Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Premier in follow-up to my Member's statement, Mr. Speaker, and for the record, we all know that the full costs of the -- his envoy, his friend there, is $440,000. So my question specifically is how many political appointments does the -- sorry, how many politically-appointed GNWT staff are paid more than the Prime Minister of Canada? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some Tree of Peace adult ed students I'd like to recognize, three of them in particular. We have first Jasmine Powder. Secondly, I have Antasia Goulet. And the third, and certainly not least, Margo Remenan. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I've never seen consensus government as frustrating as I've seen it today in my four terms. Mr. Speaker, I repeatedly ask and point out to this Premier to involve Members as part of the team. Let them feel part of the solution as we work on these problems together. Members needs wins. You know what his response to me was? Write a letter.

Mr. Speaker, I've seen this letter writing exercise, or even questioned exercise, which is they're just waiting for our comments to officially trigger their official disagreement why we're wrong. But don't worry, it's already drafted and in the queue.

Mr. Speaker, some people are saying we were here to be sent to work together. That is true. There is some truth in that, Mr. Speaker. But what I've noticed and seen is the informal expectation that you are not allowed to challenge the government, Mr. Speaker. And if you don't agree, then you're defined as being disagreeable. Mr. Speaker, it leaves me to wonder, are Members just members of the Simpson-ettes? I don't know.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, there are many other concerns. So when Members like myself are questioning the $440,000 envoy appointed to Ottawa, it's because it's a bad decision. Premier says, it's my decision. Mr. Speaker, when you challenge these things, you know, you expect a little more discussion. But no, it's his decision, too darn bad.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like it's no longer consensus government; it's more -- it feels more like akin to an ill repute regime by being able to make these types of decisions without them really being fulsomely discussed.

Mr. Speaker, has this government become drunk on power because they can? Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier on his own getting to appoint a $440,000 employee?

Mr. Speaker, because he can, because others do so? Well, Mr. Speaker, by way of example, Ontario does it. That's not a good answer. Quebec does it. That's a terrible answer. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, that's almost like the beginning of a bad dad joke. Oh, what one lemming said to the other? Well, because they did it.

Mr. Speaker, the envoy in Ontario costs around $140,000 per year. The envoy in Quebec costs $140,000 a year. How does ours cost more than twice as much? Mr. Speaker, are we getting more than twice as much value? Mr. Speaker, there's so much more to talk about but I'll tell you, when I'm holding court in the coffee shops and in the communities, in the grocery stores, no one likes this position because they don't see a stinking element of value. They want transparency, Mr. Speaker.

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, Mr. Speaker. I don't think there's a Yellowknife Centre delegation up there, but what I would certainly say that I have had the chance to meet with both Tad, Tamara, and Andrew of Local 11, and I know probably many friendly faces out there. I'm getting old; it's hard to see through these spectacles that far up. But that said, in my elder age I still want to take a moment to say thank you to the nurses and the care they provide our Northerners, and I will continue to be a steadfast supporter of their issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker,

WHEREAS Section 48.(2) of the Human Rights Act provides for the establishment of an adjudication panel composed of at least three persons appointed by the Commissioner on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly;.

AND WHEREAS Section 49.(1) of the NWT Human Rights Act provides that a member of the adjudication panel holds office during good behaviour for a period of four years and may be reappointed for subsequent terms;.

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 Honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Jessi Casebeer of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, be recommended to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for appointment as a member of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel effective June 1, 2025, for a period of four years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion I gave notice of earlier today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, I will move the following motion:

Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Jessi Casebeer of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, be recommended to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for appointment as a member of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel, effective June 1, 2025, for a term of four years.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will seek unanimous consent to deal with this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a lot out there unpacked. But I didn't hear that they're either in favour of it or against it, anticipate to approve it, or working to approve it, anything of that nature. Can the Minister be clear on that initiative; what's the ultimate goal and direction that this department is going to proceed with? Thank you.