Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this page. And I just want to stress that the extended health benefits concern is significant to the riding. And it's a little bit of divide and conquer that FMB may have been preaching or pushing this perspective for some time saying well, you need to do this this way and this this way and based on these types of fairness calculations. But who really decides what's fair and reasonable is us, really. And I mean when we're struggling to keep people here and a reason to stay here, I mean, folks are now being paid more whether they're in Alberta or BC and, you know, they're reluctant of wanting to stay every day becomes a different type of factor, and it's frustrating. The divide and conquer concern is by now extending it to seniors, which I'm happy, just for the record, that they're not at risk, but what it is is it finds a way to continue to marginalize the opposition to this and -- by saying that, well, it only now affects a small group and we're going to be income testing them and doing this and doing that. And, you know, it's just -- you know, there was a time that the NWT was certainly the place to be, whether it was for experience, whether it was for money in the sense of employment, whether it was for opportunities, adventure. And there were many stories have been written, that I've heard throughout my life here, and how exciting it is when you hear about saying why are people here? Well, you know, I came on a whim and I stayed, and I created a family. And so that's very important. And I think these types of changes put this at risk.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm being very serious but in the same token not. You know, like I'm prepared to do what we need to do to reverse this. I'm not prepared to do a hunger strike but I am willing to be serious if necessary. But we need to find a way to revisit this. And it's frustrating, and it's upsetting. And those who now are on the screening list, you know, there's so little money garnered by pushing the income test. It's just -- it becomes one more frustration. And I know there wasn't anyone on the campaign trail that brought us here in the swell of support that each one of us shares that didn't hear something to the effect of cost of living is frustrating. And now we're just finding new groups to pay more. And that's really what the issue is, is that new groups are paying more. And they weren't defined before but we're certainly defining them now, and we're defining them to raise more money. And I get it, we need money. But I think it's about choices. And maybe the issue I want to stress on this is the fact that sometimes we have to think things through fundamentals. And I know vote one money isn't the same as vote two. But when you talk to somebody at their door and I tell them that, you know, like oh, we need $10 million more for one program, what that really boils down to is it's about less than 4 kilometers of highway. And it really stings when you think about that. You know, what are we willing to do to collectively support people? You know, I mean, I'm sure everyone would give up an extra couple kilometers of chip seal. I know no one wants to give up their chip seal. But that said, when we think about it collectively well, we'll give up a little bit more and work together to get the ends in. And I'll tell you, there's very little as important out there when you -- especially as you get older -- now, I mean, I'm looking in this room and I'm seeing a lot of, I'll say, less young people, and nothing becomes more relevant than health as time goes on. And then you learn that health and family go hand in hand. And health is very important. And I don't want people to put their health at risk over 1 kilometer or 2 kilometers of chip seal, whether it means we upgrade the -- you know, the housing trucks this year and we push them back a year, or the infrastructure car, or whatever. I mean, the point is we can always find a way. We just have to want to be willing to collectively be responsible for that way. And so I'm not sure what the right approach is, but -- although currently a hunger strike is off the table, but I'm not going to say it won't be if we need to be serious about this. And this really affects lives. This scares people. And I think, you know, that's got to shake at the core of the business we do. And so I wish we were, as Members -- unfortunately Members are in the position of deletion, not addition, and that's the process of how our -- well, all these legislative systems work, so. But, I mean, we must revisit this. And waiting a year for a promise that we'll revisit it and whatnot, I think that that's too late. You know, whether -- I've heard the saying a long time ago, and it's one of my favorite sayings, and I'll end on this point, is that, you know, you cannot unring a bell. And that's what this is. It's a ringing of a bell, and it sets the tone, and it's impossible to undo. So you can change the program back all you want, and that would be great, but the truth is that once it's changed it sends that message, and that's -- that'll resonate with people.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to leave it at that. I just wanted to speak to the particular page. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. And I can't emphasize enough this decision has to be revisited, you know, for the sake of the many, not just the few. Thank you very much.