Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do want to correct one piece of information from the Member of Monfwi. I felt like we were working for her, not necessarily working with her, so -- but in the spirit of collaboration -- because, I mean, many of us recognize her particular desire of wish of that the Monfwi riding being peeled out as a specific area or economic region in the budget. And, you know, in a lot of ways, it makes sense just by itself, saying, hey, can we target? So, I mean, when she needed support for that, I can't see why anyone would oppose that. I am not saying they're getting it. It's aspirational in the statement yesterday. So we have to see if it actually does anything. And as I told the Member from Monfwi yesterday, my humble opinion is it has nothing to do with the Tlicho government. It has everything to do with the Minister of Finance saying it needs to be done. I mean, it's not the Tlicho government's budget. It's the GNWT's budget. Now, we differing on that -- we differ on that perspective. It's the old splitting hairs. But the fact is I think that that really matters. It's our budget, not anyone else's.
So, Mr. Speaker, well, let's jump into a couple things. We didn't ask for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of things. You know, we asked for a couple dozen things. And some things cost money, some didn't. Some were rewording even, you know, administratively. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, the challenge of that is I just felt like we were negotiating against ourselves. I don't even know why we call it negotiating some days. I think that the budget should have started off by talking about the unstoppable sleeping economy that's about to take over. Should have been the theme of this, how we're going to turn this around. It should have been the theme of what we're going to do. I don't feel that the budget itself addresses the economic cliff, if I may stress, that we're facing with such ferocity. I mean, I was thinking yesterday, do we have any more mines to announce a closure? Do we have any left? I mean, if we're lucky to get somebody saying we want to open one, that could be 10, 12 years. We all know the process doesn't happen overnight. We'll be lucky to get a couple of the lithium product -- maybe get a lithium project before the end of this current decade off the ground. But a lot of that has to do with the fact that the market on one of the products, you know, worth -- not worth a lot of money. And there's such competition, one project virtually kills the next one because there's not a need for that product on the market. It doesn't cost a lot of money, it doesn't make a lot of money, and if your project's more accessible, it's going to make it tough. I've spoken to the folks here. They're -- you know, they are worried. Yes, they're planning, and they're proceeding as if the project's a go, but I always worry, and they're worried too.
Mr. Speaker, I think the budget's an opportunity to be a catalyst of success, not a demonstration of status quo. And I've been part of many budgets over the years, and I just find that the resilience of the 11 Members -- as much as we try hard to draw a line, but when you show up at the last two weeks just before a session saying, here's your budget, Tulita-da, you know, and then what do you think even though it's in print, and what do you think, this is the one we're going to table, and what do you think, send us over your ideas, and then it boils down to is what we really think is more of a -- as they say, an Epimetheus, which is basically an afterthought, it feels like. I feel like it's constantly. If the government was being proactive to engage the 11 Members, which is hard enough being on itself, because we're 11 individual Members -- it would be a lot simpler if we were one party. We're not a party. We're a consensus government. I am not trying to get people wound up here. But we are individual islands, little shoals, you know, a cappella goes. It only -- once in a while, we come together as one force. And we can't even hold the line. Why? Because at the 11th hour of the budget cycle that we're just about to finish, people are tired, they're cranky. They just want to go home. They want to go on their holidays. They want to give up. Can we do any more? I don't care. Give me something, and I will go away, and I will vote for yes. Just make it in.
I think our job is to continue to hold the government's feet to the fire, and I am not sure the fortitude is being demonstrated this time around. As a matter of fact, I actually feel like the government got away very cheap this time around. I will come back to that because I really think on paper -- yet to be determined actually in dollars. But, you know, I think in paper, it really is only a $10 million success story. And I am not even sure on that because if you ask the question of, why am I not sure, it just seems like back to what my colleague from Range Lake had said. They were doing much of this already. They just re-profile it. I mean, it feels like a government announcement, the federal government, where they announce, and then they're, well, we're going to do this project. Six months, a year later, they re-announce the same project, an arena. I felt like it was a restatement of the government's goals and objectives. Very little seemed to crack the interest in the sense of it was new for us. Based on our asks, that is, Mr. Speaker.
You know, for me, seeing something, you know, immeasurable, our suggestions, in that sense, you know, it would be so important to see them in there in a manner that we know that they would stay. Sorry. I said immeasurable. I meant immutable, whereas when they're locked in. And so that -- for those who are curious, wondering what that is, that means basically you can't change it.
You know, there is, you know -- I mean, I just was -- suggested a minute ago, saying are we better off today than we were when we took office. I am not sure you can tell the difference. How we tell the difference is our hopes are higher, our economy is lower, and our dreams that the federal government will save us are really picking up momentum. Because if it isn't for the federal government coming here, saying we're going to put $5 million in the Yellowknife region -- or sorry. My apologies -- $5 billion in the Yellowknife region, $5 billion in the Inuvik region, that they might move to Yellowknife better. No. I am kidding. But in truth, without that, I don't know what we'd see. I really don't know. I mean, if it wasn't for that type of conversation, I mean, my goodness, back to the mines. Is there any mines left to close, to announce their closing?
So let's pair out here a little bit of what the Minister had said yesterday. So she talks about a meaningful role of shaping the government. Again, I've already talked about that, so I am not going to revisit that. But even if you took the influence of 11 Members, it's worth 0.015 percent of the budget. And that's assuming based on we had the influence of the $40 million, so in other words, the 10 plus the $30 million dollars for the enhancement to child care. So I hate to think, you know, it's a rounding error for our efforts here. And our efforts are restatements of programs that some are not even real. They're notional. And some are theoretic. Because some of this isn't even coming in in this budget. It's planning. We'll never see it. Well, don't worry. We agree to the plan, and the plan will come later, and we assure you. And I will get to that too.
I am reminded of one of the things that used to drive me crazy about one of the former finance Ministers. He always used to say the fullness of time. That's what this response feels like. One day, someday. That's my saying. And it feels like, well, just hold your breath. One day, someday, the notional part. Members, to my understanding, want movement on the inclusive schooling file. Absolutely. Members -- I think all Members, to their credit, not one over the other, not one higher than the other, not one less than the other, Mr. Speaker, I think it affects everyone, including Cabinet. And I think seeing movement on the inclusive schooling file gives me a real sense of juxtaposition. I am not happy with what they're presenting because they don't have a plan. And even we heard from the Minister of ECE it's still coming. So we're not sure what we're agreeing to. And that's always been a factor of me, which is I want to know what I am agreeing to. I am willing to agree to something I don't like. I am willing to agree to something I don't support. But I want to know what I am agreeing to. We're agreeing to a notional plan saying $30 million is coming forward, but we don't quite know yet what it is.
Again, federal -- it's the federal decisions that are going to make life better. As far as the primary care file, I mean, you know, one day people are railing against the public administrator, and then the next day they're saying he's the greatest. I am not sure. I am confused because, you know, we want things in this particular file, and I think, in essence, all of us want things. But, I mean, it just -- it's confusing that we're actually getting what we want. I don't feel like going through the finance Minister's full statement. But I do feel it's demonstrably disappointing because I don't feel like we actually made an actual impact. I feel like what we've been told is, you guys did a great job. That's a good AOC. Yeah, you did really good. Oh, you held us -- oh, don't worry. Don't worry. 0.015 percent of the -- oh, yeah, you really held us over a barrel. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Speaker, when I see things like the CLC, they're going to basically keep the lights on for two more years, well, they were going to do it anyway. It's the GNWT's buildings. We don't have any clear-cut plan on this, but they're restating it as a whirlwind success. And I think it's been raised by many people we still have our MRA problems. You know, I would have liked to have seen on the side, not to consume attention, some real hard studying and commitment to why our resource industry is tanking. Now, they'll say they're doing some work behind the scenes, and it'll come someday, one day. Remember that phrase? And it's frustrating because our mining industry -- we are a mining territory. And as I said the other day, you can't tourist your way into a new GDP out of this problem. You can't. I mean, I like arts. I buy art too. We had friends here recently. We said, go on an Aurora tour, spend some money. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you know this, almost cost me money taking a visitor to the diamond centre. Like, I don't know how he survived that visit. The point being is in we can only tourist our way so much out of this problem, and it's not going to have an effect over the greater GDP. So hoping the feds will save us seems to be the theme of this budget.
I am worried when we get to talking about the Mackenzie Valley, Members wanted committed routes, some details, whether it's the Taltson, to move it forward. And I am so worried about that because, you know, deep down inside, I wonder if that's ever going to happen. I mean, I like the concept of the project. I really do. I think it's a great plan. But we don't spend enough time talking about, really, will the water be there in five years? Ten years? Will the water be there for the capacity and the amount of money we're going to spend? Will the customers be there to do that? Well, we'll worry about that in a couple of years. But we've been spending 20 -- more than 20 years on this particular problem, and we still don't have a route.
I am glad -- again, the juxtaposition about how I feel about this budget, but yet I am pleased about it, is I am glad to hear they're going to ring the bell of opportunity in the social work program, the education program. But I've also suggested, you know, even not that long ago in the fall session, about trying to open the door to other trades and opportunities where we could work together through Aurora College. You know, I've highlighted some, but there seems to be little uptick. Trying to say how do we create this when I am providing opportunities, suggestions that the department, the Minister, or in the college could run with.
Mr. Speaker, I think, you know, listening to the words about how different people felt about the child and youth advocate, how it bothered people, we couldn't -- you know, we couldn't get a simple yes on this. As a matter of fact, I thought if there was one issue -- remember that little -- little islands and we all come together once in a while when the tide goes out and we all form one sort of fixed piece? I thought the child and youth advocate was the one. I really thought people would dig in and just say, no, no, no, until you do that. It could have been a simple yes, yes, yes, and we will commit money now to bring it online, and we'll commit money in the future to bring it live. They could have said, we're going to hire two people to design the office and bring it online. And, again, this is no different than what I said, you know, the previous week. How come ten provinces and two territories understand how important this is and we can't see that? Like I said, I thought that that was one that would really have made a difference.
Mr. Speaker, another thing that would have made a difference and I've, you know, certainly not been quiet about this, and I appreciate those who were willing to support the initiative, and some days it really felt like it was pulling teeth was the fact that, you know, trying to advocate on behalf of the RCMP for health crisis intervention team as a pilot. This is something the RCMP would welcome. This is not breaking new ground, Mr. Speaker. It's breaking ground on how we currently do business. And sometimes I think that that's the fear of this current design of the budget system, the budget process, the budget negotiations, if you call them, is that this is the only way it works. There are many ways for it to work. You know, being the dean of the House, you know, an old dog in the sense of legislative years, maybe not, you know, oldest, you know -- because we know we've got a few more gray-haired silver foxes around this room. But the truth is, in the old days, you know, the old governments used to spend time coming to the Members in the fall and showing them and saying, how do we work some stuff into your budget -- or sorry -- our budget. Well, it's everyone's budget to be truthful. You know, there was that give and take early. You know, maybe they would have gone to the committee, AOC, and said, you know, MLA for the Dehcho, what's important to you, and they would have said, oh, well, maybe three-phase power mattered to me. It really matters, and it'll make the difference in this community. Like, the -- it would change the community. And then go back and think about it and evaluate it, and come back and say, you know, okay, well, we can't quite get there yet, but maybe what we'll do is we'll work with you to create a plan to get there. Maybe not this budget, but we'll show you we're working hard. So you have something to go home with and show them we're moving the file beyond a no. And nothing's worse than we know better. Not just no. We know better.
In those days, it was quite collaborative. Yes, the government got most of what they want, but at the same token, they said, Members need wins. How many members -- you guys must be sick and tired of me saying this, but it matters. Members need wins. And it frustrates me that if somebody gets a win, we can't find ways to stick together for other Members to get wins. I mean, I am not picking on my colleague from Monfwi, but I just want to make a sense that, you know, I was very supportive of the Tlicho one. I will go around. I am very happy for Mackenzie Delta getting their things. But, I mean, all of us need wins, not just one or two of us. Like, the government has all the resources to do all the decisions, and then they come to us in a format of saying this is how it's going to go, convinces us otherwise. But it's almost impossible to convince otherwise because we're 11 individual groups. And that's important, and that can't be lost. 11 individual groups. There's nothing that binds us or holds us together. Perhaps hopes. Perhaps dreams. But there's nothing that holds us together.
Mr. Speaker, I feel like this government is going to miss an opportunity and, you know, in the sense of, for example, the land administration, that comment was in the in the Minister's response yesterday. I mean, I cannot stress enough I don't know how we -- I am so worried we're going to mess this up. And I am terribly worried. I mean, we hear Yellowknife city council. We hear Inuvik council. We hear Hay River council. They all want land. And it continues to be a clear-cut illustration of lead feet moving forward.
You know, when I was a young person in the 80s, not completely young, but they talked about the land lease policy will solve things. They even brought it up the other day about Justice Berger saying, oh, don't worry, we'll solve land claims, and we'll get through this in about ten years. Oh, my goodness. Justice Berger, well, he undershot that guess. But land matters. Now, I am happy to hear that they want to put a couple NAR* people in the system. Thank goodness. I just hope it changes the problem. Because you know what? The federal government can't wait for us. As a matter of fact, it's sad to say we almost require the international crisis for us to move forward on success. And I feel horrible as a person thinking about we need bad news for us to have good news here. I don't want to be that person. I don't think anyone does. But if we can't get our stuff together and aligned quickly, what do you expect the federal government to do? I mean, do you want them to issue a parliament order that they're seizing property and they're going to do this and they're going to do that? I mean, I said at the opening of the budget during the start, which is we should have been rolling out the carpet, the red carpet, the big carpet, and saying, thank God you're coming. Because hopes don't feed bellies, fill bellies. They're great stories.
So, Mr. Speaker, I really feel like if you assess what the Members asked for -- and even not that because they're restated priorities, most of them, within the government of what they are doing. But even if you just said they were ours, we're down to $10 million, and that's .003 of the budget. That doesn't feel like a win. That feels like the crumbs that fell off the floor -- or fell off the table and onto the floor. Just enough to tease us to come back next budget. So as everybody says, you can't get what you want -- always want, I just wish we felt like we got it once in a while. I wish I could be standing here saying I am voting for this budget because I am so excited that half the Members' asks were satisfied. Not even a quarter of the Members' asks were satisfied. Very few, Mr. Speaker. And, hence, it's a very disappointing process until there's a willingness to open their ears and give Members wins once in a while. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.