Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, I know there are people coming and going all the time and I know that some of you are very interested in the issues being discussed here and are very passionate about this issue, but I would remind you again to respect the rules of the gallery and refrain from applauding. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned earlier today I have become quite concerned that the initial common agreement in this House that we should look at board and agency reform has changed from support to this side of the House being completely left behind. There is a number of reasons for this, but one is, of course, again the communications issue and the engendering of unnecessary angst and frustration with our public for the lack of communication and for the lack of meaningful information on which to base a public consultation. The word that is out there so far completely fails to recognize regional differences and completely fails to recognize where there has been successful operations for decades. The democratic issue is something I once again raised in question period and needs to be addressed.
I think, probably, Mr. Speaker, the best way that I could approach what we need here is to talk about a different process. That is what I would like to see and what I hope to achieve with this motion. I would like to see the Minister produce an analysis of the seven regions. What are the characteristics of those regions? What are the commonalities and what are the unique differences? Perhaps a first attempt even at identifying the opportunities within those regions, recognizing their differences. I would like to see him characterize the population, the cultural resources, the professional resources in those regions and bring that out in a format that the public can read and respond to. In identifying opportunities that are actually appropriate for regions, I would like to see the Minister actually discuss options rather than one-size-fits-all and rather than just one option for the region. Let’s give people something to really respond to meaningfully.
I would like to see this sort of report then vetted with the public, because obviously they have a lot of resources to bring to this issue, and see that incorporated into the analysis and then once again a further crystallization of the opportunities that we can detect. I would like to have departments detail their requirements and debate and refine that internally before once again taking it to the public for review, giving the public meaningful information. I would like to see some costing analysis of some of the opportunities that are identified and again internally reviewed and debated and with input from this side of the House, and again making this information available for public review and input.
Finally, I would like to see this information seek out cross-regional commonalities. Take what this process would produce, seek where there are commonalities, and could be dealt with on a larger scale, and then make proposals available; proposals that acknowledge and respond to actual regional characteristics and opportunities, real opportunities.
I have mentioned public review a number of times here and we have already heard lots of comments on that, Mr. Speaker, but public consultation needs to be comprehensive, well thought out, well scheduled and with a sincere attempt to seek and facilitate meaningful, informed and thoughtful input from Northerners, community leaders, members of boards and agencies, aboriginal governments and organizations, GNWT employees and managers, and Members of this House. This is an opportunity once again for this government to show they are hearing the voice of the people to make that decision, and to actually come out, in the longer terms, with a better product. Again, I stress that we started in common agreement, but somehow this government has left this side of the House, and certainly the public, far behind and we need to go back and correct that situation so that we can get really good input and come up with a good product. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member from Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion as well. In regard to addressing the motion, it is very difficult to know where to start. Like the supplementary health benefits proposal, this particular board reform proposal is wrong in so many places that I really don’t know where I should start to speak against it, so I will just start and carry on.
I have said before, and I think I said earlier today, that some board reform is necessary. I believe that we have too many boards and that there ought to be some consolidation of boards and we ought to try and find some efficiencies amongst the particular board system that we have. But I never imagined that any board reform would be like this, and I feel that the Minister and the Cabinet are naive to think that this is going to work.
I would like to acknowledge the work that was done by previous Assemblies and from previous studies, apparently there is a lot of work out there. The Minister of refocusing government didn’t actually give us an opportunity to see some of that work. We were given one model to look at and to try to respond to, and it is unfortunate that we didn’t get several different models to look at and to try and analyze. Several people have mentioned, what are we trying to fix? I haven’t yet heard an answer to that question and I pose it again to the Minister, and I would love to hear an answer.
This particular model, in my view, is not going to work in all areas of the Territories. We are very diverse in general. In some areas we are quite homogeneous and in other areas we are not homogeneous at all. We are quite diverse, even within various regions. The Tlicho model works quite well there, but even that model has its difficulties. It is my understanding that the health and the education aspects of that particular service board, even though they are under one same board, have two separate year end dates for their financials. So it is not quite as easy as has been proposed, never mind that in some areas of our lovely Territory, we have perhaps two different, very opposing views of how either self-government should go or how certain things ought to be done. We are definitely not homogeneous everywhere.
It has been mentioned before and I want to mention it again, currently, particularly education boards have elected board members. I feel very strongly, as a former education board member, that if all board members on these boards are appointed, it could almost be seen as an infringement of rights, of rights of the individual, rights of the people within the region who are presumably represented by this huge board and the rights, basically, of the general public. It could even be extended down to the rights of children that we are trying to educate or look after their health or house. I feel that if we are going to go with appointed board members that it is going to remove some of the responsibility from the local people, who currently feel passionate, in particular about education, because we have a lot of elected board members for education. I think it removes a lot of opportunity for local input. Appointed members don’t have the same feeling of attachment to a board as those who are elected. Some do, but not all.
The last thing that probably I think is going to make it most difficult to accept appointed members is that I think they are going to end up turning into bureaucrats. We have an awful lot of good bureaucrats in our government and I don’t want to speak badly of anyone in particular, but bureaucrats have a far different outlook than elected board members. I think that we are going to see these boards become boards of bureaucrats. They are going to think like bureaucrats and we won’t get that representation from the ground up that we need. I think that, as a result, we are going to get an impact on the various health and housing issues that arise, because bureaucrats certainly look at things differently than, say, a parent does. So if we have an education issue and you look at it from a bureaucratic point of view versus from a parental point of view, they are very, very different. So I think what is going to happen is we are going to get an impact on what actually happens in our schools, in our health centres and in our housing offices and that is not a good thing.
By extension, that sort of impact in the schools and health centres is going to trickle down on to the clients of those; that is our kids, our patients, that is the people we are putting into our houses. So I am really concerned that we have to be extremely careful on how the boards are made up.
It has been mentioned -- I can’t avoid mentioning -- that the combining of these three disciplines is going to be fraught with difficulties. There are legal issues. Education boards in Yellowknife, for instance, own property. Education boards in Yellowknife have the ability to tax. What is going to happen in that situation? It is going to take an awfully long time to work through some of those. The legislative issues have been mentioned. Those are going to take a long time, as well, and they are also going to be difficult to try and fix. There are staffing issues. We have different unions, even within the silo of education. Within those unions we have different contracts. We have different pensions. And presumably all these people who work for all these boards, these three disciplines, are going to be brought into the public service and all their contracts and all the elements of their contracts are going to be made homogenous. They’re all going to be the same. Pretty big issue. There’s going to be a huge cost associated with that. Staff working conditions differ. So those are probably going to change somewhat as well.
Most important for me is the focus is different. An education board has a different focus than a health board; a health board has a different focus from a housing office or local housing authority. To find board members who are going to be able to take each of those focuses and be true to that focus when they’re discussing a particular issue I think is going to be extremely difficult.
As well, we’re going to find within these large boards that there’s a grand temptation to move money from one section of the board to another. Particularly health is known as an entity that will just about drain anybody’s pocketbook. It’s been mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues, but I feel really strongly that there’s going to be a huge pressure on these board members to transfer money from one segment of their board to another. And they’ll be doing that presumably without any local input.
I mentioned in my Member’s statement, I asked where the analysis, the research, the background information is. It may be there, but there’s been no opportunity for certainly me as a Member and I think also members of the public to look at that research and for me to make my own decisions that, yes, this is the best model to go forward with. We have no proof that this is the best model. The background info that we were given basically is to me an op-ed piece. It’s somebody’s opinion. They’ve looked at a number of things and said, hmm, yes, here, and hmm, no, not there; yeah, okay, we’ll go with number two. I don’t call that research and analysis. I’m sorry.
There are huge costs associated with this amalgamation and board reform. Pay and benefits for staff, computers and IT systems -- that’s been mentioned -- office renovations and relocation, and there’s a cost of transition from the current system to a new system. I don’t know that that’s been considered, but that’s going to be huge. As has been mentioned, there’s a possible loss of jobs.
I have a particular concern about the North Slave regional board, which is going to be the area of Yellowknife and a little bit beyond. I have said before and I will say again, I think that a North Slave regional board is going to be a humongous entity. It’s going to be the size of a government department and it’s probably going to be run by a board of seven to 10 people, I’m guessing. That’s an awesome responsibility on people who are appointed. They’re not representing anybody in particular because they’re not elected. And they’re also not going to be there from day to day. I have a lot of concerns about how these board members are going to be able to deal with these three disciplines. What qualifications are we going to require of these board members? Are we going to take anybody off the street? Will they be able to do the job? Not that they...They probably will have the skills, but will they have the time and energy to deal with the problems that are going to arise?
I have seen briefly the presumed layout of the bureaucracy for this new board system. We’re going to have a super board, it’s been called, of chairs of the regional boards and we’re going to create a new Minister. A Minister of Boards, I think is what it’s going to be. So we’re going to have another Minister who is responsible for the regional boards. But we’re also going to have education Ministers and health Ministers and housing Ministers. I’m having a really difficult time figuring out how these four Ministers are going to deal with these three disciplines.
So to conclude, I’m very disappointed in how this particular proposed model has been brought forward. The consultation that has occurred, in my mind, is not consultation. Minister Miltenberger mentioned that this proposal was brought to Members at standing committee and, yes, it was. Most Members expressed grave concerns with the model as it was presented to us. We suggested what about looking at this particular way of doing it? What about looking at that particular way of doing it? Away they went and the next thing we heard from Cabinet was the same thing we heard the first time with no changes. So three times now I think we’ve probably been consulted. Well, twice we’ve been consulted, but three times we’ve heard the same message. I hardly call that consultation. The fact that we were presented with no options is a real concern for me. Again, we should have had a list of options that Members could consider and that the general public could consider, or we should have been presented with a blank page and said, here, fill it up for me, tell me what you think will work. We’ve had neither of those. Again, my disappointment is obviously showing.
In conclusion, I don’t have much to add except to say that I am certainly not in support of this board reform proposal and I will be supporting the motion.
---Applause
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this motion. To start I’d like to make some general comments on the Ministers’ statements made earlier today as I believe they are relevant to the motion at hand.
With respect to the statements made by the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, it was a nice statement. It didn’t really say anything. While listening I didn’t hear anything that would suggest the board reform is necessary or that education should be rolled into health and housing.
With respect to the Minister of Health and Social Services’ statement, it did identify some reasons for reform; however, it also offered a better solution, in my mind. The Minister talked about the joint leadership committee. Personally I believe that one health and social services authority or board is a better direction for the provision of health and social services in the Northwest Territories than combining them with education and housing.
With respect to the comments of the NWT Housing Corporation Minister, we already know that rolling public housing subsidy into ECE was, and is, a disaster. The local housing organizations are experiencing major deficits which they didn’t have before the change. Reinforcing an already bad decision by putting housing in with a super board is super bad.
Finally, with respect to the Premier’s statements, he referred a lot to the need for change. It is my opinion that change for the sake of change is insane.
There’s been a lot of talk, debate and concern raised about this government’s direction on board reform. According to the unedited Hansard of February 16th, Minister Miltenberger said, “When we got together at the start of the 16th Legislative Assembly a key message for Members was that we need to get on with board reform.” I remember it differently. I remember a significant amount of discussion on finding efficiencies within the government and our board structures. I remember talking about doing what’s right for the NWT and working in the best interests of our residents. I remember discussions on how to ensure that we are getting maximum benefit from every dollar that we spend. I remember our strategic plan and its goals of having an effective and efficient government. I don’t remember anybody talking about or suggesting that we gut the existing boards and combine them in super boards where conflicting mandates will have to struggle against each other on a daily basis. I know I would have remembered that conversation.
To me there are some things that we need to improve upon within the GNWT. Efficiencies must be found. With proper research, analysis, stakeholder engagement and modelling of alternatives this may even result in the reform of some boards. However, in the absence of any research stakeholder engagement or analysis, it’s way too early to commit to any plan. It’s time to take a step back and do the research and analysis. Let the findings of public consultation lead us into a direction that is in the best interest of the residents of the Northwest Territories.
When Minister Miltenberger first brought forward his plan for board reform and presented it to Priorities and Planning, the committee, of all of us Regular Members, I was immediately concerned and definitely not convinced that it was a good idea or in the best interest of Northerners. I’ve been opposing the direction since that time and will continue to do so. I was very concerned that amalgamating the different mandates under one might cause us all to suffer. Health and Social Services is a beast and could easily become the focus of any board responsible for different mandates. This could easily result in the loss of focus or direction in the other areas of education and housing.
Another major concern was that the Refocusing Government committee had decided to apply one model -- the Tlicho model -- in all regions, reducing the number of boards from 70 to seven. The Tlicho model appears to work, although it’s still going through some growing pains in the Tlicho region, because it was developed in partnership with the Tlicho Government based on how they wanted services provided in their region. It was developed with their input.
The important thing to remember here is that not every region is the same. All are unique and their differences and desires must be included in any changes that are put forward. Where the Tlicho model works in one area it does not mean it will work in all other areas. Yellowknife is a prime example. We have a regional health authority, two school boards with different mandates, and a number of housing boards -- Yellowknife and North Slave -- being thrown together. Combining these vastly different organizations together will hurt each and every one of them as they compete for combined resources. If the board members are more passionate about health care, then health care will take priority over education and housing will suffer. If the board members are more passionate about education, then health and housing will suffer. Simply, this can’t work in Yellowknife or, in my opinion, the majority of the regions throughout the Northwest Territories. Blind devotion to a set model undermines the entire review process and ensures that the wrong model will be implemented. Once again it appears as though Cabinet has made the decision in the absence of sound evidence and research and are moving forward with what they believe is right, regardless of evidence and public input.
As indicated earlier, I believe that the reason the Tlicho model works in the Tlicho is because the Tlicho Government had an opportunity to participate in its design. They are the architects of their own model based on their own needs. As the individual aboriginal groups move forward with their own self-government models they may find that the Tlicho model works for them. However, given the uniqueness of every region, it’s also fair to assume that they will desire a completely different and/or unique model. They will want to be the architects of their own model based on their own needs, just like the Tlicho. I believe it’s ignorant for this government to presuppose that we know what’s best, to believe that we know what will work for the different self-governments. If we move forward with this model today we may have to completely tear it apart region by region once self-government agreements are reached and implemented. I believe that we would be better off engaging these aboriginal groups now and work towards the future. Do it once and do it right. Don’t assume you know what’s best and have government pay for going through a duplicate process later on.
In my opinion the direction of the Refocusing Government committee and Cabinet are proposing, with respect to board reform, is bad. Not just because of the serious lack of information, but due to timing. As a government we have far more important issues to be dealing with; things like devolution, resource revenue sharing, population growth -- or as we’re experiencing, the lack thereof -- and our economy. The NWT is not immune to the global economic meltdown. We’re feeling it more and more every day. Yesterday approximately 33 employees of Arctic Sunwest -- and I might be a little off on those numbers -- were laid off. In addition to those individuals, the 40 that were laid off from Tiffany’s at their diamond polishing plant and the five more that were recently laid off from Arslanian’s diamond plant, Yellowknife has seen a total of 78 people become unemployed in just three businesses in less than two months. The numbers of unemployed are increasing elsewhere as well. For instance, there has been a significant reduction in exploration in the Beaufort-Delta this winter resulting in more unemployed in that region as well. Is now really the time for us to be focusing on board reform? Are there not more pressing issues that are on our plate? Board amalgamation will result in elimination of positions. There’s no way to deny that. People will be laid off as a result of board reform. Do we really need to be increasing the number of unemployed people in the Northwest Territories? Now? Given the economic realities?
There are opportunities to help stabilize our local economies and promote exploration and resource extraction. This should be our priority. So let’s revisit our priorities and work to get Northerners working. Let’s work to increase opportunities for employment in the NWT for current and new Northerners. Let’s work to increase our population, which will ensure that our federal transfer payments go up, not down. Let’s stop wasting time and chasing away people who we want to stay in the Northwest Territories. Let’s be practical and do what’s needed. Stop wasting time on things such as board reform that will do more damage to the Northwest Territories than it will do good.
Cabinet must discontinue board reform. Waiting until April when the Refocusing Government returns with the research and analysis based on their preferred model is not acceptable. We need to put our energies where they are required. Our people’s employment and maintaining or increasing our population is far more important and timely. Threatening people with amalgamating boards is destructive and counterproductive. As we put our energies where they should be, we should also continue to pursue efficiencies within the system. To do this government must conduct meaningful research with no preconceived notions and actively engage stakeholders and residents of the NWT to identify potential areas for improving efficiency of government and boards and agencies. A plan that works for each region based on what is best for them, the government, and all of the residents of the Northwest Territories must be developed. In some cases I expect things to stay as they are. In others there is room for improvement.
A number of Fridays ago we all talked about working together and how important it is for consensus government. Today a majority has spoken very clearly on behalf of all residents of the Northwest Territories. I encourage Cabinet to look at our gallery, our very full gallery, and in our packed Great Hall and on the streets. People are speaking clearly. They want board reform to stop. It’s now time for Cabinet to acknowledge what we are saying and what they are hearing on the streets. It’s time for them to stop board reform.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would add my comments to the motion here. In our pursuit of looking for efficiencies in the Government of the Northwest Territories as stated in the 16th Assembly, certainly in terms of efficiencies, it has to do with the interpretation as efficiencies. When you look at the efficiencies of the government, certainly we all strive to see where we can do better.
In terms of the interpretation of efficiencies with this government, if you look at, for example, the McDonald’s restaurant. They’re pretty efficient in terms of operating their organization and how they serve the customers. I don’t think in terms of efficiencies that that is the kind of services and programs that we want for our people in the Northwest Territories in terms of how to cut on money and how to cut on time and just to get the services across as quickly as possible.
We are having a hard time right now in our region in terms of programs and services. Now they’re suggesting that maybe we should go into a super board because of the efficiencies. The Minister has a good argument in terms of the economics and the dollars that are being spent on all the boards in the Northwest Territories. But in terms of the services to the boards and the agencies, I think sometimes people have to be put first before paper and profit. People have to be served in terms of what this government is here for, in terms of their quality of life in our small communities.
Our front-line workers have told me in the Sahtu where they can cut efficiencies. But it seems that our front-line workers are not being heard at a higher level at times. Our front-line workers know the difficulties when they operate in very severe conditions, and environment. They don’t have some of the supplies or materials for them and how they get these into our communities. The front-line workers are going to suffer dearly if we continue working into a Board Reform Initiative.
I think more support, more trust and more resources should be given to our front-line workers. We’ve got to have belief in our workers on how they can look at things. A case in point: When I went back into the Sahtu, many people stopped me on the road and said how things should be looked at in our communities. There are policies today and regulations today that prevent some efficiencies in our communities. So I think that’s what we need to look at in terms of any type of reform. What existing policies and regulations stop us from being a service to our people in our communities?
As I said before in my Member’s statement, the communities in my region have not been convinced enough to say even a maybe on this board reform. I’ve received phone calls, I’ve received letters, and I received a flat out no, do not proceed with the board reform. They are saying let’s look at what we have now and how we can improve it. They know some of the issues that are going to take a long time; issues that have been brought up over the years in terms of programs and services in our communities. We are saying in the process of this board reform, would it make a difference in our communities? Will Colville Lake get a nurse and mental health worker, a social worker, an RCMP officer? Will they have that if we are to go with board reform? Can we get some signal from this government saying, yes, Colville Lake will no longer have to be serviced by laypeople who have minimum training in terms of health care in Colville Lake? Can we say that to the people in Colville Lake that they will get a social worker, get home care services for the elders if we are to go with the board reform? We are fighting desperately for these basic services in my region up in the Northwest Territories in the Sahtu.
Mr. Speaker, we fight passionately, as I read in the newspapers, for the Yellowknife Catholic School Board to have a right for their own education in their own system. We have fought very hard in the Sahtu to have that, our own education system. We support our groups and agencies to also have that same right and accord us to have that same right. With the board reform, you will take this right away that we fought for. We are negotiating self-government agreements. The territorial government is at the table also with our self-government negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in our people. I have faith in my people when they say no to board reform. I have faith because I know things could be better and could be done differently if this government had come to my community and sat down with my elders and my people and said we want to do something like this, what do you think. What I heard from my region is that representatives came to my region and said this is what we are going to do. Tell me how you are going to fix it. I have an issue with that, because that type of a relationship and attitude put a lot of fear into my board members and they were angry, just as I see members from the gallery here who are concerned and angry. How would you want to go into somebody’s house and say, this is how I want you to run your house. I don’t think it is efficient or proper enough. I am going to be the boss of you in your house when you agree with me. How dare they come into the Sahtu house and tell us they should be respectful in terms of that nation building relationship with our people and sit down with us and say we know there are issues here. They don’t need to tell us. We know there are issues here, but when is the government going to come and look at the community level and say what can we work on them in a respectful way.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this morning I, too, was thinking about this issue here. The question came to me. What is government here for? Why are we around this room representing our people in a government institution? Isn’t the government here supposed to be for the people? Isn’t it we will put our representatives in our region? Isn’t this government created by the people to be of service to the people, to be led by the people? Isn’t government taking direction from the people? That is what I have been told about government from my people and from my elders.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to this motion here and ask Members here to think about our people and our communities. It is to have faith in people on the boards right now, education board, health board and the housing boards. Have people have faith in our people. They know a lot, and more than we think they do. They are very smart. They represent their people passionately and in their beliefs and values. Have faith in our people in the Sahtu. They may not quite see the way you see the world because my people are from the land. They are trappers, hunters and fishermen. But they also have a mixed nation of people in the Sahtu. They have to work together to survive up there. It is very difficult and challenging. It is all about building a relationship. So this is one issue that I can say that unifies the Sahtu region in terms of us coming together as one nation of people in my region. We need to really take this very seriously and have faith in what they are saying to us. We have to have faith in them, otherwise we won’t be here and they won’t be here. I think that is what government is all about.
Sometimes we lean too much on evidence which is okay, but I think that, above all, it is to have faith that things are going to work out okay for us. Like my elders say, always pray to the one who sits in the heavens. People call him God. People call him Creator. They always say that. If you are going to have a difficult road ahead, you always pray. So this is what this motion is, as I see it, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, a question was asked to me this morning about the Roman Catholics. I said I don’t know; I’m not too sure. The reason I said that was because I have attended residential schools. I attended for a long time. In the schools, they have many stories. However, I was forced to go to the Roman Catholic Church and pray the Roman Catholic way. Throughout the years I learned one good thing about being in a residential school. That was to have faith. Faith I have always had. Work out to the best in your life. There is no right or wrong about that but that is what I learned. I learned from my people to have faith in them. I want to say, in closing, that I will be supporting this motion until I hear from my people otherwise on this board reform. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am in support of the motion. My reasons for supporting the motion and not supporting board reform as it stands are many; many of which I heard from other MLAs here today. One of my main reasons is that there are so many unknown factors because nobody really knows what the plan will come, how the plan will evolve.
No one I talked to likes the board reform. I’ve asked many people in my riding about the board reform and, honestly, not one person said, boy, that’s a good idea. You should go with it. I also feel that there is a tremendous lack of consultation, if any real consultation has occurred at all, with the organizations, some of the organizations associated with these three disciplines and also just with the governments of the communities and also the regional governments that support the communities at this time.
I also feel that the management of education at the community level, at all levels across the Territories, and the management of health and the management of housing are all very difficult jobs. They have vastly different mandates. I cannot fathom how we could find people that would be able to be efficient in managing all of the disciplines and how they could maintain focus and maintain the importance of all those disciplines when we have, as I indicated in my Member’s statement, health, which is very demand driven, and housing; also it is very demand driven. It may not be as demand driven as health because of the nature of both of those disciplines, yet the majority of education, aside from the income support portion of education, education is very, I’d say, proactive, thinking about the future, trying to figure out ways in the future and how to make the students feel good and have the students take as much education as possible with them throughout their life so that they become productive members of society. So housing and health, a couple of departments which are demand driven are, in a sense, very social departments, and well-educated people will have better health. That is a fact. Well-educated people will have less demands for social housing. One department is trying to be proactive. It is not because of the way that departments are, the people in it or anything, it is just the nature of the beast, I suppose. I feel that that focus will be lost with the amalgamation of these departments.
I also feel that this government has had amalgamation mishaps. I really do. Some they have undone to a great expense to the people of the Northwest Territories and some are just beginning to prove, but not without great expense and great frustration. We deal with some of the things that this government has done; the amalgamation of the Technical Services Centre. The objective was to create one department that would be efficient, supportive and more cost efficient as well as just being efficient at work. Yet I feel, although I don’t have the numbers myself, that was a tremendous cost and it is probably blown way beyond what the initial budgets were, the amalgamation of Human Resources and some of the things that were introduced into Human Resources. That has actually caused a tremendous amount of frustration amongst the public service. When you have high paid managers that have to sit there in front of the computer and figure out how to run a system to approve leave for their staff, Mr. Speaker...It was incredible. When HR was first being introduced and amalgamated, a lot of those things were wrong. It was frustrating. I was amazed that the government didn’t stop and say, whoa, I think this is a wrong idea. But that didn’t happen. I think things are improving now; again probably at a tremendous cost. But I don’t think we are doing this to save money anyways, so I really don’t know why.
I thought about it. Things are actually not too bad. I had an opportunity to go to St. Pat’s School with Minister Lafferty and meet some of the teachers, and some of the teachers from Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution were there. I know that there is a pride amongst the teachers, students and schools. I know for a fact that in this community of Yellowknife where I live, there is a pride. The kids that are in St. Pat’s are proud to be in St. Pat’s and the kids that are in Sir John Franklin are proud to be in Sir John Franklin. Those are tangibles that could potentially be removed. These are non-tangible items, but they are things that could be removed. Pride could be removed by just making everything the same, just putting everything together. There is nothing that stands out anymore. They are all going to be viewed as one. Sometimes you look at these things and you think about where these things evolved from. Mr. Speaker, whose idea was it? Sometimes you think, well, if you go back far enough, it is probably a southern consultant.
---Laughter
I thought that. Every time these southern consultants come in with great ideas -- maybe ideas that fit well when you are managing huge numbers of bureaucrats and huge populations that they are serving -- it doesn’t work well here. I don’t think there has ever really been a tendency for this government to look at more than consultants and the people that live here and know what will work. It is often the high-priced southern consultants that come up with these ideas that don’t really work, but no one ever admits that they don’t work so we just forge ahead.
The other thing I thought of was, as it is, is it too much work for the government? I can’t really see that being an issue because if they think managing 67 boards is cumbersome, try managing three disciplines in seven boards. I’m pretty sure that will be extremely cumbersome and frustrating and the loss of authority to the communities. That, I think, is one of my key issues with this whole thing. The people that want to assist their own kids to get educated, the people that have an interest at heart to make sure that their kids have the right stuff in their schools to be educated the way they want I think would be lost. I think that is going to be a management unit. I think that is what these boards will become, management units. How can they possibly pay specific, detailed attention to one area of housing, one area of health or an area of education? When we do things like this, we never look at things that are not tangible; things like pride. Teachers are proud to be teachers. Do they just want to be viewed as a bureaucrat that may deliver housing? Or maybe they are nurses. Who knows? Nurses are proud to be nurses too. Community development workers are proud to be community development workers. They don’t want to be all mashed together and managed together. They are people. They have special skills. They chose to be what they are. They shouldn’t be mixed in with other people that they didn’t choose to be managed together. It should be something that should be kept separate.
Most important, I think, is the students. I think it’s very important that we do what we can to try to keep things the same. None of the students are actually happy at all about this either. From what I heard anyway, the students are not happy. Those students are excited, especially here, especially in communities where there is more than one school. The students in Lutselk’e, the students in Res, they have pride and they are successful. They are becoming more successful and they have DEAs, local DEAs that watch out for these kids. Those boards will be gone under this model.
So for those reasons and all of the other reasons that I have heard around here today, I will support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much there, Mr. Speaker. I share my colleagues’ concerns and I, too, stand with them on this debate on the GNWT Board Reform Initiative. Effective and efficient is an expectation of our public and our people. The people are not convinced that this is what the Board Reform Initiative is about. There are still no clear and important reasons to make people understand why the changes should take place. I don’t think that people are afraid of change, Mr. Speaker, but they are afraid of not knowing; not knowing what these changes will bring.
Often in my experience with government, sometimes we’ve got good ideas out there and we work hard to find solutions to them, but sometimes those ideas fall apart when we choose to implement them. As other Members have spoken about recent experiences and the most recent one was the harmonization of income support. They had this great idea that they would create this one window for people that need income support, need housing assistance, we’ll put them in one central area and everybody goes there. But what happened there, Mr. Speaker, is it ended up being a detriment to the people. We created hardships and, in fact, in housing we created a whole group of people that are in arrears to our government and now they don’t have to answer those. Still, that was a good idea, a one-window approach, but implementing it was a huge fiasco and I still fundamentally oppose that. Just the same, that is the kind of feeling I am getting about the Board Reform Initiative.
At the best of times, government guidelines and policies are difficult to interpret and understand and now we are talking about creating a whole new way of administrating education, health and housing. In question period, we asked the Minister were there any other models or are there any other ways of presenting board reform and they really weren’t able to answer that. In fact, the rollout package only included one model, Mr. Speaker. At the minimum, it should have included this model or keep things the same. At least that’s an option, but the way it’s being presented, there are no options being given. I think that creates a lot of the concern, a lot of the pressures from the public saying wait, slow down, why are you trying to give us something that we know anything about.
In my Member’s statement, I spoke about apples and oranges, Mr. Speaker. That’s exactly what we are looking at. We want to take something that has its own unique way of doing things like in health and then we are taking education and we are actually trying to merge these two. They are fundamentally diametrically opposed. They are very, very different entities and now we want to throw in housing as well, Mr. Speaker.
The arguments that the Ministers use, they say they want to gain efficiencies, they want to join HR functions, they want to join administration functions and if they were to use those arguments, they could use those same arguments if they wanted to join, say, the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Power Corp Board, Mr. Speaker. Those two are just as fundamentally different as the organizations that the government is looking at joining as well. It really doesn’t make sense when you look at it this way.
Just yesterday, I was talking to a constituent that didn’t know as much as we do about the issues and I was trying to explain it to them. That person looked at me and said that doesn’t make sense and, she’s right, Mr. Speaker. It just doesn’t make sense.
---Laughter
So I think that the government has no doubt used many resources and staff dedicated to develop the plan as it is. But it will only be overshadowed by the huge resources that we dedicate to the implementation of this Board Reform Initiative. The public is, indeed, looking for leadership, Mr. Speaker, but there are other pressing, important issues in our Territory that demand our attention. There is the high cost of living, power rates, fuel costs, housing costs and, to add to the mix, an economic slowdown.
Our Territory is a year behind what’s happening in the United States and southern Canada. We are only going to be impacted at a later stage, probably at the same time the government would be implementing this. This plan is creating undue stress that our people do not need at this point, Mr. Speaker.
I will just conclude by saying that I believe that our current system is effective. I also believe that the proposed changes will not provided improved services to our people. I am not in favour of the proposed Board Reform Initiative, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of the motion. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard much today and in the days and weeks building up to this situation, whether it played out in the media or to the event here today. We’ve heard much today about the need to look again at the initiative. There’s been some very good comments made by folks around the table, but I need to set the record straight on a number of things. Number one, this is not a Minister Miltenberger initiative. This is an initiative that was originally looked at through the exercise of board reform that spilled over from previous governments and was supported by the 16th Assembly. Now, the work done to that moment to where we are has been undertaken under the lead hand of Minister Miltenberger and he’s taken that duty and he’s run with it and he’s put his energy into that.
Now, of course, as he’s stated recently and he continues to state, that if this was to proceed, we were working to the April date, not a decision for implementation, but a decision of what the next steps that will be, so we can sit down and put lots of the information Members have stated and have raised as an issue of -- the lack of information -- on the table.
With the motion that Members have put out here, Mr. Speaker, the need to look at this again and initiate a process without a predetermined end point with full public input and find efficiencies that improve the effectiveness of government processes and board structures. We do that in conjunction with our employees that deliver the program. We do that with the Members of this Assembly. We do that with aboriginal governments and First Nations. I would agree that we are going to take a different step, a different approach. We need to do that type of work and incorporate their input into this whole process. Obviously, the work that has been done previously by previous governments is not adequate to continue this process as the way it was highlighted here. I must say, though, that one of the Members -- the Member for Kam Lake -- spoke about, and quite a number of times, spoke in this House about past decisions, about past governments and how poor those decisions were. But when we reference past work by governments it’s sloughed off and no attention is paid to that. We have to take the work necessary to do proper implementation, for sure.
Now, also there was a call as process, Mr. Speaker, and for the public, because there was a call made out for the public and the people in the gallery that the process used when it comes to a motion of this House that it is a recommendation to government. Being a recommendation to government, our practice has been that we will sit and we will abstain from the vote and we will watch and see how the vote occurs in the House. Clearly, all Members are in support of that and we will take that under advisement. In fact, I would say that we would agree there needs to be a different process to this. In fact, I have approached the chair of the Priorities and Planning in hopes of finding a way past this, the next steps of we can look at this and try to come up with something that works for the people of the Northwest Territories. I think that’s the important thing here. Nobody here is looking for a fight, Mr. Speaker. I save that for the ice.
---Laughter
And it’s been many years and I don’t encourage it.
Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet process is one where we will watch the House and we will take that under recommendation. I would say now with the fact that there’s a motion here, we need to look at it, we need to work with committee, we need to work with aboriginal governments to come up with a better plan, because, as I believe the Member for Tu Nedhe had mentioned about the students, at the end of the day this is all about what we’re trying to do for the people of the Northwest Territories; not for government structures, not for the system as it is. We’re trying to improve how we deliver the programs, because many a times, and we can go to Hansard from this Assembly, from previous Assemblies, about the concern that’s raised around the delivery of housing, how it’s delivered in communities, the delivery of health care, how it’s delivered in communities, if there’s enough nurses, doctors’ visits, dental visits. As well, the quality of education has been raised numerous times during budget process, during questions in the House. That’s the impetus for looking at change. It is not just necessarily a southern contractor coming up with an idea, throwing it on the table and saying make it happen and it shall be done. No, Mr. Speaker, there has been much work done.
I can recall back in 1999 when I held, at the time, the portfolio of Health and Social Services, and back then Minister Miltenberger held the portfolio of Education, Culture and Employment. We approached the boards at one point and said we need to start working together to deal with the student that has trouble in the school room but has a health issue where the two departments can’t work together because of privacy policies; where an issue may spill over because of a housing issue but there are privacy policies. It’s that case management that we need to focus on and try to change so that we can fix the issues that people are facing in our smallest communities. It is a blessing the fact that if many of us that are healthy and don’t have to use those facilities, don’t have to see the doctor that often, and have good health care provision in our communities. We’re blessed with that, for sure. But there are many people who end up crossing all the boundaries, whether it is housing, education, justice, and our health care system. In fact, it’s such an issue, not just for the Territories but the rest of the country. For example, Mr. Speaker, between governments, even there needs to be a better system in place. I use the Jordan’s Principle as an example of where departments and governments had too many structures in place that didn’t allow an individual to get the proper kind of treatment that was needed. This is what was intended with trying to make some change.
We’ve heard from Members of this Assembly, we’ve heard from the people of the Northwest Territories, and would say that with the motion as its worded we would be supportive and look forward to sitting down with the Members on the next steps. How do we take the work -- some of it needs to be put aside, some of it is good work that gives us the detail that Members have started asking about -- how do we structure it, how do we look forward and how do we make it better for the people of the Northwest Territories? We continue to do that and, in fact, we will continue to do that. As one of the Members pointed out, that our fiscal situation isn’t better and it isn’t going to get better, so we need to find out how we can continue to operate or improve on the delivery of our systems in the Northwest Territories. That would be our goal overall.
As for apples, oranges, bananas, well, I guess if the Members stuck with that, we can make fruit salad and at least share that with the folks. Realistically, there are challenges when it comes to the professions in education, in health care and in housing. We fully recognize that and we know that’s a huge task, but we will definitely take this under advisement. I look forward to sitting down with Members to try and come up with a better approach as to how we can make it work for the people we represent in the spirit of consensus government.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Roland. I will go to the mover of the motion to close debate on the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. My colleagues here have spoken again very eloquently to the motion, have covered and canvassed almost every point that they could. I just have a few comments that I would like to add in closing.
Mr. Speaker, it’s been another interesting day at the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves why did we need to step forward at this point with a theme day and a motion on this particular topic. It’s because we have heard from our constituents. They feel strongly about this Board Reform Initiative and, therefore, we feel strongly about it. The Premier has said that no one here is looking for a fight, but when we see an initiative like this come forward and we feel that it is premised on a foundation of lack of information and principles that could do serious harm to the good work and establishment of the boards across the Northwest Territories, we on this side of the House are ready for a fight. I think we showed that today.
I do appreciate the Premier’s comments that their side of the House can support this motion, but trust me, without the work of the Regular Members on this side, this motion would never have made it to this and who knows how far this would have gone.
Mr. Speaker, the enemies of democracy are apathy and ignorance and I would suggest that by the participation here today of the public, I would say that democracy in the Northwest Territories is alive and well.
---Applause
People are neither apathetic nor ignorant of the issues; they are following what their elected government is doing.
Mr. Speaker, I still have to question why this government would pay such an insult to the leadership at different levels in this Territory. Mr. Speaker, this Assembly, these 19 Members, many of us got here, actually, because of our community participation at different levels of leadership. Many of us sat on town councils, we sat on health boards, we sat on education boards, and that’s how we got here, but we don’t have the market cornered on leadership in the Northwest Territories. That is what is so refreshing about the public input that we received on this, is that other people are also keenly aware of and concerned about the issues that we face as leaders in the Northwest Territories.
As one Member said, it is a shame in a lot of ways that we had to devote this much time and this much energy to something that...I guess we will look for those efficiencies. But when you look at the fact that people are worried about their jobs, people are worried about the cost of living, they have so many other pressing issues on their mind right now it does seem a little hollow that our government would expend such an effort on just trying to restructure governance for a reason that they can’t really convey to us what’s behind it.
Now, I have said this to Mr. Miltenberger before, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll say it again: Mr. Miltenberger has obviously never been involved in sales because if he thought he had such a great idea in board reform he should have brought the idea to it. He should have been able to lay it out and say, hey, Regular Members, I have got a great idea and here are the reasons why it’s great. He should have been able to sell us on it. He can’t even sell us. I don’t know how we’re going to sell the public. I have not heard any of that kind of talk from Mr. Miltenberger and, like I said, obviously he’s never had to try to sell anything.
Mr. Speaker, consensus is alive and well, but, as I said earlier today, it goes far beyond these doors and far beyond this dome that we sit under. We have a type of government here in the North where we will consult and we’ll take our direction from the people. As Mr. Yakeleya said, it’s people first. It’s the people who sent us here we serve. That’s where the direction has to come from. It has to come from the grassroots up, not from the top down. I don’t want to live in a Northwest Territories that is a totalitarian where we have a government that sits on their high and mighty horse and dictates to the people out there in the regions and the communities how things are going to work. I don’t want to be a part of that and I will certainly fight anybody who does.
Mr. Speaker, the theory of this initiative being a lack of communication and some of the most recent initiatives of this government being premised on a lack of communication, I am starting to believe it goes far beyond a lack of communication and I think the Cabinet needs to take a very sober, inward look at some of these initiatives they are putting out there because I am starting to perceive them as an attack on people in our Territory, whether it be the public service, whether it be the seniors for the supplementary health benefit, whether it be the people out there working in our boards and agencies. There’s a trend developing here. It’s starting to go beyond bad communications. We can try to mop up after the fact but, to a large extent, some of the damage is already done. Some of our credibility has already been eroded and it’s very, very hard to get that back.
Mr. Speaker, just on one issue as a personal note and I know we are in Yellowknife today and Yellowknife is the only community that has a Catholic School Board and I just have to share this small experience. I was at church on Sunday morning and we quite often have a sharing time and I shared my deep concern. I mean, I believe that all the teachers in all the schools are doing a very good job, but I shared my deep concern of the possibility that the work of the Catholic School Board would be eroded. When my children were in Yellowknife, I sent them to the Catholic school because that is not my denomination but that is my faith. I come from a background of a Christian faith. Mr. Speaker, if our government would have the audacity to go against what those teachers and what that school in their mission statement is trying to impart to children, which is about values, it’s about faith, it’s about things that are going to hold them through the valleys and the difficult times in life, it’s a choice that people make and it’s an opportunity that’s out there. On Sunday, I said to people, I was so distressed about this that I said I am going to use my Member’s statement and I am going to stand up for two and a half minutes in the Assembly and I am going to pray over our Territory. People said oh my gosh, you don’t have the nerve to do that. I said I was going to do it because I was afraid that I would chicken out by today and I wouldn’t do it.
Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Territory here. We have an awesome responsibility. We have good leadership here. We need to find a way we can work together but not put our people through the stress that we have with this Board Reform Initiative. So going forward, yes. The Premier did come to me and I will commit that we will try to, in a reasonable fashion, look for efficiencies, but we cannot do it in a heavy-handed way.
I heard with my own ears, even though he says Mr. Miltenberger is not the author of this initiative, I heard with my own ears numerous times on the radio, we are going from 70 to seven boards. When a leader of this magnitude in our Territory stands up and says stuff like that, of course the people are going to believe and they are going to have the anticipated reaction which we have seen.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do thank everybody for their input on this. It would appear that the Cabinet is not going to vote on this, but I do thank my colleagues for the work they have put into this motion and into this debate today. Again, thank you so much to the people who have participated by bringing their ideas forward to us and I will ask for a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty; Ms. Lee; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. Roland; Mr. McLeod, Deh Cho; Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes; Mr. McLeod, Yellowknife South.
The results of the vote: 11 for, none opposed, seven abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
---Applause
I’ll call Committee of the Whole to order. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 7-16(3), Committee Report 2-16(3), Committee Report 3-16(3), Tabled Document 11-16(3), Bill 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7. What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The wish of the committee today is to proceed with consideration of the budget for the NWT Housing Corporation.
Committee agree?
Agreed.
With that, we’ll take a short break and begin with the Housing Corporation.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. We agreed prior to the break that we will begin with the NWT main estimates for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. At this time, I’d like to ask the Minister if he has opening statements or comments.
Yes, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation’s main estimates for the fiscal year 2009-2010, which requests a total GNWT contribution of $37.820 million.
This is a decrease of 28 percent from the 2008-2009 main estimates and is primarily due to the sunsetting of the Northern Housing Trust, which provided $50 million in federal housing investment over the past three years. Together with other revenues of $69.673 million the corporation will have approximately $107 million available to spend on housing in the Northwest Territories this fiscal year.
As Members are aware, the federal government has recently announced significant new short-term investments in housing in the Northwest Territories as part of its stimulus package to boost the Canadian economy. Based on information received through federal budget documents and in discussions with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the NWT Housing Corporation anticipates that it will receive approximately $55 million in new federal investment over the next two years, some of which must be cost-matched. The federal investment in the NWT will include funding for:
renovation and retrofit of social housing;
housing for low-income seniors;
housing for persons with disabilities; and
northern housing.
This investment will be focused on the construction of new public housing units and affordable homes, the repair and retrofitting of public housing units, and the repair of private homes. Until we receive formal confirmation of the NWT’s allocation expected within the next few weeks, we are unable to confirm our allocations related to these additional resources.
Fully utilizing this recently announced federal support will be challenging, however, the delivery of past projects under the Northern Housing Trust has strengthened the capacity of our construction partners in communities. The private sector’s ability to respond and to deliver gives us confidence that they will be able to maintain this momentum over the next few years as we work together to address the housing needs of Northerners.
It should also be noted that the funds recently committed by the federal government come with a strict two-year timeline for delivery. All funds must be committed within a two-year window. We understand that jurisdictions who do not have the capacity to deliver will risk having funds reallocated to other jurisdictions. The Housing Corporation is currently in the process of completing their detailed project plan and I am confident that the corporation will meet the federal requirements associated with this initiative.
As the Housing Corporation completes the plans for this new investment, we can confirm that our current capital acquisition and program delivery plan, provided for in the 2009-2010 main estimates, proposes to invest over $27 million in new housing and repairs. This includes $9.8 million to construct new housing units, as well as $7.9 million in major modernization and improvement projects to upgrade the existing public housing rental stock.
A portion of this $27 million investment has been funded through the GNWT’s strategic initiatives process. This includes a $2 million increase in the Contributing Assistance for Repairs and Enhancements -- CARE -- Homeownership Program, under the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative, to fund repairs for low-income households. Repairs completed with this funding will focus on health and safety, structural, mechanical, and energy efficiency upgrades of homes. Additionally, $1.5 million in funding has been allocated, under the Refocusing Government Strategic Initiative, to develop and implement, in partnership with the Department of the Executive and service departments, a housing for staff initiative that provides incentives to communities, aboriginal development corporations, and private industry, to develop housing that can be used by essential service providers in our smaller communities.
The Housing Corporation will invest an additional $1 million received under the GNWT’s energy investment plan into its modernization and improvements budget to conduct energy retrofits on 100 public housing units on which home energy evaluations were conducted in 2008-2009.
We also plan to invest $3.3 million in minor modernization and improvements on our public housing rental stock through our local housing organizations. In addition to the $2 million that I have previously mentioned will be allocated to the CARE program under the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative, we have set aside $3 million to fund additional homeownership repair and renovation projects. These will be expended through the CARE program and through federal renovation programs such as the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, and the Emergency Repair Program, ERP.
An investment of $88,000 will also be made by the Housing Corporation as part of a four-year strategy to assist local housing organizations in the hiring and retention of much needed apprentices in the housing trades.
In 2009-2010, the Housing Corporation has also identified expenditure reductions in the amount of $1.5 million, which reflect our efforts to reduce costs while minimizing the impact on our delivery of programs and services. Forced-growth funding in the amount of $504,000 is also being requested by the corporation for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, to address a base deficiency in our office accommodation budget.
The Housing Corporation remains committed to meet the housing needs of our residents. While the last three years have seen substantial investments in homeownership and public housing replacement, our housing needs remain high. Our primary focus in the next two years will be on conducting energy retrofits and upgrades to existing units and providing assistance to low-income homeowners to repair their own homes.
In closing, it should be noted that while we are very pleased with the federal government’s commitment to the North through new housing investments, the sustainability of our existing public housing stock remains at risk if we are unable to secure a long-term funding commitment from the federal government. We will continue our efforts, in concert with other provincial and territorial jurisdictions, to encourage the federal government to work with us to address the housing needs of our residents and ensure the sustainability of NWT communities.
That concludes my opening remarks. At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
At this time I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring in any witnesses.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Committee agree the Minister brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Agreed. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in, please.
For the record, Mr. Minister, can you introduce your witnesses?
Mr. Chairman, with me I have Jeff Anderson, deputy minister or the acting president of the Housing Corporation; and Revi Lau-a, vice-president of finance and infrastructure services.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. General comments. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I do have a few comments to make. I would like to say that I certainly look forward to the $50 million that the federal government made available to the Northwest Territories to look at housing investments. It will be very interesting to see the game plan how we expend it, how we expend $50 million to put houses on the ground in our communities. Mr. Chair, I look forward and I am very anxious to see what type of plans will be coming forward from the department to let the people know what is possible out there.
Mr. Chairman, the issues on matching funds, again, I will wait until the Minister gives some kind of signal as to whether we can do matching funds and proceed with that type of commitment to know that we are comfortable to go ahead and match funds to build infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, the other comment I have is on asking for some of the rental stock and where the priorities will be allocated in terms of funding for public rental housing units, how much is going to go into these units, if our core needs are being looked at and some of the core needs that need to be brought down. I know there are some pretty staggering numbers, but I also want to say that some of these numbers have decreased over the years compared to what they were at one time. They have made some improvements. So you can see some significant decreases in these numbers. The government now has extra dollars to put into these units in our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I did want to commend, let the Minister know that he has heard the Members in providing incentives to communities for staff housing for people in our communities. I am very interested to see how this program will roll out, to see how this program would be a benefit to some of the communities that want to take advantage of it and to see how the regional district offices will play a role in terms of this type of initiative brought about by this government.
Mr. Chairman, the other issue I have is with regard to the overstock of housing units, either private or public, and the energy efficiency support that is going to be given to communities. I am not sure how much each unit will receive based on application, based on assessments being done in our communities. I know when we had these assessments coming through our communities, they were only there for a short period of time and they are fully booked. They are doing good work, but they are fully booked. I think there is not enough time for them to stay in the community to do all the people who want to have their units assessed and to make sure that they fall into our criteria for funding for upgrading their houses. I just wanted to say to the department if there is any way that you could have some communique over to the Arctic Alliance, I think it does it make sense stay a little longer because they are pretty well crammed when it comes to the communities. They are pretty well jam crammed until they leave. Sometimes it is done because there is a real need for it. But also when I went to Tulita, some people didn’t know they were in town because they were already booked up and didn’t have time. Some people will lose out on this process here, so I would ask if they would give that some consideration.
Mr. Chairman, there are other issues here that could be looked at but I want to tell the Minister that, in terms of the two issues that popped out of my head here in terms of the seniors maintenance program that now is on a regional allocation basis. I believe the application is first-come, first-served. Some of the communities that really need these services here, sometimes the money is already depleted. I am hoping to have discussions with the Minister in terms of if there is any thought, if this program can be relocated back to the community and possibly if this could be a private enterprise business opportunity. I know the staff members in the community are pretty well busy in terms of doing other jobs that is required by them. Sometimes it is the elders that are not quite receiving the care that they would like to receive. I get a lot of complaints in terms of having a special maintenance program done by one or two people for the community. That is their whole focus. The elders could get a hold of them quite easily. Right now they have to go to the local housing authority which, in fact, has to fill out an application which goes to the regional district office which reviews the proposals and requests. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like they are responding quick enough to settle the needs of the elders. That is quite a bureaucratic process. Some of the people were asking, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would consider something in terms of a seniors maintenance program in the community if there are qualified people that could do the job to fill the bill that could look after elders and maintenance needs in the community. That is a request that has been asked to me by my people.
Another one I want to ask the Minister later on in terms of the housing need is the Colville Lake situation. The Minister had some discussions with me and I had some discussions with the district office in terms of how do we deal with Colville Lake. Colville Lake is a very unique situation in terms of the status within the Government of the Northwest Territories and I know they do want some homes. There are other issues at play here that I won’t take up the time right now to discuss with the Minister. I have some of my notes upstairs, so I can speak to the Minister when we get through that chapter in the budget here.
Mr. Chair, I guess, in closing, I want to say I look forward to seeing what kind of numbers that the Minister had in terms of affordability of homes in our community, the adequacy of issues, where do we determine what is adequate and what is not adequate and what is going to be available in our regions with the housing. But I want to also congratulate the Minister for working with the federal government to get that for us in the Northwest Territories. I know it is a tough job. There are certainly lots of needs out there that are going to be talked about in the next couple of days here. I want to say to the Minister and staff that it is nice to know that we do have some dollars. I guess the trouble might be can we spend $50 million in those years? I think we could, but that will be up to the Minister and his staff to work with the community vendors. In closing, I want to say thank you to the Minister for bringing $50 million to the North for housing.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I have four people on my list, so maybe we will just get general comments from each of the Members and then we will allow that Minister to respond after we have general comments. Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley, Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the Minister for his opening comments. I see we are committing fewer funds this year. I am wondering about additional revenues. I guess it is called other revenues of $69 million. I will be asking questions about what exactly the source of those dollars is. It is probably in here somewhere. We may be getting an additional $55 million in new federal investments over the next two years, some which must be cost-matched. I am wondering if, when we do firm that up, there will be additional opportunities for review and input of how those dollars will be allocated in this program.
I will also be interested in asking questions on energy efficiency, whether all the new houses now will match the EGH 80 guidelines. I am interested in modernization and improvement projects to the existing stock, what exactly that might mean, whether energy efficiency would be part of that. I think it is great that we are dedicating some funds to helping provide incentive to communities who need to develop housing for their service providers. The Minister has touched on that in his remarks. I will be interested in how that is going to be administered to ensure the most effective benefits from those dollars.
I note $1 million for upgrading energy retrofits on 100 public housing units that went through home energy evaluation. That is only $10,000 per home and I am wondering what can be achieved with that. Will these homes be upgraded to EGH 80? The $2 million dedicated to the CARE program I will have some comments on that. Later in his remarks, he mentioned $3 million additional to that program but didn’t mention energy efficiency in context to the $3 million. I am curious about that.
Increasingly, and I suppose in a way a feather in our Housing Program cap, I am hearing about communities that have a surplus of housing and the Minister highlighted the ongoing and high needs for housing. I will be asking questions as we go along in the budget to help flush out some details on that and get some insights like what our housing stock is by community in relation to need. Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister, Mr. Polakoff and Mr. Lau-a.
It is Mr. Anderson, not Mr. Polakoff.
Oh, sorry. I apologize. Okay. Let’s get started here. Good job in regards to getting the monies from the federal department or federal $50 million. I think it shouldn’t be too hard to spend that $50 million. I can’t wait to get my new housing units, hopefully get a four-plex in Sachs Harbour and my new eight-plex in Ulukhaktok for my elders facility that is going to be coming forward in a motion and a petition as well. I am working on that. I will help you spend those new monies.
Regarding Sachs Harbour, on the infrastructure acquisition plan, I see three of my communities that I represent on the infrastructure acquisition plan in regards to either retrofits or new units. All but one is Sachs Harbour. I have young families wanting to have their own housing unit. There is none available either, due to there is none in the community. I think that has to be looked at. It is a real serious matter because people want to live in Sachs but there is no housing, none whatsoever. It has to be dealt with this year. I look forward to seeing the new monies, if we could put that in the budget.
The elders facility in Ulukhaktok, I have been working with the community. They would like to see if we can put one up similar to Tuk, an eight-plex or a four-plex, in the community where they have to send their elders to Inuvik and family members not being able to see them. I want to see if we can put that with the new monies that we got from the federal government.
Another big concern I do have is the Inuvik office running the office out of Paulatuk running the corporation in Inuvik. I am finding more and more of my constituents getting these eviction notices from the LHO due to non-payment. If there was somebody in the community, I think it would make a difference if it is run out of the community. I really would like to see that put back into the community -- the office, the staff, everybody -- to run that housing office in Paulatuk. That is needed badly. I am getting people evicted in the communities. It is the middle of the winter. Corporations evicting people, that is not right. We have to work with the corporation to try to work something out for that.
Going back to the acquisition plan, I see some major retrofits. I look at the whole acquisition plan as a whole. I see a lot like in the South here, units being built in a couple of communities that got seven new units. Maybe the corporation is planning enough to give us one or two for Sachs. I would appreciate that.
My biggest concern right now is for the people in Paulatuk in regards to getting the office put back in the community and getting these rental arrears done, having somebody going into the community, visiting adults, sorting out, trying to work with the people and another unit in Sachs Harbour or two four-plexes. But other than that, the federal investment. I think you could put that money into good use in regards to our elders for persons with disabilities. In the communities, I have people that have wheelchairs. They have a tough time getting into their units because there is no ramp...and low income for seniors. Being the most northerly riding, I think a lot of that retrofit money should be coming to the communities. I went to Paulatuk about three weeks ago. One of my elderly ladies came to me and told me that, you know, any time you have a west wind, you have snow blowing in the house. It is more than one unit that is doing that. I know the maintenance is doing the best job they can, but I really think that, given new windows, doors, I think we could help out with elders not having to worry about just trying to stay warm in the winter. It is the last thing they should be worrying about.
Like I said, I am happy to see three of my communities on the list for retrofits and I just need Sachs Harbour to be put on for my four-plex, and my elders facility in Ulukhaktok. Thank you, Minister and staff. I look forward to going page by page with the Minister. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Next on the list I have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I wasn’t sure if the $55 million was incorporated into the main estimates. I am looking forward to that being incorporated into the budget. I am assuming that money is going to be incorporated into 2009-10 and 2010-11. That is excellent.
In addition to that, I am confident that the NWT Housing Corporation would be able to expend the money, Mr. Chairman, that was given to them by the federal government. I don’t have the same type of confidence levels with other jurisdictions. I suspect that the NWT Housing Corporation is going to be getting an opportunity to get more money offered to them. I hope that the NWT Housing Corporation not only puts a project plan together to address the $55 million but also to anticipate that other monies will probably be offered by the federal government. History tells us that some other jurisdictions don’t expend their money and it goes back to the federal government. I do believe the federal government has already indicated they would be prepared to reallocate.
I have, in Tu Nedhe, specific to that and the Housing Corporation, I feel that both communities will benefit from some projects that would be offered under the Housing Corporation’s various programs like CARE and so on. I know that I have talked to one of the governing bodies in the organization. They are prepared to sit down and try to put their own community plan together as far as delivery of homeownership programs, like, talk to them about staying under certain thresholds as far as money goes, Mr. Chairman, in order to allow the flow of money without the issue of having to deal with the status of the land and so on, because land status is a big issue in Tu Nedhe.
Many of the community members in Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e are not able to access large amounts of money from the Housing Corporation for repairs to their units because of tax arrears. That has become a real issue. It is something that I am hoping to address with the Minister of MACA and, as the Minister of that department speaks to the local governing bodies, I think some of those things, hopefully, will be ironed out, making it easier for the Housing Corporation to deliver programs in Tu Nedhe communities. Also, as I indicated, I am hoping to get an opportunity to meet with the governing bodies in Fort Resolution and discuss the possibility of how they could be active participants in making sure that this money gets delivered. I feel that, together, the communities and some of the resources that are available to me, we are able to put some good projects together for the community that will assist the corporation in spending the money, opening the door for more funding from...that may fall free from other jurisdictions. I’m very interested in the corporation working hard on the housing for staff budget. I think that’s a very important part of this budget. I think the two communities that I represent, Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e, both have different plans on how to address housing for staff. I know that in Lutselk’e they have some units that could be available for renovations through some of these monies that are available for housing for staff. They actually already have staff housing but they’re just dilapidated and would need not a full $250,000 to build a full-blown three-bedroom unit, but I’m talking around the $100,000 mark in order to get these units back up to a livable standard for staff that the community needs to bring into the community and for professional staff that come to the community to teach and do nursing and so on.
In Fort Resolution the issue is a little bit different. There is some surplus housing there; however, there are a couple of local businesses that may, with the right deal, take advantage of some of these programs that make it feasible for them to provide housing for staff in the community. Under obtaining some leases through the various other departments, they should be able to address that important issue.
I, too, look forward to completing the detail on the Housing Corporation budget so that the corporation staff can start the process of getting the work on the ground as quickly as possible since there’s a relatively quick time frame with the federal dollars. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister and his staff for acquiring the $50 million from the feds. I know the last time around it took a little arm-twisting of other jurisdictions and other authorities where we’re one of the few jurisdictions where we actually matched the funding that we got from the feds. When we did that, we also came forward with a housing needs survey or study that we identified core needs. We identified areas where we have overcrowding in the communities, where we have conditional rating of the different units we had in regard to having to replace some or because they’re in such poor shape that we were better off just building new.
I noted that you are going back to the feds. In your comments you made reference that you’re presently developing a proposal to complete the detail of the project plan to take forward, but it would be good if we can have some input into that if it’s possible during this process. For me, there are areas that I think we still haven’t really done that great a job on in regard to the people in our communities with disabilities and seniors’ housing in our communities; more in regard to seniors and care type of housing units where they’re going to age in these facilities or these housing units and you have the capacity that when they do age, it’s designed for that and that you do have some sort of a preventative care program for our aging population.
We also have to look at the area of programs and services for the core programs and where we put caps on it. I know we implemented new programs that are out there in regard to aftercare and other programs, but I think what we’re seeing is that the cost of constructing these units and what we were...I know a number of years ago we were constructing units somewhere around the area of $185 a square foot. Now we’re constructing units in our communities at $300 a square foot and these units are coming in at over $300,000. I think that people, to go to the bank in a small community who don’t really have the full paying job, are struggling just to get a mortgage and pay for that large a mortgage. I think we have to increase those thresholds that we had. I noticed $90,000 but I think you’ve got to look at something that’s more practical and realize that there is no real residual value for a lot of these houses in our small communities. Once you’ve got a mortgage on it, you aren’t going to sell it for what you bought it for. I think that those types of things have to be considered either through a program review or assessment in regard to the program that’s there. I feel strongly that we know that there are people there who can operate a home. It’s either that they’re falling between the lines and they either don’t make enough to show that they can actually operate a home or they make too much where we can’t help them out.
Again, you know we put a lot of houses on the ground, the 500-something units we put on the ground. The majority of those were basically family-type dwellings. I think we have to look at more apartment units so that singles and people who are in their middle age, basically all they need is something small. I think that the big challenge we had last time was just trying to find the land that we need to build these things on in a lot of our communities. Even in Yellowknife here just to try to acquire land for the last round of negotiations, trying to get land, I know it’s an issue with Dettah and Ndilo saying how come we don’t get housing. I don’t think it’s that the government not trying to get them houses, but it’s that you can’t find land to build them on because of IAB lands or because of the unavailability of land in Yellowknife and communities around Yellowknife. It is an issue.
Also, we do have to look at the seniors facilities. I’m very serious when I say that that $50 million, you should allocate a good portion of that to seniors’ housing, either a seniors six-plex, or a five or four for small communities so that the seniors can all live in one area, they’re all close together. They’re a closely knit community to begin with and the families can come and go. They have those units already in several communities. We built one in McPherson. We picked up the design from Dettah where they had a similar design. The elders came down here, we went down and took a look at it and they were very impressed with that facility and how it was set up and designed. You could come in from the outside and you could come in through the front door. Everybody had a shared area, they have all their shared laundry space and they also have someone, basically a caretaker, who lives right in the facility with them to take care of them. I think that’s the type of housing that can really make a difference in our smaller communities. I heard Mr. Jacobson talking about the situation of a lot of elders being stuck in their units because when there’s a blizzard in the Arctic communities, that those units aren’t designed, especially when you have a wind shift in those communities.
The other area I think where we have to do a better job is working with aboriginal housing cooperatives. I mean, you can talk about North Slave housing here in Yellowknife or Tepee Housing in Inuvik; I think those were classified as urban housing projects that were designed through the federal government, and they were designed in the larger centres. I know there’s housing in Fort Smith. Also, you’ve got the Kotaneelee Housing Association in Fort Liard. I think that’s another area you could possibly expand programs. Just looking at those initiatives and seeing if they’re interested in expanding their housing stock so that they can also be able to provide housing like any housing cooperative in the Northwest Territories. You have different housing authorities from Kitikmeot Housing to YK Housing to North Slave Housing here in Yellowknife. I think that we’ve got to work closely with those agencies.
The issue that I’m probably going to talk about later is in regard to the Joe Greenland Centre in Aklavik. There were renovations that were supposed to take place last year, and again it’s a level 3, level 4 facility in Aklavik. It’s one of those seniors homes that’s been designated by the Department of Health and maintained by the NWT Housing Authority. Again, that unit is almost 35 years old and getting up there in age. It has to either be replaced or you’re looking at a major cost to renovate. Again, that’s something I feel that you have to really seriously look at doing some work there.
Just on that, I think there have been studies done. Sandy Lee’s favourite subject here is NOVEL housing. I know she just loved that project. I think workforce housing is something that there’s a lot of study and work that was done there. A number of units could go into communities. We’re looking at land development for these units. There’s a lot of baseline work that we need that is already there. I think we should seriously look at that, because we only have two years to spend this $50 million and I think that’s something we should consider.
With regard to the housing needs survey, I don’t know if we were able to meet the needs of all the communities, but again maybe go back and take a look at that needs survey and see if we did deliver the units we said we were going to. Did we really make a difference on those needs in those communities?
The other area that I think the Housing Corporation has to do a better job on is expanding your workforce in your communities by way of your maintenance people; looking at putting more money into the local authorities and giving them more money for maintenance people. Give them an extra carpenter. In some cases you probably need an electrician in some of the larger centres. I think you should look at expanding your apprenticeship programs in those communities throughout the Northwest Territories. For most communities that’s a big challenge. If you have home-grown talent in those communities it really helps with the other seniors and people like that, that we’re trying to help by maintenance programs.
The other area I was just wondering if it’s possible that you look at your program staff with regard to the delivery of programs and services for care and aftercare. Is there a possibility that those people could be working in the larger centres and communities where there are enough people to actually make sense to have somebody there serving those larger communities than having them at the regional levels? Either Behchoko or Fort McPherson or communities that can sustain those type of people as program officers in those authorities or whatnot to deliver our programs. Hopefully that’s a bit of food for thought. I think it’s something that we have to think about because we only have two years to act on this.
I’d like to thank the Minister and his staff for the work they’ve been doing. I look forward to going through detail.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Like other Members are saying, the number one issue as an MLA and as I tour my communities and speak to residents, they are concerned about their housing needs and their ability to access programming. I think, indeed, I did mention earlier in the House that I believe the corporation staff is doing their job well. But I think the issue that is facing most of the constituents is not so much the staff as the guidelines and policies of the corporation that are excluding and making it difficult for people to access programming again. I know that many of my constituents have previously accessed programming and, I don’t know, it’s probably true in some cases that they’re not understanding the full implications of previous programs and now it limits their ability to access existing programs. That’s causing me concern because now a lot of people want to upgrade their houses. They want retrofits, they want renovations, and even the ability to enter the Homeownership Program as well. But because of their previous activity and their previous past, they’re actually denied access to previous programming. I think in some cases, probably because the staff know the file so well, they just tell people that they’re denied without even taking an application. In terms of due diligence and due process, I don’t think that should happen. I think that people should have the ability to fill out the application, at least. Some circumstances do change and there are life circumstances that change. In some cases there’s improved income. Maybe they’re dual household earners now. So just to be denied before we even open the door to them is not right. I don’t believe it’s the kind of service that our people expect from our Housing Corporation. At least they should take their application in and base their assessment on information that’s there. It’s just getting through the door that’s frustrating them to no end. I know, because we have changed our programming, that people have to apply annually.
Just in terms of guidelines and procedures, I still believe that we have to change the parameters of the community income threshold limit. There are lots of good couples out there and hardworking individuals who make enough money that can make these mortgage payments. I believe that those are the people we want. The ones who can afford to make the mortgage payments are the clients we want. I think we should really look at changing some parameters about eligibility for these people. They do want mortgages and so they need our assistance in that. In order to achieve our goal of more homeownership clients I believe that we should make this small change.
Another area of great importance is the ones in the lower limit and middle category have an affordability problem. I believe in the Minister’s opening remarks he does mention a move towards social housing. I support that. And public housing. I believe we have to do more of that. One of my communities, Fort Liard, identified it. I’ve advised the Minister’s office that this is something that they want more of, because Fort Liard, like many communities, has four or five houses that ...Actually, we have three houses there that are unoccupied because clients are having difficulty finding clients for these homes. I don’t know if we have to convert these to social housing or public housing, but the key thing is that it frustrates the constituents to no end to see empty homes there when Fort Liard has huge overcrowding issues. There are two or three families to each home, in many cases. So there are 10 or 12 individuals in a two or three-bedroom house. It’s a huge issue. These people aren’t qualifying for our programs maybe because of previous programs or because of other guideline issues. If there was public housing, if there was social housing available, I believe they would certainly qualify. Many of them are low to no income and that’s what this type of house is certainly designed for. I’m certainly in support of it.
Some other communities, we have one guideline that if you have an existing house in the corporation and you want to upgrade or access another program, you cannot. I think we really should have a look at that policy, because what you’re doing is you’re helping one family perhaps move to a larger unit that’s more accommodating to their needs. They’ve got no problem making the mortgage payments. It’s not that they’re getting two houses. They’ve let me know and in many cases people say I’ll gladly return that to the Housing Corporation’s stock. With a little bit of renovation we can free that up for other individuals. It will probably be lower-cost housing. Probably a chance the mortgage won’t be that high. Or we can turn it into social or public housing stock. But the whole key here is that we’re taking the ability of moving a family to a larger, newer home that’s more accommodating to their larger, bigger families, to their needs. In some cases it’s being disabled too. Just another strategy that I think the corporation should look at, because it does free up another home. That’s what that does. In many cases there’s no one else eligible to access our housing programs for homeownership programs as well. So I believe that if we look at that and try to accommodate those special needs we can make better use of our dollars and we’ll get better return on our investment and just a better fit. These clients are a better fit for us.
There’s one thing that I’ve been quite passionate about over the years as an MLA and that is that we have to do this appeal system. I don’t see the Minister mentioning it in his opening remarks. Maybe he can comment on it if he’s got a moment. But that’s something I believe is necessary for our Public Housing Program with the NWT Housing Corporation. I believe it will be beneficial not only to the Housing Corporation, but to the people, our clients, as well, and those applying. It gives them an avenue to appeal and I’ve always said that they’re often...Currently they’re often appealing to the people that denied them in the first place, which is front-line managers and maybe regional headquarters or district headquarters as well. That’s the only person they have to appeal to and they say, look, you forgot this information. But their minds are already made up. I believe an independent process is something that we need. Another way that they do appeal, too, is they appeal through their MLA or directly to the Minister’s office. That’s not really a fair way to treat our people. I believe that they do need an outlet in which to appeal; an independent process, knowing it will be treated with the diligence it deserves and the attention it deserves as opposed to I already said no and we’re going to stay at no. In some cases information really does get missed or lost or special circumstances are not taken into consideration, and that’s the value of an appeal system. I believe we should work towards it. Previous Ministers of Housing have indicated to me it would take place April 1st of this year, but I would sure like to see something running in this new fiscal year.
With that, I’ll conclude my statements. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on that.
With that, maybe we’ll just take a short break at this time and then we’ll resume with your responses.
---SHORT RECESS
