Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the $91 million that was just identified by Mr. Anderson, does that cover the cost of the operations and maintenance expenses for social housing units completely? In conjunction with that, the proposal by the government to look at the privatization of property management services of units - I believe it follows on the Keewatin trial project - although it is an FMBS, which is staff housing, is my understanding correct in that proposal that, indeed, we are looking at local housing units? There are two questions there, one on the $91 million and what it covers. The second one was on the proposal for the property management of housing units, also known as the Keewatin pilot project that

had been done last year in the Keewatin region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Prior to Mr. Anderson's comments on the transfer funding from CMHC for the administration and the operations and maintenance of social housing, I want to make it clear that the privatization of property management or any other initiative like that is, as the Member said, under the responsibility of the FMBS and not the Housing Corporation. We can note comments, but we have little to do with the policy side, although in some instances, we act as a contractor for FMBS for the repair and the administration side of the staff housing portfolio. With that, I would like to ask Mr. Anderson to make some additional comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the $91 million we get, the agreement was signed, as I indicated and it started in April 1, 1997. It was negotiated based on the 1995-96 base year that we had in place. So what that means is they are continuing to pay their share of the public housing portfolio that we have, meaning 75 percent share on some projects, 50 percent on other projects. We are getting the same level of support that we had under the old arrangements on that.

Over and above that, on the unilateral programs there were 600 units transferred. We are getting 100 percent dollars from CMHC for that program. On the additional $220 million in debt that CMHC has on the public housing portfolio, they have given us another $33.5 million per year to cover off their amortization payments on that portfolio. That is what makes it up. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with the cutbacks from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to this government, to help us complete the construction of new social housing units, the $91 million that is currently coming to cover some of those costs Mr. Anderson just identified, are those costs tied to those units that are already in place for operations and maintenance? If we did build new social housing units, then the federal government would not, I repeat, not commit to operations and maintenance funding? Is that correct? Is that the crux of our problem? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, the operations and maintenance funding we get from CMHC has been set and it is now up to us to manage that the best we can. If we can rollover that funding to other extra units, because we have been able to build or to rent others from the private sector, then that would be possible.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The numbers are based broadly on the need-survey results. They are then adjusted based on the districts, as they start taking applications from clients. It is based on demand because so many of our programs are driven by applications as opposed to us deciding up front we are going to build x-number of houses in a community. We end up having to move the money around, between districts.

Those kinds of adjustments can happen for the reason mentioned by the Member but it can also happen because the costs on projects may be less. It can also happen because initiatives like the $30 to $50 million announcement that was just made in the budget speech, with that money coming on board, the amounts potentially spent in these districts will change quite a bit from what is here. This is only looking at what we have in our main estimates. As a corporation, we also look at what money we might be getting from the sale of mortgages. As that program proceeds, we get money back from it that we can re-invest in more housing. The numbers start this way, based on the contributions we get from the GNWT, then it is supplemented with money we make from other sources.

The other thing that is not in these amounts, I do not believe, is the money we get from CMHC for the repair and upkeep of the social housing units on the ground. It is not maintenance money but is more like a major overhaul, major upgrade money.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my point was, we were trying to...to be honest, I forget what I was trying to say.

--Laughter