Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for over a century, Denmark has delivered social housing through non-profit housing organizations. These organizations develop and own the buildings and residents influence their living conditions through a system of tenant democracy. As a result, Danish non-profit housing development is highly regulated in terms of financing, design, construction, and management. By Danish law, each municipality reserves roughly 25 percent of its social housing stock for refugees, unemployed people, and people with disabilities. Capital for building social housing comes from a national building fund or a revolving renovation fund set in Danish law and governed by a board of directors with oversight over the housing non-profit organizations. Every four years, the fund's operating levels and investments are agreed on by Danish parliament. As a non-profit organizations repay their loans or tenants pay rent, the fund is replenished, creating a sustainable funding cycle for construction costs and a consistent funding mechanism for ongoing large scale maintenance and renovation of social housing properties. Affordable housing developers rely on sometimes dozens of financing sources to fill the gap of total construction costs. But with Denmark's national building fund, the non-profit housing development sector receives simplified financing largely from the fund itself at 88 percent investment, 10 percent from a no interest loan for a 50year term and 2 percent from tenants' rent. But once the construction project is done, Mr. Speaker, tenants can exert some control over the operating budget, repairs, and overall maintenance which are overseen by non-profit housing organizations.
Western institutions pulled four lessons from the Danish social housing system. The first, build simplified mechanisms for affordable public or non-profit housing financing and establish loan repayment system under a revolving fund. Second, diversify tenants and owner incomes within buildings for more flexible ways of meeting repayment terms and capturing wider social benefits. Third, pursue cooperative housing policies. And finally, consider other income policies that complement affordable housing because income policies matter when developing and enacting housing policies.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Social Development listened to community members speak on homelessness prevention. We heard equal parts of the history of what wasn't working and aspirational views of what housing in the NWT could look like. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement. Thank you.
Unanimous consent granted
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues. Mr. Speaker, here in the NWT, tenants want anatomy, respect, and progress. Image the shift from aspiration to action when public housing tenants are given a seat at the table to help selfdetermine how funds are used. Affording residents selfdetermination of their living conditions through tenancy democracy has potentially huge impacts on the financial sustainability and health of community housing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. Members' statements. Member for Great Slave.
