Masi, Mr. Speaker. [Translation] The government has done many things to improve the healthcare system for the residents of the Northwest Territories. [Translation ends]

In recent years, the management regime for our healthcare system was restructured in the NWT Health and Social Services Authority. This structure includes regional wellness councils that provide advice and support for the delivery of programs and services by listening to community residents and bringing forward ideas, suggestions, and concerns to a leadership council for the territory. Only time will tell if this new structure will result in better healthcare for residents in small communities, but my hope is that it will.

When it comes to health, the focus of the Department of Health and Social Services is on prevention, including the promotion of healthy living as a lifestyle. There are high rates of diabetes and smoking across the NWT, and we know that our dietary habits are not changing for the better. Further, we have high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, a well-known legacy of residential schools. Experience tells me that small communities are disproportionately affected by these issues.

In small communities like in my riding, we have health centres providing health and mental wellness programs, and services to help our residents heal and stay healthy. More specialized treatments like surgery and chemotherapy are delivered elsewhere, including at a brand new territorial hospital in Yellowknife. Other positive initiatives worth noting include screenings for colorectal cancers, immunization programs, and mental health counselling services.

Despite these positive developments for the NWT, healthcare services continue to be a concern in my riding. I continually hear concerns from my constituents about how they are treated at the local health centres. On occasion, people experiencing health issues do not even want to go to these facilities for help. Unfortunately, I regularly have to encourage my constituents to be persistent in their quest for proper medical treatment, and even to seek a second opinion elsewhere.

Constituents want to be treated with care and understanding. They want to work alongside healthcare professionals to get their health concerns addressed early, not later, when timing may be critical.

Mr. Speaker, a person experiencing health ailments knows their body, and if they feel something is wrong, they should have somewhere to turn to ask for medical assistance. It is important that a resident's concerns are heard and taken seriously by the professionals we entrust and pay to help them. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My view of the legislation is that it has almost taken the form of provincial light powers and authority of lands and waters, and the jurisdiction, of course, of within the Canadian federation, but I also understand, you know, the region that I come from called the Deh Cho, have not ceded, surrendered, and extinguished, or asserted Aboriginal title, and there are still ongoing negotiations. Those treaties were bilateral in nature between First Nations and the Government of Canada or Canada back in 1921, and so that was a bilateral process from what I understand, and so a lot of the current, our land claims, are trilateral in nature, where you have First Nations, governments, and the GNWT.

My understanding is that a lot of the treaty and Aboriginal rights that haven't been resolved, that are outstanding, that are not settled yet, their rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, and with the same perspective from land claim groups. Their rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. You know, those rights that we talk about, lands and waters or lands, First Nations, are paramount in a lot of respects to the initiatives that we are seeing through at this point. A lot of them, those initiatives were born from First Nations initiating discussions in terms of trying to reach certainty on the ownership and jurisdiction and their sovereignty of their lands and waters.

You know, what has been proposed as an amendment is giving a level of certainty. Yes, we need to be assured that there will be, if a candidate area has been proposed, governments will respond in a given time. You know, it is not going to get lost in the shuffle. That proposal is not going to sit in somebody's closet, or somebody's desk, I should say, and collect dust, but it is going to be acted upon, and that First Nations governments will be involved.

My understanding is that a lot of efforts have been made between Indigenous governments or Aboriginal governments, and with the current department, ENR, advancing this whole legislation towards that today, and of course, committee doing their due diligence, and so I think I would probably more likely gain favour of the amendment that it gives certainty. Because we all seek certainty, and it has to be explicit in terms of how we work with First Nations.

For a long time, treaties and agreements that sometimes were brokered between governments and First Nations were well-intended, but sometimes those are verbal understandings. We understand, we have known for a long time that it remains contentious in terms of how it could be interpreted, so if it is written down explicitly, then the more clarity of the legislation.

I will stand in favour of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first real job was doing mapping, doing traditional land use and occupancy mapping with elders and traditional harvesters and storytellers and people, my people, who basically made the land their home. Their land was basically their life.

I have, perhaps, a fairly good understanding of the PAS movement since its inception, how it was drafted out, how it was processed, and so I have observed some of the evolution of the whole initiative. In some ways, I have seen a lot of its failures, and I have seen some of its successes in some respects. At the same time, I think that we have come a long way. The way that I understand this, reminding myself, is that we have Indigenous colleagues who played a hand in working the draft, in terms of laying the foundation of, at least, the spirit and principle of the draft legislation.

A lot of the drafting of the wording, if there was anybody who dotted their i's and crossed their t's, it was working groups who involved governments and Indigenous leaders. There is a presumption that someone did their due diligence and that what we have before us is their efforts. I think that we have done all that we can, but there has to be a level of assurances.

As I have said, one community that I know of worked very hard on protected areas initiatives and waited for approval for at least 10 years, and they are still waiting. I am hoping that what we have crafted together, collaboratively with First Nations and governments, will change that and that will at least lay the foundation for the landscape and environmental and ecological initiatives, so that the land that we want protected will become part of the process, and we will see it through.

I am not prepared to support this amended motion. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have an understanding of the protected areas initiative, and having worked on it from a community perspective for some time, understanding the PAS, in some communities, believing the process, and committed that there was a positive outcome. My understanding of the process is that it used to be in my time, maybe it would be about 10 years ago, a seven-step process. About 10 years ago, some communities were trying to advance areas within their traditional lands. In the interim of a land claim settlement, they took the steps to involve both levels of government. It could be the federal government. It could be representatives from the GNWT solely, of course, led by the First Nations government. Sometimes, in instances for funding resources, bringing along third party NGOs. As an example, Ducks Unlimited has a common vision with Indigenous people to take on conservation initiatives. Out of memory, there were a lot of candidate protected areas that were waiting approval by governments, and that was 10 years ago.

I think with the proposed amendment, it brings some clarity in terms of the possibility of perhaps Canada's protected areas sitting on somebody's shelf and collecting dust or else perhaps maybe bringing upon negotiations between First Nations, industry, and government. I think it's good to be clear, and I think, with the proposed amendments, it brings the level of clarity in terms of the idea of perhaps, you know, yes, we could make a decision on a timely basis, but I think, with the proposed amendment, it brings the level of clarity in terms of how decision-making should happen. So, with that, I will be supporting the amendment. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, wanted to commend the committee, but also at the same time the department that drafted and put forth this piece of legislation, which could be in some ways unprecedented since devolution gave responsibility of lands and water to the Tlicho Government from the federal government. I think this is a rather ground-breaking initiative in advancing, at least, the idea of environment and conservation initiatives that have been going on for some time. I think it brings the reality a step closer to realizing some key initiatives that have been long put forth by Indigenous governments or First Nations People in the NWT.

You know, just to name a few, like the Thaidene Nene has been an initiative that has been ongoing. You know, the most recent one, of course, in the Deh Cho was the federal government's involvement with the advancement of Edehzhie or Horn River or Horn Plateau protected area, and those initiatives are something that people had committed and worked a long time on those processes. You know, I just put it out there that things have to sometimes work in partnership or collaboration, but at the same time we also have to understand things work in parallel, too, as well. In a lot of ways, I think there is an almost tripartite processes with bodies and groups. It is also a bilateral processes that recognizes the idea of land claims. Regions that have settled their land claims or have their rights protected are in 6 and 35 of the constitution.

At the same time, there are some regions that haven't a settled a land claim that still retain the asserted title to their treaty and Aboriginal rights of their region. That, again, is entrusted in section 35 of the constitution, so these are key things that I think are elements that we need to be aware of. At the same time, things move forward and this piece of legislation has been worked on for some time. I'd like to see it through and advance, and so I will be supporting the passage of this legislation. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to thank my colleagues and our chair for providing the leadership in terms of our travel, our meetings, and our discussions throughout the Northwest Territories communities that we had the good fortune of visiting and holding public forums and discussion. I think that that was the basic approach, trying to create at least an understanding of the issue of why women don't get elected to the territorial level, and trying to have some discussion and raised awareness of how it is that we could create, perhaps, possibilities of changing that whole issue and dilemma that we face now.

I think that that was the sole purpose of our discussion, but at the same time, we examined some changes that we thought that we could make. We did it in an interim report, and now we are concluding the final report. We wanted to make some strategic changes. I think that those recommendations that we are going to be talking about later on capture at least some of the key things that people had expressed to us, especially in the forums that we held in the communities.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to explain in my language what this whole discussion was all about, if I could, Mr. Chair. [English translation not provided]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just explained that the way that I see it, from the perspective of the people that I represent, considering some of the really deep-rooted traditional values that we have. We have a basic dilemma at this point. There are 19 MLAs, and there are only two women. In the Dene perspective, if you are going to make a decision, half of your decision-making input is not there, so you are only making half of a decision.

I don't know how to describe it or explain it in my language, but it is a matter of perception, and that is how I explained it, that half of our decision-making is not present. This was very important for me to at least share that perspective with the many people that we met during that time of our travel throughout the communities. I look forward to the ongoing discussions. Once again, I wanted to thank my colleagues and the staff that helped us out and our chair for leading the charge on this matter. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes. I am just failing to understand how you would have deficiencies if install a completely new building. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask a question in terms of understanding the distinctions between the new residence that we are installing in Fort Providence. The Fort Providence Park Manager's Residence/Gatehouse is itemized at $8,000. Then the Lady Evelyn Falls Park - Replacement of Manager Residence, I believe they are two same buildings. The one at Kakisa is itemized for $38,000. Is there a distinction or difference between the size or perhaps the cost? Thank you.