Tom Beaulieu

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is something I was going to ask later on but I can’t really find a better place. I suppose this might be on the debt repayment; that might be the spot to do it. As we all know, we are dealing with a declining fund from CMHC. I’m wondering if the Housing Corporation has developed a strategy on how they’re going to address the issue of the loss of O and M dollars as the loan gets paid off. Are you going to reduce the amount of public housing? Are you going to take money from capital and put it into O and M or ask this Assembly for more money to continue to...

The Minister touched on something here that I would like to explore a little further. On the collective bargaining issue, it has always been my understanding that it wasn’t a union issue in negotiating because if you are providing subsidized housing to someone in a non-market community where, like I said, it is difficult to provide staff housing for staff because of high carrying capital costs and so on and so forth, it is difficult to get contractors on. I am curious to know what type of actual collective bargaining issue this creates, because I can’t see how the people in market communities...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask questions on housing for staff as well. I have most of the Hansard as the people ask the questions. I guess I will ask about the Market Housing Program. I am curious about how the Market Housing Program...I am trying to figure out the difference between housing for staff and the Housing Program. Maybe just a little explanation on those to start with, please, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize that even in the recent federal budget announcement that there is money put in for environmental assessments all pertaining to the Mackenzie Gas Project. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could commit to increasing the GNWT’s share of the Interim Resource Management Agreement so that more money can be put into environmental monitoring in the non-settled areas.

There is a limited amount of monitoring going on around both Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution. What I’m interested in doing is seeing if the Department of Environment and Natural Resources could expand that environmental monitoring. I’d like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to have his staff meet with the environmental workers in both Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution so that they could start to develop some sort of plan for the future environmental monitoring in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, they are aware that the environment affects climate and it even affects discussions as far as future land claims and so on. Mr. Speaker, there is a complex environmental assessment process. There is a real need to have a good supply of environmental monitors, and what better candidates are there than those who live in Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution. Later today, I will have questions for the Minister of ENR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not going to speak to the motion. The motion is fairly self-explanatory but just a couple of small points to make. The main issue seems to be that the Housing Corporation is able to build homes faster than they are able to find clients. So what’s happening is a lot of the clientele is unable to access the homes as the current income situation stands, core need income thresholds, I should say. With the income thresholds, they are either too low on one hand or too high at the other hand. Let me see, right; too high at the bottom end and too low at the upper end...

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

For the record, I feel the best strategy is to fix the public housing units and give them away in non-market communities and sell them in market communities, by the way. I think that is a good thing. But the best solution, of course, is to get the federal government to remain in the process of continuing to fund social housing. Just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just make a comment, not to the Minister of Housing but probably to the Minister of Human Resources. If this continues to be an issue, offer this benefit to people provided they are prepared to go into non-market communities. I could never understand how this was an issue. If it is considered a subsidy by people in non-market communities, or anywhere for that matter, then offer that to them provided they are prepared to work in a non-market community where this type of subsidy viewed as a subsidy is being offered. Thank you. That is just a comment.