There has been, obviously, some impact on local housing markets because of this decision. Can the Minister advise us whether the impacts have been negative or positive in the communities that have had large sales of houses?

Mr. Chairman, I do have the information with regard to Mr. Koe's previous question and I'll answer that first, if that's okay, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, there were 271 tenants in level II and III communities and they expressed an interest in purchasing single units at the initial call. To date, 16 units have been sold and there are 53 more deals pending. There are 80 more requests that have come forward during the intervening period and we will be giving consideration on how to address those requests in the near future, as we will be looking at row housing, eight-plexes and four-plexes, et cetera.

Did we affect the housing market in communities, Mr. Chairman? Personally, in Hay River, I didn't get any complaints there about housing. I am not aware that there were any complaints in Yellowknife. We did initially have some problems in Inuvik and I think those were straightened around. I think people are now beginning to realize that there is an initial impact, there is no question about that, but it might only last 90 days, 6 months or it might last a year.

When you are investing in a house, Mr. Chairman, you are usually investing in that particular facility for some considerable period of time. After those initial bumps, as people get used to the idea as the housing units come on the market, I think we'll ultimately see the housing market maybe not race ahead -- as it did in the late 1970s, early 1980s and maybe even the mid-1980s -- but certainly it will be a steady growth pattern, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the selling of these houses, in some communities the intent -- as I understood it -- was to utilize real estate agents. In some cases, they were used and in some cases, they weren't used. Can the Minister indicate the success it had in utilizing real estate agents and the impact of that business on the north?

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that there was a large impact on the realtors in Yellowknife. I can see from the numbers that are before me that there were considerable commissions paid to realtors. I can see one commission here as high as $11,550 on the sale of one house. There are a couple of others in the $10,000 range. No, we didn't use realtors all over the place. The reason for that, I believe Mr. Chairman, was that we offered it to the tenant first.

By offering it to the tenant first, it did not go to the realtor. But I think there were commitments made in this House in our previous location, that when those units actually became free and clear -- if there was a realtor in town and it was our intention to sell it -- we would in fact would use a realtor where those people existed. I don't think anything has changed with that, Mr. Chairman. As we move forward and go to the next step, where we can use the realtors, we will do so.

I know that the use of realters has had an impact on the prices. Houses that were once offered to employees for $80,000 to $90,000, are now in the hands of realtors and are on the market for $110,000 to $115,000. It has had that kind of impact on the prices.

When the sale of staff housing strategy was announced, there was an initial reaction from staff. A lot of staff were going to quit and leave because they couldn't afford housing, utilities and the associated costs. Can the Minister indicate what impact this strategy had on the levels of staff in the north?

Mr. Chairman, I think a lot of staff are learning to live with it and that it is not nearly as bad as they felt it was going to be. We were told that we would have a mass exodus and so on and so forth. We haven't seen that, Mr. Chairman.

But, I would advise the House that this morning I received a report from Mr. Voytilla with regard to teachers in the Northwest Territories and it would appear that there have been a number of teachers who have left the territories. I don't know what the reason is. As I said, I received the report this morning. It is something we will look into because I immediately wondered if this had anything to do with their leaving.

Over and above that, I for the most part have received favourable comments from some of the people who have purchased houses. They have been encouraged to do so either by staff members themselves or by groups of people out there who may wish to take advantage of the next round of sales, which would be the multi-plexes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure we could continue on with our comments at quite great length about the Sessional Statement. However, we would like to address the Department of Transportation. Therefore, I would like to move that we defer the Sessional Statement made by the Premier until a later date. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

We wish to discuss the Department of Transportation.

Agreed.

---Agreed Bill 1, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1994-95

Committee Report 3-12(4), Review Of The 1994-95 Capital Estimates

Mr. Chairman, there was a motion on the floor yesterday. I believe the motion was being discussed at the time. I don't know if there are any further general comments on that motion, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The comments I have to make today, Mr. Chairman, relate to the process by which the transportation strategy was made and the considerable amount of pain that the Minister went to, to get his staff to describe to us exactly what this process was.

There was a detailed explanation of the criteria used and Members were convinced that the criteria used was objective, laid down to guide the department in how it goes about its business. And it was no different then my recollection of the criteria that are used for the building of all infrastructure. For example, I know that when a decision is made to build something, or to replace something, they look at things like safety issues. This building is no longer safe, so we have to fix it up or replace it. It may be old, no longer designed to serve the purpose that it was originally built to serve.

In the case of the road from Providence to Yellowknife, that road was built in the 1950s, the beginnings of it. The intention at that time was it would be a road -- a rough track, so that transportation would be better than it existed on the lake -- especially to serve the mining community, where lots of heavy equipment would be coming across the road. There was no feeling at that time that this road would have a tremendous amount of wheeled traffic, bringing in tourists from all over North America. Whenever you decide you are going to do something, you have to use some criteria. And, we were given a special briefing -- all Members -- to explain why it is that priorities had been established the way they were. I was very interested to see if there was anything there that I found difficult to accept and I couldn't. There was every attempt to find out if there was something there that wasn't just right -- wasn't correct if you like -- I listened to the whole briefing and I found nothing there that was out of line with the established policies of the government, in the way they go about deciding what infrastructure to build. For that reason, I find it difficult to understand why once more, after already having gone through this process several times, we have to have one more review to make sure that the government's got it right. That's the only concern I have. Why is it we continue to ask people to look at something again, if we've already been told the reasons why something is being done?

It would be very easy for the Ministers to say, sure, I'll look at it again but what new can I do, what else can I do? What other information am I going to get? I already have all the information. So, unless you want to change the whole system of deciding how you do things, and what criteria you use, then of course you have to wait for a couple of years for that, to develop a new system of doing things. I'm convinced that what has been done was done on the basis of objective criteria so that whatever money we put into transportation infrastructure would be done in a fair, just, and equitable fashion. So, I won't be speaking any further. I won't be voting on the motion, but those are my comments.