Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to offer, if I may, a couple of comments with regard to having the Housing ministry back up before us and comment on the deferment. Like I said in my Member's statement and in committee as well, a lot of the concerns really don't seem that that programming is really working or getting down to the constituents. I often share the concern that the Housing Corporation is legislated by a 1978 act and that's very old. There hasn't even been one amendment to that act. Hence, I think a lot of the operational concerns because the corporation has been legislated from a distant past. In fact, that's in the late 1900s and here we are in the 2000s, Mr. Chair.

I think it needs revisiting and another grave concern is decision-making has to be revisited. I don't know how they do it in other departments, but our corporation was set up to be run like a corporation, business-minded with a board of directors, but none of those things are in existence today. In fact, I mentioned today that some of the programming type was specifically intended for the Housing Corporation to provide housing to NWT residents, build them houses, get them on the ground, get them in the communities. I can see that in the '70s we didn't even have houses. We had lots of dilapidated buildings that people were living in and so the Housing Corporation was born to address those needs and we built houses for everybody. Yet, now, we want to still provide housing, we want to provide people and say we have to generate our own revenue, now people have to pay for those houses. Hence, lots of confusion. In fact, the communities I represent are adamant that housing is a treaty right. I don't know what happens. People say they should be providing houses, why am I paying rent. So there is lots of confusion that's happening in the communities.

It just stems from how we do business. All of a sudden, the Housing Corporation changes midstream, so people are confused about consistency of programming. They are sitting there saying you refuse me housing, yet the guy across the streets, he's in the same wage category as I am yet he gets approved and I don't. What's going on? I want to appeal it and there is no appeal mechanism. I think that's how the Yukon had done it, Mr. Chair. They took a good, hard look at how they provide housing and how they best meet their people's needs. I am supportive of that.

I am very supportive of the motion that's going to be before the House in the next couple of days of providing a performance audit by the Auditor General's office. That's only one way for me, as an MLA, to support a comprehensive operational review of the Housing Corporation. We talked about other ways of doing it, of actually hiring somebody to do an operational audit, but legislatively the only person who can get to the inner workings of the Housing Corporation and ask the employees to be a fair and impartial and provide information on a timely basis is the Auditor General's office, so I don't mind doing that. Let's have a good, hard look.

The other thing, too, is, yes, housing has to be delivered by us. People look to us to be champions in that regard, but once again that's from a distant past and now we want people to pay. So things have to be done a lot differently. I am not convinced that when we are providing loans, like EDAP, we have to build the houses for them, that we have to tender it out, we have to do this. The Minister indicated, Mr. Chair, that for consistency, for quality, for accountability of public dollars, it has to be done this way. I am not entirely convinced. Because we have other departments that provide loans to people and they get hold of their own contractors, but the whole fact is that they signed documents saying that they are being lent money and they are totally responsible and that's what we are doing, yet we are not allowing people the flexibility of controlling the pace of their houses. I don't know if there is any comparison. Perhaps I could ask a question. I don't want to debate the merits of the program, but specifically perhaps the Minister can tell me about the products for people in the free market; how fast do they get their houses and the quality of their houses that they create in the market as opposed to something that is controlled by us. Every time the Housing Corporation gets involved somehow, it gets botched or they have skyrocketing costs. What is the root cause of that? Is it because we are not doing our homework?

Quite often, with government, we get a good idea and we just hit the ground running and we are just sitting there a couple of years later, whoops, I guess it wasn't a good idea. I think a lot of Members on this side of the House keep asking that. We have to do our due diligence first. Let's have a good, hard look at the numbers and justification before we take a program and start running with it. I am supportive of that. Let's have a good, hard look at our programming.

Some of the decisions are based on policies and guidelines that are not even pertinent anymore. Once it is public dollars, but is it applicable anymore? Do you lend the guy money? Is that applicable anymore? It's in his hands. He signed the document that he's letting money out and that he's responsible for the quality and the construction of his home.

You go to the bank and borrow money for a home, it doesn't matter if it's a mobile home or frame built, as long as you make the business case for it, you get lent the money. So it's that kind of flexibility that people want. They want to hire their own contractors and we should have that. There's got to be a way of doing that. We've got to take our hands off the big brother approach, Mr. Chair, and say we know better than you. You can't handle

a $150,000 loan that we have to do it for you. Yet, everyday people do it in the North.

With that, Mr. Chair, if the Minister can answer me that. Are there any stats that we can compare how much of a delivery of the programs that we deliver compared to the free market? How much quicker? Is there a comparative analysis that we can do? I am sure if we are flexible enough and change our programming geared towards full responsibility of the owner and true ownership, I think that we can go a long way in having better homes on the ground no matter what type they are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.