Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at the rent scale impact analysis, pages 42 and 43. One of the things I've observed is that the total impact with regard to people paying up to $1,000 or more than $1,000, about 663, I have 11 members of my community that would be paying up to $1,000 and one that would pay over $1,000. I would hope that that 663 that are paying up to $1,000 or more than $1,000 would be addressed within the next few years. I don't know what it is but in my constituency I think we are getting about three units. That means that it will take at least four years before we catch up to that rent scale, if that's the case. How do you intend to address the 663 that are paying up to $1,000 or more?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The majority of this information on the proposed rent scale was gathered this past summer. It's just a snapshot of approximate incomes of people. If, in your communities, Mr. Gargan, people were seasonally employed, that would drive those two numbers up because at that time they were working, fire fighting or working on the highway or whatever, their income would be higher at that time of the year.

To address the higher income people, like we've said, we're proposing to sell off older stock, assist people with the banks, encourage the tenants to purchase what rental stock we own outright, if we can get CMHC to agree. Also, we have the direct lending, forgivable loan program, and this is how we plan to address the higher income people.

The other thing that I've also observed with regard to the territorial totals, public houses is over 6,000. If you add up the total amounts, say with the west, there's about 1,936. In the east, 3,332. It still doesn't add up to 6,000. I'm wondering whether the numbers have been mixed somehow. I've just observed that. I don't know whether the 6,000 is correct or the 5,363 is the correct one. If you total all the public houses in all the districts.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that we have 5,068 total units in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The territorial total is... it must be my eyes then. I think it is a five that I'm seeing. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister, are you going to respond?

Thank you.

I have Mr. Koe on the list. Mr. Patterson, are you still on the list? Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions and I am heartened that this won't be the last gasp on this issue. I'm going to try to ask my questions as succinctly as I can so as not to take too much time. The first question is in relation with CMHC and the federal government. Mr. Chairman, I understand that our government is fighting the, I believe it's $17 million we're losing on capital, to the wire, with CMHC -- I may have the figure wrong -- this fiscal year. In fact, the corporation has not even put the funds in the Housing Corporation's budget for 1994-95 to make up for that capital shortfall, so strongly do we feel that the federal government is doing the wrong thing and must restore that funding.

I would like to ask the Minister, why does it appear that we're knuckling under to CMHC in the $5.3 million in O and M funding? Has the Minister not fought this issue with CMHC and will he not continue to do so? As I said earlier, I don't think it will be possible to impose this size of a rent gouge on the present tenants of the Housing Corporation, at least in my riding. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've raised this issue with CMHC many times. I've fought this issue as well as fighting the other issue about getting our funding reinstated for capital projects in the Northwest Territories, CMHC's share. The bottom line is, on January 1, 1994, CMHC would have taken back an additional $5.3 million from us. I don't have any control over that. I've tried my best to convince them. CMHC doesn't agree with the principle of subsidizing high income tenants in public housing. They will not subsidize high income tenants, they've said so in no uncertain terms. I managed to get an extension until July 1 of this summer, 1994. I managed to get that extension, so I have achieved a bit to save us some money. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Patterson.

Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister, as I said earlier in my comments today, that income alone, without looking at the family circumstances, is not proof that a family can pay more rent or can sustain themselves in home ownership. Unless people can manage their money, unless they're free of some of the problems that afflict families, including social issues, the mere fact that income is available does not mean they're going to suddenly be able to produce the money without a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of counselling and a lot of education.

In fact, I predict the opposite will happen. I predict that, in many cases, tenants will give up, refuse to pay rent, will be forced to be evicted and will end up in the laps of the Minister of Social Services. And I think there's still a case to be made. Maybe it will have to be a public outcry that will provide the evidence for the Minister to tell Ottawa that it ain't gonna work the way it might work in southern Canada. That's just a comment.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just proceed with some other questions. I'm getting very curious -- and this has been a theme all the way along -- when I compare Pangnirtung and Tuktoyaktuk. I see that on page six and page seven of the proposed rent scale that there's a comparison of two families, one living in Pangnirtung and one living in Tuktoyaktuk. A statement is made on page six and seven that the cost of living is high in both communities.

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, Tuktoyaktuk is 60 to 100 miles from an all-weather highway. Pangnirtung, by my understanding, is more like 1,600 or 1,700 miles away from the nearest highway. Pangnirtung is in zone eight on the Minister's cost zoning of communities and Tuktoyaktuk is in zone seven. They're not even in the same cost of living zone, so why does this document compare two communities that are so different that they're not even in the same cost zone according to the department's own zone criteria? Is that not misleading the public? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that the cost zones were updated by Social Services on March 7 of this year. I started using that comparison just about a year ago, I believe it was, and continue to do so because they are very close to having the same cost of living. They both have very high costs of living, one is in zone seven and one is in zone eight. That adjustment will be made, but we must remember that just to compare two communities, the maximum rent in Tuktoyaktuk is $1,927 right now and in Pangnirtung it is $453. In one community, they pay 20.1 per cent of their shelter costs. In another, they pay 8.1 per cent.

I know the Member has some concerns about how we are going to implement the new rent scale, but let me assure the Member that it is in the plan to phase it in. It is in the plan to talk to communities, to talk to community members and tenants. We must also remember what we're here for. We are here to assist people into the programs who need it. Social housing is for low income people, and we have to try to develop the home ownership program and work with the higher income people to get into home ownership.

We have waiting lists in every community of low income people who desperately need public housing. And we have people in public housing who can afford to run their own house. I agree with the Member that we're going to have to work with those people and assist them to get into their own units. We have to counsel them, I agree with him. But, we can no longer continue to subsidize high income people in public housing when we have so many of our poor people needing that public housing. I think we have to try to treat all people fairly and equally and that's what we are attempting to do here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I'm certainly all for fairness too. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what factors have gone into the Social Services cost of living categories and calculations. What are the general factors that have comprised this rating? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Housing, Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know the exact details, but my understanding is it was calculated from the cost of food, the cost of clothing and the cost of living in the community. It is identical to what Social Services has. We are using the Social Services scale. Thank you.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Iqaluit.