Mr. Chairman, I would be very disappointed if we have not concluded the analysis and the study much before the next sitting. As soon as the Public Utilities Board has finished analysing the rate structure review, we can circulate that information. I can assure the Member there will be no changes to the subsidization of power rates unless we make some policy changes in the Legislative Assembly.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am very concerned about this. I attended a meeting in both of my communities with the government employees who are very concerned with regard to this strategy. I think if the department had taken the necessary steps to consult employees in a timely manner, then this so-called strategy could have been implemented without a hitch. I believe that because I know the employees agree the government should get out of housing. With the recession, all sectors of our society are suffering and this government is no exception. Employees know the difficulty the government is having at the present time, which is why they had agreed to a zero per cent increase for this year. They also agreed to a 1.8 per cent increase in wages for next year. Even though the cost of living is still rising, this is what they had agreed to. I think the gall of this government to introduce a strategy such as this is appalling. The employees I have spoken to know and understand the strategy, and believe the government should get out of housing. However, the way in which the strategy is presently laid out, this is no time for the housing market, of which there is none to speak of in the east, to make any kind of adjustments.

The process of implementing the strategy has to be changed to make it more equitable and more timely. In the meetings I held with my constituents and those who are government employees living in government units, some of the comments I heard are very similar to the comments made by other Members from the east. A large portion of available housing does not meet minimum standards for rentals. It was noted also that a housing unit at Yellowknife prices is not at the same standard for a unit at the same price in Baker Lake. Units have not been maintained so, in the majority of cases, current residents would not consider purchasing their unit. As well, due to the cost of living, residents could not afford mortgage payments for units based on Yellowknife markets.

In apartment blocks or row houses where they are paying rent, water and sewage would be shared. There is no way those who are single occupants are energy conscious or who must frequently travel should be expected to pay the same amount for heat, water and sewage as those who occupy space continuously, or those who have more than one person living in a space. In a recessionary year, when the collective agreement allows no increase in salary, how can the government think of raising rent by as much as 25 per cent, when there is no increase in salary to absorb any part of the increase?

In Baker Lake, the average cost of living food basket is currently $378.39. In no way can current GNWT salaries absorb a 25 per cent increase, as well as the cost of utilities. In Baker Lake, there are eight months of winter and 4.5 hours of daylight which necessitates a high volume of fuel oil and electricity. In Baker Lake, and other Keewatin communities, there are no options in the type of heat they produce. They are dependent on the transportation costs, which are high and dependent on the sea lifted fuel. Yellowknife, at this point, has a choice including fossil fuel, wood, fuel oil and electricity. Because of the small number of available units, many employees are over-accommodated and were forced by lack of availability when hired to accept inappropriate accommodation. We have a number of employees who are over-accommodated, therefore, will be paying for that and it is not by choice.

The entry level and relatively low level employees, although well-skilled, have indicated that as single income families with children, they will not be able to feed their families. The alternative, if they consider the north their home, is to resign from the GNWT and apply for UI benefits, or if ineligible, request social assistance. All are aware of the new UI guidelines and will make their decision regarding continued employment so as to maximize benefits.

I have also noticed in the last few days of this session, the Minister has tabled a number of letters which are in support of this strategy. I also know he has received letters which are very strongly opposed to the strategy and the way it is being implemented. I have a copy of a letter which was sent to the department. I have not tabled it to this point. This is from a gentleman in Baker Lake who is resigning from his position and he had just been hired. His letter was in reference to a letter of January 8, 1993, and with the information he received, he stated, "Presently, my net pay is around $600 every two weeks or $1,200 a month. My rent is going up to a total of about $310, plus my power is about $300 per month averaged out. I will then be left with only about $600 per month. My son is in day care at a cost of $400 per month. This leaves me with $100 per pay period for food, clothes, phone and all the amenities you may have in today's society. As you can see, this is even less than people would receive on welfare. Therefore, I cannot afford to work for the Government of the Northwest Territories. When I was hired, there was no mention of rental increases or of paying power bills totally, therefore I feel that the Government of the NWT has not acted in good faith to me or others, but rather acted in an underhanded action." This is the kind of letter which is being received by the department, which to me at this point, are being avoided, or seem to be. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that if there is any way we could slow this process down and reduce the impact on our employees, the people who are employed by this government, the better this strategy will work. I do not think this is going to work unless we change the way this is being presented at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The concluding part was a question to the Minister. Mr. Minister.

Thank you. General comments, Mr. Lewis.

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.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Pudluk.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief comment to make with regard to government staff housing. With regard to the comments which I have just listened to, I agree with most of the comments which are being raised. In the early part of December, we were informed about the long-term housing strategy. This was a big shock to many of the Members when it first came out. This subject has been an ongoing issue for some time now and I think we have been able to give some thought to this. Like other problems, this is an issue we will be dealing with for a long time. Like any other issue, there will be many problems arising from this increase which is going to be imposed in the future. The government was able to be informed from the communities with regard to their concerns. As Members here, we all realize we have different problems we will have to deal with. The problem of utilities and food costs and with regard to different climates in our communities, we all have different problems which arise. Some of the communities rely on fuel for heat, and we realize that some of the other communities also have wood stoves which they can use in their homes. These are the two different ways of heating homes. We also know that in some communities, some government employees end up in houses which would be completely different units if they were in the south. For example, if they are going to try to purchase their own home, if they are going to try to purchase a three bedroom home the employee can run into a problem where it would be too big for the employee or too small. Perhaps, the unit would be too old. This would be another problem that would arise. If the unit is too old the problem would be that he would not be able to come up with the extra funding to renovate the unit.

When this issue arises whereby the housing would be based upon Yellowknife housing, I think many problems will arise if you are looking at the communities which are not on the highway system. The food costs are much higher and I will give you one example. Yesterday, I purchased a couple of wheels for my car from a tire outlet. For two tires it cost me $400. If that was in our community of Resolute Bay, for instance, when they arrive there you would have to add an additional $100 to the purchase price, which would bring it up to $500. These examples which I am using regarding the tires are of light weight. I know that food prices, especially when you order by volume, can be very heavy in freight. This was a concern by the communities which are not on the highway system. If they are going to standardize these issues they should also consider standardizing food prices.

These changes which are about to be implemented, it is not so much that we are against them, perhaps if they had been informed in advance, perhaps by a year or two or up to three years in advance, had they been informed of the long-term strategy it would not have come as such a shock to the government employees. However, it came upon them so suddenly and it was a shock.

In the meantime I am happy the employees are given the opportunity to purchase their houses if they want to. This will be reviewed. At this time I do not have many questions on this matter regarding the purchasing of the houses. However, I did want to make a short comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Qujannamiik. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have heard very clearly the concerns of Members and I thank my colleagues who have contributed to this debate. I have a number of detailed questions which I would like to put forward so as to give the department notice of the issues which I think are still unanswered. I think the device of written questions will be a good way to deal with those issues. I would now like to introduce a motion, Mr. Chairman. In introducing this motion to the committee I would like to note that I have benefited from advice of the Ordinary Members' Caucus in developing this motion, and I would like to thank the caucus and chairpersons for their assistance.

Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to move this motion which has been translated and is being distributed. It is a longer motion than usual for committee of the whole, but this is a complicated issue.

Please proceed, Mr. Patterson.

Whereas the committee accepts the fiscal realities and endorses the basic objectives which led to the development of the GNWT long-term staff housing strategy; and whereas the committee is also concerned about certain problems respecting the communication, coordination, timing, inequities and other impacts of the strategy on employee morale; and whereas the committee endorses the following principles as critical to the resolution of these problems and the successful implementation of the strategy:

1. The impact of the strategy should be reduced through a more graduated phasing in of the strategy;

2. In order to achieve equity among all employees regardless of location, the formula for rent calculation and increases, including utility charges, must be improved so as to reduce disparities within and between communities;

3. A working group must be established to study, oversee and recommend solutions on specific implementation problems; Now therefore I move, that the following primary objectives of the GNWT long-term staff housing strategy be accepted by this committee: the encouraging of home ownership and energy conservation among GNWT employees and the withdrawal of the GNWT from the provision of staff housing;

And further, this committee recommends to the executive council that:

1. The GNWT long-term staff housing strategy be phased in over three years;

2. Except in level III communities, rental increases should not amount to more than ten per cent in the first year;

3. A more equitable formula for calculating increases to base rent and utility charges should be devised for subsequent years which will take into account:

a)climatic variations which impact on the cost of utilities;

b)the age and condition of each housing unit;

c)an indexing factor which will take into account variations in the cost of living; and,

d)a corresponding phasing in of the housing allowance.

4. In level III communities, larger rent increases may be instituted in the first year, providing the housing allowance is provided to each employee;

5. The NWT property tax rebate be reinstated at $400 per year.

And further, recommend that a working group be established and chaired by the Minister of Personnel to oversee and advise the Government of the Northwest Territories and report to the next and future sessions of this Assembly on further details and improvements to the implementation of the strategy, including: reasonable additional incentives to encourage home ownership; additional measures and clarifications to encourage the sale of staff housing; means to encourage private sector involvement in the provision of staff housing to government employees; improved coordination with the NWT Housing Corporation access program and integration of staff and public housing administration; technical problems such as metering utilities in multiple units and methods of renegotiating tenancy agreements in a manner which is in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. Are you ready for the question?

Agreed.

---Agreed

All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Thank you. Does the committee agree that Minister's Statement 34-12(3), Tabled Document 49-12(3), Tabled Document 66-12(3) and Tabled Document 84-12(3) are concluded?