Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the budget and heard the Minister of Finance speak on all of the initiatives. I agree that there are many good initiatives in the field of wellness and many initiatives overall in the budget. I felt that, from the first budget that this government presented to us in the House here, we were quite a few million dollars apart in what we thought a good budget was and what they thought a good budget was. This last budget, I think we were so close that I think that this time, when we get back into the budget deliberations, it will be easy for us to achieve the budget that the whole House would like to see. I thought that the items that this government put forward in the budget was positive.
I have some concerns with some areas that I just wish to highlight on a bit as I go on to talk about my address. I felt that there should be more money spent in the smaller communities. The government already has programs in place for addressing some issues. I have always said in the House and I think the Minister of Finance has always agreed with me that the best social program that the GNWT could have was employment. There are several areas, but I just want to highlight some of the areas that I felt were what I would refer to as low-hanging fruit, where it was easy for the government to spend money in the small communities in these areas. I felt that the access roads program, which is an O and M program, was somewhere where the government could have easily expanded that program by 50 percent without too much difficulty, and the results were quite significant and the positive results were quite significant for these small communities.
I felt that there would be more money put into educating and delivering homecare services across the territory. I know that, this budget, at the time the budget was done, there was some money moved out of homecare and put into another area of great importance, the Child and Family Services, which I support, but I have always advocated for more education for individuals who would be working in the field of homecare. I felt that was lacking in the budget, that there would be more education, more homecare workers. I know that there are some difficulties in actually getting people who were willing to work in that field. I have talked to the Minister of Health and Social Services many times about this and his desire to see a new workforce in homecare services, so what I am saying is that maybe a different approach, an educational type of approach to that, would have been where we would have spent some money in there.
I felt that the conservation economy could have used more funding. I felt that the conservation economy had tremendous returns, that there are a couple of programs across the territory, a couple of guardianship programs across the territory, that were benefiting the community and that they were seeing a reduced amount of spending in social programs, that this money was good value, good value for the GNWT, was money that was spent and then the returns over a longer period of time. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, you can't get the returns the same year that you are putting the money in, but you were getting returns. The returns were quite tremendous. The returns were maybe two and a half percent, two and a half to one. In other words, for every dollar spent, you would save $2.50 in the social end of it, so I thought that more money could have gone into conservation.
That kind of leads me to another thing that I thought would be important. That was how we handled the whole issue of Fort Smith and Inuvik in as far as the whole discussion about the university here in Yellowknife. I thought that this government could have put money into Fort Smith and that they could have gained friends in Fort Smith and friends in Inuvik. I felt that it was the delivery of that. I felt the idea of the university, written by the consultant, kind of pitted Yellowknife against Fort Smith. It kind of pitted Yellowknife against Inuvik. That shouldn't have happened. I think this government should have indicated clearly how the money was going to be laid out. You know, I felt that it was an ideal, perfect opportunity to develop Aurora College in Fort Smith into a conservation school or a trades centre, and a trades centre. You know, there is some opposition to it being a trades centre because there wasn't a continuous flow of students because they would come for three months, four months at the time and whatnot.
There are also so many trades that were not being addressed in the Northwest Territories that can be. I think becoming a cook, some sort of technicians and things like that, that are tradespeople, that would benefit from having a trades centre in Fort Smith, and a conservation school is ideally located. It was ideally located to be a conservation school because the park is right there. They could train park officers, renewable resource officers, guardian programs, rangers, the Canadian Rangers. Canadian Rangers could be a part-time job. That is a job for small communities. Again, those types of returns will be seen in those types of jobs.
I felt that the government could have put more money into small community employment. I felt that that was something that was a no-brainer. You put money in, and you are seeing immediate returns. You are putting money in, and you are getting it back almost immediately because you are taking people off income support. Right now, the government is willing to pay income support. They got money into income support, but putting enough money into the employment side of it to reduce income support, use that money, bridge people to EI if that is what it takes, you know. All of a sudden now, the government is drawing on the federal government purse and legitimately so, so I mean those types of strategic spending that I have always spoken about in the House.
I thought that more consultation money should have been put in by this government in the area of lands, whether you are going to be leasing lands, taxing lands, charging leases to individuals in the communities and outside the communities, leasing cabins, charging taxes on cabins, and all of those things. I thought that money should have been put in there so that the government could sit down with the communities, sit down with the people who really had issues with this. People really have issues with having their cabins taxed. You know, people have been living in these cabins for a long, long time in these communities where you have people gathering, harvesting.
This is a program, and ENR has a tremendous program, I think, with ITI. They have a program for the Genuine Mackenzie Valley Fur Program. These things, where supports should be given to the harvesters, not charge them taxes. They complain about it. They want to go out there, just to be on the land. People, you know, they're saying, "Well, if you're not using it for harvesting, then you have to be taxed for it. If it's recreation, you have to be taxed for it." But just being on the land is very healthy. Being out there. You don't have to be trapping martin. You just have to be out there, and these are the benefits. It benefits the youth. A lot of people, young families, going out on the land and not have to be burdened with the fact that you have to pay for the taxes on that property.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion in the House over the years about strategic spending. All of these things with money going into the small communities, for me, it doesn't make sense that we don't do it. Not to do it means that we are rolling further and further into debt. By continuing to support programs that have no returns, we are going further into debt, when you could use that same money to invest in the people and get tremendous returns.
I don't want to end on a negative note. I would like to say that I thought this budget was very, very close to what the people on this side of the House had, and it has gone a long ways. I told the Minister of Finance that this has gone a long ways, the budget. When we sat down four years ago, we were $150 million apart. That is a lot of money.
We have worked together. We have worked hard. Everybody on this side of the House and everybody on that side of the House worked hard to get it down to a budget that we thought would benefit the majority of the Northwest Territories, and we are getting close. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.