Mr. Chair, I believe in that program for elders, and if we can keep our elders healthy, we can keep our elders active. For a $10,000

investment of helping somebody build a shack out on the land…. It’s not a residence. It’s accommodating them so that they can have a place where they can go to continue their traditional pursuits: hunting, fishing, making dry meat, making dry fish, tanning moosehides and whatnot. To me, active elders, healthy elders are the ones that are showing the young people what healthy living is all about. I think it’s important, as a government, that we don’t try to stigmatize these people: “Well, we’re giving you another house.” The shacks that we’re building on the Elders on the Land program previous to this were strictly for elders to go out on the weekend or whatever and have a place where they can sleep, cook and basically have a little shed beside their place to dry meat or dry fish or even tan moosehides.

For myself, I fully support this initiative. You go to the communities and you know who the healthy people are in the communities strictly by looking at these people. It’s the elders who are basically showing the way to the rest of the community and who are basically continuing to be active, continuing to be independent, and a lot of them would sooner be out on the land, taking on these activities, than sitting in social housing and flipping TV channels.

I think that we as government have to find ways to support the elders, especially to carry out their traditional activities. I know that in my community, a lot of people have taken advantage of that program. But simply because they are social housing clients or they’re in the Housing Corporation system, they are being refused this program. Again, I think that if you can define what you mean by another residence, by way of the value of that residence — it doesn’t have power, it doesn’t have running water and it does not basically have electrical fixtures. So personally, I think that by using that in your policy, it’s eliminating or excluding elders from a program that was really designed to get these elders back into the traditional lifestyle, let them continue their traditional pursuits, but more importantly, keep them active.

I’d like for this government and this department to seriously look at reinstating that program to ensure that elders still have the ability to carry on their traditional pursuits on the land, whatever they are.

With that, Mr. Chair, I’d like to move a motion to that effect and request of this government that it reinstate the Elders on the Land and, more importantly, find a way that we can work to assist elders to live long, healthy lives and be the stewards of our communities. They do play an important role in our communities.

I find it very sad that we find every reason to help big industry with pipeline and hydro developments and whatnot, but when it comes to elders, who are

the most valuable asset we have in our communities, we’re not there to make their lives more responsive — but also more enhancing — by assisting them with these types of programs. It’s not as if we’re spending tens or hundreds of dollars. We’re spending in a range.... Like I said, $10,000 is all you need to spend to build these sheds or shacks on the land where these people still carry their own wood. They still pack their water. They’re independent, and for me, an independent elder is more healthy than an elder who basically finds themselves housed in an apartment or a home where they can’t have access to anything else.

I’d like to leave that thought with the Minister. I think it’s important that we find a way to accommodate elders with regard to that program, which I feel we should reconsider. So with that, Mr. Chair, I’d like to move a motion.