Minister of Education.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The college campus itself in Yellowknife is part of the education plan review that’s being undertaken right now and that should be completed by April and we can share with the Members in due time. Mahsi.
I think that there will be high interest in that. I’m just wondering, though, if we know when our lease expires on the current Yellowknife Campus building. Thank you.
That will be two years from now in 2012. So that’s the reason why we’re doing this school review. Mahsi.
So I wonder, do we feel that’s sufficient time, or I wonder if we have any early thoughts on this. That seems like a pretty tight window of time. I know we’re looking at our whole strategy of space in Yellowknife and so on. Is there at least an option to renew on a short-term basis, if not a longer term basis, on our current space? Do we know? Thank you.
This should give us some time to review the overall plan of the Yellowknife Campus itself. With the outcome of the review, that should give us an indication of where we need to go next and the negotiations stages start from there. It’s going to be just less than two years going forward. So it may or may not be enough time to put a package together, but we’ll do what we can out of the review and then get together as a department, but we can update the Members as we progress forward. Mahsi.
Okay we’re on page 10-35, Aurora College, funding allocations, information item. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say on the record that I support the long-term vision of an independent college/university established here in the Northwest Territories and hopefully that the independence, what I’m referring to is a Yellowknife Campus. Mr. Chairman, I’m a little cautious that we would have a mass exodus out of the Northern United building, which at present the college in Yellowknife is located. I would caution, you know, both the department or any Member suggesting that we should jump out of that, only because we have to keep in mind what we’re doing. In that particular facility, the Northern United building, the college provides itself as an anchor tenant to that building that may be difficult to replace. Now, in most cases, most people wouldn’t care if the government is an anchor tenant or not, they think move ahead, but it’s what that anchor tenant does that is very important.
The territorial government represents a significant amount of income to that building that allows them, in turn, to provide low, cost-effective housing for people who otherwise couldn’t afford housing. In other words, the government, which pays a reasonable market fee, helps offset and allows that building to make sure that elders, whether they’re a new Canadian, whether they’re whatnot, have an ability to house…somewhere to live in a safe and secure environment and it’s very affordable. So I’d just be cautious that anyone would suggest the long-term vision should not include some type of tenancy in that building.
I’ve spoken to the board there and said that my long-term vision of the college is to migrate out of there, but yet, I would like to see it as an independent campus here in Yellowknife, and I think that’s the next phase for it. I’d be surprised if there were too many people in this city that didn’t think so.
But we cannot forget government’s social commitment and that building provides a lot of housing for people and it’s extremely affordable where it’s very difficult to find affordable housing if you’re a single person with some kids. As I said, if you’re a couple that are in your elderly years on an extreme fixed income, I mean, that becomes one of the most viable options for you, and that building does provide a safe home for a lot of people that otherwise would be extremely at risk. And furthermore, they’d probably be on maybe income support as a possible option to be able to get through. The government tenancy there also protects independent living by these types of people. It also being in my riding, I know it extremely well, and I can tell you right now that there would be a lot of families put at risk if government did some brash move without, sort of, thinking.
I’ve always been a stalwart supporter of saying that the campus must evolve, and I think we’d be going backwards if we didn’t look forward. But, that said, the government still, I think, has a social commitment to what that facility does, or I should say, that building does. So we should be cautious and tread very lightly on any potential changes on that building and realize the full impact it will have in this community. I’m not sure government would be prepared for the changes and, certainly, the dynamics that would fall out of that and I’d be very concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that that got on the record, because, again, I’m not against the college leaving. I’m certainly in support of that. But we have to make sure we have a plan that’s appropriate and that needs to be considered in this review. At least if it’s not the college’s problem, we should certainly make sure that the government understands that. Thank you.
Minister of Education.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we’re always very cautious on when we deal with those matters at hand, especially when the review comes into play. Once it’s produced, then there will be plenty of discussion to take place, and we will be keeping the Members up to speed on what the next step would be. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Back to page 10-35, Aurora College, funding allocations. Agreed?
Agreed.
Moving on to page 10-36, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Any questions?
Agreed.
Moving on to page 10-37, again, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Any questions?
Agreed.
Moving on to page 10-38, work performed on behalf of others. Any questions?
Agreed.
Work performed on behalf of others, $7.57 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Can we turn to page 10-7, department summary. Education, Culture and Employment, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $306.888 million.
Agreed.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded the Department of Education, Culture and Employment?
Agreed.
With that, I’d like to thank the Minister and his witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses out?
The next department that we’ll be looking at is the NWT Housing Corporation. Agreed?
Agreed.
With that, I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation if he has any opening comments. Minister McLeod.
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation’s main estimates for the fiscal year 2010-2011, which requests a total GNWT contribution of $37.122 million. This is a decrease of 1.8 percent from the 2009-2010 Main Estimates.
Including revenue sources such as client rent, public housing subsidy, CMHC cost-shared funds and lease and mortgage payments from clients, the Housing Corporation will have approximately $138 million available to spend on housing in the Northwest Territories in 2010-2011.
Federal funding for housing programs in the Northwest Territories in 2010-2011 will total over $43 million. As Members are aware, 2010-2011 represents the final year of federal investments in housing in the Northwest Territories as part of its stimulus package to boost the Canadian economy. This funding accounts for $29 million of the total federal investment in housing in the NWT this year. This government has committed to match this funding through the GNWT’s contribution to the Housing Corporation. Canada has also provided a further $4 million in unilateral program funding through programs to support our non-profit and cooperative housing sector, $2 million for the modernization and improvement of public housing and a further $500,000 for renovations through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP). In addition, this funding includes approximately $9 million of debt recovery related to the repayment of cost-shared mortgage with CMHC.
Mr. Chair, this funding will be utilized in a number of areas, including program and capital delivery, public and social housing operations, debt repayment and administrative costs. The Housing Corporation will once again provide approximately $22 million in homeownership and repair assistance through its Housing Choices Homeownership Programs. Of this $22 million, $9 million will be used to build 36 new units for delivery through the Homeownership Entry Level Program (HELP). Eight million will be invested in repairs and renovations to private homes through the Contributing Assistance for Repairs and Enhancements program (CARE), which includes a $2 million additional investment under the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative to fund repairs for lower-income households. The remaining funding of $5 million will support homeownership assistance through the Providing Assistance for Territorial Homeownership program (PATH), CMHC repair programs, third-party non-profit renovations, and preventative maintenance activities. Our Homeownership Programs are designed to ensure that the housing programs and services we provide foster client independence and respond directly to client needs in a manner consistent with our resources.
In an effort to strengthen the long-term viability of our public housing stock, the Housing Corporation will invest $13 million to construct approximately 46 replacement public housing units. We continue to promote the sale of existing public housing units as part of this replacement process. We will invest just over $18 million in the existing public housing stock, including $15 million in major modernization and improvement projects, $3 million in minor modernization and improvements, and $230,000 for mobile equipment expenditures. As part of the modernization and improvement plan, $1 million identified through the GNWT’s Energy Investment Plan will focus on energy assessments and retrofits of the public housing portfolio.
As always, the corporation’s largest expenditure is related to the delivery of the Public Housing Program in our communities. The approximate 2,400 units in our public housing inventory cost $40 million to operate each year. A large portion of this funding is provided to LHOs through the Public Housing Rental Subsidy which, as Members know, will be transferred back to the Housing Corporation during the coming fiscal year. Approximately $5 million is collected through tenant rents. Our ability to deliver the Public Housing Program depends on the rent we collect and it is important for our tenants to play their part in the program’s success by undergoing income assessments and paying the portion of rent required based on their income.
Mr. Chair, it is clear that Canada is an important funding partner required to support the efforts of this government to improve housing conditions in our Territory. As noted previously, at the end of 2010-2011, funding for new construction under the Economic Action Plan will cease, and changes will be made to federal programs such as RRAP and AHI. Earlier in this session, I outlined new housing need data showing an increase in our core housing need from 16 percent to 19 percent over the past five years in spite of significant investments by both levels of government. If we are to continue to make progress in improving housing conditions across our Territory, it will be critical for us to put pressure on the federal government to continue to invest in northern housing while also recognizing that we can do more as a government to improve housing conditions on our own. I, along with my territorial counterparts, have called for a new approach to northern housing that would provide long-term predictable funding to the Territories, based on need rather than population, and including funds to not only build housing but to operate and maintain them as well. I see this as a critical step in making improvements to our communities and improving the lives of our residents.
In closing, it should be noted that we are pleased with the federal government’s commitment to the North through housing investments. The sustainability of our existing public housing stock, however, will be at risk if we are unable to secure a long-term funding commitment from the federal government. Once again this year, federal funding for the operation and maintenance of public housing has declined and it will continue to do so until lapsing completely in 2038. The annual impact of this decline is beginning to be felt more severely. The Housing Corporation recognizes this problem and is developing strategic approaches to deal with the decline of CMHC funding. These approaches will build on our own capacity to address these challenges as well as ongoing strategies to ensure that our public housing stock remains viable. Protection of these housing assets are critical as public housing is perhaps the single most important means we have to adequately, affordably and suitably house residents in the greatest need.
That concludes my opening remarks. At this time I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
With that, I’d like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in any witnesses.
Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
With that, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.
For the record, Mr. McLeod, can you introduce your witnesses?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me, to my left, Mr. Jeff Polakoff, president of the NWT Housing Corporation, and I have, to my right, Mr. Jeff Anderson, vice-president of Finance with the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Welcome, witnesses. General comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, under the Canada Economic Action Plan funds that have been and are being spent in the Northwest Territories and recognizing that we are losing our federal funding steadily with the levelling out at zero in 2038, are any of the Economic Action Plan dollars stimulus funds being directed to really build our capacity for building and maintaining our houses with local people and resources so that we can start to shoulder some of those things ourselves and circulate what dollars we do have in the communities instead of exporting them out of the NWT.
Mr. Lafferty, would you like to respond to the general comment?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. With a lot of the money that we’ve gotten from the Canada Economic Action Plan, a lot of it was going more towards the multi-family-type units where there would be a cost savings to maintain and operate. We’re starting to see a lot more of that within the Housing Corporation, but a good portion of the money that we did receive was to go towards doing the multi. Also, a lot of it was going towards some of the repairs needed in the community and we’ve had some communities say that they’ve never had so much work before from the Housing Corporation. A lot of that is due to the investment made by the federal government.
I realize these are general comments, so I’m trying to keep my questions general rather than as comments. I suppose my comment there would be I hope that we do maximize our opportunity for building capacity with these funds. Certainly we can’t help but generate jobs when we’re throwing $50 million out there. Some real focus on directing funds to build that capacity in meaningful ways other than just units on the ground, and I know that’s essential as well, could help.
Just my second one, really, is related. I’m happy to see we’re lobbying and I’m sure we’re being more effective in joining our voices with other northern jurisdictions on this, but certainly the federal government seems implacable at this point in time and we know they’re facing their own issues in terms of deficits and so on. I’m wondering just again what sort of contingency funding or contingency planning we’re doing to help prepare for that day. I know we’re 20-some years ahead here, so hopefully something will happen by then, but at the same time, our funds are going down year by year by year. We have gotten lucky over the last couple of years, which has really helped, but obviously our needs survey has shown that it hasn’t been the answer completely. So we will be facing a tighter and tighter ship as we go on. I’m just wondering, does the Minister have any thoughts on what contingency planning we can be doing in the future on that. I’ll use some of my time on that.
Hopefully we’ll be around in 2038 to see it, well, not hit zero. I’m thinking, as I said before, part of our strategy is the design of our homes going to the more multi-unit-type homes. I think we may come to a point where we may have to make some hard decisions on how we provide houses. Are we a public housing provider? The homeownership, we’ll have to see that. The bottom line is we’d still like to secure funding from Canada for the operation and maintenance and we’ll continue to lobby them for that part. But I think it’s going to come to a point where maybe it’s a question of asking the Assembly for more money to replace some of the money that we’re losing to CMHC. We will have some hard decisions that we’ll have to make and we’ll have to sort out our priorities and see where we can best use what money that we have.
I understand there are some tough realities here. I think ultimately it comes down to the communities themselves. That’s the ultimate endpoint provider. I tip my hat to the City of Yellowknife for their Affordable Housing Initiative. I think it’s not a precise model for our smaller communities, but I think it’s a pretty good indication of some direction we could and should be going and focusing yet again on community capacity for dealing with some of these issues, because ultimately that’s where they end up residing. We can play a big, supportive role there, at least. That’s it. Thank you.
General comments. I’ll come out.
And next on the list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the Minister’s statement and also the housing programs, I note in this statement that he talked about promoting the sale of existing public housing units. I think that’s a great idea. I think we have something like 1,000 units that we’re trying to get rid of. I think the plan a number of years ago was 100 units a year for 10 years, take those dollars, reinvest it as one of the ways of dealing with the declining social funding from the federal government. Yet, I believe we have sold very few units. One of the major problems of that is we’ve overestimated the value of those assets and are expecting to get $80,000 or $90,000 for these units in our communities. No one will pay $80,000 or $90,000 for these old units which are over 35 and 40 years old.
I think we have to be realistic here. I think we should do whatever we can to deal hard-to-house people, people who are in the present system who do make a reasonable wage and can afford to maintain a unit, and have shown that they are able to pay their rent even through the economic rent system. That’s a frustration that we have. We have a lot of clients in public housing who can afford to maintain a home, but they get frustrated, too, because they see other people who aren’t in social housing get into public housing units that are being built. There are also units in our communities that are sitting vacant. I think the whole idea was to get people into those units, yet we have a lot of vacant units, especially the newer units that are coming on. We’re not doing anything from either end trying to get those units occupied by people who can show that they do have the capacity to maintain and operate these units.
Another issue that I didn’t really hear much of is the whole area, I know I raised it quite a few times, about people with disabilities in communities. I think that it was a pilot project tried in Yellowknife, but it has never gone to anywhere outside of Yellowknife to identify how this is especially designed for people with disabilities so that they can occupy these units, have it designed for their needs but, more importantly, have those units available, for we have high numbers of people with disabilities. I think it is crucial that we, as a government, seriously take a look at that. Again, it is something that I don’t see anywhere in the Minister’s statement.
The other area I think that we do have to realize in the areas dealing with the Department of Health and Social Services is seniors care facilities in communities regardless if it is permanent care, long-term care or basically just simply elders care facilities that make sense. As long as the numbers are there, we have the adequate number of people that we can put in these units and not build units just simply for the sake of building units. I think we have had some examples of that in other areas.
Again, I think that we do have to find a way of revamping the programs that we do have. I know that the Auditor General, a number of years ago, in the report, clearly stipulated the government has to find a system to do ongoing reviews of these housing programs and to ensure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, but more importantly, they are achieving the results we are hoping to achieve. I have raised the issue in this House in regards to how those programs and services are being delivered. I think that’s one of the biggest issues you hear from clients, especially in my riding. The income threshold that is used and in most cases they are refused because of their income. But yet, to operate and maintain a home in a community, especially in isolated communities, you have to have a decent income to operate and maintain those units. I think we have to be realistic when we set these thresholds. Make sure that it is meeting the increases regardless if it is the price of fuel, the cost of maintaining and operating a home and have the ability to adjust those types of programs.
Every time the government needs a supp, they come forward because the price of fuel went up. They are looking at some reason that the cost to operate those units but we have to come forward. If any time the government justifies coming forward for a supp, needing more money for fuel increases, we should look at increasing the threshold for programs that the Housing Corporation delivers on the same argument. I think we have to develop programs with realistic numbers; numbers knowing that we have different costs associated with homeownership, the operational cost, the cost to maintain the homes in our smaller communities is very high and you do have to have a pretty reasonable income to maintain a home in a lot of our communities.
Again, I will leave that with the Minister. Maybe he can answer a couple of those questions, and then I have a few more after that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the Member is right.; there was an effort to promote the sale of some of the existing public housing stock. We have managed to move a few. We have identified I think it is another 63 that could be sold. He is also correct that there was some concern with the cost of some of these units. We just have to make sure that a lot of the folks that maybe would buy these units would be able to maintain them. Some of them are older units. It is a concern there.
The vacant units is one that we hear obviously quite a bit about. In some communities we hear from folks there that have had units vacant in the community almost since the time they were built. We have taken steps to address some of that and find some solutions and to fill in these units. Our wish is to have folks that are able to qualify for the program be in the program, and that goes to another point that the Member raised on the income threshold. It is one area that when I first got the portfolio with the senior officials, I did say there was a gap of people that Members have been talking about for a long time that we need to address. Some of the smaller communities where folks are making a pretty decent wage, they are somehow over the income threshold and they fail to qualify even though we all know they’d be able to maintain their own unit.
So that is one that we are going to concentrate on for the next little bit. There is an ongoing policy review. We have one in 2010-2011 where we are evaluating the Housing Choices programs. Obviously we would be discussing with committee and getting some feedback from them as to what they are hearing. We hear it quite a bit in the House. Also as part of this, there will be a review of the rent scale. The people with disabilities, we’ve doubled the amount of money we have available to convert houses to disabled access units. So they would be able to take us upon that money. We also have some designs and in some of the communities, the LHOs recognize that they have some disabled tenants and they take steps to try to address that.
I think I may have touched on most of the Member’s points and I will wait for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the other areas that the department should seriously consider is family size, especially when you start off as a single couple and then maybe you have a few children. What we are finding is it is leading to overcrowding A lot of people that got into Homeownership Program were basically newlyweds. In most cases, they might have had one child or something. A couple of years later, they have four children and the house is not designed for six people. Is there a possibility that the government can look at the programs wherever possible and instead of having to do a major retrofit of that unit by expanding the unit, if they could swap houses with the government... You are going to have other clients in the same predicament where they are newlywed couples. They are needing more than just a two-bedroom unit versus a house where you need a four-bedroom unit where you have a family with six people occupying that unit. I think there has to be some flexibility in our programs and services that we can in our communities, wherever possible, than having to have the people apply on a program where they’re going to have to go to the bank, get a major loan to expand their unit. It might make more sense just to swap out units between the Housing Corporation and the people, because they are our clients. They came to us for a program. They managed to get the credibility of going to the bank and sign onto the mortgage. Something this government has to look at on the progression of growth. You start off as a single couple, you have children, you have a family. As we grow, we have to look at housing with regard to a transitional period when you start off as a single person. Then you get married and you move through life. Eventually the whole cycle of housing has to be considered here.
I find it really, I wouldn’t say challenging, but for people in communities, especially families that realize their house is too small, they’ve got four kids and it was only designed for three people. We talk about the area of statistics and overcrowding, health conditions and everything else, that brings up the area of health care and not only the affordability of housing but the adequacy of houses. I would like to ask the Minister if that’s something they could consider looking at in light of these units we have in our communities. It might make more sense to deal with somebody that already has the credibility with the banks, who has the track record of actually being on board, paying their mortgage. They’re getting ahead, but they just cannot get that assistance to expand their unit, which probably makes more sense to go to the house and say can we do a swap here. I believe we already do that in some cases, where we actually take back units and then basically offer them to other clients. I’d just like to ask the Minister if that’s something they can seriously consider. Thank you.
This was part of developing a local market where people in the communities become homeowners. So if there’s a deal that can be worked out between two homeowners, because you have people that would receive the unit when they had a fairly large family and then they’ve all moved out so there’s opportunity there. If a person owns their own home in the community and they realize that it may have gotten too small for them, if they’ve done all their forgivable part or if they’ve paid everything up, then there’s an opportunity for them if there’s a market there -- in some cases there is -- to sell their unit and maybe move into a bigger unit. But that was the whole idea of developing a local market.
I think we’ve seen cases in some of the communities where people have switched houses or someone’s had a smaller house, they’ve sold it and they’ve managed to get into a house, maybe where there was a quick claim. So there’s always opportunities like that and as long as the person is the absolute homeowner, then they have to agree to it and sometimes they’ll initiate the discussion. Thank you.
