Rylund Johnson

I look forward to receiving that report. One of my concerns is that, during the 2017 evaluation, the integrated case management unit raised the issue that they have had many person-centered successes, but they have not had successes with the other half of the program, which is to change larger system services. In this report that the Minister of Justice has referred to, will there be recommendations for changes to legislation and policy in all of the departments that the integrated case management works with?

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...

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.

Thank you. My question just mostly relates to holding this to account. We are going to get rid of 100 units, and we are going to build 100 new. We will stick with 2,400 units. To me, this is what the Housing Corporation has always been doing. We all recognize the Indigenous governments are much better suited to get federal money for housing. If the Indigenous governments build 100 units in partnership with the Housing Corporation, will we have met this mandate item?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to reiterate the comments that my colleagues have been making. They have kind of taken my opening statements from me. I think we are speaking at the right level, that this is pragmatic realism in what we can accomplish. I also think there is a recognition in this House that there needs to be more service-oriented government. I will have a number of questions regarding the substance of each item in the mandate, but I wanted to speak to form.

I think there is no doubt this is the best mandate the Government of the Northwest Territories has ever seen. The...

I believe this is why persistence is key, because without bringing the City, Towns and Villages Act to the floor in the life of this Assembly, a Yellowknife city charter is not possible. Is the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs willing to begin negotiations with the City of Yellowknife to hear their concerns and see what a possible city charter would look like?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, I wish to plagiarize a Member's statement brought forward by my predecessor, Cory Vanthuyne, Member for Yellowknife North. I think many of us are aware that the only thing to get done in this House is persistence, persistence through Assemblies. The idea and the topic of my Member's statement today is a Yellowknife city charter.

This request has been made by the City of Yellowknife in response to frustration from getting traction out of the GNWT. For as long as the property and assessment and taxation act has existed, municipalities have been asking for it to be...

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...

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?

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?