Thank you. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Where there is a requirement for a continuation of government guarantees because of financial reasons and they have to show due cause, we would continue with the lease arrangements rather than see the long term mortgages, et cetera, be jeopardized. It is our intent to get out of some of the lease arrangements, in particular, lease arrangements where we have had them for a number of years.

I use the example, and I hope the Iqaluit people will not find it offensive, but I use the example of the FDL project, where the government had a lease there since 1968. We fundamentally believe there is no requirement any more for a long term lease in this government, because that building, I am sure, anybody who knows residential financing, has been paid for.

You have to remember that some of these leases were put in place because of financing considerations by banks, and the requirement to give the banks some comfort zone so that private development corporations, aboriginal organizations, and individuals could find the lending necessary for the government to proceed with its housing needs.

There may be a need for a continuation for some of those guarantees, but we are re-examining that whole thing. We are getting out of our own housing, as I have said, and we are almost there. Hallelujah! And we are also going to be examining the leases. And if there are some leases that we can get out of, we will get out of them. Absolutely.

Thank you. On the lease budget requirements. Mr. Roland.

Mr. Minister.

If you look at, and you must have it in the schedule in the leasing budget requirements in front of you, you will see that there is actually a decline in the expenditures from 1997 right through to the year 2001. We are anticipating a decline there. We are anticipating that we will, on a one to one basis... what is the term... Sorry, I have lost my train of thought; that is unusual. Anyway, let me go back.

If you look here, in 1997 to the year 2002, there is a decline in our lease expenditures. It is our intention to, on a one-off basis, look at the leases as they come up for renewal, and try to make an arrangement with these individuals or groups that have these leases, to either re-negotiate the lease, if there is a continuing requirement for government to provide a guarantee, or get out of it where there is no longer a requirement for this government to provide a guarantee.

So, for example, if we were guaranteeing six units in Inuvik and we had been at a 25-year lease with these people and there was no requirement for financing reasons, then we would get out of that lease and the landlord would have to make the individual arrangement with the individual tenant for the rent. That is sort of the objective that we are trying to achieve here. Thank you.

In other words, a case-by-case basis. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. The honourable Minister, Mr. Todd.

For all the leases that we have, and you probably heard Mr. Voytilla whisper in my ear, for all the leases that we had, as of March 31st, 1997, that would be the total expenditures for that time period of those leases, from 1997 to the year 2016. $94,480,000, thank you.

Thank you. On this information item. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Yes.

Page 2-36 on your schedule, Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I look at this schedule of residential lease commitments, it begs the question of have we taken into consideration that we have been, over the years, selling off staff houses and in 1995 we had $7 million worth of leases and the following year, while we were still going through the selling off of staff houses, we have $99,000, so we went up $2 million. So, it begs the question, was there no recognition at that time that, while we were still selling off staff houses, we were still getting into long-term leases, we went up $2 million?

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

The conscious decision was made by this government and the previous one. They have been trying to sell the staff housing for eight years. We are finally going to see a light at the end of the tunnel. It was to get the government out of its own owned housing units, because of the costs associated with maintaining it, et cetera. That is what the objective was. While we were doing that there was still a requirement for housing. There was a policy decision made that we would then go to lease because we would not require a public works, would not require all the external civil service to service that. So leasing arrangements were made to meet our requirements for housing. The government was out of housing, per se, but not out of leasing. We are now re- examining the lease side to see where we can get out of some of that, and we want to do that in a constructive way. We want to do that in a manner that does not impinge upon some of these developers and development groups as viability. So that is why we are doing it on a one-to-one basis. But ultimately, in an ideal world, we would like to be out of housing, period, absolutely.

Thank you. Mr. Henry.

Yes, I appreciate that explanation. So, we should not be surprised then, next year, if in fact these leasing commitments do go up or the government's leasing commitments, really, there is a good chance that they will go up?

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

That is a possibility, particularly if we have to get housing in the smaller communities, it is a possibility. Yes. But we are working towards trying to improve our costing on this lease side, but there was inordinate amount of energy done by previous Legislatures and this one to try and get rid of the staff housing. I think we are close to that now and we can spend some of our energy in looking at, on the lease side, what is fair, and to reassure the developers and the banks that we are not going to make any undue, rash, policy decisions as it relates to the leases.