Robert Hawkins

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...

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused on the side versus second tier. It doesn't sound like it's on the list of number one projects, and it's not even the -- doesn't sound clear enough that it's even on the second visiting of this particular project. Can the Minister tell us what will it take to get it as a major -- sorry, the Arctic Economic Security Corridor identified as a major project in this next submission? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure I have to walk down to the office; I've already given her the suggestions and she's welcome by the way.

That said, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did go into the other area of where the samples are going. What type of analysis is being taken as to how much are going where, what does it cost, what does it change the process. Because I'm aware that section has requested more staffing. In other words, they put in submissions to increase the staff but someone in the chain of hierarchy keeps denying them the needed staff. And I'm curious as to what the reasoning is...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the willingness of the Minister. If she wants some simple suggestions, chairs, the little tags at the DMV --

Mr. Speaker, the next comment is no reflection of the staff, but it seems like the staff are unable to keep up with the pace and the demand that's there, which is sometimes reality, Mr. Speaker. And the constituents -- last point I'll make -- is they show up there, unlike the DMV they can't take a ticket, some of them can't stand because they're elderly, they're waiting for 35 people for 32 spots. It's quite a depressing experience, Mr. Speaker. So in short, Mr. Speaker, if Stanton has an addiction to deficits, as we all know -- and I have a lot of experience around this -- why doesn't the...

Yeah, my concern, of course, is good management, stewardship of public dollars even at the school board level, which is certainly an important level. Encouraging good management to create surpluses for the rainy day seems almost like a why bother at this point if we know that they're just going to come take it and tell us to spend it otherwise. So it almost seems like a disenfranchised principle for those who'd managed well and those who've spend. So if you've spent, you get rewarded with more money. And if you saved and trimmed and nipped, well, we're just going to take it away from you...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a great pleasure to ask the first question. I'll be asking the health Minister today some questions about the lab clinic that's downtown.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why there's such lengthy line-up there in the walk-up portion of the clinic every single day wherein in the old days there wasn't that type of backlog. What has significantly changed that things either get deferred, delayed, or denied completely? Thank you.

Yeah, I'm not -- I'm hoping the Minister, because she's -- because most of these questions aren't really for her in a sense. I mean, these are application questions that go down the line. I just -- I'm just thinking of reasonable use and good management of resources. Certainly not taking away from the intent (audio) so.

So are we -- is the Minister familiar with how many educational assistants will be able to come back given the fact that this particular money has been somewhat reinstated? Thank you.

Thank you for that. Will it come with the same types of restrictions? Jordan Principal money was intended for Indigenous students. So if they were offering, say, PT or speech, language, etcetera, for students in the context of ensuring that no child is, say, being held back adversely, of course, they were informed that they couldn't use the programming for other kids in need. Does that type of same restrictions come forward if there's no negative ill effects of the time they'll be (audio). Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It just seems weird that the government would be responding to something that we're just creating a delay. So it just seems odd that we'd be asking the government to respond to a report in this manner. So anyway, I just want to point that out. If they want to respond, it's up to them. We've seen the responses. They're usually pretty canned anyway which is -- it is what it is. So I just find it unusual that this motion would be in order in this particular case. Thank you.