Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to begin by thanking all of my colleagues for all of their work over the last few weeks in the budget negotiations on both sides of this House. I think this has been a true exercise in consensus government, and it's one where, you know, consensus does not mean we all agree. I understand, and I hear the concerns of my colleagues who have voiced their opposition today, and it is my hope that we will use the next year to win their votes, and, you know, hopefully we'll see another group of MLAs voting against the budget, because that's the balancing act; we need to push the tensions on both sides where not everyone's going to walk away happy, and that's essentially what a budget does.

I don't want to repeat too many of my comments made in my reply to the budget address. I proposed that we spend $20 million more on housing. I proposed a number of ways we could get there. I encourage my Cabinet colleagues to, you know, continue that discussion.

And Mr. Speaker, that $20 million was -- well, it was a number I just pulled out of the air, but it has some significance. That's the amount of money that the CMHC currently gives the Housing Corporation. It's the amount that expires in 2038. I believe it is the number that has completely hampered our Housing Corporation from changing its perspective on housing. It still believes that it is federally funded and hopes that this money will come back one day. And Mr. Speaker, we in this House have to realize that housing is our responsibility; replacing that CMHC funding is our responsibility, and we have to get on our way to do that.

Mr. Speaker, with -- throughout the budget negotiations, we got one fifth of the way of doing that. There's $4 million more for the Housing Corporation. I'm very happy to see that.

And Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify an important distinction. That is $4 million in committed ongoing funding. In the past, we have negotiated a number of increases that are one-time funding, and then they disappear. And that doesn't help us solve or systemic problems in any way.

I would gladly take an ongoing commitment of $4 million than I would take $25 million in one-time spending. The Housing Corporation needs to know that money is in its budget, that it can plan long-term, and it can eventually get over this fear of 2038. So if we do this five more times, Mr. Speaker, we'd get to $20 million.

There is also $2.2 million in one-time funding for shelter services. That is money that is continuing a lot of the great work we did in response to COVID-19 in regards to our most vulnerable. I don't believe that should be one-time funding, Mr. Speaker. I believe that should be ongoing funding and we don't lose that support.

One of the things that came out of budget negotiations which I believe has a long-term potential to be a lasting legacy for this government was the commitment to look at all of our contribution agreements and turn them into long-term contribution agreements, multiyear fundings with inflationary increases.

I have a number of non-profits who operate in my constituency, and they tell me they have contribution agreements that haven't increased since 2009, Mr. Speaker. That is just simply unacceptable. And they have to report every single year on those with no increase permitted.

Mr. Speaker, I think the devil will be in the details here. But I think we need to review every single contribution agreement we have. Let's turn them into at least three-year multiyear contribution agreements with inflation built in. Let's minimize the reporting. And then at the end of those three or five-year contribution agreements, let's evaluate their program, Mr. Speaker.

And I think for some of our longstanding NGOs who receive those, we could turn it into block funding. We know the programs they're offering. They're not going away any time. We can minimize the administrative burden and give them the freedom to do the work that they need to do.

Last thing, Mr. Speaker, in my budget reply, I expressed concern about contract services. A number of departments continually lapse their contract services budget, most notoriously, the Department of Finance. So they are not spending the money out there.

The contract services is a -- over $200 million of the budget. It's a very significant area, and some of it is absolutely essential. However, Mr. Speaker, I have seen a lot of contract services which seems to be when a department gets into a situation where there's some controversy and they don't want to make a decision, they -- they get another report; they hire another consultant; they go out and do some more engagement, and we end up in committee getting handed five different reports on the same topic because no one has wanted to make a decision that will -- will offend anyone, Mr. Speaker.

So I encourage when we're doing the contract services report, let's look at those consultants and some of the repeat work we've been doing for years, often to ex-GNWT employees, and maybe let's just make the tough decisions the first time instead of spending millions and millions of dollars on consulting services.

So I encourage my Cabinet colleagues, with the commitment to reduce contract services, to start with that work.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I think there's also a bit of a tension right now in defining consensus government. I am a firm believer that Cabinet proposes, and the Legislative Assembly disposes, which means we on this side of the House, despite having a majority, have to be hesitant in steering the shipyard too much.

There are line items that I would love to cut. I think we have the majority, and there's millions of dollars I would like to remove from that budget. But Mr. Speaker, we elected those Members to Cabinet. They are responsible for their portfolios. They know them better than us. And I think we have to give them room to govern at times, even if it's very annoying, Mr. Speaker. Yet on this side of the House, I know Members, we are the only ones who review all of the departments. We have a bigger picture than, you know, single ministers. Often ministers have to just focus on their portfolios, and they lose that big picture.

And so it is that tension that is at play in budget negotiations. And I think we have heard over and over from this side of the House that housing is the priority. Some Members here have voiced that we didn't go far enough on housing, and I hope we continue those conversations, and we find the appropriate balance in the next budget.

But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a concerted effort by both sides on this House to enable the priorities of this Assembly, and I will be voting in favour of the budget. Thank you.