Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the 11th Assembly, one of the main focuses of our work was economic development. When the proposal to change the staff housing benefits of our government was made, it was not popular. In fact, it was very difficult for many of the members in the level I communities who were going to be affected right away. I remember being lobbied a great deal to oppose this initiative, and to do everything I could to stop it. I have respect for my constituents, and I think that as far as I was able I was in large measures successful for explaining to people the reason for it and why we were going in this direction. As a result, I think many of those people who were reluctant ended up buying their own houses and were very grateful they had that chance. They had been pushed into it in a sense. So, there was never much beefing after that happened because things turned out very well for quite a large number of people.
I should point out it was part of the work of the last Assembly to try to find ways of stimulating the economy. It was fairly clear to me that this was a large sector of our economy, the business of the provision of housing. If we could find a way of getting more people involved in it, outside of government, it would send several messages out. One of those messages was related to the dependence on government. We have always pointed out that one of the things we have to break down is the mentality that everything comes from the territorial government, that the territorial government will look after you from the womb to the tomb. I think the argument was well made that by stimulating the private market, instead of just having the government as the landlord, you could have anybody in the Northwest Territories as your landlord. As long as you had a reasonable regime in establishing rents then in the long run that would be a satisfactory arrangement. In addition, people could see how it would stimulate other smaller industries related to the upkeep, maintenance and construction of houses and so on. I think everybody was eventually brought on side to say this is obviously the way to go. As long as it is handled very carefully and it was done in a way that was equitable, then it would go through with the majority of people seeing the logic of it as the next extension of the development of our economy.
The only criticism I have is that there were things which could have been done better, but there is no point living in the past. We have to look ahead to see what we should do to resolve some of the outstanding issues. I feel very strongly that what should happen is you should find some way of not simply appearing to do this as an isolated unit in Yellowknife which is somehow remote from the realities of the regions and the communities, whether they be very unique problems or not which have to be addressed. I would urge the government to somehow -- I know we cannot go back, but one of the admissions was trying to get a small group to work out some of the complex details which still lie ahead, even when you go ahead with the strategy the way it is outlined.
Just one short anecdote before I finish, Mr. Chairman. Almost 30 years ago I was paying $90 per month for rent. There was a real uproar when it went up to $95. It was just awful. People were very concerned because of this extra $5. At that time you were also given food rations and that was about $35 per month. That stayed solid. They kept on paying you money and you got your food. Everyone was upset by the $5 increase in rent and it had not changed for a long time. There was a symbolic thing that happened, suddenly out of the blue the $5 arrived. Because there had not been a proper softening up, then people were not happy. So, the suggestion that you can ease people into this a little better may be one of the ways of solving it. Even that $5 many years ago, which came out of the blue, people fought against it because they had not been given the proper notice.