Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you. I understand the plight of the government on that side. I think the only way to overcome that is to actually, you know, they have to have a project officer at every site either on a day-to-day basis or on a week-to-week basis to oversee all these projects. I know that even when you get a proficient contract in there, somebody in good standing with the Housing Corp to go in and do the work, but if nobody's there to look over their shoulder to make sure that the work is being done according to standards, even they will take shortcuts and cut back on the amount of materials that they're allotted to use, and start saving money on their part. That happens everywhere. The only way, like I said, that the Housing Corp is probably going to be able to alleviate that is to make sure they've got people there. I know the Housing Corp has got staff. I know they've cut back on a lot of staff positions, especially around here in the headquarters. But out in the regions, I just don't see enough of the project officers actually in the communities doing a lot of work. Even during the summer months, you know that's going to be the busiest season for housing, so why doesn't the department hire some casual project officers or something during the construction season in the small communities so that we can make sure that these projects are being done in an effective and efficient manner, using all the materials and standards that the Housing Corp upholds. You know, something just like firefighting season, you know? Construction season in the NWT is big, and it's a short season and I don't see why we couldn't accommodate casual employees in that respect. Has that ever been considered in the Housing Corp's long-term plan or seasonal plan?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, that is the goal that we do have by way of increasing the staff we do have in the corporation, especially at the regional level so they'll have more accessibility to communities. One of the things that we do do is that when we have a big project, we will identify somebody specifically for that one project. But if it's just a couple of houses here and there, I think it's uneconomical to have someone in that community just to deal with two or three houses. So that's why a lot of the project officers are based out of the regional office.

Again, we have increased that and looking at that staff complement for our mandate, and to get more people on the ground, get more people doing these inspections, and making sure that we are following the guidelines we do set so that we can have people there to actually physically be on the ground when these things are being constructed. But right now, we don't have enough resources to be in every community on every jobsite, and that's why we have to continue to involve those people.

Also with the larger projects, like I mentioned, we are open to hiring project officers for those bigger projects on site. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of concerns with respect to the operations of the NWT Housing Corporation, and these are general comments so I will try to keep my comments general, but I'll probably take up the whole 10 minutes. It's a subject once I start talking about, I can't stop.

Mr. Chairman, the Housing Corporation's mandate is askew, as far as I'm concerned. I look at the mandate, as I understand it, as being to address those in need. When we talk about housing crises in the Northwest Territories, I surely hope we're talking about people who are in need. I think that the programs of the Housing Corporation should focus on those people who are in need. Yet I look at the barriers to getting housing and shelter, which everyone should have a right to, from certain groups of people and I see the barriers and I go, who is the Housing Corporation there for. I'll tell you who they're not there for. They're not there for the hard to house, because I know, for example, in the community that I represent, the hard to house go from pillar to post looking for somebody who will take them in. It will not be the NWT Housing Corporation or the LHO, and I'll tell you why. It's because they are problem tenants. Hard to house people are problem tenants. People who don't pay their rent are problem tenants. But if they are not the responsibility of the NWT Housing Corporation and the housing authorities, then whose problem are they?

We cannot get emergency shelter for people because there's no policy that the Housing Corporation allows for emergency shelter. The rules are set up in such a way as if you come to a community, you have to go on a waiting list for six months. After you've been there for six months, they don't care where you came from. They don't care if you came from Timbuktu. If you've been a community six months, you're on, and you can probably get in. But just weigh that against the irony that if you've lived in the Northwest Territories your whole life and you've got five kids, and you've gone away to school in Fort Smith to try and better yourself, and things have fallen apart because, you know, people who need social housing, their lives aren't always perfect. Now they've come back to their home community and they have to go back on a waiting list for six months. Now where is the responsiveness in terms of the programs delivered by the Housing Corporation when there is no provision for emergency housing for families, for northerners, for people who haven't just parachuted in here from who knows where? These are our people.

The other barrier I want to speak to is the fact that if you haven't paid your rent to the Housing Corporation and you apply again, if you have outstanding arrears or damages, you can't get back into housing again. So where are those people supposed to go? We just can't sort of turn a blind eye and say well, these people had problems, or they owe us money, therefore they don't qualify. Again you have to think of it in the context of where are they going to go? If not the Housing Corporation, then who? We talk about overcrowding in the communities and that, well probably the overcrowding is because the system itself sets up so many barriers to people accessing the housing that they have to go live with somebody else and sleep on somebody else's couch. So if it is truly social housing, then you have to address the social needs of the people who need that kind of support. That's where I think we have a big gap.

The application of the rent scale, the new rent scale. You know, somebody goes from a community, they all of a sudden have a good paying job at a mine, well, good for them. But then their rent becomes so high under the rent scale that they can't literally afford to pay the rent. If they're in a community that's not a market community where they have alternatives where they can go to a different landlord and rent, in many communities the NWT Housing Corporation is the only show in town. There aren't a whole lot of other private rental options available to them. So under the rent scale that's in place now, it's quite possible for somebody with a good paying job to have literally no option but than to pay the rent. Now, I know there are housing ownership programs which they should be able to access, and perhaps even mortgage programs. But again the housing has to be there to buy, or ability to build, or ability to access a piece of land to build a house. Either that, or they have to move to some other community.

The issue of rent supplement units has already been raised. I see that as an idea, and I provided, during the committee meetings, a list. When the Housing Corporation made their presentation to the committee, I did provide a list of all the rent supp payments. It's in the millions of dollars that the Housing Corporation pays out to the LHOs. Someone made reference to the fact that many of these are long-term, 20-year commitments, and, yes, they might have gone in place 10 years ago or something, and many of them are over market rate. They need to be analyzed. They need to be assessed. We need to determine if we're paying too much for those. If we are, you need to opt out on one of the five-year clauses. Yes, they're in place for 20 years, but all of them are in five-year increments so you should be able to opt out if you have another look at it and say this is not a good deal, we should not be directing so much of our funding towards these units. So I would ask you, I would beg you, I've been asking for a long time, would you please assess the rent supps that you've entered into and make sure that they're a good deal? If they're not, you should look at them on their five-year renewal date and do something about it.

The ongoing status of the market housing initiative -- and I'm just touching on these briefly, I could talk about these for a lot longer -- these were supposed to be on a cost-recovery basis. I haven't heard an update lately on whether or not…Well, first of all, I don't know how much capital we actually put in to bring these units to the communities, to set them up, to obtain the land, to heat them when they've been empty, to do everything associated with the market housing initiative. I haven't heard those numbers lately. But I would be surprised, Mr. Chairman, if there has been a full cost-recovery on those units. How far did we go from the target? I believe initially the target was professionals required to support the community that could not find a place to rent in non-market communities, communities where there were not a lot of private options. I believe that was the original intent. So the units went in there, and maybe there's been a vast improvement in the uptake and the rent that people are paying, but I have yet to be updated of the status of that program and convinced that we have reached full cost-recovery on those, and, in fact, if they have gone to address the needs of those for which they were targeted in the first place. I would like to know how that's coming.

Something else that I don't really understand too much about the mechanics of is the harmonization initiative. I understand a little bit how you can't really be providing people with housing without them having an understanding of what that is worth, that market value, and having that somehow reflected in a fair way between income support clients and others. I understand that needs to be done. But I don't understand why the money for that public housing had to be transferred from the Housing Corporation to ECE. Because now I understand that ECE is transferring that money back to the Housing Corporation to distribute to LHOs. Now, I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of what's going on. I don't really know why you would pick up positions along the way in terms of that exercise. That part of it does not make any sense to me.

Mr. Krutko has spoke to headquarters staffing levels: 200 prior to division; 140 after division; and now just down to under 100 people. You know, 100 people is still a lot of people. I don't know all of the different activity areas which the Housing Corporation is involved in, but again I agree with many of my colleagues here who have said let's get that focus narrowed, let's get that mandate very succinct, and let's not be looking at broadening the mandate of the Housing Corporation, but let's get it really focussed on housing and not a whole lot of other things that are peripheral to that.

I'm just about out of time, Mr. Chairman, so I think I should follow my own advice and not take up the entire 10 minutes, just in case the Minister has anything to say in response to all of that. I'll get back on the list. Thanks.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the question the Member raises about people that are hard to house, we do have allowance to work with the client; we do have payment plans where people can work out if they have arrears; we do hold units for students that do go off to school for, I believe, a one-year period. So if they do two years, or if they come back to their home community, those units are reserved for those students. So we do have those arrangements in place. But I think the question of people that are hard to house, it does lead to our homeless issue and we have a committee which is made up of the Minister of Health and Social Services, myself, and the Minister of Education and Minister of MACA who are looking at the housing and homelessness issue. But we do fund a lot of non-government organizations to assist us by way of providing houses through funds that are given to the Salvation Army, the women's shelter, transitional housing in regards to the different non-government organizations that are out there. So we are working with them to try to do deal with this issue. But, yes, we do have a problem maintaining to house people that do have housing issues. Again, we have devolved a lot of those responsibilities now with the $30 million to the Department of Education which they will have to basically deal with that education in regards to those social funds that have been devolved. Again, we do try to find ways to assist people that are in need, especially people in our small communities.

In regards to the rent the Member mentioned, there is a six-month period which basically says your rent will be consistent for six months regardless of your fluctuation, so it allows you a chance to settle into your home before you have to start paying the economic rates that are out there where you pay 25 percent of your income. There are allowances that are given which are not given in the private sector with regard to…Again, we do have to follow under the tenants act that is in place, in which we are obligated to follow that.

With regard to the Member’s question on the rent, I believe this question has been raised before and I think that we do realize that if there is a clause in there that it can be reviewed after five years, but my understanding is a large portion of these have been locked in for the term of their leases. I’m willing to go back with the department to look and see which arrangements do have the five-year clause, and ensure that we are able to look at those leases to make sure we’re able to renegotiate or look at other options.

Also, the Member raised the question with regard to the market housing. In regard to phase one of the market housing where we acquired 22 units, right now we have 21 units which are occupied and one vacant in Fort Resolution. The phase two units are still being put in place by way of the communities that they have been allocated. One unit may be occupied, but the other ones have not been completed to be occupied yet where they’re still being set up or being in transportation through the winter road systems. Those are some of the responses to the Member’s questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be around sort of the global perspective at this time. I’m personally concerned about focus. I’ve brought up, on a number of times, my personal concern that the Housing Corporation has an information systems program to do housing maintenance. I’ve said a number of times, for example, that this is the type of program that could be bought off the shelf at a large computer store. I’ve raised this concern a number of times because I’m concerned that we’re worried about inputting data and whatnot into programs when we should be handing our employees hammers and pouches and nails. So our focus should be about putting houses on the ground, as opposed to maintaining a computer system. That’s a personal concern because I just want to make sure that our focus is in the right direction. I mean, I really believe that we have a moral responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I don’t take that lightly. I believe that 100 percent. I think when it comes to people like our seniors and disabled and less fortunate, that solemn obligation needs to be held eternal.

When I visit a community, when we did our northern consultation and we saw someone’s door with a huge gap underneath it, it just felt horrible. I felt that the focus needs to be a little bit more than rhetoric, because rhetoric should be saved only for election campaigns. But then we get into transparency problems, as mentioned during the EDAP.

Several months ago I had brought up the EDAP, as well as my Member to the right side of me here. We brought up concerns about the disclosure or the full transparency of our EDAP program. I brought it up on a number of occasions, that I’m concerned we’re giving out loans, but still the accountability is there in a constructive sense that it’s so high up you can’t see why we’re giving money away to people under what circumstances. I personally feel that a policy that this department should take on, and I think the Minister should be working with the appropriate Ministers, but the fact is that the policy should state that if anyone who gets any money through the government should have, we’re only asking for a small step. We’re asking them to make sure that their name’s included at least in the accountability transparency concept so we can ensure that the right people are getting the right money. Why did we give away $72,000 to one person in the past? I don’t know. But we’ve asked these questions and we continue with the housing program on our focus to help people, which I’m happy, but then we don’t know why we’re helping certain people because we don’t know the details. So accountability and transparency to me needs to go above rhetoric. I’d like to see the details and I think this needs to be a mission if not added to the goals of our Housing Corporation.

If I could speak a little further on goals for only a moment. I think our goals, we talk about seniors and disabled and we talk about our sustainable housing for northerners, which are all well and good. But I’d also like to see us add goals where we’re going to use an access or northern housing industry where possible, whenever possible. I want us to see as a goal that we tap into our labour market here in the Northwest Territories. I’ve mentioned many times that we do have northern manufacturers up here and I would like to see us use them. I had a Member’s statement one day where I pointed out how great the windows were that I got in Hay River for my house here in Yellowknife. I think they’re fine things. So I know we have northern contractors here in Yellowknife and Hay River and wherever else in the Northwest Territories that can provide good quality materials for everyone.

Under the side of modulars, I see problems here. I’m supportive of bringing the modulars into the communities, but I still see we have hurdles before us, such as land administration, land identification. We don’t have people with the skills and the abilities to put forward these types of documents to do things like community planning, consultation. What do we do in the interim? We don’t have modulars being delivered to communities because we have nowhere to put them. We have land tied up between the territorial government, such as Commissioner’s land, and we have land tied up with the federal Crown lands. It makes it difficult, because I think going back to my first statement, which is about focus, it makes it very challenging. How do we put houses in communities when we don’t have good quality land to put it on?

I would like to see the focus of the Housing Corporation to look at those little fine things that deliver houses to communities from the south of the lake to the north of the lake, all the way around it, that we need to get people into housing. I’m a firm believer that housing is one of the critical elements that create a stabilized home, which continue to perpetuate a stabilized atmosphere that lead to healthy living. Without those sort of key elements of shelters, of a home, I think life sort of slips from there on in.

Other Members had good points about what do you do and where do you go when they have gone to the housing program and they’re no longer welcome. I echo those points because they were good, but at that point I want to just pull it right back to the transparency and re-emphasize that I think transparency under the EDAP needs to go a little further. I think when we lend money to people out there, again it’s not asking too much because the public has confidence in us when we show and can justify why people got what they did. If we were lending them money through the EDAP program, it has steps, checks and balances that can be accounted for. Whether you like the fact that they got the money or not may be a different issue, but the fact is it can be justified and that’s all the public is asking. That’s all MLAs like myself are asking, is how do we justify it because we have to look those people in the eye, we have to take those phone calls about the transparency. So one of the steps that I’d like to see us address is the transparency area. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t have a question there. They were mostly just comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Would you like to make any comments, Mr. Krutko?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in regards to the different housing programs that we do deliver, we do have to try to be fair to different people. Yes, there is a question about confidentiality, but I think it’s just like anything else. If you’re dealing with the banks, in which a large portion of these dollars we do give to the clients, through EDAP, is bank financing. Out of 600 clients, we’ve been able to access almost $46 million from the banks for these units by way of…and it’s another avenue for us to be able to get houses on the ground, but also be able to assist people in need. A lot of these people that are in need basically are single mothers in regards to having four or five kids. You have to take into account what the real cost is in regard to what it’s going to cost for you to take care of not only your shelter needs, but also your day-to-day needs to accommodate a family of whatever size it may be. So we do have to keep that into account, but also realizing that we are doing a process to review the different programs we are delivering.

In regards to the maintenance management systems, we do use that program in house for our local housing authorities through our maintenance program, which has proven to be very useful in order to realize the situation we find our housing units in our communities so that we can determine where we spend our money to do the different repairs that have to be done based on the management program we have in place. Again, it’s only used internally, in house.

In regard to the issue the Member raised about land administration, I was at a meeting with the Member, Mr. Yakeleya, MACA and myself, and at that meeting it was pretty clear that we, MACA and even ourselves, are having problems just trying to deal with the land issues in regards to the question about titles, in regards to the new self-government agreements that are in place, who do you deal with, who are the people that you have to be able to get permission from to develop these lands and under what conditions? We do have a major problem in regards to the area of lands and I think it’s something that’s identified not only in the Housing Corporation, but also MACA is realizing that it’s a problem.

We do have to work together with the different departments and the local governments and municipalities and community governments to find solutions to these problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t have a question, but I do have a clarification. I’m speaking about when we lend public money and I think public money follows a different rule than private money. I appreciate that the Minister distinguishes that we use some of the public money to leverage private money, but I still think that because it’s the government’s money, it’s the people’s money. We can still play by our rule, which is the disclosure rule. We may not see eye to eye and then again we may never see eye to eye on that point, but it’s how I feel and I feel that it’s very important in the long run.

I do welcome the fact that the money that has been given out has been leveraged and used in probably many good ways, which is that it has gotten people into private home ownership, which is great, but I still feel differently on the transparency issue.

Just for final clarification on the maintenance management program, it’s the focus where I believe it should be under the TSC, the Technical Service Centre perspective as opposed to in the housing department and the skilled staff that I believe should be under that department. It’s not so much the fact that they use the program, it’s the focus. I‘m a firm believer that when the TSC was sort of envisioned that these things would fall under there. So better focus.

Like I said earlier, I’m a firm believer that we need to drop these pens and grab some hammers and the focus of the department of getting houses. I’m glad the Minister acknowledges that there is trouble. We do have land entitlement troubles and I’d like to see us work through those to get houses on the ground for people, so I’ll welcome those developments as they come forward to work with that Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Krutko.

I just want to make a comment in regards to the maintenance management systems. I believe that we have to leave it at the community level. It has to be left at the local authorities and the maintenance staff to be able to oversee that program because it’s the only program that we have in place that really catalogues exactly what work is being done, what’s being expended, and what has to be done in the future. I think for us to centralize it to Yellowknife or wherever else is going to take away the whole authority that we give to our local housing authorities to deliver housing on our behalf. Also with the computer glitches that we’ve been having lately, I’d hate to see what happens when this program goes down in all 23 communities we have to deliver this maintenance program. If their systems go down, we go down with them. I think we cannot afford to have it tied to any other centralized system. I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. At this time I’m going to take a 15-minute break. After the break, I have Braden, Yakeleya, Lee, Pokiak, Ramsay and Groenewegen.

---SHORT RECESS

Good afternoon. We’re resuming our Committee of the Whole. General comments. Next in line I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to sort of continue with the discussion I had earlier, and this is on the ambitious plan here to invest the $33 million in 185 housing units. Mr. Chairman, I’m still looking for clarification or assurance that this entire program can and is being committed to, regardless of the support of the federal government. I know I’ve asked this question once or twice in different ways here, but I’m still not getting the clarity that I’m looking for. Can this entire program be financed in the allocation of the appropriation that is requested here, or do we actually have to have the federal government’s investment on it? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is essential we do have the federal funding to achieve the 185 units, but if not, we will deliver 118 units out of our own funding this fiscal year. I think it’s crucial and I think it’s important that…I mean, unless something drastic changes in Ottawa, the understanding we have from CMHC is the bill has been drafted, it is before the Treasury Board and the $50 million over the next two years is in that allocation, which has been approved by treasury. So again, I’d like to make it clear that Bill C-48 has passed in the House of Commons in July, and the bill has been drafted to go to Treasury Board, and, because they called an election, that’s where it sits today. So until the new government is up and running and they have their formal meetings to approve the expenditure, that’s where it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is getting somewhere for me now. I guess I can say I’m not concerned right now with whether or not the federal government does approve this money. Of course, I’m very, very hopeful of that, but the business before us is how much money we approve and for what. Now there’s new information I think that has come across, is that the Minister is saying we can’t afford to build 118 houses with the allocation already requested here. So if I vote for this, what I’m voting for is 118 units, not 185. I’m voting to see 118 units built for $33 million and if the feds come through with more money, then we’ll build more units. Have I got it right? Is that what I’m voting for, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the total budget for the department is $122 million. Out of that, the GNWT allocation is $38 million, or 36.8. So the majority of those dollars that we do operate under comes through our arrangement with CMHC and federal contributions for different program allocations. It is hinging, and I think that we’re not the only department which is experiencing this uncertainty, because other arrangements were made before the election and Northern Strategy funding, we’re looking at the Mackenzie social impact funding. A lot of funding dollars were announced previous, but again, it all depends on federal approval. In this case, I feel comfortable that we will be seeing those dollars on the basis that the bill has passed through the Legislature. It has been approved for $1.6 billion. The $1.6 billion has not been allocated. So until that allocation takes place, we’re asking for $50 million over two years out of the $1.6 billion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

An aspect that should concern the committee, Mr. Chairman, is that with some of this new information that’s been presented, we now have been assured the information that we can be certain of is that 118 units are going to be built for the investments stated in the Minister’s opening address, not 185 units as the Minister stated; 118. I’m concerned that the Minister is overselling the program and, again, when I’m asked to consider my vote for any allocation, I want to know what I’m getting for it. The Minister is not giving us straightforward information here compared to what he said in his opening statement and what he now says will be delivered. It’s quite a discrepancy between 185 housing units and 118. Now I stand to be corrected; but from what I’ve learned so far this afternoon, we’re not getting straight information. That is, again, one of the reasons why this committee has a chronic and growing concern with the corporation and with its programs and how it says it’s going to go about getting them done. I’m going to park that one for now. At least I say now, I do have some information about what is actually achievable with the money that’s requested. But I will still leave it on the record that I think the Minister is overselling the capacity and I’m going to be very vigilant and diligent about digging things out and confirming things.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of minutes left here, and I’d like to explore as well, along with a number of my colleagues, the mandate of the Housing Corporation. This is really an essential issue to what is before us, Mr. Chairman, because if we do not have the mandate and the objectives and the outcomes clearly defined and agreed upon in this Legislature and in our committee, why or how are we going to be able to make an approval, or decisions, or amendments on the information that is put forward to us. The mandate of the Housing Corporation and its goals and objectives changed dramatically at least a year ago when the transfer of the social housing portfolio went to Education, Culture and Employment, and it was right at that time. So we’re talking about a year ago, Mr. Chairman, that we really expected to engage in creating, investigating, probing and coming up with this new mandate. That was easily a year ago, but these plans have been in place for some time, and among the documents that committee has collected and I’ve collected, is a progress report dated April 13, 2004, almost two years ago, entitled Redefining the Mandate of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. It’s a four-and-a-half-page memo. It’s very well put out, Mr. Chairman, that describes the specific task, the current status, other participants, issues and considerations, analysis and timelines. The proposed work plan in phase II suggests, Mr. Chairman, that the approval received by the Legislative Assembly would be by November of 2004, and implementation of administration of public housing portfolio subsidies by the new department would begin in April of 2005. So we’re way off the beam here. When the Minister says that the new mandate…He said in his opening statement, "as you are aware during the past year the corporation has been involved in redefining its mandate." Well, this goes on for more than two years now, and if I have a question for the Minister it’s to ask for some kind of an accounting or an explanation of why the corporation has missed by, it will be two years now, a plan that it put out two years ago. Can the Minister account for this amazing slippage in the commitment to the Assembly? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before anybody out there in the public gets the assumption that I’m misleading anyone here in the House, I just want to point out from the Hansard I read earlier today that I made it clear that these missions in regards to our plans are subject to continued support from the federal government in the amount of $50 million over two years. It’s in my opening comments. So I don’t want anyone out there to assume in any way I mislead this House by making that statement. The statement is clear. In order for this to proceed, we need the federal $50 million to achieve that. It’s spelled out in my opening remarks. I think in regards to the Member having information that the mandate hasn’t just popped up in the last couple of months. This thing has been in the process for over two years, like the Member mentioned from a letter that he pulled out of his hand in regards to my comments, that over the last year we have been in the process of working with our local housing authorities, our maintenance people, our regional directors, and also having regional meetings in the regions with the regional staff, having meetings here in Yellowknife with the territorial staff, that includes LHO, every regional director. So it’s not as if we were hiding anything from anyone. This process has been going on for a very long period of time and because of the change of direction by the Government of the Northwest Territories in regards to the social component of our responsibility, which is now devolved to the Department of Education, that we will continue to manage property in the Northwest Territories for the wellbeing of the residents of the Northwest Territories. So I would just like to point that out for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask the Minister about his comments here in terms of the housing that he’s planning to put into the communities. Even 118 units, even if we don’t receive any type of favourable response from the federal government, we have 118 units, as you mentioned. That’s quite a few units. How is it going to work with the communities in terms of putting these units into the community in terms of the lot development, power poles and any other infrastructure that has to go to get a lot ready for these units? Right now they’re sort of rushing the lots to get into the communities because of the weather and the communities that don’t have all-weather roads or access to a winter road is only open for a short period of time and the gravel pits need to be opened and get gravel into the communities. So I just wanted to ask the Minister in terms of what type of security or what kind of plans did you put in place to make sure we have our lots well developed and in place before we get these units built on these pads? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, we have identified 33 units to go into communities who are on the winter road system and they have been ordered. We’re hoping to get them in with the winter road this year. So they will be in those communities. We have 33 units already identified. Again, we’re hoping to have a response back as soon as possible from the federal government. Once we get, that then we’ll have a better idea of the rest of the allocations by way of barge and whatnot to the other communities. So right now, the allocation that we have, what they committed to is the allocation for the winter road, the 33 units, which will be going in basically right now to get them into those communities on the winter roads. So, again, I’m hoping to get a response back from the federal government. Again, I believe it will be a positive response and I think that we have to assume that and if we don’t, we’ll have to readjust it after that period. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask the Minister again in terms of the coordination efforts by Housing with other departments in terms of developing the lots for the communities for these units to be in the communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we will be going into each community and having community meetings and getting community consultation and making them aware of the number of the allocation, the lots that are going to be required, and also with that consultation with the communities where these units should be built. So we will be going community by community in regards to the allocation, and also working with the communities to identify the appropriate lands that are going to be needed to build these. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of the part of the consultation and coordination with the communities that are going to receive these units, would the Minister then look at the other departments that need to be part of this consultation and coordination to get these pads ready? An example is the MACA sewer and water system, and NCPC for power poles that need to be in these lots, and probably other agencies and other organizations to coordinate that this is what needs to happen to have these lots prepared and ready for these units that would be coming into the communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we are doing that to ensure that are able to work with the other departments to ensure that we would have this smooth transition to get these units on the ground, and also working with MACA and the Power Corporation and also other departments to ensure that we are able to deliver a number of units. We are going to, but, like the Member says, there are implications in regards to water/sewer delivery, to extension of your power grid, to looking at your road systems and whatnot. I think it is important that there is going to be a major undertaking to do this. We do have to work with the other departments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The $4.8 million to fund emergency and other repair programs and various seniors' programs, under this concept here, is a certain amount allocated out of this solely for Senior Citizens’ Home Repair Program? I know the Minister indicated earlier that he said it is application based. It is pretty general. Everybody could fill out their application under the emergency and it would eat up on the other programs. In this funding or the different programs he has outlined, do they have a certain amount of money that is dedicated solely for that purpose? I wanted to ask that question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, we do take applications in the fall time and also we are able to identify where the needs are. Based on core needs, we try to identify those people in most need where we think the emergency or crisis is. Through that information, through the applications, we have a general idea of where the dollars should be spent on the repair programs. Then, from there, they are basically allocated by each community, based on a number of applications and also where we see the highest need based on core needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya. Thank you. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I used the last opportunity I had to speak on generality, so I would like to try to focus on specifics here. It is in regards to the Novel housing which was mentioned in the Minister of Finance’s budget statement. Also, I had the opportunity to ask the corporation some specific written questions. I received a reply on that. I appreciate the answers. It was quite lengthy. It contained a lot of information, but I do still need some clarifications. The first one is -- and I will try to be brief in my questions -- one of the things that the Minister indicated is that this project hinges on three different things. One is, of course, that the pipeline has to get through. The second one is that ATCO has to get the contract. The third one is that the federal government funds this. One of the things I am wondering, because it says here that the Minister received a positive response from former Housing Minister Fontana. I would like to ask the Minister whether he was able to get anything in writing. If not, why not? When you are aware in a minority government that the government could fall at any time, why would he not have gotten something concrete that he could go to the new Minister of Housing Finley with? Thank you. That will be my first question.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the simple answer is that the funding we are asking for is in future funding, which is 2011-2012, because we are not sure who the government is going to be of the day, and that this government could not make commitments to future obligations, similar to this Legislature here. CMHC does have our proposal which has been given to them. They are pretty receptive to the proposal. Again, it is based on the approval of future governments to continue the lobby, continue to keep them aware of our proposal and see where that goes. Right now, because of the future commitments, the federal Minister could not commit to future allocations because it is outside the mandate of the previous government and also because it is future funding for 2011-2012. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Ms. Lee.