Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it very much. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I talked about the transparency, or I should say lack thereof, of the waiting lists for people trying to get a doctor, and it's from the department's information they provided that there's close to 2,000 people on that list. So my question specifically to the Minister of Health and Social Services is so she's aware of the number, what is she doing about the number to make it transparent for the public? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it's been well over four or five years, which would have predated the Minister being elected to this House, but that said the important factor here is that regardless whether it's one year or four years is what initiative is the department of health doing to reestablish the services in the Northwest Territories. Given the fact that we're aware that the government plans to cut $150 million from the bottom line of programs and potential services, we need to know what they're doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister -- is the Minister aware of how long the Northwest Territories has been absent of support services for rheumatoid arthritis given the fact that she had sat on the social development committee last term and is a nurse so she should be familiar with the concept of the program? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of over 300 people annually have to travel to Edmonton for those types of support services. Can the Minister either clarify or confirm that type of number in the context of volume and cost? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to pick up where my statement left off and focus my questions on rheumatoid arthritis, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister -- so I'll qualify my first question on this. Is the Minister aware of -- as to what program that supports rheumatoid arthritis exists in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

That's very gracious of you, Mr. Speaker. Your kindness knows no bounds. See, that's how you do it. Work with the Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, cuts here and cuts there, Mr. Speaker. We're hearing from the Finance Minister how they're unilaterally picked this number of $150 million; that's 50 a year, 50 a year, and a 50 a year before we end this government, Mr. Speaker. $50 million without having a general, good, thorough discussion with Members' perspectives on this side of the House. No, they do public -- they do policy by public release, Mr. Speaker.

So knowing that, this government should be thinking about its cuts in a way of, well, let's reverse the attitude and say how do we get more money into the government or how do we do business better? And that's what brings me to my point, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the low hanging fruit is the obvious.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 300 people who leave Yellowknife airport, okay. It doesn't mean they're from Yellowknife. At the Yellowknife airport, they travel to Edmonton to get rheumatoid arthritis support. Now when you add that up, close to $2,000 a plane ticket and return, and that's not just the full cost but the point is that 2,000 -- we're talking over $600,000 spent on that service alone in the Northwest Territories just based on plane tickets. No different than the point made by my good colleague from Mackenzie Delta. If we want to start doing business better, we have to start thinking it through quite simply. Why are we flying people and driving people and sending them all these places when we can send a dentist to Inuvik? We'd be saving thousands of dollars. Why are we flying people to Yellowknife -- from Yellowknife to Edmonton for rheumatoid support when we could bring someone to the Northwest Territories at a fraction of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I looked up online the average cost to pay a full-time person, who's a doctor, and a specialist in rheumatoid arthritis is in the range of $270,000 a year. That's a pittance compared to what it costs just to buy plane tickets.

Mr. Speaker, if the Simpson government was really serious about looking at the bottom line, they look at how we could save money, not butcher it away at the budget. So I encourage them to use a scalpel, not a butcher approach, Mr. Speaker. And I will have questions maybe today, maybe tomorrow, we'll see who's the lucky Minister this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS section 40.2(1) of the Public Service Act provides that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, shall appoint an Equal Pay Commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the duties set out in this Act;

AND WHEREAS the position of Equal Pay Commissioner became vacant in June of 2023;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management was tasked with recruiting an Equal Pay Commissioner and has recommended an individual to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make a recommendation;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Ms. Renee Caron be appointed as the Equal Pay Commissioner in accordance with the Public Service Act by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories as recommended by the Legislative Assembly;

AND FURTHER, that the Speaker be authorized to communicate the effective date of the appointment to the Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Order of the Northwest Territories was established in 2013 by the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act to recognize individuals who have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any endeavour benefiting the people of the Northwest Territories or elsewhere;

AND WHEREAS Section 21(1) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act provides for the creation of a Northwest Territories Honours Advisory Council to review nominations and recommend appointments to the Order of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS Section 21(2)(b) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act provides that the Council be composed of not more than five members of the public appointed by the Legislative Assembly on the recommendation of the Board of Management;

AND WHEREAS Section 22(2) of the Territorial Emblems and Honours Act provides that the Members of the panel hold office at pleasure for the term not exceeding three years;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management has considered a number of qualified individuals for appointment as Honours Advisory Council Members;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management is tasked with recommending individuals to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make a recommendation to the Commissioner;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Member for Kam Lake, that the following persons be recommended to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for appointment to the Northwest Territories Honours Advisory Council, effective immediately for a term of three years: Their names are as follows:

• Ms. Jane Arychuk of Yellowknife; and
• Ms. Denise McDonald of Inuvik.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's so much to talk about and we're given less than 20 minutes to talk about it. And part of this is about the conversation. I mean, the morose public continues to go through this process, and they want their chance. They're pining to be heard, Mr. Speaker. They want to be involved. They need to be involved. And for that I want to thank the public. The public interest has been on this since day one. There's been no shortage of interest and certainly input from the public, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, we can attempt to name some. We'd like to highlight who have done their parts, and we mention those folks who have offered insight and guidance. We inevitably miss a few people, but I would like to note two before I continue.

I would like to thank publicly Shawn Dean for writing -- sending out this message, writing in the paper, speaking to CBC, about the structure and the process. His insight is invaluable to how things go. At the same time, I'd also like to thank former Member Mr. O'Reilly from Frame Lake. His information, thoughtful advice, details. It was very important to the work we do here and I think in my ways we wouldn't be half as strong without his insight so thank you, sir, for that. And in many ways, you know, I think the public in its own way is still owed a bit of an apology of what they lived through. Sometimes it's not about individual wrongs but it's about collectiveness about supporting them. They lived through a traumatic event. I mean, we've heard it so many times. Two-thirds of the territorial population was evacuated. They were told to leave; it wasn't a suggestion. It wasn't like hey, if you're not doing anything this weekend, leave. No, it was like fire and brimstone; you have to go. And we have to take that into account.

And, Mr. Speaker, I think what doesn't get underscored through this whole process is something critically important, fundamentally important, that the 19th Assembly didn't do everything wrong. I mean that. Yes, I can be tough on government, and I plan to continue to. But that said, in all fairness they didn't do everything wrong. As a matter of fact they did wonderful things meeting the expectations of the public. They tried their best. They did their best in many things. It's not about finding someone to account as an individual. This is a process. I mean, I'm not hearing one person on this side of the House driving anyone to perdition. We're hearing about talking about the gaps, not finger pointing. How do we do more, not shaming. This motion is bigger than that. This motion's about doing more and better, finding those things, helping the public. The motion is driven by the public, not just by us. We're just the vehicles of those voices.

So when we talk about this, we're talking for the public, I believe; strongly I do. We're talking about wanting to help the public through their stress, through their trauma, through their impacts, and help restore the trust. The trust in the system.

Now from what I've heard, and I continue to hear, is that the government has this perception it has a monopoly in trust and, frankly, I think they're in a deficit. So back to when you force two-thirds of the population out, the public does feel like they want a public style of answers. And to achieve that goal, I think rightly done, singularly done, might be better done through an inquiry. And yet I find there is no path clearer. There's no journey that will fulfill that need.

This is not a repugnant process, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the government doing their work. It isn't just because they could do it better. It's about doing it right and allowing that to do that. So like the old adage, if the people lead maybe the government will follow and hence they're leading and they're giving me the direction.

Since I've become an MLA, and even prior to that, I've only heard people want a chance to participate and they're supportive of public process. So if the government wants to do its little reviews and this and that and whatever they want to do, I'm not here to stop them. But I'm saying if we want to do a full review, if we want to ask ourselves the important things, we seek it through independence. So the government-run review, we have to look at it in the context of this: Those who pay for it, those who structure it, those who control it, will get the outcome they've paid for.

So if we frame this inquiry up in a manner of openness, we structure it and budget around cost, we draw out our critical direction through the scope, and we bring on a Commissioner with a credibility, we can find out what happened. We can talk about these things in a matter of how people -- their impacts and discuss them. We are a narrative territory all throughout us. I hear people tell stories throughout everything we do. It's part of the journey of who we are. This is about what can be done better.

We will ask the inquiry the right questions by allowing them to say hey, what are the questions? Through those questions, it'll drive answers and new questions. A government contractor's hands will be tied. There's no way they will have the flexibility and ability to chase down those strings, to pull those threads, and understand those journey lines that need to be tested and questioned. Again, this is not about shame. This is about how do we restructure and rebuild.

So time is of the essence, Mr. Speaker. We hear the government just let us do our thing. Again, I'm not standing in that way. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've heard any Member in this House say don't do that, shame on that idea, that's the worst -- I've never heard that at all, and I cannot be more clear. We just say we believe in a different process not driven strictly by us but supported and inspired by the public's needs. We have to allow an inquiry to be organic, to look at what's relevant, and to do that we must inspire them and give them that ability.

An independent inquiry has been said many times, but I just want to say it's been a -- it is a useful process. It will drive answers that sometimes we can say we know the unknowns and we don't know about them, but we have to plan for the unknowns we don't know about. And that's the exciting part about an inquiry, which is it can find questions that maybe we haven't even thought of yet, Mr. Speaker. But we have to give it and frame it around that opportunity to help placate that anger that's sitting in the public. I mean, we've heard the phrase zombie fires. Well, I can certainly attest, trauma is zombie anger as it simmers slowly within people, their experience, their trauma.

Regular citizens that I speak to day to day, whether I'm at the Co-Op, whether I'm at the downtown grocery store, whether I'm getting gas, whether I'm just anywhere buying coffee, even at Javaroma, I have yet to hear a person say no, no. And, you know, the more we frame around the cost, you know, the public confidence, trust, and working through the process has value. So regardless of what the government may keep saying, you know, often you hear the phrase fear mongering. And I don't want people to say whatever number they say on the table's going to be; it's going to cost millions and millions and millions of dollars. That just isn't true.

Now, we have a different perspective, and I recognize that. But that goes back to how we launch this inquiry and frame it with a budget and inspire it with the right questions. I believe we can find the right person to lead an inquiry. We have incredible Northerners who could do this, whether it's a former judge or a current judge, or someone of that merit or quality; we have so many wonderful people. This is a simple but yet complex issue. It's a simple question by saying tell me about your story. It's complex, yes, by staying focused. Those journeys will be challenging. But creating and fostering that right question around an environment that draws out the important issues will be a challenge but an important challenge that we must rise to. And I support that. An inquiry will set the tone, Mr. Speaker, a welcoming tone, even when we have unwelcoming news that should be there. This needs to find its own maturity as it -- sorry, as it reaches out to the simmering public that is craving to tell it. This process may feel unyielding, but it's critical. Underlying the truth -- sorry, the truth is underlying this narrative that we've all been sharing for several months, and we must dig it up and hear it.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry brings a transparency like no other. We've heard about the talents, the abilities, the tools, the skills of what it does. But it also speaks beyond the truth. It speaks to the gaps and confidence of the public.

This government is in a deficit, whether it's the 20th Assembly, whether it's the 19th, it goes on. Government is often in the deficit of public confidence. It must work doubly hard constantly to ensure that it's working for the people on the right issues, inspiring them. So even if it says don't worry, we got it, that's probably one of the more scary experiences you'll ever hear on the street from people. Like oh my goodness, the government's got it. I don't know if that sells anymore, Mr. Speaker. That may have sold at a time when people looked to their process of governments when they said don't worry, we'll take care of everything, we'll make it all go away. Well I'll tell you, this is a different world, even when I was an MLA eight years ago and beyond. Things have changed. The public demands an accountability like no other, and I think that they're right. They demand a process to be fully involved. They demand to strip away their pain through telling their stories. And I can tell you, again as I said earlier, we are a narrative community. We're a narrative town. We're a narrative territory, Mr. Speaker. People want to do it. So as this government continues to rope through this process, they must break away from the shackles of government in saying we do business our government way. No, Mr. Speaker. This is our chance to do business the people way.

I'll finish by saying this, that public trust means more now than it ever has. And this is our critical opportunity when we reflect back and say, did we do the right thing? Did we rise to the expectations or challenges or dreams of the public to satisfy their needs? I hope those who reflect back years later from this opportunity to say we did everything we could to make sure we continue and move forward and do it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.