Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate your word of wisdom. I, too, agree I want to begin by saying you're right, the individuals in the public service aren't on trial here in the sense of it's the Cabinet and their budget certainly is in the face of that and hence I wish to couch my marks around that particular thing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I did hear the budget. I'm going to say it wasn't all terrible, but -- so I want to stress that to the Finance Minister. I do know that bureaucracy works behind the scenes, you know, not days, not weeks, months and years to come up with what they do. And how do they get to where they are, and I will have some maybe -- offer perspective on that in a second, but I'll say with this: How does the government -- a lot of times the system is working behind the scenes long before, as I define it, the elected bureaucracy gets here. In other words, the train -- let's do what the bureaucracy says when it comes to this room, and we try to figure out what we want to do. The machinery behind the scenes has already been pushing a lot of these ideas. And as my good colleague from Range Lake points out, political idealism and objectives, it really represents 6 percent of our budget. It really is frustrating from an MLA point of view who is advocating for particular issues, where my other colleague on the side highlights his concerns aren't treaty issues not being fulfilled or maybe youth issues are not being filled in a small community, it's hard to get these messages out in a way that the Cabinet doesn't take them personal or think we're being critical just because we get up in the morning, say, I can't wait to be mean; who do I get to pick today. It's the fact is a lot of times it's quite frustrating, and hopefully I'll get to that further detail given the fact that really ticks along here.
Mr. Speaker, a mandate as we all know was contrived and developed and created through the discussions as MLAs including yourself was there at the discussion, I believe. That said, then that mandate gets taken behind closed doors and, of course, then the Premier issues a status on how the mandate's going to be fulfilled and then, as we all know, we get mandate letters sent to each particular must.
Mr. Speaker, what's important, though, is I want to highlight as I get to the budget and explain it is that the mandate on a high level says we care about housing -- sorry, I should clarify. We care about a lot of things. But we're highlighting housing, health, safety, and economy as the forerunners of our biggest issues we wish to carry this time around. Well, that's when MLAs are getting frustrated. When I hear my good colleague, you know, in McPherson they don't have housing for people there, when I hear my good colleague from Tu Nedhe about the fact that they can't get people in their health centres, etcetera, like, we wonder sometimes where is the war-like effort of getting those 500 houses on the ground in our territory. When we get a briefing chaired by I think my good colleague from Monfwi, you know, we hear housing says it takes us four years to deliver 100 doors to help Northerners. When we have 325, 350 people on the waiting list here in Yellowknife, we ask ourselves are we meeting the objectives in this budget to address the housing, health, safety, economy.
We have a Premier, respectfully, who talks about being the, you know, law and order Premier bringing great -- you know, great things and helping people be safe, etcetera. And that's great. I support those things. But where is the safety initiatives? I'll say in my riding specifically we constantly have people on the street. Whether they're homeless, whether they're there for various reasons, I'm not here to diagnose that, but we have public safety issues that are real, and their alive. I got a call a few days ago from a constituent saying they're trying to get out of the mall and they're being mobbed by certain people in certain situations. Now I'm not here, again, to diagnose every reason why these folks are here but these are real issues. We have tourists being cornered. You know, we need safety -- public safety issues.
Our economy, Mr. Speaker, I can't go on long enough, and certainly I only have 16 minutes left, but the fact is the finance Minister mentions about the GDP or the market's down in the sense of our revenues, but the truth is we know how to make money, and we also know how to save money, and we also know how to not spend money. Let's start with making money.
Let's harness the collective potential and the excitement of our mining industry. There is no shame in saying we are a mining territory. We are a resource territory. We all know, as pointed out by the Range Lake colleague here, that the fact that if we did offshore oil and gas, that would be a new diamond mine. Not maybe one. Maybe five. I don't know what the right answer is. But it's that type of excitement. We have a diamond mine saying we want to continue business for another 20 years in the North. Here's our opportunity to say yes, we can. So we have people like stories like my colleague of Frame Lake, you know, telling passionate stories about trying to -- people get ahead. It's these issues hitting the hallmarks of our mandate should be clear and simple. Every department, whether it's housing, we're going to do more housing. Health, we're going to find a way to be supportive of housing. MACA, we're going to find a way to produce land for housing. Justice, we're going to give justice for housing. Like, every Minister should be screaming housing matters. And the same so in this budget through the Finance Minister should be hitting every one of those bells. I'm doing this because we're improving the economy. I'm doing this because we're bringing more tourists and art and people are buying more arts in our community. Those are great things. But to the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, you know, when we get investment here through the mineral investment policy, what other policy do we get an 8 to 1 return? It spurs our economy.
Take my colleague as well from Range Lake. He says let's tax online gaming. It doesn't tax people locally like, say, cigarettes or property taxes or etcetera, etcetera. It taxes money that's leaving the Northwest Territories. We're bringing it back. So whether the analysis says there's $200,000 left on the table or $2 million left on the table -- sorry, falling off the table, I should really say, we should be innovative. If we want to be innovative, why don't we hold an economic forum through the finance Minister? We have incredible staff and talent in that shop that know these things. We could simulate an innovation discussion through them in saying how can we help the local economics catch on fire, how can we get the capital moving, how can we get the regions moving, how can we support the communities to spur their economy. We have those types of things. These are way more smart than just a calculated risk. We have the know-how. We have people who do this. Tap into them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, I think earlier, NHIB, great one. It's in a mandate letter to the Minister of health. If we want to talk about more revenues for the Department of Finance, I'm supportive of that. We have two health czars. We have one we imported from Saskatchewan. We have one we have from Hay River. Two people reworking and examining the health system. NHIB is a listed issue in the mandate letter to the Minister of health. It says finalize negotiations to recoup full costs.
Mr. Speaker, we're watching money go out the door with no effort of fighting back that it belongs to us. There's opportunities everywhere, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the public service, as great as they are, including the Indigenous governments hiring up to 200 people, I think as mentioned by our finance Minister, is great. I like -- you know, government jobs are well paying jobs. That's great. I don't care where they are. Anywhere. They're excellent jobs. But we can't rely on the public service, whether in Yellowknife, whether in Behchoko, whether they're in Wrigley, to save the economy. And we know this, but we're so afraid or bashful to say to save the economy, we need an economy. And that's what's important.
Mr. Speaker, when I see things such as practically 50 percent vacancy for doctors but then I read in the budget we're putting $5.4 million -- on page 10 by the way if anyone's looking -- for locum accommodations, is this not a signal we're doing something wrong? Is this not a flag in the air saying wait a minute, we need to ask ourselves what's going on here and how do we turn this around? This budget should be saying how do we reenforce the attitudes, perspectives, and needs, and give the much energy we can to our medical support system as possible.
We've heard from doctors. I've heard from them. My colleagues have heard from them. I mean, everybody's heard from them. I'm not sure who's not listening to them. That's the problem. When they say we need help and support in our administration, at first I didn't know what that meant. To me, it's just this nebulous word of, oh, administration. What? You don't like to sharpen your pencils? No. It's the fact that they write these reports, and they get shut down, and then they become -- they become the administrators, clerks on their own stuff when they want to be on the frontline saying, you know, hello, ma'am, how can I help you? You brought your child in here; I'm listening. That's the issue. It becomes a -- red tape -- thank you, a red tape issue for them. They want to do more. When I see $5.4 million added to the system but I hear doctors wanting to quit or who have quit who refuse to even think about coming back, they go, you know what, I want to manage my own schedule, don't put the $5.4 million into accommodations for locums, that is, put it into making doctors happy who want to work. And many of them -- I'm starting to get a central theme here -- would like to go back to fee for service because they say it's way more financially in their interest. And I'm telling you as a person, as a family person, as a friend of many of my colleagues here, look, whatever it takes to get doctors. Whatever it takes.
The same could be said about nurses, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not going to repeat about that.
Mr. Speaker, we've got mines on record saying they want to be a partner in our economy. Again, another flag I wish would be highlighted in our budgets. I know the finance Minister is live to these things. I'm just worried that, you know, frankly, these things are right here. Mr. Speaker, the failed policy of $150 million reduction times three, $150 million, those cuts, I want to assure the public most Members -- I can't speak for all -- weren't in favour of it. Most Regular Members, that is. And Regular Members were just as surprised when it was announced by the Premier and the finance Minister a year ago. And it's no surprise we're not meeting it. The problem is is that, you know, if they don't do that, where are they going to go? You know, what's on the chopping block this time around? The question is will it be inclusive schooling next? Will it be things like midwifery that actually save us money when we can't get a doctor in a small community or other types of things? Will it be other things like that? I don't know. Mr. Speaker, we can't keep, you know, asking ourselves these questions why are people frustrated when they give us the answers and we ignore them. So I'm not sure why we do that.
Mr. Speaker, everybody tells a story. And I've mentioned earlier that our budget should be telling the story about our mineral resource innovation, our doctor innovation, our nursing innovation. Mr. Speaker, it's frustrating as a Member sitting on this side. I mean, it isn't all doom and gloom, but every time we look at these situations, it creates tension. It creates tension with Members. It creates tension with the public. It creates tension with colleagues here in the Assembly, those who are listening, those who aren't listening. I mean, I can see it, and I can appreciate that too. But, you know, when I go outside of this building and I ask real people how do they feel, I'm curious on how they're going to feel about this budget. Do they feel inspired there's more better days ahead than behind us? I don't know yet. So do I think there's good times?
I remember good times, Mr. Speaker. And I'll preface it by saying I'm not talking about I'm so old I remember things old, old days, but I am old in my own way. I'm so old I remember looking forward to eating Pilot Biscuits and liking them. Mr. Speaker, I remember when -- I'm so old I remember when we talked about Spam and Click as the northern steak, you know, the good old days. I still have that optimism, Mr. Speaker. You know, someone will say, how are you doing, and I say I'm optimistic even when I'm not, because I want to say we need to put that energy into the conversation. We need to put that energy in the relationship of what we're doing. That's what we need in this budget. We should be talking about our optimism, the things we can do. Now I'm reworking a saying, we've all heard it before, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the NWT that cannot be fixed with what's right about the NWT. We have a lot of dedicated people in our public service. We have a lot of northern industry that wants to be the solution. We have community governments that want to be the lead partner in any of these initiatives. So when it comes down to the lack of statement in our budget saying we want to build 5 more -- 500 million -- let me try it again -- 500 more houses, the GNWT should be saying, how can we draft your proposal so you could be the lead and have better access to these initiatives? Because strong communities actually, in my view and in my experience, is strong for the territory. And if we have housing, stable housing, we have healthy people. When we have healthy people, we'll have productive people. It's not a simple formula but it's -- you know, it's not that complicated either. People need housing, and they need support.
I mean, I hear my good colleague, Mr. Nerysoo, talk often about trying to empower people and finding ways. This is exactly it. If we stabilize their living, we can encourage them to work. We can encourage them to give back. We can even encourage them to volunteer. But even the way we have our income support system right now is you don't have to do any of that once you're on it. We need people to look forward to getting up in the morning, contributing in the way that they can. And I want to stress that, in the way they can. Not the way I'm telling them, not the way somebody from down south thinks they should by whatever standard they create, but the way they can.
As a reminder to the Cabinet, again back to sometimes we're probably frustrated or tensioned, and as I said at the beginning sometimes there's frustration about how this comes about. I won't go through how the steps of the process of the mandate. But all that develops the budget, and the budget, again, is developed by a bureaucracy over, you know, weeks, months, years, etcetera. But believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, it's hard to imagine most public -- the public doesn't really realize that MLAs get the first crack at the budget just before it's presented to the people, and then we're asked when the ink is dry, what do you think?
So on -- if I have my dates correct, on January 13th was the first sit down MLAs had to discuss the budget in its context in draft form. On January 24th, that was 24 days ago. And then just a few days after that, it had its wrap up. So less than two weeks, basically Members are given the opportunity to coalesce. It's unfortunate because I'll say without intending to insult party politics light, Cabinet presents budgets as a package. In other words, this is what we agree as Cabinet, and this is how it's going to be. But unfortunately, when it comes just two weeks ago to Members, two weeks and 24 days, that is, Members represent independent Members. We're not a party. We're a loose fit confederation that can unite on certain issues and whatnot. So when Members say there isn't enough in this budget, when it says that 6 percent isn't connecting with the communities, that's where you get the frustration because the budget practically -- the ink is well dried, decisions have been made in isolation without us. And, again, Cabinet may have been working on these initiatives for years, but it's hard to see them in the budget when Members say we want to be part of that success.
I hear frustration from constituents that the government hasn't reworked and rewritten the northern bonus, Mr. Speaker. I'm squeezing this in near the end just to make sure. And I think we're losing people, and we're getting frustration on that. What we see is when it comes to us, we're wondering is the bureaucracy telling the political machinery well, you get 6 percent to play with or 6 percent matters enough that we'll let you decide where we're going. It's the analogy that we all know of the old tail wagging the dog. And it's frustrating as an MLA when we hear the budget on these types of things. Yes, I acknowledge there are good things, and I will acknowledge them in a way when I have more time. It just feels like it's disconnected from this side of the House. It feels disconnected in a way of saying when a community wants a community hall because that changes the community, whether they have gatherings, children play in daycare, whether it's somewhere war to go. You know, as a kid like myself growing up in a small community, we had a small community centre. It was called the friendship centre. It changed the world of young people. It kept them busy. So when we have colleagues who are asking for these things, that's why we're asking for them. It's not because we think, well, the government has too much money. As a matter of fact, we want happy people and we want to see this reflected in this budget.
Mr. Speaker, as time ticks away or in many ways, I would like to see our government reconsider a couple things. One, for instance, for example, trade subsidies. Right now, if you're a male, it's $9 an hour. If you're a female, it's $16 an hour. Frankly, I don't care how you get there or who does it, I'm happy we're putting this in. I want to see us fully fund trades people for their first year. Someone experienced with the industry, guys like my good colleague Mr. Edjericon, will understand that it's very expensive. It's a financial loss for anybody to stimulate -- or sorry, hire a tradesperson in their first year. We all know it's a loss. So they spend so much time and energy. This would bolster people by saying, well, wait a minute, I'm not losing as much money. They want the trades to hire. Things like that. They want to bring -- I would suggest we need to start taking a full look at our NGOs and asking them what can they do to be our partners. Whether it's in long-term care, whether it's in daycare, it doesn't matter to me. I think we need to find other ways to find this. We can put a full force on trying to attract the military. I wish that was saying in this budget because military money is good money, Mr. Speaker. Very good money. And, Mr. Speaker, I've already started to scratch together a proposal to the Premier of saying how we could create a joint committee so we can do a full, full offence on this idea. And it's not my idea. It's not a new -- it's an old one. But at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, there's more things right with the territory than wrong, and I think we can continue to harness that energy. Whether it's starting an economic committee, whether it's getting the military to invest us, we have the opportunities. We have diamond mines who want to employ people. I want to see happy, healthy people. And I hope our budget can find ways through this before we reach the end of this session.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time. I thank my colleagues across the way for their time. I definitely thank my colleagues on my side of the House for their time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. Replies to Budget Address, Day 1 of 7. Acknowledgements. Oral questions.
