries you work better with than I do. I'm a grateful customer of the service you provide, a grateful champion of the services you need and support you need, but I don't pretend to know your area or your area of work. And that would be a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, some of the issues that I worry about is -- I've laid it out there, and I know this issue was brought back in different forms in conversation in committees a while ago. And I don't want to get into those specifics because technically we can't, but what I'm going to say is it did seem like it was going forward. Perhaps, maybe not at the breakneck speed some would want, and I can appreciate that too. The enthusiasm behind it is we're having this conversation. And I think that's what's primarily key for me is conversation. And I think that -- I can't predict how third reading will go. I can't predict how community discussion will go. And I can appreciate I can predict the rallying force that will come forward and say, we want, we want, we want, through the committee process and on the road, and hence I can almost predict that for, you know -- what am I -- all the years of -- 14 years of service so far in this business. I can predict -- I can see quite an energetic enthusiasm showing up at the committee hearings.

But what I can say is this: I'm willing to take things on a leap of faith, and for that I will support the further conversation of this initiative. I cannot promise and nor do I want to promise that I will support third reading because I think that discussion needs to start. And that will start tomorrow as they say. But I will commit to supporting continuation of this conversation because I think it's important, and I think it'll add to the bigger picture of the overall health unit that I think is really the key to what we should be talking about. And as such, as I said, or if I've implied in a way or if I haven't made it clear enough, I will vote in favour at this time, and then the next vote will be based on the next months and months of discussion that we probably will have. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the principle of the bill.

Member from Yellowknife North, are you prepared to conclude the discussion? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And before I forget, I will be requesting a recorded vote.

Thanks to my colleagues for all of the thoughtful comments provided today. And I just wanted to respond to a few or clear up some misconceptions.

First, I would never claim that this is a comprehensive solution to either all of our healthcare staffing issues or workplace safety issues. And I've been very clear from the beginning that this is not a comprehensive solution to the problems with the Public Service Act. What is quite remarkable here is that either of those things are even being suggested as necessary before a bill could be deemed ready to pass second reading.

This process so far has been remarkable for a lot of different reasons, but one that sticks out is the kind of bar that is being applied to this bill that I haven't seen applied to any other bills, whether it's a government bill or a Private Member's bill. Somehow for this bill to be worthy of even discussing, that it must help all potential stakeholders, that it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that all nurses are participating and have completely declared their support before we even begin public engagement and deliberations, that somehow we have to show that a comprehensive public engagement process has already been conducted before we begin the public engagement. And the idea that in order to send it forward, we would first need to ensure there's a mechanism that ensures all nurses will be participating in committee deliberations.

I mean, first, I compare that to the status quo of what exists now. Are we currently doing anything to verify that all nurses are currently fully participating in UNW deliberations or processes? Are we ensuring that all nurses are fully participating in any of the surveys or staff engagement being done by the government or the health authority or that they're fully participating in all workplace decisions? And, certainly, we've never hesitated to move forward with other committee engagement or processes based on the worry that every single person within a given group or profession wouldn't have the chance to, you know, be witnesses or present to committee or have their sort of will be expressed in the deliberations. And I just wanted to clarify too that, I mean, I'm not even remotely taking on the role of a union leader myself or of a labour relations board.

I am not the judge, and that's why I didn't write myself into this bill as the arbitrator of what nurses are allowed to do. The point of the bill is to provide a mechanism where nurses can have a vote amongst themselves to choose who they want their bargaining agent to be through an independent mechanism, not me, or any legislator. It would be the NWT Supreme Court that would be verifying that the vote was free and fair and reflected the will of the employees, of the nurses. And I proposed this because no other option currently exists. The status quo is to not have that option.

And I also certainly -- I wanted to point out that, I mean, no one claimed that this survey by the college and association of nurses was a mandate for changing the Act. It was a survey, and I think it shows significant support and interest that gives, at the bear minimum, a reason to give the bill a chance to move forward. I'm not trying to present it as a mandate to, you know, pass third reading and make this all happen tomorrow.

Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that a bill doesn't have to solve all of the problems and solve all the problems for everyone in order to be worthy and certainly not in order to be worthy of passing second reading, to just enter into that process of further consideration and public engagement. But I do thank all my colleagues for your time today, and I am hopeful and look forward to the further public debate and discussion that this will hopefully spark in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the principle of the bill.

Question has been called. The Member from Yellowknife North has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.