Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to build on the statement given by my colleague from Kam Lake. There have been many successes of the integrated case management approach, many individual successes, but, ultimately, those pathfinders are trying to run a person-centred method of helping people in a system-centred institution.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the writing is on the wall with the upcoming evaluation of the integrated case management project. What will happen is that unit will have discovered many barriers to systemic change; there will have been many successes for people with complex needs; yet, they are not empowered to bring about the regulatory, the policy, and the legislative changes required. That is our job in this House.

I don't believe that these solutions are that complex. They require front-line workers making a "yes" the default answer. They require our front-line workers having flexibility to interpret policies that, when a person with complex needs is in front of them, they can allow the policy to work for that person. They require our departments to talk to each other and create case files for individuals with complex needs. They require our departments to email each other on the front lines.

Right now, when we want to make policy changes, we have to go up, all the way up the chain and then all the back down, and what actually should have been an easy policy shift that happened when the complex-needs individual was in front of them takes months. Mr. Speaker, we need to make housing and income support talk to each other better. We need to extend the time period that a person can be on income assistance so that they're not struggling with monthly reporting and fear of eviction and complex health needs all at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our integrated case management unit has discovered many of the systemic problems in this GNWT. I believe that they have the solutions. The question now is: are they going to be empowered to bring about the systemic change and break down the silos in our government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have questions for the Minister of Justice on integrated case management.

Yes, thank you. This just, once again, goes back to that accountability piece. It is going to be very easy for us to, you know, create 125 new jobs if we create some programming and then claim those new jobs that emerge, but my question is, you know, is this taking into fact the labour market forecast, the needs assessment, which says we're going to be losing jobs over the next four years? Is this a net increase of 125, or is this just 125 that can be directly correlated to GNWT projects and programs? If there's not an answer to this right now, I am glad to have ITI or someone come back to committee. I just need to know: are we expecting to outpace the labour market forecast in all of the projections we have right now? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am wondering what the metric we are measuring this against is. If you actually look at the labour market forecast, we are going to lose far more than 125 jobs in the next four years in the small communities. That's just the economic reality that we are facing. When we see "increase by 125," do we mean that we're actually, despite the projected loss of jobs, going to increase 125, or are we just talking about ITI going out and creating programs that then offsets the projected loss by 125? What are we pegging this against? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I suspect that I will ask this question at a later time. I think there needs to be some analysis of whether we are just providing $5 million flat or whether we are closing the gap by $5 million, because those are different numbers. My next question is: this is coming in the next three budgets, 2021, 2022, 2023; is the anticipation that those will all be equal amounts of the $5 million and whether it is $5-million-plus? Will it be equally distributed?

Sorry. I am not sure that clarified my question. We have thrown money at this before, but, if you don't put enough money to keep pace with the deficit as it grows, you don't actually close the gap. Can I just clarify that? If it is 40, the goal is to get it to 35, and then this will cost us more than $5 million. Is that correct?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The municipal funding gap, it is not exactly a fixed target because it grows with inflation. Can I just confirm whether we are going to close the gap by $5 million, factoring in the fact that it is consistently growing so that this priority would actually cost something more than $5 million? Is that correct?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Spoken like a true Canadian lawyer, using the French interpretation.

My second question is: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides Indigenous people the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions, providing education in their own languages. Right now, the closest we are in the Northwest Territories to doing this is the Tlicho, with their self-government.

Are we intending to amend the Education Act, amend the education formula that would come with that, change the role of the education councils to allow Indigenous peoples to have the right to control their educational systems; and are we willing to do that without necessarily settling and implementing treaty land resources and self-government agreements, the priority prior to this? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's clear that the GNWT Department of Justice got their hands all over this one. I want to note that we are implementing it within the constitutional framework. We are passing legislation and policies that best reflect the principles set out in UNDRIP.

Some history here: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was vetoed by Canada at the United Nations, because it provides free, prior, and informed consent to Indigenous peoples for any resource projects taking care on their land. Since that time, in Canada, we have kind of evolved, and there has been this conversation, "Well, consent is not a veto," which I think is really a watering down of what UNDRIP was trying to accomplish.

Can the Premier please clarify: when we implement UNDRIP, does it provide Indigenous peoples the right to veto resource projects on their lands? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is: in self-government agreements, we have two agreements concluded. Can I just have a little more explanation of where that number came from? Do we have any idea of whether they are the self-government land claim or which two, just some more background on that point? Thank you, Madam Chair.