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.