Thank you, Madam Chair. Last year, going through the same exercise, I spoke to a number of issues and concerns. I see this year I am going to be speaking to almost the same issues and concerns. We go travelling to the communities and it never fails, even in our day-to-day work in our constituencies, I am sure there is not a day or a couple of days that goes by that we don't have people calling with concerns with housing, not so much the Housing Corporation, and the way the programs are delivered. I commend the Housing Corporation, as I did last year, for putting a lot of these programs into place where people could try to get into their own homes, and a lot of them have. Some of them have found that they couldn't maintain these homes, so they went back to the corporation. So I have a concern with people calling and wanting to know why couldn't I be approved. I make enough to maintain my own home and they are giving homes to people who end up giving them back, or a single person...We can go on and on with the list of concerns we get regarding the housing programs.

In the Minister's opening comments, he spoke to the Supported Lease Program and this ambitious plan is subject to support from the federal government. I am curious to know if the Supported Lease Program is also subject to continued support from the federal government. If we don't get that support, what is going to happen to some of these programs? Are we still going to get 185 units? I think you have been asked this question a couple of times. I just have a real concern with the direction that the Housing Corporation has taken. I have spoken to it before and, as Mr. Menicoche pointed out, I thought this mandate was just something that was just a new initiative, but it was something that was started in 2004. I understand there was even a task team sent out and I am curious to know if all the LHOs, the district offices, were consulted on the new mandate. Did they have much input into it? The universal partnership agreements, did they have much say into whether they wanted to be part of these universal partnership agreements, or did they just have to sign because everybody else did? I don't think a lot of them had much choice.

You mention housing and it just strikes a nerve in everyone. I understand the corporation is trying to do their best, but I think they are really straying from their original intent to provide housing to residents of the Northwest Territories. I have a concern with that. I see money being cut to the districts and the LHOs. It seems like it just keeps growing and growing in headquarters. That causes me concern. We've lost so much money in the Housing Corporation over the years, like I said in my Member's statement before, we could have had a few more houses on the ground. I would like to see a bit more transparency in some of the housing programs. It's public money and the public has the right to know where their money is going and how it's being divided up by certain clients. I understand the Minister is going to say I can't give you the names. Everybody has the right to know what we all make in here. So it being public money, the taxpayer has the right to know where some of their funds are going.

I will say it again, and I may be doing the same spiel next year -- I should just ask for this recording and I can play it again next year -- I really believe the Housing Corporation is straying too far away from their original mandate and I think the business decisions should be left to people who have the shops for them. Housing can provide the expertise because they should know housing. I have a problem again with headquarters continuing to grow and the people in the frontline district offices seem to be the ones taking the most hits. I believe there may have been a few questions in there. Some of the other Members spoke to some of the ones I had in my notes, so I won't repeat it again.

Housing is a concern with residents of the Northwest Territories; it always has been, always will be. The Housing Corporation should, in my opinion, stay to their original mandate and reason they were established. I don't like the looks of the proposed new mandate. It's not something I would be able to support. It's trying to become too businesslike and I don't agree with that. I think they should be providing the houses. A lot of people have access to a lot of programs and have gotten money to be put into their own homes. You still hear a few concerns from people who have lived in public housing their whole life and they have worked hard to try to get out of public housing and get into their own homes, but all of a sudden they make too much so they are paying big rent. I thought that's what these programs were designed for. That's why I said there should be a little more transparency to these programs, so we could at least see where some of the money is going and make sure that one client is not getting $70,000 and another client who is not that far off in wage earnings gets $6,000. It's got to be transparent. It has to be fair. I have suggested before that one of the changes that the Housing Corporation could make is just have a block $50,000, $25,000 or $30,000 number that if people qualify with the bank to own their own home, they should all be able to access that money, nothing higher and nothing lower, just straight across the board, like the Minimum Downpayment Assistance Program they had a few years ago. That did that. It just gave a straight number right across the board to clients who qualified through the bank. It just seems like the programs change every few years right back to SHAG and the Rural and Remote Program where some of the people just finished paying 25 years later.

So I would like to see some consistency. I would like to see the programs stay the same, at least for awhile and not be changed every few years. I think there may have been a few questions in there. The Minister may wish to comment on some of the statements that I have made. Thank you, Mr. Chair.