All those opposed, please stand.

Question has been called. Member for Yellowknife South has asked for a recorded vote. For all those in favour, please stand.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife South. To the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's been a long day. I've got a lot of papers in front of me, but I'm going to try and get this on the rails.

Let me start by saying, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this budget process is a negotiation. It is a difficult one. It's a difficult one for everyone. Not everybody on Cabinet gets what they want at the Cabinet table. But we do have to come together. We have discussions about what the issues are, what our priorities are, what our constituents need, what our residents need, from all different sized communities here, from small communities to the capital to regional centres. And it's not an easy conversation. But, Mr. Speaker, we always -- we always do come together and, Mr. Speaker, then we come to this process.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, one of the things -- and I want to speak a little bit to the process. It's not well understood. As I've attended FPT tables, federal provincial, territorial meeting tables elsewhere, I've realized how different we are from the way things operate in a provincial jurisdiction.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I don't make the budget. The Department of Finance doesn't make the budget. That often is how it happens elsewhere. Instead the seven of us collaboratively make the budget. Everyone is responsible for bringing forward submissions from their department, we have to go around the table at the financial management board, and then it comes forward to the Assembly, first to committees in the confidential in-camera review process that we begin back -- way back in January. And through that process, MLAs have an opportunity to ask each Minister detailed questions, sometimes informing themselves about where they may want to ask questions later in public, and sometimes informing themselves to better understand a direction, and very often also pushing a Minister in a department on an issue they see in there that they want to see some change. Sometimes that ultimately comes forward through the negotiation process and sometimes it ultimately can be a discussion between that Member and that Minister that can be part of what goes on through on -- throughout the process of consensus government. People can begin to work together on issues as the Member from Yellowknife North and the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake now work together on a number of issues in the healthcare front. But then, Mr. Speaker, once we do come to a point where there is some sense of where we're coming into the Legislative Assembly and conducting the public review of each department, of each division, of each area, the questions, again, get asked and, again, that's an opportunity where government is being pushed and saying, look, this is what the political actors elected to lead are asking and expecting of you. So, again, departments go and will shift the work that's happening within the departments. And so, Mr. Speaker, I do want to give a bit of a shout-out.

We do have a 2.6 -- a little over $2.6 billion in total revenues, and our expenditures $2.3 billion as well, $472 million of that is the public service. Those are the folks that do all the things, every single thing that we're talking about here, that's them. That's what that pays for. It pays for them to do all of those things and provide those services.

Another $1.2 billion goes out the door. It's the grants and contributions and transfers to we give to municipalities and small communities and large communities, NGOs. It goes out the door to all of them. And, again, helps us deliver all the programs and services we're describing here. And we do -- when we come to a point of trying to figure out what we -- what we need to do, from the Cabinet perspective we know walking in here it's going to be a discussion with Members from the other side in order to pass the budget. And there has certainly been evolution over the course of assemblies about how that gets done. And, Mr. Speaker, I'd say I'm proud to say that in this Assembly, we've continued that evolution leading to today where the focus is on changes that are reflective of the priorities of the Assembly, and they are focused on changes that not only prioritize the Assembly but also that prioritize the whole of the Assembly. So rather than being, you know, a one-off item where a particular choice for one community or one type of program or service that maybe services one group, it really is an effort, I would say, as a collective to try to benefit the whole of the territory and all of our priorities, Mr. Speaker. It's on a high level, and that's something that I think we should be all proud of, that we can all look at one another and try to find those kinds of issues where we can make big changes.

We also, Mr. Speaker, in this government have shifted to having our business plans as part of our main estimates, but what that's meant is that it opens up this negotiation. It's no longer just about line items, Mr. Speaker. We're now opening up the entirety of the business process of what we do as a government, what all of the public servants do, and opening it up to this discussion of change. And, Mr. Speaker, it's -- it is a complicated one. There's a -- I have a 14-page spreadsheet of all the different things we've been discussing over the last while, areas where we might go back and forth and might find some room to change. I want to highlight just a few, but, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't -- it's just a few; it's not everything and I won't go through the whole thing owing in part to the time.

But this process of beginning in January, one on ones between Ministers and MLAs with particular issues or needs, going through the in-camera review by department, going through negotiations, it pushes the public service, who want to deliver good programs and services, and it pushes them to do that through this process. It's everything that's part of the consensus process. This is the highlight. This is what people pay attention to. But it's been three months of getting here. And even before that, it's been the relationships before that where we knew and we expected what was coming, particularly on an ask from housing, but on other areas too.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, there's been discussions around income assistance. And I know that's been mentioned again tonight. So I do want to acknowledge that. It's a known now need, there's going to be need to be some consideration of how we can re-examine and look at a success or lack of success of income assistance. It's not working the same for everyone and for every community, and that is a recognition. But that's been a significant conversation as a result of budget negotiations. I don't have the outcome today because it's complicated, and it's not easy, but the point is that it -- by being part of this process, the government is now being pushed to go and look at it because it's been brought forward. It's been discussed, and we know that there has to be action taken.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge there's some small things, even just, for example, I think I -- I don't necessarily know which Member brings forward particular issues. Sometimes I guess. But, Mr. Speaker, there's been questions around the NWT child tax benefit, can we improve this, can we make this better for residents. Well, Mr. Speaker, I need to do some math on this one. I need to run that one a bit more. But we've committed to go and say, yes, we're going to look at this. So even ideas like that, it doesn't have to come through the budget process, but it also can. And that's, I think, what makes consensus different is that it, again, highlighted on today, but it is an ongoing dialogue and relationship that we have when we can discuss areas and concerns and ideas in a way that might not be happening when we're constrained in a different system.

I'm going to skip over my housing line for the moment, Mr. Speaker, because we're going to come back to that one in a bit. But there's been a commitment, again, ECE and housing recognizing that they have an opportunity to find a way to increase apprentices. There's been a real recognition that this is an area of some success, but it's also an area where we just need to keep those successes growing and that momentum going. So acknowledging that.

Discussion around defence and sovereignty strategy and acknowledging that we'll have something ready for the next sitting. You know, again, that's -- saying that there's going to be a strategy ready in this area by the May sitting, that's a commitment that maybe I didn't need to detail here, but it's been already made to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. They know it's coming, and they're going to hold us to it because they're pushing us on this as an area that we know is important.

So other items around discussing what's coming next in GRI which I know is important to some and how we're going to move forward with program evaluation. Even the hundred thousand dollars for family violence shelters being reinstated, reinstated, but also, Mr. Speaker, moving from health and social services, which makes it a bit more of a one-off, putting it other in EIA now, so reflecting again a push towards what can we try to do to make these systems, to make the funding to be more unified, more organized, and have them make more sense so NGOs know that funding mechanisms will sit in that, in a relatively more -- housed in EIA and over time move away from being department by department. It's much more difficult obviously for an NGO with limited capacity to have to figure out and navigate. So we're making that commitment to get that work done.

A lot of discussion obviously around the health and social services sector. And, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of work happening and a lot of conversations being had with how to make that system run more efficiently and effectively, not to -- in order to make sure that we're using those public dollars. It's almost a third of what we spend is on health. That is a major priority of this government. We want to be spending those dollars as best we can to service residents and to service them in a way that provides good health care and supports to the people that are providing that health care.

Mr. Speaker, it is sort of a last but not least, housing. I do want to speak to the housing item. It was a part of the discussions we had back in the fall when we passed the capital budget. And at that time, the commitment was to figure out a plan on what we then called a notional plan, and there was much -- much time spent on the word notional back then. A notional plan is just that. It's the idea of presenting a plan with dollar figures associated but not necessarily knowing where those dollar figures might come from. Over the years, Housing NWT does on average had managed to find some funding. Typically it's from some federal entity or agency or the CMHC or otherwise. But, Mr. Speaker, coming in here, this session, there was no new funding coming, there were no new announcements coming, but we certainly knew that there would be pressure from our colleagues. So that notional plan was put into an incremental plan which followers of the House might recall hearing the Minister of housing have to say that she was describing the budget sitting as a witness incremental meant that there was options starting at $5 million and gradually moving up of what we could do with different types of funding.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the full plan, the full $50 million, so a base amount that was already coming from the GNWT, plus the new amount included to bring it to $50 million is where we landed. So it is a significant investment, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest it was -- it's now funding the full plan. So it is no longer notional, nor incremental. It is now the full plan.

And, Mr. Speaker, I do -- I want to give full credit to our colleagues on the other side for this because it wasn't necessarily where we thought this would land, but it was very clear that it's where they wanted this to land. And I have a bit more sort of news, if I might, on that, and it's that, Mr. Speaker, although we shared with our colleagues what that first year might look like in terms of looking at modernization and improvements which is the major renovations that keeps a House from becoming a boarded up derelict unit, there's about 175 that can be funded through this and another 47 that can be replaced on top of that. It takes a huge dent over these three years into the $200 million housing infrastructure deficit that we estimate exists, Mr. Speaker. And that's a significant change in that space to make sure that houses aren't being boarded up, aren't looking derelict, aren't bringing down communities, and they're actually going to be in and available for people to live in and to use and to move away from waitlists.

The other thing I want to give credit to my colleagues on is they've accepted, Mr. Speaker, every Member who is representing a community was shown the lists of waitlists, the lists of -- the age of the housing units and are accepting that this is now a data-driven plan. So, again, acknowledging and I appreciate that, you know, that is putting us into a place where we are as a group making evidence-based decisions and making evidence-based choices. And I do acknowledge that's hard because it doesn't always align with sometimes what we feel when we look around in a community that you're in all the time, but you can come here and say we have an evidence-based approach.

And one other good piece of news I'll give, and, again, it's credit to our colleagues, by making this a three-year commitment, we now have more economies of scale that we can use to deliver this plan, and that means that these numbers, 175 this year and 47 this year for replacements, may go up because we are now able to order more, use a more economy of scale approach, and plan to have mobilization costs community by community managed differently or better. Now, of course, it's time of tariffs, so it's difficult to predict anything these days, Mr. Speaker, but one thing we can say is that over 90 percent of housing's contracts are delivered locally. They're delivered by northern businesses, northern residents, northern people. And, Mr. Speaker, so while I don't -- I don't know what's happening with the tariffs, and I can't necessarily predict what's happening south of the border. But I can say that this is an investment that we believe can be delivered by Northerners for Northerners. So, again, it's credit to our colleagues for pushing us for the three years because it's created that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to -- I'm running longer than I expected. But Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly mention the CLCs, the community learning centres. Again, it's been a subject of much conversation. And I do want the public to know that our colleagues have been dogged on this, both on the floor but also with myself, with the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, right up to the very end on this one. I appreciate the grace that they're giving us on this one. And what I mean by that is we do need a bit of time. Obviously, Aurora College is an independent entity. It does operate at arm's length. We may not always be happy about the decisions it's making, but it is structured to make those decisions on its own. The GNWT does have a responsibility to deliver education, and the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment and supported by our colleagues is committing that we're going to go back and look and acknowledge that there's not one size fits all here, but that she will, over the next just couple of months, go back to the communities that have operating CLCs, go back to those that have operating programs, and figure out who wants to see what happened next. We've already had outreach from some communities saying they the facility. That will then look over to Department of Infrastructure to see what we can do to move those processes along. But others that want to see the programs continue, that may be funded from third party sources. So we're going to figure that out. We're going to provide a critical path and the timeline, and we're going to do that by the May sitting, Mr. Speaker, which is a pretty quick turnaround, but it is an important item and we're happy to make that commitment.

So with all that, Mr. Speaker, of course, there's always more that people will want; that is the nature of government. The needs of the territory and the needs of the residents don't stop, needs of our communities don't stop, but this is probably the single biggest budgetary change that I'm certainly aware of ever being made, but we're proud of it; it's one that does reflect the priorities of the Assembly, and I thank my colleagues for getting us here. Thank you

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Start off with the good. A hundred thousand dollars going into the program for family violence shelter network, that money was saved or added, however you want to look at it, to help NGOs. I think that's probably the most significant movement in this particular budget that I saw. That said, without that money many people would be at risk, and I wouldn't even want to try to calculate how many people would be at super harm's way or worse, Mr. Speaker. So let's go with the other stuff, the less good.

Recently, as we all know, the government got a $1.3 billion increase to the debt wall. And I think that that is really the turning point of where the housing conversation started whereas the -- I think it's -- I think if I have the number correct -- I mean, we keep throwing numbers around, but it's like $41.6 million intended to be invested in it. And the challenge I see when I read this is -- when I say this isn't really going far enough is the fact that if you read the details, it talks about modernizing, it talks about proving, it talks about replacing. What are we doing for net increase? And so when everybody keeps saying well, we can't get what we want, I'm really curious what we got. We got the government's notional plan turned into an action plan to modernize, improve, and replace houses. I would have liked to have heard we're going to have a net increase of 50 houses, 100 houses, 200 houses. I'm sure you get the point - net increase.

So have we put those families at risk any -- sorry, have we made those families at risk any safer? Have we helped those people on the edge and have we protected them? Have we given them a firmer ground? I'm not sure this budget does that. I'm not reading that. I've looked it over, I've asked questions, I'm curious. I think my colleague from Range Lake even asked the housing Minister what's the net improvement today and she, respectfully, of course, took it, you know, as notice. Some of the stuff is still in the air; we don't know. Or at least she said she'd get back, I guess, to it. But the point is is that we don't even know what we're buying. But we know we're buying something. And that's kind of interesting. So we're buying a bit of time for daycares; I know we're buying that. We see a bit of money in for daycares. So, but it's not saving daycares. I think it's a temporary respite. It's not hearing their problems. It's deferring them, kicking them down the road. The question is is this budget -- was this budget prepared to take care of or support day homes? I don't know. But I can assure you they are even further down the road at risk, and this budget doesn't speak to that.

Mr. Speaker, political priorities, as highlighted by my colleague from Range Lake many times, you know, the shift, I mean, up until recently we were talking about 6 percent of the budget is dedicated to political priorities. Now we're closer to 7 and a half percent. I mean, so that's what we're really talking about, when we get elected to a mandate to do things, but we just surrender to the public service.

I wish there was two budgets, honestly. Not that I enjoy this process, trust me. This isn't a love it most days. But that said, it's not horrible either. But I would say, you know, I wish there was a budget where we talked about the basics, not -- basics nuts and bolts of government, and then we talked about the mandate -- political mandate of politicians whereas in this housing needs to be added, and we turn that into the political mandate from *indiscernible. But we don't. It's all meshed together. So when we say a status quo budget, we really mean whatever keeps the lights on.

So the irony of the -- and using round numbers, Mr. Speaker, of the $50 million this year, $50 million next year, that's the government's plan. And it's weird that when you think about it, it takes the Members to push the government on their plan. I mean, even to the -- even to housing corp's own, I would say, point a few meetings back, they can't even do a hundred houses, new houses, new doors, in four years. I don't know what's going to roll out. I mean, I look forward to it. But like I said, I wish the conversation was about net gain about where this money goes, not repairs, not replacements, you know, not refurbishing. And by no means would I stand here and say that that isn't important. Please don't get dissolutioned by my concern. But when we talk about trying to tackle that 3,000 or more in need, this is what we're talking about. We need net houses -- net homes, sorry. I should say -- I shouldn't say houses because houses come in many forms. Net homes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm still frustrated about the IEP. I think in time that was part of our concerns is the package. And it's the old you can ask for the moon as part of your process. And I'm worried that time will roll out that we're not further ahead on this file other than making people more angry with their government.

Extended health benefits, revisiting that was asked through this budget process, and it was unceremoniously dismissed.

Extending commissions or finding better ways to work with the brewery or cannabis industry, I mean, these industries are struggling, and they need every break. I mean, they are little micro economies that change the nature of a community. As a matter of fact, it actually makes it an exciting community when you think about when they're busy and energetic and they're doing things, and people are involved. It's those things that spark life, and it's important. If the government viewed it as it was a little bit of a net loss, think of it this way: We do a lot of things for net loss. As a matter of fact, we have certain departments that should be called net losses. But that said, it's the benefit of what it does overall, that is.

CLCs, you know, it's -- I'm not tired of fighting this one, but I feel like it's one of these we keep ringing the bell and not enough people in the government are listening. You know, sure, literacy outreach may have sound like it might be okay but I don't know if it'll be okay in Yellowknife, Fort Smith, and Inuvik. Yeah, that's Yellowknife too. That's my riding. You know, this is this community. It's a risk. So the overall package of concerns are concerning.

You know, I feel like my colleagues, you know, whether it's my colleague from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh when he talks about feeling communities are under siege. And so when we lose the CLCs, but the college gets to keep the cash, I mean, it just seems so contradictory to the business of what we're doing. We have to do fiscal restraint, what is government talk about, you know, reductions but not really reductions. Well, I'm sorry. Every one of those communities one of these CLCs was in, I mean, that's a job loss, and every job loss has a ripple effect, and every community's going to feel that. So if you have one job, it could affect two or three people in that family and that community. One government job in a community is overwhelming. Add two or three jobs into a larger community. Add three or four jobs to a community -- a regional centre. All of a sudden you're affecting, Mr. Speaker, schools, kids playing pond hockey, you know, little social clubs of what they exist. Like, the elements and the fabrics are under siege. That's how I feel it. So when the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh talks about feeling losing these things, I mean, I worry from my perspective for the community of Fort Resolution. I've been to that community centre many times. It's a beautiful place. It's a community centre, for goodness sakes. So now to leave them to sit there empty and heated and doing nothing, I mean, I worry. I'd rather we continue a process until we know what we're going to do. But trust is not a good policy to live by.

Mr. Speaker, if you think about what the Members actually accomplished cash wise, it's literally a hundred thousand dollars back to the family violence shelter. We argued and say held the line on the government's money. You know, it feels like, well, I got to convince them my idea is their idea and, all of a sudden, they get all excited about it, and then I tell them, hey, great idea. Never heard that before. Well, this is one of these cases. I feel like we're championing their idea all along.

Mr. Speaker, if we think about the $50 million, now I'm going to roll it up in a whole dollar, I mean, it's less than 2 percent of the budget. That's not a significant *indiscernible. You know, so if I may respectfully say the Pilot Biscuit Brigade that lives on Glick over here and does it the old fashioned way of bean budgets and scraping by and then we look over, metaphorically, Mr. Speaker, at the well-taken care of side -- because apparently we've turned into a feelings Assembly, the well-taken care of other side. You know, and when you're asking for something about helping students and it's like, well, it's not our idea so against you, you know. So the idea is what did we support?

I'm glad some dial change is going to happen on the housing. I'm just personally embarrassed by thinking about, like, I don't think it's going to change anything. And everybody keeps saying, well, you can't get what you want. I'm just not convinced we know what we got, and I'm not convinced what we got was what we really wanted.

I think everyone here talk about wanting net increases to houses, not less squeaky doors or less leaky windows or things like that. We wanted new doors so families can move in and feel safe. I mean, I'm curious on how it's going to look like. Now, if you do the math backwards, Mr. Speaker, and, again, using round numbers, even though it's not $50 million this year, I believe it's 41.6 or something in that range, math backwards is we're talking three -- if it was houses alone, it's three houses per community on average. But they haven't promised houses; they promised repairs. Modernizations and improvements. Not new houses. So I'm not sure what we're getting. I certainly look forward to whatever we get. I do believe that improved healthier lifestyle, whether now we're talking about suitability of houses, if it fixes families and our communities and -- I think that's a good thing. It's hard to say no, but it's just hard to say what did we actually buy.

And the last part I'll speak to, Mr. Speaker, is I frankly hate the phrase negotiation. I don't feel like we negotiate. I feel like what are you going to let us have. And I think people don't put that into perspective enough. So the media's going to go blah blah blah, they negotiated a good deal. I don't care what they're going to say obviously -- yeah, they can say whatever they want. We didn't negotiate. We got what they let us have. And that's it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to all our colleagues here, both the Regular MLAs and to the Cabinet, for the hard work that went into this budget. I know that we don't always get what we want, but I am pleased with the budget. I am pleased that there's more money put in the budget for housing. And we know that there's a lot of problems in the small communities, mental health, and drugs in small communities are on the rise, and there are efforts being made to address those issues. And similar to what my colleague from Mackenzie Delta said, there is room for improvement. But there is a good working relationship with the Cabinet and with the Regular MLAs and with the Indigenous government and organizations which I am pleased about.

I feel like the government is listening to us, you know. They're listening, and they're hearing our concern. With all the statements that we have been making since last year, since last -- well, last fiscal year and the beginning of the last fiscal year as well too, so they have been listening, they have been hearing our concerns for that reason that there's more money put into the housing, and which housing is a major issue in small communities so I am quite pleased about that.

There is something that I am worried and concerned about is that in Tlicho region that Tlicho communities are growing, and they are expanding. For example, Behchoko, they're building a new subdivision. That means that there's going to be a new -- more houses that's going to be going up and a new school will be built. So the thing that I see problem with here is that MACA, MACA funds, it's not going far enough. That one we need to -- that needs to -- they need to start focusing on working with small communities, especially the communities that are expanding, that are growing. More of our people are going home. You know, we're not living -- there's a lot of social issues in all the communities, even in the larger regional centres. Because of that, there's a lot of people that are saying they want to go home. And we have seen that happen in many of the small communities. So I am quite pleased with the budget right now, but it's just that the MACA needs to start focusing on working with the community government. And in Behchoko alone, that we will need more program and service delivery when the new expansion -- when we complete the new subdivision and with the infrastructure as well. So I am pleased. For that reason, for a lot of other reasons too, I will be supporting this budget as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from the Deh Cho. To the motion. Member from Monfwi.

(audio) this has been my first year working in -- doing the job that I'm doing. And going through a lot of -- seeing a lot of things change, seeing a lot of things happen and not happen, the drugs are in our communities, they're devastating lives of our people, health care. I'm happy that we have the -- we passed a motion to allow medical escorts. Now I don't know how that's going to work out, but when it does work out people will be happy about that. We had some little wins. And I reiterate what a lot of my colleagues said, there were things that happened, we got some things, some things we didn't get. But the way I look at it, we got some little wins and things happen slowly. We can't get things, everything we want right now. But all in all, I was sent here to work for the people in my riding. It's been a tough -- it's been a tough time for us. But we're working -- we're working together to make sure that our people get what they -- what they need. It's not easy. We've had a lot of -- a lot of death in our community -- our communities in the last while. So people are hurting. And here we're dealing with -- we're dealing with budgets and having to deal with even our own personal stuff, our own personal issues around our families and stuff and yet we're working to help our people.

In regards to housing, I'm happy what we got, the $30 million for the next three years. Health care, like I mentioned, a motion to get medical escorts. However, we have the issues of drug and alcohol issues in our communities. But all in all, Mr. Speaker, we have to work together to find solutions for the things that we're dealing with. Even though things may look bleak to some, I say, Mr. Speaker, while my colleague sees a glimpse -- I see a glimpse of hope for our people working with this government, and my colleagues on the other side, the Cabinet, if you work with them, they will work with you. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm standing here to say I'm going to be supporting this budget. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the commitment that the government will be spending $50 million on housing during each of the next three years is significant. We have been working towards this since the beginning of this Assembly. This wasn't something that we just came up with a few weeks ago. And we've been engaged in advocacy for housing both through our committees as Regular Members and in individual meetings with the Minister, that I know many of us have had, trying to figure out a practical path forward on this. So we're starting to see the fruits of those labours, and I am encouraged.

I do believe we still have a lot of work to do, particularly around figuring out how we can better support people who are currently in public housing to move towards homeownership. That's a message I've heard strongly and repeatedly, especially from my colleagues representing small communities. I think a big piece of what we need there is to get going on large -- a large-scale amount of repairs and renovations in public housing to allow people to take over units and own them as their own. And I do expect that at least some of this new money will be supporting those efforts. But that will also take significantly ramping up our supply of tradespeople, any apprenticeships, and the building of workforce capacity to get those kinds of repairs done. So this is not simply a matter of dedicating a certain number of millions of dollars to big ticket items. It's about putting the various pieces of our mandate priorities together, focusing our resources on programs that all lead towards the same goal, and I do think that one worthy and inspiring goal could be increasing rates of homeownership in the territory.

Now, the issue of community learning centres still sits in a difficult position. Aurora College's announcement (audio break). *INSERT