Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason I put this

motion on the floor is to help the government. The government has already said through the Premier, through the Minister responsible and through the Minister of Finance, that they did not follow the proper process to move the Yellowknife Correctional Centre renovation to a combined new facility. What this motion does and they have written to us and apologized and I thank them for that, but what this motion does, Mr. Chairman, it enables the government to do the proper consultation through the proper standing committees and MLAs and again come and move ahead so all the concerns that Members have raised about this facility should be addressed. It enables the government to follow their own guidelines, their own processes, that is all it does. This capital project is not an emergency, so all this motion does is it allows the government to follow a process that we all agreed on we would do. Once again, we are trying to help the government to follow the proper process. Thank you.

I move that this committee recommends that the Executive Council take immediate steps to terminate its planning and implementation process for the adjusted design and construction phases for the replacement of the Yellowknife Correctional Facility and the collocated Young Offenders Facility and further that the Executive Council initiate correctional facilities planning in consultation with the appropriate standing committee and Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is also, I believe, a difference between the word notifying and the word consultation. I believe there is different meanings to those two things. Even in your own government you have a process of changing capital projects and I know that this government and this 13th Legislative Assembly has already put a motion of censure in the government for not following the proper process. According to your process no new capital projects over $250,000 are to be established until the responsible Minister, that would have been Mr. Kakfwi, has consulted in writing with the affected MLAs and appropriate standing committee. If the standing committee or MLAs do not support the proposed project, the responsible Minister, that is Mr. Kakfwi again, should advise the chairman, yourself, of FMB in writing if he/she intends to proceed with the project. The requirement for consultation will be waived if the new project is necessary due to an emergency. I never ever heard of this project being an emergency, in which case notice will be provided as described in "b" below when a department proposes to delete a capital project of significant concern to a community, the appropriate standing committee and affected MLAs will be advised. Those are the consultation guidelines. That is one part of them. There was never any consultation taking place with the standing committee that is responsible for this as well as MLAs, because it affects all MLAs, not just Yellowknife MLAs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a motion.

Thank you. What Minister is responsible to consult on this change with the appropriate committee and MLAs?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so we are thinking the same and using the same words, maybe the Minister can help me. Is there any difference between the word renovation and the word new? Is there a difference, just so I understand?

When you change the scope of work of a project, does it go to FMBS? Is that where it goes for a change?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Who is the Minister

responsible for this project?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members do not have recourse or much recourse when it comes to the system we work in. The only thing that Members are allowed to do is recommend and delete from the budgets, if they can carry a motion. Hearing what the Minister said, I think he truly understands what the concern is, and he is taking action. He is going to do something about it. When Mr. Roland spoke just recently, what Mr. Roland said was that they are doing a new housing needs survey this year. This may create an imbalance at this present time of how housing units are allocated, and it may have created an imbalance before. I do not know. The government is moving to rectify it, because Mr. Roland, through the Housing Corporation, is doing a new needs survey, so these houses will be dispatched in those communities and they will be taken into consideration during the needs survey. That is how it is going to happen so I have no problem with it. The other thing the two of you should address is how those two policies should work together, that is it, and you have committed to that so it is straightforward. I thank them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is only so much money in the Housing Corporation's budget to meet the housing need of the community. In community A you have staff houses out on the market that cannot sell. In community B you have staff housing out on the market that cannot sell. In both cases they transfer the staff housing to the Housing Corporation. In community A they renovate that housing with their housing program dollars and sell it to the homeowner who can afford to pay $32 a month plus operations and maintenance. Their public housing need stays the same. The list stays the same. That is what their allocation was based on, a combination of their public housing need and the housing need survey. In community B they allocated to the housing authority, and they keep it for public housing stock. They do not have to spend any of their program money to renovate it or meet a need. It increases the needs that are met. I agree with your Staff Housing Policy. It is a good policy to get rid of them. I agree with how you allocate units. It is fair. It has always been fair.

When you look at them both and you combine them, then all of a sudden it becomes unfair. One is from FMBS and one is from the Housing Corporation, but when you combine the two, you are meeting extra needs in the community on your social housing programs. All of them are social housing programs. Whether it is a public house, EDAP, down payment assistance or whatever program it is, they are there. That has happened. I know it. When our government goes to sell those units, the price is at one price. It is from their appraiser plus ten percent below, and that is the price they pay. When they cannot sell it then, they turn it over to the Housing Corporation, and they can meet the community's need by renovating it to bring it up to standards because it is 20-some years old, so that it is energy efficient and people can afford to run. They use their money that is allocated to that community to meet housing needs, because they have met a housing need by renovating that unit. Then they give it to the client on that program where they go to the bank and get so much and make payments of only what they can afford. That is how it is met, and that is all Housing Corporation money.

You see how the two policies should work hand in hand. They are both good policies, but they should work hand in hand to ensure that no community gets extra social housing needs met where other communities are not given equal access or fair access to that same thing. Do you understand the concern, Mr. Minister?