I would like to ask the Minister again, Mr. Chairman, about this $22 million shortfall that he is talking about, that is going to devastate housing in the north. One is this problem, we are going to see this problem, is it in this fiscal year, or is it going to be in the next budget? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This year 23 percent has been cut and a further 36 percent will be cut in 1993. This year we have managed to find money from within to do what we said we were going to do. We start delivering our programs for this year, last fall. We are informed of this, in

March, and we finally decipher the information C.M.H.C. gives us, in February, after many phone calls and letters. What does the three percent cap on gross mean? That is what it means, there is a $22 million cut.

They have a different way of explaining it. It will be in effect, we will be funded next year from C.M.H.C., cost shared funded for 153 units, that will be it.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister about this shortfall. I am concerned about this year's construction. I certainly do not want to see any cutbacks or any hold backs in any of the construction that is going on today. Is there going to be any of this going on in the north with this announcement that the funding that was allocated for all the H.A.P. and public houses, is that going to remain in place, and is there going to be any cutbacks to any of these programs? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister is this going to have impact on our essential services of programs?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, it will not effect what is going on today.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know, from the Minister, if the new criteria that the Minister's department is developing in H.A.P., would still continue even though this announcement has been made? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Yes, the new criteria with community consultation is so that the H.A.P. program can meet the peoples' needs. So, for more people to become eligible for H.A.P. housing is far more important now than ever before because, as every Member knows, we can build approximately seven H.A.P. units compared to one public unit, life time cost. We do get the best bang for our dollar by building H.A.P. units. I can assure the Member that we do everything possible to encourage people to go towards the H.A.P. program.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

The number of units that are going to be built next year is substantially lower than what was previously anticipated, 153 units next year. How many of those units will be H.A.P. units, and how many will be public units?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You must understand that when I say 153 units, that means that the mixture stays the same. If we built 100 H.A.P. units this year, and 200 and some public units, I am just reducing that in comparison. That does not mean that is the way it will turn out. If we were to build more H.A.P. units, then we can build more units, it is as simple as that. We will build more than 153 units, if we build more H.A.P. units.

We do get the best bang for our dollar on H.A.P. units. What drives the allocation, is what the needs survey is. You have to have a mixture of the two, you cannot go and build straight H.A.P. units.

Thank you. The communities have different needs and wishes. Mr. Antoine are you done? Mr. Antoine.

I just wanted to know how many H.A.P. units and public units, and what the mixture is. According to what the Minister is saying with this electronic device, I have figured out that he is talking about, more or less, 50 or 51 units for next year. That is about a third of the formula. Thank you. Is that correct?

Merci. Mr Minister.

Thank you. In 1992, we build 100 half units, 260 rental units, and 12 rent sub-units. That is how we had it figured out, but those numbers have changed slightly because we are building a few more rent sub-units. After the lost delivery of these units, if you just reduce those numbers, you would build 120 rental units, 41 H.A.P. units, and approximately 5 rent sub-units, if you just reduced those same numbers, but did not change anything else. If you change the H.A.P. program, to where you make more people qualified for that program, you can lower the scale so that people who make less money get into home ownership. You can raise the scale for people who make more money, to get into that unit as well, then you can make more people eligible, more people will want those H.A.P. units, and then we will be able to build more houses. We have quite a few people that live in public housing that can afford to run their own homes. We should be keeping our public housing for those who need it, those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, and that is what we have to do. We have to look at it sensibly. If we get the best bang for our dollar out of building home ownership, then that is what we should do. Those that cannot afford home ownership will be in public or social housing.

Thank you, Mr. Morin. On my trusted list, I have Jeannie Marie-Jewell and Gargan left. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I along with other Members were totally disappointed with the Minister's comments today with respect to proposed reductions by the federal government on housing, particularly social housing. I guess my concern is in respect to the reduction in funding, which will result in a significant drop in government built housing, we are going to be looking at a decrease possibly next year of over 219 units, and I certainly feel that it is quite devastating.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite concerned at the fact that it is another classic example of the federal government off-loading, as they have done in the provinces all across Canada. They are now looking at off-loading to the territories, and unfortunately, the territories just cannot afford to accept that off-loading. I believe that it is critical, and that at some point this government or this Legislature has to indicate to the department, particularly of Indian Affairs, that they have a responsibility to aboriginal people in respect to providing some of the fundamental policies, or the fundamental needs of aboriginal people, and housing is one of them. We have to remind the federal government that they were the ones that came into the north back 40 or 50 years ago, and started to give aboriginal people housing. I mean, we lived in what they called substandard housing back in the early 1950s, now they feel that we should just be able to absorb everything, which I think is totally unfair, and I do not know if that point has been brought totally across to them in that perspective.

I recognize that the Minister has indicated that he has met with the Minister responsible for housing at the federal level on numerous occasions. He has also met with his federal counterparts, other provincial counterparts, and he has indicated in his Minister's statements on June the 22 and today, that they were also supportive, but at the same time as they were supportive, they were looking after their best interest. I am wondering whether or not the federal government has basically cut right across the board for this territory just the same as they did for all provinces, and did not take into consideration some of the unique problems that we have in the territories? They did not take into consideration the responsibility that the Department of Indian Affairs has for aboriginal people in the territories. So, I would like to ask that question to the Minister first. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation has placed a three percent cap on gross, and the cuts are the same throughout Canada. Every jurisdiction is the same. I felt that by supporting us, the provincial jurisdictions supported us because we found them very supportive in the meetings, in the motions, recognized the territories' unique situation. I told them many times how our people come to be in the situation we are in today, and that includes being taken off the land, moved into communities and federal government supplied housing. The federal government has a certain responsibility to supply that housing, so I brought that issue to them many times, and I feel that to get back to the provincial jurisdictions, they did support us on this issue. If we had got reinstated, they would have benefitted as well, down the road, because precedent would have been set.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.