Thank you, Ms. Chair. I have to say I'm quite pleased overall with how the mandate for the 20th Assembly turned out. I can't say the same about the business plans, unfortunately, but I will say lots more about that tomorrow.

First, I feel that the development of the priorities was a collaborative process that all 19 of us could support and while the mandate itself wasn't exactly collectively authored by all of us -- and that as an aside is a wordsmithing exercise that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, done by a committee of 19 politicians. But there were numerous opportunities for both written and in-person feedback and discussion on the draft mandates.

One thing I appreciate, and I want to draw attention to because it was based on some suggestions by Regular Members, is an opening list of commitments about how the public service will do its work.

One of the most common messages I heard when I was campaigning last fall was the profound frustration with how the GNWT operates and the general workplace environment. In my opening speech last November, I said we will not accomplish any ambitious priority we set for ourselves in this Assembly until we get our House in order. So in the mandate, while it may be tempting to skip straight down to the bullet points under each priority area, I encourage folks to carefully review the opening where it states the public service is the GNWT's greatest resource and must be supported and respected with an environment that fosters a sense of purpose and well-being and empowers performance excellence and innovation. Our highly trained and dedicated public servants deserve to work in an environment that allows them to contribute to their fullest potential, that values and supports them in providing services with empathy and efficiency, and that encourages or rewards creativity and flexibility.

Now, Cabin Radio observed that some of the language used in the mandate would not be out of place in a wedding vow. That could spark some long and interesting discussions with the public and civil servants about the depth and steadfastness of anyone's love for the government. But there's no need for that debate today. I actually appreciate the tone of this mandate document. For me, it reads in an engaging, clear, and direct way, with language that humanizes what we're trying to do instead of the usual jargon and bureaucratese.

One of the commitments is to empower the public service by ensuring they're provided the flexibility to deliver programs and implement policies in ways that best serve residents. So that sounds simple, but if taken seriously it could be a profound shift in the way our government works. The government often retreats into the safety of focusing on processes, policies, frameworks, plans, strategies, and it measures its success by checking off the boxes when we've completed those things. The idea here would be to measure our success by whether we've actually helped people, made their lives better. So people would come first at the end of the day, not the letter of the policy.

In that same Cabin Radio article, the Premier related that commitment to putting people first to the need to increase the government's risk tolerance. So I agree that we should be talking more openly about risk tolerance in government. And that is unfortunately something that is missing from that list of commitments. I believe we need to enshrine a commitment to always consider, in every decision, not only the risks of new options but also the risks in maintaining the status quo. We're often biased towards accepting or just taking for granted the status quo, even when it is unjust, expensive, inefficient, while we exaggerate the risks inherent in any change. So we have to train ourselves to examine the risks and costs of the status quo first.

Another commitment that I would have liked to see more detail on is the last one around openness, transparency, and accountability by engaging with partners, the public, and the public service. So this is a major source of public frustration, and I believe we should be explaining how this government is going to do it differently. I believe we need to commit to share information as early and as freely as possible and to publicly admit when we make mistakes and communicate how we will learn from them and do better.

Now to the main priority areas, starting with housing, the emphasis in housing is on partnerships, including Indigenous, federal, and community governments, and by working to encourage private investment. I understand and appreciate that emphasis because the scale of housing needs in the NWT is vast, and the GNWT simply does not have the resources to be making billion-dollar ribbon cutting announcements about new housing. So we have to be strategic and try to leverage federal and private investment. That being said, we need to be open about -- or come to terms with the fact that public housing is going to continue to fall squarely on the GNWT's shoulders. Indigenous governments are accessing significant federal funding for housing, but my understanding is they do not want to or intend to take on public housing. But I haven't seen this government articulate anywhere our vision when it comes to public housing, what we're actually committed to accomplish in public housing over this Assembly. How are we planning to maintain our current public housing assets, repair and improve the quality of existing housing -- plenty of which is currently boarded up -- and what is our plan to try to prevent vandalism and damage going forward?

On economic foundations, one of the big reasons I pushed us to include the word "foundations" with this priority, of course, was to highlight the importance of JK to 12 education and basic literacy. And, currently, these are entirely missing from the mandate and business plans.

Now, I understand that the district education authorities rightfully maintain a lot of control over education, but this government has an important role in setting goals and expectations. The last Assembly set a goal of increasing graduation rates, which was not successful. And I believe that that goal misses the point. I think we need to set clear goals around literacy and allocate resources inside and outside the formal education system to give us a chance of meeting the goals.

Another important foundation of the economy is energy, and the mandate talks about investments in green power generation and transmission. I just want to point out that often people associate green energy and reducing emissions only with electricity, but we need to remember that transportation and heating, including those associated with heavy industry like mining, are our biggest sources of GHG emissions and also carry high costs. So we need to think more broadly and strategically about our energy transition than just electricity.

In terms of health care, I support the ideas in this section and the emphasis on primary care. But I do think there's not enough recognition of the need for a new approach to retention of health care workers.

Now, we always hear the phrase recruitment and retention spoken in the same breath, but we're actually doing quite well in recruitment yet we're losing staff faster than we can hire them. Retention requires a significantly different strategy than recruitment. So I think we need to start separating them in our thinking.

With regard to addressing the effects of trauma, one thing that's not explicitly mentioned is the need to address the root causes of family violence and gender-based violence and support survivors and their families in breaking the cycle. We do have a significant amount of federal funding to do this work, but I don't want that work to be done in the shadows.

The mandate emphasizes that Indigenous governments will need to take the lead on culturally appropriate trauma treatment, mental wellness, and addictions programming. Now, I understand the value in this; I'm just not sure how well Yellowknife can see itself in the way this priority is worded in the mandate. Yellowknife, obviously, is where almost half of our population resides, including many people from small communities who are struggling the most with addictions and mental wellness. The work of serving these folks often falls on non-profits in Yellowknife, but they are usually not eligible for the same sorts of federal funding opportunities as Indigenous governments. So it's not clear to me how they're supposed to take the lead on developing and delivering new programming when they can't even access basic sustainable funding to keep their doors open. Beyond capital or startup funding, the non-profits in Yellowknife need ongoing operational support, support from medical professionals, outreach services. Outreach nurses and social workers usually work for the GNWT. So we need to see these kinds of partnerships reflected in the mandate and the business plans.

This also relates to the mandate item around public safety, which emphasizes the need for working together with law enforcement. So often it falls on law enforcement to deal with noncriminal social issues, but I think the RCMP themselves would be the first to tell you they should not be doing that, and their resources should be reserved for criminal issues.

While there's still -- while there's renewed emphasis on on the land healing and wellness supports and aftercare support, there are still significant gaps in the spectrum of mental health and addictions.