Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Notices of motion. Honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Notices of motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, November 2nd, 2006, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Range Lake, that the Legislative Assembly approve the appointment of the Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger, to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development, to the Standing Committee on Social Programs as an alternate, to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures as an alternate, and to the Board of Management as an alternate; and further, that the Legislative Assembly rescinds the appointment of the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, as an alternate to the Board of Management and approves his appointment as a full member of the Board of Management.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Notices of motion. Notices of motion for first reading of bills. Motions. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion.

WHEREAS the cost of rent for social housing is set at a maximum of 32 percent of household income;

AND WHEREAS there are families living in poorly maintained social housing units that are paying more in rent than what the unit's condition merits;

AND WHEREAS many of these residents are paying maximum rent for units that have not been kept up or renovated by the landlord for over 10 years, a situation that would not be tolerated in a larger community;

AND WHEREAS the Housing Corporation, like any other landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act, is required to maintain their rental units in a state of good repair and fit for human habitation;

AND WHEREAS many tenants are either unaware of or reluctant to assert their rights to bring concerns to the rental officer pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act;

AND WHEREAS most residents of smaller communities do not have access to market rental units, and have their options limited to building their own units or renting social housing units;

AND WHEREAS in the case of high wage earners living in social housing, the high rent severely limits their ability to save for a down payment for their own units or deal with past debts owed by the Housing Corporation for back rent;

AND WHEREAS the maximum rent of 32 percent of household income is based on a southern Canadian standard that is not reasonable when applied to NWT communities where the cost of necessities such as food and fuel is much higher;

AND WHEREAS seniors living in their own homes pay all costs of homeownership and there are many seniors living in facilities that are not owned by the NWT Housing Corporation who pay a significant portion of their income in rent;

AND WHEREAS seniors living in social housing units owned by the NWT Housing Corporation presently pay no rent;

AND WHEREAS current Department of Education, Culture and Employment and NWT Housing Corporation policies and programs are in need of adjustment to recognize individual circumstances;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member of Monfwi, that this Assembly strongly recommends the Department of Education, Culture and Employment change the maximum percentage of income that can be charged as rent for social housing from 32 percent to 18 percent for non-market communities and from 32 percent to 25 percent for communities with a rental and private housing market;

AND FURTHER that NWT Housing Corporation do a better job in explaining their homeownership programs and in adjusting these programs to meet the needs of potential clients;

AND FURTHERMORE that the NWT Housing Corporation examine the issue of rental rates for those units that are old or in poor condition and provide clear direction to the local housing authorities on how to calculate condition discounts in calculating rent;

AND FURTHERMORE that the issue of free rent for seniors living in housing owned by the NWT Housing Corporation be re-examined and addressed in the interest of fairness to all seniors;

AND FURTHERMORE that the Department of Justice recognize that a rental officer based in Yellowknife may not meet the needs of all territorial residents and consider the need for this office to have a regional presence.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order; however, before I open the floor to debate on this motion, I'm going to call a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. I will allow the mover of the motion to open the debate. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to distinguish in this motion here that the 32 percent figure is an arbitrary figure used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in southern Canada as a recommendation of the maximum percentage of income that should be spent on shelter costs.

Shelter costs include rent, mortgage, heating fuel and taxes. By choosing 32 percent as the maximum percentage of income used in calculating rent, the department has ignored the high cost of goods and services in our communities. Paying 32 percent of your income for housing may be alright in larger centres where you can buy a litre of milk for $2.50, but it's a little bit different in Sachs Harbour where you are expected to pay $6.36 for the same litre of milk.

Mr. Speaker, this is a total household income. Many children earn...(inaudible)...wages living with their parents out of necessity or convenience. Some parents are reluctant to charge their children rent and some children just refuse to pay any. I hate to say it, but some children take advantage of their parents and this is a form of elder abuse. The point being is that if it is your name on the lease, you are responsible to pay the rent regardless of your personal circumstances. There are many elders living off a fixed income such as pensions, who, because other people live with them, pay more for their rent than their pension pays. There has to be some consideration of individual circumstances of each family in determining their rent calculations.

Mr. Speaker, during the pre-budget consultations, we heard from many residents who are concerned with the state of the housing units that they were renting. Many people talked about having no scheduled maintenance on their units in 10 years. I know elders who were promised repairs or modifications to their units several years ago that are still waiting today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great dilemma for many of my constituents. Is it better to rent or to buy? The present way rent is calculated does not allow people to make their own choices. Any way you look at it, you keep having to rely on the Education, Culture and Employment office or the NWT Housing Corporation office.

Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living, the high cost of power, again goes back to this issue here and this motion here. The power in Deline was 57 cents per kilowatt; $2.66 per kilowatt in Colville Lake; Mr. Speaker, it's 11 cents per kilowatt in Yellowknife. Mr. Speaker, with the help of this motion, we can look at some equity and look at the housing units, take into consideration the high cost of living in our communities and that we ask that this motion be seriously considered by the people in Cabinet over there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. The honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. (English not provided)

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my language, I talked about the motion that is in front of us today. I seconded the motion because I firmly believe that we need to change the existing system we have in place from 32 percent or 25 percent, whatever number is being thrown out there, we need to reduce that number.

The motion is before us. During the pre-budget consultation tour, we heard over and over, in almost every community, that this is a huge issue. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, and also Sahtu, both of us raised this issue on numerous occasions, and also other Members as well, that this is becoming a bigger issue than it is now. There are some members in communities that owe $76,000, to be exact, Mr. Speaker. They are still paying $2,400 a month based on the percentage we have in place.

Those policies or regulations need to be amended. That is why we are here, as Members of the Legislative Assembly. We will try to work with Cabinet to deal with this issue. It's been going on in my region since 1992 and also back to 1997 when this whole issue arose at that time. Before, they were paying $32 a month in 1997. After that, they started to pay more. A lot of elders we spoke to have indicated that there are tenant relations in the community, but those tenant relations have never set foot in the community...Sorry, in a household to add on who is living there and how much they are making. It's all based on perception in the communities. Not every community is like that, Mr. Speaker, but in my communities there are many issues around that.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks back or a week back, I asked the Minister of Housing if there could be an investigation into these allegations and issues that are uprising in my community. It's a serious, serious issue that needs to be dealt with. The Premier is also listening and the former Minister Krutko has indicated to him that there is an issue here that needs to be tackled.

Mr. Speaker, just getting back to this motion, I would like to reiterate that I firmly believe that we need to do something here today, so we can take this back to the impacted communities, those people who are impacted, the elders and even the youth who are growing up now. A lot of young people are saying what's the use of working if we have to pay $2,400 a month? We are supposed to be proactive as government to say these are the incentives for you to continue with your employment. I realize where income support is coming from to say we are trying to get people off income support. At the same time, people are working out there making a fairly good amount of money in the industries, the three industries that we have, but we are going after 32 percent of their salary. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? Is that the way to go as the Government of the Northwest Territories? I certainly hope not. I certainly don't think so.

That's why I supported this motion. I feel like we need to deal with this issue today. Let's fix it today. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the motion, there are aspects of this motion that I question how thought out perhaps they are. At the same time, I think what this motion represents is a whole lot of frustration with the way the housing operates and with the programs and policies that they have in the communities; their lack of flexibility to deal with social housing clients. A lot of times when you talk about people who are working in industry and that, they really shouldn't be social housing clients necessarily, but this government needs to do more to figure out ways to get them into homeownership. I know the Housing Corporation has some programs that encourage homeownership, but I don't think it's enough. I think if you are paying the maximum rent and you are making that kind of money, I think it would be a much more advisable thing to put your money into your own home and into a mortgage rather than paying your rent to the NWT Housing Corporation.

When I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are some things about this motion that may not have been thought through as thoroughly as they should be, the number for the percentage of reduction is something that is fairly arbitrary. It's a number that we came up with, but I don't think it has with it the kind of financial analysis that needs to take place when we talk about the higher cost of living in the non-market communities, for example. I think there are ways of verifying that and perhaps coming up with something a little more thought out for a financial policy point of view.

Another ramification of lowering these rents as indicated in this motion is going to be that the local housing authorities are going to have less capital, less money to work with. What is that going to translate into? Is that going to translate into less workers to do the maintenance on the units? Is that going to result in job reductions in the communities? Unless this government has a whole lot more money to pour into housing that I am not aware of, I don't really know what all the spin-off effects are going to be of reducing the revenue to the Housing Corporation via the local housing authorities.

I support the concept of the motion. I think more detail has to be worked out. People, like I said, that are being tasked with $2,400 a month for rent in perhaps somewhat less than desirable accommodations should be helped with access to land. They should be helped with mortgage financing. There should be other complementary services that are made available that can encourage people to become homeowners. There is a lot of benefit to homeowners that are hard to necessarily quantify completely. Once people own their own home and invest more in that, I think they take better care of it. I think there is a lot of pride and self-sufficiency and feelings of independence which are very helpful for our people if they can get access to having their own home.

I think we need different approaches to different situations and different approaches in different communities, because I think the challenges are unique. I think this motion here represents a lot of frustration with what we did see in the pre-budget consultation visits to the communities. We saw houses that are in disrepair. The government should be ashamed of even collecting rents on some of these units, they are in such disrepair. I have not been convinced that the Housing Corporation has a good handle on what needs to be done in terms of maintenance, repairs and replacement, and perhaps tearing down in some instances. I have not had any communication yet that would convince me that the Housing Corporation has a good handle on what needs to be done with respect to the housing inventory that they are responsible for.

Like I said, this is a collage of a lot of different ways of saying the system is broke. We expect some action on it being fixed. I just wanted to say that I really resist and resent the idea that people living in our communities do not have access to homeownership. If they can find land, they should be shown the respect of being able to own their own home. If you don't have the ability to build the homes at the community level, then bring in manufactured homes. There are very nice, high-quality manufactured homes that can be brought in and set up on lots. People should not feel forced to be in social housing if it's their desire to be outside of that. So we have to think outside the box on this. We need to become more creative and ensure that the solutions are tailor made to the residents that this is intended to serve.

I will support the motion, but may I put the caveat on it, please, that when we talk about these reductions, that there be some correlation between the reduction and the cost of living in the community. There needs to be some further analysis made. Please, also, that the reduction in income to those housing authorities is well explained to us in terms of the impact they may have in lowering the level of service and lessening the number of jobs in the communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be speaking today in favour of the motion. I want to begin by saying it's interesting listening to my colleagues, especially my colleagues from the regions and Members who have small communities and the majority of housing issues that are created in the small communities.

It is interesting to listen to them talk about the condition a lot of these housing units are in and the fact that folks are imposed at having to pay 32 percent. Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with this figure. The reason I don't agree with that being imposed on our residents here is it is a national standard. We have spent the last two years here talking about the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. It is absolutely more money to live in Colville Lake, Tulita, Behchoko or Whati than it is to live in southern Canada. Why we would impose a national standard of 32 percent of household income to go towards rent is beyond me. I think we have to examine this situation.

It is much like one of the Ministers going to FPT meetings listening to their provincial counterparts say, well, this national move towards super service centres in the provinces works. Well, yes, it might work in the provinces, but we are not a province. We are 42,000 people. We need some made-in-the-north solutions to housing. Mr. Speaker, I think we can get there. It is just a matter of us working something out.

I think this motion...again, it was mentioned by my colleague, Mrs. Groenewegen. It speaks to absolute frustration that Members are feeling in regard to housing and why the 32 percent is being imposed is something, again, it is a national standard. Why do we accept that? Most of my worry, Mr. Speaker, is the smaller communities. The market communities, yes, it is fair game especially in the larger centres. People should pay a proportionate amount that they can pay. Here in Yellowknife or Hay River, they have more of a wherewithal to be able to pay that because the cost of living isn't as high as it is in some of our isolated communities.

I think also what we could look at doing is, when we talk about other programs that the government has in terms of business development, they categorize communities. I don't know why we wouldn't look at doing that as well, like go on a cost of living ratio and you can see which communities. We do it too with the supplement that we give to employees. If they live in different communities, they get more money. I don't know why we don't look at judging communities by the cost that it actually takes to live there. I think we need to look at doing something like that and maybe develop one, two or three categories of communities and address it from that angle, Mr. Speaker. Again, I do want to say that I do support the motion and will be voting in favour of it. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I will support the motion as provided by my honourable colleague Mr. Yakeleya. About a month ago, I had an opportunity to go to the communities with the previous Minister of Housing, David Krutko. He heard very well some of the conditions of the units. He heard about the problems people are having in regards to the rent scale. I think, with regard to the 32 percent national average, apparently it is pretty high for up North. To go arbitrarily from 32 to 18 for non-market, that is an arbitrary number that we have come to decide on, Mr. Speaker.

Over the years, like Mrs. Groenewegen said, people are getting frustrated. I think it is about time, at least in my riding and I am sure across the Territories, that they have been asking this government why the 32 or 25 percent or whichever it was before? Why not go the net income versus gross? I think by bringing something like this forward, maybe we are listening to some of the people that are living in some of these units.

The previous Minister, when we travelled, he heard about 14 or 15 people staying in one unit. It is unbelievable in these communities. It shouldn't be happening. The conditions of the units, there was one lady in Paulatuk who said she waited five years to get her place repaired. It just so happened that they are getting it repaired this year. She was very happy that we did make that trip. It gave her some kind of comfort that the corporation is trying to do something in regard to repairs of some of these older units.

Most of my colleagues already indicated that most of their concerns have been raised, but I will support the motion, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I will also support the motion put forward by the honourable Member, but I have some issues with the numbers also. Thirty-two to 18, 32 to 25, it is all questionable just due to the fact that we all know that income levels in the NWT have risen quite significantly over the last five years due to all the mining development that has been going on. Interestingly enough, with the 76 percent rise in the average income level in the NWT, there has been no correlating or corresponding decrease in the number of income recipients that we have, income support recipients that we have here in the NWT, Mr. Speaker. I think that alone just speaks volumes with regards to how our housing is taking away a lot of that income that people are willing and able to go out and make, but they decide not to just because of sometimes the rent scale is one of the big issues in the communities that people deal with. When you go out and you see your income is going to go up by $30,000 from one month to the next because you are getting a job in the mine, and your rent goes up by $1,500 from $250, that is a big bite. People just aren't willing to take that bite. Therefore, that is why we say the rent scale policy that we have in place is a disincentive for a lot of people who want to get jobs and make a decent living for themselves.

I know also, on the other side of the coin, the Housing Corporation has to raise a certain percentage amount of money to put back into the public housing initiative just out of rent alone. That is getting people to pay their fair share of rent. What is fair is different from what the government deems fair to what residents deem fair in the outlying regions, the isolated communities, the high cost of living. They all have a play on it. I know the government takes that into consideration, but maybe just not in the emphasis that the individual that is paying the rent does. On that, with the amount of money that the government gets back

from actually getting out of people's pockets the amount of rent for public housing is quite low compared to the subsidies that the ECE puts back into the Public Housing Program. But I think the real issue is how do we get people to be more responsive to why they have to pay their fair share of rent? I think that is the real issue here and not so much of how much you are willing to pay, how much the government is willing to charge you, but I think it is more or less why are people going to pay the amount that they pay? We will take in all kinds of factors like the condition of the house, your family dynamics, community dynamics, employment rates and whatnot, but I think people have to get almost like a picture drawn for them to show them that for X amount of years, you have been living in this unit and paying this amount of money, so as you take on a job, your rent is going to go up this high for X amount of months in order to recover some of that subsidy that the government has been giving to you for the last five or 10 years. People don't know that. There is just no information provided to them to say here are the numbers. Your government punched out $50,000 for your rent over the last five years. You put in $500 into that rent. Here is the discrepancy. Joe Blow next door has put in $10,000 and he is living in a worse unit. He has a job but the government doesn't pay as much in subsidies. I think people have to see that. They have to see the comparison from the guy across the street to the guy down the street. Everybody in the community has to be put on the same playing field and saying, okay, this is why it is different for you, you, you and you. We don't have that information. The clients don't get that information. Therefore, everybody is in their own little world with the LHOs and tensions just build at the community level.

Again, I am not really fully supportive of the 32 to 25 to the 18, but I will have to support it because it is included in the motion anyway, which drives a strong message home that something is wrong with our rent scale policy and we have to change it. We have been talking about it for 10 years here and nothing has come of it, so I hope with this motion coming forward that they will actually do something about it and something will actually get people to go to work and pay their fair share. That is what I deem fair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. To the motion. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also speak in favour of this motion and just offer brief comments. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that, in this House, the housing issue has been a topic of priority and a topic of discussion for the last three years, but it is one that I think, looking back, if we don't do something urgently with the remaining time of our Assembly, it will turn out to be a real big failure on the part of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Lately, on CNN, in anticipation of the U.S. mid-term election next Tuesday, they want a program called broken government. It is a series of why things are not working or how things are not working. When I look at our various issues that Members, our colleagues from communities, bring to this floor about the housing issue, I think we are really looking at a broken housing system. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this motion speaks to one little aspect of that. We hear over and over again about how in communities families are living in these houses that are in very poor condition and they are paying a rent of upward of $2,500, Mr. Speaker. My riding of Range Lake has lots of nice, fancy houses. Twenty-five hundred dollars in a mortgage will get you a really nice house. That is about twice as much as I would pay in my mortgage. Maybe I shouldn't be revealing all my secrets.

---Laughter

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with our system when we have a situation where people are living in these houses that are in terrible conditions paying this enormous amount of rent that most people in Yellowknife would not even...People don't think of that when people living in public housing will pay that much money. The government has no plan as to what they are going to do with accumulating arrears on the part of our residents. They are just going to jack up the numbers. We are all going to have residents owing $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, because the government hasn't figured out how to address the implication and impact of the policy that it has.

I think this motion speaks to the government and asking the government to look at this thing and change it and asking, through this motion, to decrease the rate from 32 percent to 18 percent or 25 percent. It is just a one small measure on the part of this side of the floor to say you have to do something about that.

Mr. Speaker, on a positive note, though, I want to say that we recently had a briefing with the NWT Housing Corporation under its...We have a new Minister, the Premier, and also a new president of the Housing Corporation. I have to tell you, as chair of the committee and a Member sitting in this House, I was very impressed with that presentation and a level of willingness that the new president was showing in tackling some of these issues and that the corporation is working on some innovative ways to refine and streamline the programs that they have. I would like to send this motion as a challenge to the new president that this is an issue that the corporation really has to tackle with.

I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, in our pre-budget tour to communities, there is not one place where obviously the housing issue has not come out. I can't help but think that so many of the Housing Corporation policies are so blunt and is so all-sweeping and not dealing with the small issues, like the corporation is taken over by all these huge projects whether it is Novel or market housing initiative or affordable housing. You can't fix the smallest little things. Why is it that Members have to bring up issues over and over again and nothing gets done?

We have a situation in Wekweeti. It was like two hours of what is wrong with the housing, how people get into their housing. They can't call anybody to fix it because the Housing Corporation doesn't allow them to fix it, and yet the Housing Corporation is not going to provide repair programs to these houses. What is the plan of the Housing Corporation in terms of making housing available to these people? If we have a situation where we have multi families living in a house, what is the plan of the Housing Corporation to introduce some kind of private market so that there could be some choices for people? I don't see any of those visions. In the absence of a clear plan and clear vision on the part of the Housing Corporation to address these issues, we are going to keep

on giving them these motions that are going to be a little push on the side of the Housing Corporation to have them visit and look at the situation in a more in-depth way. So, Mr. Speaker, in that vein, I am going to be voting in favour of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

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

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.