Item 4, Members' statements. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue from yesterday.

---Laughter

Mr. Speaker, the honourable Members will know that for a long time I have been an advocate of changing the benefits we provide to the government employees to better reflect the economic times and the devolution of territorial public services.

I have also been a strong proponent of eliminating the waste of time and dollars which has been associated with staff housing programs. When I learned that the government was about to bring in some new policies in this area, I was glad. However, I have become increasingly concerned with the type of policies that have been brought in.

Mr. Speaker, right from the start this whole issue has been surrounded by confusion. Many workers simply do not understand the policy. It seems as though every public meeting, press release or Ministerial statement that has been made, has only seemed to add to the confusion. From watching the department's actions, it seems as though some of its own regional management, and even some headquarters personnel, do not understand the policy either. I believe that some of the Minister's own comments have served to make the situation worse.

No matter how much we want the government to stop being a landlord, it is not right to leave employees feeling devalued, abused and uncertain about their future. This government's decision has received national publicity. I wonder whether the hard line position taken by the Minister and his department may have caused to create a situation where it will be more difficult to recruit professionals who are unavailable within our northern work-force.

I would say to the Minister that I fully support the basic principles behind this initiative, but I simply cannot support the wording of the current policy or the unreasonable way it is being presented to the public service in the Northwest Territories. I encourage him not to slow down the process and involve all parties in meaningful communication. That way we will be able to eventually come up with a position that everyone, employees and management alike, can live with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 4, Members' statements. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my disappointment and concern in the actions undertaken by the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation in dealing with a serious matter, which I brought to his attention. Mr. Speaker, on November 12, I wrote to the Minister to indicate that one of my constituents had approached me in exasperation and frustration with the attitudes of Housing Corporation personnel in the Hay River district office. In doing so, I had faith that the Minister would take the issue seriously and would take responsibility to find an appropriate resolution.

I remember clearly, that on November 13, 1991, in reviewing the edited Hansards, the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe said some things when he was asking Members of this House to select him for a Cabinet position. He stood in this House and said, "I am still committed to working with all 24 Members of this Assembly in the next four years, whether I be a Cabinet Member or an ordinary Member, guaranteed, you are going to hear from me, regardless of what position I am in because I am here to represent my people who are aboriginal from small communities." He also said, "When you vote today, my friends, vote for someone who is here to do a job and not someone who is just here for the job." That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed and concerned with the cavalier manner in which he dealt with my constituent's concern.

The constituent who approached me had a serious problem with his housing unit and had waited months for an answer to queries placed with the Housing Corporation. He found corporation personnel unresponsive and negative in their dealings with him. These are the sorts of concerns that, I believe, the Minister should know about. I believed he would take a professional approach and attempt to resolve the matter. However, he did not. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to continue with my statement.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Please proceed, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you. What did he do, Mr. Speaker? It seems that he delegated and then he forgot about it. He delegated the matter to one of his senior officials in the Housing Corporation. That person delegated it to the district manager. The district manager delegated it to the staff person who had caused the problem in the first place. That person took the matter to his lawyer. Instead of getting help from the Minister and resolving an attitude problem within the corporation, I ended up with a cease and desist letter from an employee's lawyer. Who knows what they might have in store for the constituent who brought the original concerns to me in the first place. What was the Minister thinking about when he responded in this way? I wondered where his management skills were. Where was his commitment to working together, and his concern for constituents, that he told us about on November 13? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the teflon is starting to rub off.

---Laughter

---Applause

I recognize the Minister wrote and apologized, Mr. Speaker. However, I want the Minister and the people who he is allowing to do his job for him to know that I will not cease and desist from continuing to express my concerns on behalf of my constituents. The fact that one of his employees tried to hire a local lawyer to intimidate me makes no difference. Should another constituent come to me and raise their honest concerns with respect to the behaviour of a civil servant, I will not hesitate to communicate those concerns to the appropriate people. My privilege to do so, as a Member of this House, is clearly defined and has been protected by court decisions in countries served by parliaments all over the world.

In confirming what type of privilege I have, through legal counsel, I was advised it was called qualified privilege, when it is outside of the House. However, in researching cases in 1972, judgement of a case in England, the court found, and I quote, "It will be a sad day when a Member of Parliament has to look over his shoulder before ventilating to the proper authorities criticisms about the work of a public servant, which he honestly believes to merit investigation." I strongly believe that all Members of this House would do no less in bringing the concerns of their constituents to the appropriate Minister. I trust that their issues will receive a more conscientious treatment than what was displayed toward me by the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation. Thank you.

---Applause

Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Personnel. It deals with his new staff housing policy. In some of the public comments that have been made about this new policy, the Minister has seemed to suggest that this approach will enhance current home ownership initiatives undertaken by this government. In reality, this link is rather weak. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain how the proposed removal of the private accommodation allowance will provide an initiative to private home ownership? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Kitikmeot region we do not have much choice of buying government staff housing. Mr. Speaker, there is not much of a choice. How would the Minister deal with the situation in the small, isolated communities where we do not have much choice in terms of buying houses or moving to the other houses? The only houses we have in the small communities are the houses that the government employees are currently living in. Aside from that we have public housing, but public housing is over-subscribed. We do not have a choice. How would the Minister deal with that situation? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister saying buying the house back is 100 per cent guaranteed by

this government if the employee decides to leave the community? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Personnel is well aware that one of the biggest criticisms about this new staff housing strategy is that the people affected are saying that the government has gone ahead with this policy of rental rate increases without consultation. Democracy is not supposed to operate that way. We know, for example, the changes in the housing policy that took place a few years ago in Yellowknife, Hay River and Fort Smith resulted from a tripartite consultation process. Can the Minister tell this House why meetings were not held with government employees who would be affected by this policy in order to listen and make note of their concerns before going ahead with the policy?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I am just as concerned as the honourable Minister about public funds. However, I believe if this situation is not managed, all of the gains are going to be wiped out by employee morale and staff turnover. It costs $30,000 to remove and replace a teacher in Baffin Island. This is what I am concerned about. The $5 million will be quickly erased by the turnover costs if this is not managed and if something is not done about employee morale, which is now spiralling downwards. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the majority of employees who are affected by this policy are in fact members of legal collective bargaining units, and recognizing that the Minister of Personnel has a responsibility for developing, wherever possible and even with difficult matters, good relations with the legally elected representatives of the employees, can the Minister tell this House whether he bothered to involve the UNW or the NWTTA in any of the planning discussions which eventually led to the establishment of this policy? Thank you.