Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the people in the communities, when they look at housing, they look at it as almost a sacred cow in terms of homes that were discussed many years ago, and now housing has a new mandate and a new approach to it. The concept of having homeownership in communities is fairly new and fairly complex. Some people are still stuck in that; providing homes for them. The federal government is slowly getting out of housing.

So I am saying that in designing programs, for some it takes more than two years and some just want a home. Some of them just want to live in a home. They want to know the program. It is a new concept in terms of bringing homeownership to them and they are having some difficulties of owning a home. I am maybe treading on some sensitive areas or issues such as the oral history of how houses were introduced into the communities through the treaty negotiation process or through some other policies of the federal government. There are still people in my region that still talk about how they were enticed to get off the land and live in a community. The government said you could have this house for as long as you want for a certain amount of money. There are still old-timers talking about that in my communities down the Mackenzie Valley. That, for them, is sacred.

I know the issue is complex. For us younger people, it might be different. For the old-timers, the discussions of oral history passed on is sacred to them. That is where they are getting confused. So in saying that, is there a special program for the seniors anywhere that they know that their place will be looked after, they have a special program just for them? For other people, it's okay, but for the old people that some receive letters saying that their rent is going to increase, they got scared. So they come back and say we were told this a long time ago, how come they are doing this now? Then they get on the government.

Madam Chair, that's something that for us it's okay, for young people, to understand some of the terms and words they use when writing, but the elders rely solely on the oral. No matter how many times you tell them, they still have something in their mind that says this is what we were told. The chiefs were pretty strong when they made agreements. Not like today, our agreements aren't very strong. But for them, the elders were pretty strong and it's pretty sacred. I think if we had something like that with some kind of program, even if you could think about grandfathering some of the homes of the elders, the lands that they have. With the new regulations you have around land development, it's too much for the elders. It's a lot of stress on them. I want to ask the Minister what he considers in terms of his new mandate, consultation, and what we have here in his opening comments and remarks on programs. You already mention in here consideration for the seniors. You call them seniors and in my community, we call them elders. Even that is different. So I want to see if you would give some consideration to our elders in our communities on some of these programs before you go full blast with some of the programs you will be implementing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clear up a point. The individual who ends up in this Supported Lease Program will have a few options. They lease the unit; they can go to the bank and purchase it outright, or just continue to rent the unit. You aren't kicked out of the unit. They are able to apply for subsidies under the Social Assistance Program, so there is that arrangement there also with regard to looking at their core needs.

Like you say, Mr. Yakeleya, it's important to work with the First Nations' organizations. We have been working with the AFN, and everybody saw on the television with regard to what happened in Kelowna. There are still a lot of commitments to improve the way we deal with aboriginal people in housing and also give aboriginal people more say on how housing issues will be dealt with in the country, as well as aboriginal organizations taking ownership of housing. I have been working with Billy Erasmus and his people, along with us, and how we can do a better job to deliver housing in the Northwest Territories, especially for First Nations people. I do sympathize with you. I grew up in McPherson. I did see where individuals owned their own homes, they had their own lands and lots, and then social housing came down the road and now they don't have anything to call their own today. We want to change that mindset and make people have pride with regard to owning a home and owning something that's theirs, and not be stuck in a social housing unit for their whole life. It is costing us roughly, for someone going into social housing and living their whole life in social housing, it's costing us roughly $1 million. There is a lot of money expended for people to be in social housing.

Again, through this program, we are hoping to improve that and have the flexibility in here to allow people to become homeowners and not get around the barriers that we face with regard to access bank financing, mortgages or taking that giant leap to become homeowners. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next on the list is Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The aspect that I would like to talk about a bit is the Novel housing proposal. We've heard much discussion here of the merit of this, the legacy. It's a unique project. It has the potential to make an enormous difference at a great cost benefit for us and for future tenants. That's all been very well established. What we have not heard enough of is -- my colleague, at least Ms. Lee has referred to it -- is the integrity of the business deal and the amount that's at stake and what we are being asked to put on the line.

Where I wanted to go with this, Madam Chair, is to see if we could find out more about what aspects of the deal are in force right now. What is the ask that is on the table in front of the Government of the Northwest Territories from the Mackenzie gas project or from ATCO? What are we being asked to agree with or go forward on right now, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, we do not have any financial commitments to this project. We are working with the Mackenzie pipeline group to consider that they look at this as a concept to build workforce housing which can be converted into modular homes at the end of the project. So we are just asking them to consider this as an option that they will look at as a product they will use for pipeline construction. Also, working with our federal partners, they want to have assurance that whatever that product is, it will meet their requirements through CMHC. So through the team approach we've taken, we have been looking at the idea of trying to get industry to seriously consider a product they can use for workforce housing to be able to convert into modular homes. Once the project is concluded, we will sit down with them and take it off their hands to convert into modular homes. We haven't put any money on the table for this idea. It's simply in discussions between industry, ourselves, CMHC and the proponent, to see if we can sell on using a product that we feel could make a difference to housing in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Okay. You know, maybe I haven't been paying too much attention or maybe I didn't have my running shoes tied up too tight, but the impression that I have been given all along here in the months of paper, it was the Mackenzie gas project and the ATCO folks who came to us and said we are going to have a bunch of housing that is going to be surplus after the pipeline project is built, are you folks going to need it. So we went to them. We are asking these folks to do something that works for us. I really thought it was the other way around. Well, my gosh.

I actually like that a bit better because if we are putting ourselves in the position of a customer, perhaps we are going to be in a position of getting a product and an outcome that's more to our liking.

So, Mr. Chairman, if there is no financial requirement in front of us right now, and understanding that this is a big

deal, very complex, we are looking at a time frame just for construction delivery before anybody even moves into this is probably six to seven years if a pipeline is going to be completed by 2012. But it is of such a scale and a scope that I understand people have to start making commitments at some time in the reasonably near future. Do we have enough information to know whether or not this has a potential to work for us? Are there still some significant aspects that we need to find out more information on? I am just trying to get a gauge on a scale of one to 10, if 10 is the completion of the deal, where are we in the whole process here? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask Mr. Koe to answer. Fred is the co-chair of the committee that is sitting with CMHC and ATCO and devising what we are working on here. I will allow Mr. Koe to answer that question.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. If I may...I'm just wondering, I think Mr. Braden was asking on a scale of one to 10, where's the deal now? Can you be more specific in that regard? Thank you. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. Next I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to weigh in on the Novel housing project at this point. I have a lot of other questions, but I'm going to weigh in on that one. I have had the opportunity to go to Calgary to the ATCO plant. I've seen their acres and acres of infrastructure there and buildings, and I have seen the conversion units, which are workforce complexes converted to single-family dwelling. I was -- I believe some of my other colleagues who attended there -- very, very impressed with the concept that we could take something which would normally be depreciated from the transportation to and from, and basically an investment that would essentially be depreciated over the course of the construction of the pipeline, and actually do something that would have a residual product at the end of the day located already in the North where it could go to serving a useful purpose. So to the concept of something that versatile and that flexible, I guess I don't like seeing things wasted and the whole idea of building the conversion into the camp units, for lack of a better description. I know it's workforce housing now that's the politically correct word, but the whole idea of building and the ability to convert it in at the time of construction I thought was quite a brilliant

concept, and obviously so did ATCO and that's why they patented the idea.

Having said that, there are lots of details about this deal that's a little bit hard for us to contemplate, not being a party to all the negotiations and the briefings and the expert work that's going into this. But some of the questions that I have about it are what are we going to do about northern participation in the ATCO proposal, the Novel proposal. Certainly when it comes to capacity, I'm sure that ATCO is one of the more well-known companies when it comes to this kind of construction. However, as some of the Members have pointed out, they're probably not the only people who have capacity. I would say probably on a large scale of a magnitude of what we're looking at, they may be the only one in Western Canada; maybe the only one in North America, for all I know. However, I don't know if there are pieces of this huge undertaking that could be carved off in some way that could be made available to northern companies.

There are components, there is the issue of assembly, there are issues of the fact that I'm sure they use tradespeople and they probably even train tradespeople in the areas of mechanical, electrical, carpentry, things like that, even when these things are constructed in their own plant in Calgary. I am, I guess, kind of cautiously or conditionally...Well, let's just back up. What I want to say is that I am supportive of the idea of having something left at the end of the day after these units have been used for workforce housing in the North. I think the idea and the concept of those units being converted into something that can go to alleviate the housing needs in our communities is a good principle.

So at a high level, I can tell you that for sure. How we work out achieving that and how we obtain value-added along the way, not just the units at the end of the day and not just the work associated with the conversion of the units at the communities and setting them up and all that and all that kind of economy that will be created by that exercise at the end of the day, I am very interested in the business case that will come forward that will show more significant northern participation than that. It is my understanding that ATCO is amenable to that kind of northern content and northern participation; at least I have to assume so. I wasn't in Hay River when they came there with the Minister, but I believe a representative of ATCO came to Hay River with the Minister and, in fact, had a firsthand look at some of the manufacturing capacity, shipping capacity, all those kind of things in Hay River. I'm not saying Hay River is the only place for any of that, but it might be the most obvious place seeing as that would probably be where the rail comes to, the road comes to, and the barge operation takes off from. Seeing as most of these things are going downriver, I mean, Hay River might be the obvious spot. Could I say that? Okay.

I believe there was a representative of ATCO Structures with the Minister, so judging from that, I would take that as a signal from this large corporate entity that they are interested in what the North has to offer this project on the front end and during, not just after the fact. I think that's a good thing and those are the kinds of details I think we need to work out that would make such a deal as this fly.

I do have some concerns about the number of units and I guess whether it's possible to gauge upfront whether there really would be uptake in the communities. Now, the Housing Corporation is talking about taking on half of the units. So if there's 1,400 units at the end of the day, that's another 700 units to market in a number of communities. I know, also for example, that there's a 400-man camp going in Hay River. I would suggest that you would probably affect the housing market in Hay River if you left the units that were occupied by 400 people during the construction of the pipeline in Hay River at the end of the construction. I would say that you would significantly impact the housing market in Hay River for the next 20 years.

So I think that market disruption and those kind of things need to be taken into consideration and I'd like a lot of clarity around which communities, how many units, and the ones that the Housing Corporation would not be accessing. Who did you have in mind that was going to buy them? Would it be through NWT Housing Corporation programs, like homeownership programs, or is that already encompassed in the 700 that you're earmarking for our needs? I guess there's just a lot of unanswered questions and on a project of this magnitude. There is the potential for a significant liability, which I don't think this government wants to play that kind of a game when it comes to risk in assuming financial liability. So this all needs to be really, really well thought out. But certainly, like I said, I offer my support to the concept absolutely conditional on the level of northern participation, and I think the Minister has seen firsthand that there is a tremendous capacity here in the North, as well, to enjoy some of the benefits on the front end.

So, I don't have a single question on that, but if the Minister wants to respond to that, he could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just at the outset, I'd just like to make it clear to the Members here that the camps we are looking at are the workforce housing camps and they will be around Inuvik -- Little Chicago -- Fort Simpson, around Trout Lake. So those are the four camps we're looking at. There's also going to be camps needed in regards to preconstruction camps. There's going to be camps by way of pioneer camps. There's going to be kitchen facilities, office facilities. There is going to be a major influx of facilities being built for this pipeline. We're only looking at one component, which is the workforce housing.

The camp that you talked about in Hay River, I believe that is there in regards to doing the logistic stuff for loading the barges and getting the pipe on the barges going up the river. So that camp will basically be dealing with the logistics of getting everything into Hay River and everything back out as soon as possible. Again, that is something that's being worked out with the community of Hay River and the business community. We have nothing to do with that, but we have had opportunity to meet with the business community in Hay River, along with the people from ATCO in which they did make them aware that they have some major capacity problems by way of building all this stuff in the South, moving it North, and then moving it again once they get to Hay River. They would just as soon build some of these facilities through portable plants that they can put in place, looking at corridors, kitchen facilities, large facilities that there is going to be a logistical problem getting them from the

South to the North and getting them onto the barge. So they are open to that idea.

We've also talked to them, along with myself and the federal Minister, that there are certain things that we'd like to see as part of this project is to ensure that we have training with regard to the human resource component of the proposal and also energy efficiency. We want to ensure that, at the end of the day, we generate jobs in aboriginal communities to ensure that we have the workforce to be able to do the conversions in those communities and not have to lose out on that opportunity.

Out of this project we estimate that $200 million of those expenditures we're making here will be spent in the Northwest Territories for the logistic cost of transferring these units into communities, site development costs, conversion costs, and also ensuring that we have the human resource people trained and whatnot in communities. They are looking at the possibility of building a training component into their plant so that we can take people to Calgary, train them in their facility, bring them back North and they can do the conversion with the skills that they require through this training proposal that we're developing with them.

So, again, those are some of the scenarios I just wanted to lay out. But again, those four camps we're talking about are slowly going in the Mackenzie Valley and we did not want to disrupt the markets in the larger centres by way of Yellowknife and Hay River and Fort Smith. So we're solely concentrating on the corridor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get back to the line of questioning that I had for the Minister earlier and I ran out of time and was unable to ask him some more questions. The more that the Minister spoke about this project, specifically with the Hay River Seniors' Society and the seniors' complex in Hay River, the more confused I got. I know yesterday, I don't have Hansard here in front of me, but yesterday the Minister had mentioned the fact that it was $25,000 per door that the Housing Corporation was providing, and earlier today he mentioned the number of $18,000 per door that the Housing Corporation was providing. He's also mentioned the fact that the land would be going over to facilitate this being built. I'd like to ask the Minister, what is the total contribution from the Housing Corporation into this project? If it is $25,000 per door or $18,000 per door, it's a substantial amount of money, and if you include the land, it's even more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, our total contribution with the land and the subsidy is $450,000. The number I gave you yesterday, the $25,000, was based on the original proposal, which was 18 units. But now they've come back with another proposal for 25 units, so that's how you come up with $18,000 per unit. The original proposal was for 18 units, which was $25,000 per door. It's still within the range we've allocated, which we've committed the $450,000, which includes the property and the subsidy.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Ramsay.