All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

The result of the recorded vote on the motion: nine in favour, none opposed and eight abstentions.

Motion carried.

Any further questions on Programs and District Operations, page 2-160? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the programs that we have in place, I’d just like to ask the Minister: exactly how much money is being designated for the Elders on the Land program?

Minister Miltenberger.

That program as a separate entity does not exist any longer. If there are elders that live outside of the communities as their primary residence, then we will work with them to look at it. But a program to build secondary residences for elders does not exist.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Go ahead with your motion.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The motion is on the floor and is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee just recommended, in a previous motion, to put back a few million dollars into a budget that we know has already been looked at closely to try to hit some targets. We’re coming forward, as a government, trying to keep our fiscal affairs in order, not to have our debt get too far out ahead of us.

We’re in this process together. It’s easy to make the motions to recommend we put stuff back. Yesterday in this House, or when we did Justice, there was a recommendation to keep vacant positions; don’t touch staff. We’ve been given a number of encouragements.

This program, this recommendation, speaks to housing. If it’s primary facilities or primary houses, we will look at assisting people. Our core direction is to provide core housing and affordable housing to those in need. We have a huge backlog of people who don’t even have houses, because we don’t

have enough capacity. If there is a need for a primary residence, then this would be considered. But if it’s for a secondary residence, no matter how good and positive the intent, we just don’t have the money. Once again, I appreciate the recommendation and the intent of the recommendation, but clearly, we’re in a position of having to make choices, and a primary residence for our northern people is the first consideration, especially when we don’t have enough to go around. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We talk about strong, self-reliant people all the time. I’m sometimes afraid that people have too much of a dependency on the government to do this. I mean, I will support the recommendation that this motion is making, but I also want to make the point that we do sometimes — not really knowing it — contribute to people being too dependent on the government.

Home ownership is another good example. We say they’re capable of maintaining their own homes, but then we look after the maintenance or we provide money for improvements to the home. That, in my opinion, was not the reason for giving them the home in the first place. I think there are a lot of people out there who deserve homes. Actually, I’m straying from the motion, so I can speak to my other point when we get back to the page number.

I have to make a couple of quick comments to this. I’ll support the recommendation that we reinstate the Elders on the Land program, but I also wanted to make the point that we have let people become too dependent on the government to do everything from birth to death. We talk about self-reliant individuals all the time, and I don’t think we’re contributing to that. We have many classic examples within the government, within the budget, that take away a lot of that self-reliance. It’s something that I think we have to stand back and have a look at. I think we have to address that, because if we keep going at the rate we’re going.… Again, I’m straying from the motion, so I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and I’ll make my other comments when we get back to page 2-160. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod, and thanks for the self-policing there. If I can call next on Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be voting in favour of this recommendation. It was an enormously successful program a couple of years ago. There was good uptake on it, and the elders were actually utilizing it. For us, it is a small price to pay to support our elders in a traditional activity. Often it’s not about building a secondary location; it’s actually in a traditional area where they

need improvements. That’s where they’ve been living all their lives — far, far before they moved into our communities and regional centres. A lot of it, too, is because it’s to get their needs met. Their families are growing, so they had to move to the communities. Schooling needs to happen. But they belong to the land.

One way that our government can continue with enhancing our culture, supporting our aboriginal populations and supporting the people from the land…. This is one small way of doing it. I was glad to see it and equally unhappy that it was removed in the last term.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to see it reinstated and readdressed one more time to support our elders who are living on the land, and their families. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, will support the motion to bring the program back as it was previously. If the program is as it was previously, then the program is designed to take actual elders out of core need. If taking individual clients, individual families or people out of core need is the business of the Housing Corporation, then this program was designed to take people outside of core need. So I’ll support the motion, based on the fact that it’s the same program being brought back into the fold of the Housing Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we heard earlier, this program wasn’t part of the core program of the Housing Corporation. A few years back it was added. The program then was removed from carrying on. As the Member has asked for this reinstatement, much like the previous motion — and as the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation stated — from what area? It’s a small amount, yes, but all these amounts add up. As we’ve heard from Members of this Assembly, we should not be reducing on the backs of individuals, of the people who do our work. So when we go with the program areas, we’re now being told, “Don’t do this. Put in money that we don’t have right now.”

There are many programs that we have that are of great value, and this one, as pointed out, is…. If an individual is in core need, then they need a primary facility or a home, and the programs are in place allow for that. This is a $10,000 amount, as the Member stated, that adds to a secondary facility. For $10,000 you’re not going to build a facility that you can occupy in the winter for very long, especially in our cold winters in the North.

It is important that we do that. That’s why, overall, the government has some of the best seniors programs compared to any jurisdiction in the land. But to add to that, I’d have to ask Members: if we’re going to put this back in place, then we need recommendations of where we’re going to take it from. It becomes our problem of trying to reinstate programs into place. That can be considered as we look at these motions that the committee feels…. But again, as Members look at making these motions for reinstatement, as they’ve done in another department, we’re going to have to find this from someplace else. Clearly, as a government we haven’t met our target initially. This will put us even further out there if we’re going to respond back to Members.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Further to the motion, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear the Premier’s issues in regard to the cost and whatnot, but I think there is a saving to this government if people are living healthy lives. If people are not living in the communities, they’re saving on energy costs; they’re saving on costs to the corporation. Also, they are basically independent. These programs are application-based, so you have to apply for this program; you don’t automatically get it.

I’ll use an example, since it was in my riding. The band corporation or the band itself applied for the program on behalf of its membership. They identified ten elders and they built ten — I wouldn’t say cabins — basically sheds in the bush for $50,000, at $5,000 a pop, which they did themselves. They had local people using a wood mizer. They went and got their own logs. They cut their own logs. They made the siding for those units. Yet it was $50,000 to help ten people. So for $5,000 per person, that’s living healthy — living independently, not using power, not using energy in a community, and basically hacking their own wood and hauling their own water. For me, that is a statement to how people should be showing this government how they can live healthy lives, how they can be independent and how they’re not using the social system — where basically they want to get out of the social housing situation we have in their communities.

One of the elders we have in our community is telling us that they want to get away from the community on a weekend because it’s too rowdy. It’s not healthy for them; they don’t feel safe. They want to go out to their camps on the weekend. For them it’s a matter of public safety. I think what we’re asking for here is not for the government to look at where they can find more money. We’re telling the government that we should strive for healthy, independent people. That’s one of the priorities of this Assembly, and that’s what this program does.

Mr. Menicoche touched on this. These people were landowners at one time. These people were proud, independent people. They had their own log homes in our communities. These people had their own land in their communities, and then government came along and basically, through housing programs in the North, established northern housing

in the Northwest Territories, through the

federal government.

My point is that we have a lot of housing projects that are going to be lapsed because we can’t find land. There’s money that’s going to be sitting there for those capital projects which basically are earmarked to be expended this year. But because we can’t have the land available or basically because of contracting situations, those capital dollars are still going to be there. I think it’s important to realize that this program, like I stated earlier, is healthy, and it’s also there to ensure that we have healthy elderly people.

I have an elderly lady — she’s 98 years old, and she still lives in the bush — Carolyn Kay of Fort McPherson. She’s 98 years old, and she’s out in the bush right now. We have elders in their 70s and 80s up at Eight Miles who basically were helped through this program. They’re living healthy lives. They set their nets in the summer and also in the fall. They catch fish to sustain their income. They can’t sustain themselves on their pension. So if the government wants to build one less house this year, take that money and put it into this program…. That means that of the 500-and-some units we’re building, we’ve still got 100-and-some to go. So where there’s a will, there’s a way.

On this one, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion?