Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will speak in favour of the motion. Like a couple of my colleagues, there is some reservation. It is in the word for word, 100 percent endorsement of the motion as before us. Like Mrs. Groenewegen said, it is an indication of the frustration that we continue to feel in here, and, of course, we are only reflecting what we are hearing from our constituents who are tenants of the system or clients of the Housing Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, there are one, two, three, four, five actions that we are requesting in the motion here, Mr. Speaker, the first of which suggests that the maximum percentage of income be charged as rent to drop from 32 to 18 percent in non-market communities and 32 to 25 percent where there are markets. Mr. Speaker, I think this particular request speaks to a lack of flexibility that the Housing Corporation demonstrates. The 32 percent that we now see as the ceiling as a percentage of income that can be charged is, I understand, a national threshold. It hasn't really been tested here in the NWT. Does it really make sense in our circumstance here? Is there some flexibility and readiness to adapt to circumstances here, Mr. Speaker?
The second request is that the corporation does a better job in explaining their programs and adjusting programs to meet the needs. Again, a plea here, Mr. Speaker, for flexibility, but also that it says that the corporation has really lost sense of a pretty basic requirement when you are in the service industry, which I really think the corporation is to be able to communicate and talk to and inform your customers, your clients. We are really behind the eight ball in the corporation making and helping its clients and customers become familiar with what it has on the table.
The third request, Mr. Speaker, is that the Housing Corporation examine the issue of rental rates for those units that are older, in poor condition and don't warrant what may be being charged. Mr. Speaker, if the issue is shabby housing, let's fix the shabby housing. I don't think that it helps anybody to be charged a lower rate but still have to put up with a unit that is substandard, drafty, mouldy, expensive to heat and operate and may even be unsafe. This is not the way to handle a poor housing situation, Mr. Speaker, just to charge less rent.
The Housing Corporation, in the last couple of years, put on quite a promotional campaign claiming its 30 Years of Experience From the Ground Up, I think the program was called, but I really don't see how this is anything to celebrate when so many of us have seen and heard this is not a corporation that has an acceptable record at all of looking after its housing stock and giving good value to the tenants.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth action that we're requesting in this motion is the issue of free rent for seniors living in housing owned by the corporation. We want that overall area to be re-examined and addressed in the interest of fairness to all seniors, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would say that providing a free no-charge-at-all service such as shelter is not one of the values that I come into this Legislative Assembly with. I think everyone has some obligation, some requirement, to pay something toward the cost of shelter, and this is not realistic and it's certainly not a sustainable position to be able to allow free rent, Mr. Speaker.
The final action that we're looking at here talks about the role of the rentals officer, and this goes into another department, of course under the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker. The role of the rentals officer is someone who works on behalf of both tenants and landlords to make sure that laws and rules are followed and to help out when disputes happens. It's suggesting here that a rental officer based only in Yellowknife I believe with limited resources to travel around the NWT is not adequate, and that the services of the rentals officer should be more easily available in other regions. I think that's a pretty good recommendation. I guess I would remind colleagues that, indeed, the Residential Tenancies Act is up for review and revision hopefully during the life of our term here, Mr. Speaker, and maybe there is something in there that we could address.
But overall, as I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I will speak in favour of the motion, because it does signal so many things that we are continuing to encounter and that we do not see a turnaround on. Mr. Speaker, the motion is a message about a corporation that is adrift in its purpose. It is not showing us any new ideas; it is not invigorating confidence about being able to cope with the huge housing challenges that face us in the future, Mr. Speaker.
---Applause