Okay, I guess in simple terms, my question is the Housing Corporation has programs in play that are doing their job, right? It’s taking the core need in the Northwest Territories and taking the core need down in all the appropriate communities where core need is highest, which in effect is bringing the overall core need down. So if we just divide the amount of units in the Territories in half, half is in Yellowknife, half is outside of Yellowknife. If the overall core need goes up, right? It’s simple math. If the overall core need goes up but the core need in Yellowknife goes down, that means that the actual core need outside of Yellowknife has gone up greater than the
average core need. Okay, 3 percent, that’s all I’m saying. But I don’t even want to go there because I guess I’d have to have a white board to try and explain what I’m saying. It’s just that I’m good at numbers and I know all these things in my head.
Now, what I am asking is if you have programs that are effective, going down, taking the core need going down in the appropriate places in the communities that have the highest core needs, there’s no problem, no problem. All of a sudden the corporation comes in, takes all those programs and replaces them with four programs, essentially the story is that all the other 14 programs that were there are still rolled up into these four programs. Yet, after a few years of that application the overall core need has gone up. I know that M and I is protecting assets of the Housing Corporation, but it doesn’t take people out of core need, okay? People in public housing are protected from being in core need except for the affordability aspect of it, and, in essence, a guy that’s in public housing pays according to income, he’s supposed to be allocated a suitable unit and the NWT Housing Corporation’s LHOs’ maintenance employees essentially ensure that they don’t have an adequacy need. So that’s okay and it’s good that the Housing Corporation spends money on M and I and fixes up public housing units. It does help the overall stock and operating costs and everything, but I guess I’ll just bring it down to a question.
I recognize that this is not the Minister that took these programs on also, but the consolidation of these programs hasn’t worked. Is the Minister prepared to look at, like you just indicated, Mr. Chairman, a HAP program, look at other programs and address other ways of taking core need down? If we’re doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to work, I think that that’s a definition of something. Now, that is something we shouldn’t continue to do. Will the Minister look at reincorporating programs that used to work to address core need? Thank you.