Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, Mr. Chairman, in view of people who are currently making decisions to, you know, sell their homes, forfeit their existing living accommodations to move into public housing units, which at this time are not costing them anything regardless of their income, would it not be fair on the part of the government to advise these people that perhaps there are changes coming, maybe the subsidy will become taxable income, maybe there will be a charge assessed for rent, those kinds of things that could be coming? Because people are making decisions based, right now, on free rent. I’m sure that’s not a really hard decision to make in a lot of instances, but would it be fair and prudent to advise them of things potentially to come? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. I’ll go to Minister Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s been no secret that Education, Culture and Employment has embarked on a review of income security programs. I made statements on that in the last session. We have been very upfront about it. We have a process of consultation that’s taking place all across the Northwest Territories right now. In that whole process, we’re reviewing all of our income security programs. So it’s not just one program; it’s all of them. We haven’t got any plans yet for changes. What we’re doing is looking at them, talking to people, asking for advice as to where people think we should be going with our programs, and then we’ll come back and discuss with Members, in particular of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, but all Members, any proposed changes. We don’t expect it will be in a process where changes are going to happen very quickly. This sort of initiative takes some time to make sure that you’ve got it right and then to implement correctly, as well.

Thank you, Minister Dent. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the subject that was raised with respect to the rent supplement contracts, some negotiated, some 20 years in length to encourage private sector involvement in providing public housing, some at rates that are higher than market rate in market communities, the Minister said he would look at those in terms of some of them having five-year terms. Some of them were set up as four, five-year terms, that I do know. Now the Minister said he’s going to go back and assess and see if there is a way of perhaps signing off on some of those contracts. I know it’s difficult because, obviously, they were provided as public housing and there are people occupying them, but if enough advanced warning is provided, maybe alternatives to these higher costs could be provided. So my question is, he says he’s going to assess them, he’s going to look at the terms and conditions of them and see if there’s a way of just measuring whether we’re getting value for money on them. Could we reasonably expect that that assessment will be shared with Members of this Assembly prior to the end of February? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will see about getting back to the Member with that information at the end of February, probably March, but I will make an attempt to look at these and see exactly which ones are up for review in five years or whatever, and also exactly what the costs associated with the terms of these are, and also the length of time that those leases are out there for.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time I’ve raised this issue and it’s good to know that the Minister is now going to have a look at them and assess them. But I raised this issue with the Minister and his staff not so long ago. I want to know, since I raised it with them last time, have there been any renewals exercised for five-year terms? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

I couldn’t answer the Member’s question, but the last lease that we did enter into was in 1998, which was almost seven years ago.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

The last lease entered into in 1998, Mr. Chairman, doesn’t mean anything. Maybe there was one entered into in 1995 that was for 20 years. We’ve all seen the chart. I mean, that’s not the point when the last rent supp…I know rent supp was kind of the flavour of the day for a while, and of course there haven’t been any just lately, but I’m talking about the ones that were entered into that were 20-year contracts based on five-year renewal periods. That’s what I’m talking about. Have any of those five-year terms been signed on in the last two months? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that most of these leases are locked in for the term of the lease, but there is an escalation rate that is in there that we do based on the escalation rate that they are able to move on that, but my understanding is that these are locked in leases for the term of the lease. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I’ve got Mr. Braden next. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were exchanging some views about the mandate of the Housing Corporation in my last turn, and there was a discussion about some of the commitments and the paperwork that’s on record regarding the evolution of this project. Mr. Chairman, I pointed out at least one of several documents dating back to April of 2004, which outlined the work plan for doing this. If I recall the Minister’s words, he said it was something I pulled out of my hat. It is not something I pulled out of my hat, Madam Chair. It is a document that the corporation circulated for committee to help us become familiar with what was going on. It was done under his watch. I wanted to put that on the record. Something that is essential to committee being able to do its business is to be able to rely on the paper trail, and the records of decision, and briefings that are presented to us.

Again, I don’t want to get into a war of words, but this was not something that I pulled out of my hat. It is a very legitimate part of this issue. Where I would like to go with this, Madam Chair, is to find out what today is the status of the task of redefining the mandate of the NWT Housing Corporation. What is on the books now? What can committee expect and what can the public expect as far as at least being involved or having access to the redefinition of our Housing Corporation or, in broader terms, Madam Chair, what should this government be doing to satisfy its mandate and the needs of its people to supply adequate, safe and affordable housing?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, like I mentioned earlier, there has been a committee struck made up of people from the Department of Executive. Also we have people who are responsible for strategic planning, and my department will also be involved. We are trying to get a view for the public with regard to where we are going with our mandate, but, more importantly, get input from the stakeholders we have out there and also from the local housing authorities and also with regard to the people here in this Legislature to ensure that the mandate we have put forward is the right direction we are going and also realizing we will have to come back to a standing committee. I am hoping, like I stated, that the committee will report back possibly at the end of May so we can have something ready to debate in the June session.

So that is the time frame we are looking at. Again, we are looking for input from the stakeholders that also includes the MLAs, the committees and the LHOs and the staff of the corporation with regard to where we are going. Again, there has been an independent committee struck. We were directed by the Premier to get out there and get this review done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This new committee process, under whose direction is it operating and to what level will our government be reporting, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will refer this question to the Premier.

To who? Oh, the Premier. Thank you. Mr. Premier.

Madam Chair, the committee will be reporting to me as Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the Premier then concur with the information that the Minister has provided, that we should be anticipating something by this spring?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee will be going out and getting input from all stakeholders in the Territories, including Members of this Legislative Assembly. The work of the committee is to be completed by May 15th. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Braden.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been discussion among other Members about the Novel housing proposal, and I think I share with every other Member an expectation, a hope, that this opportunity -- it’s an extraordinary opportunity -- can become something that, indeed, we will be able to apply that will make a difference for our communities. It is exactly the kind of thing, Madam Chair, that we can and should expect as a legacy from the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and with that context, a fair amount of information has been circulated about it. It’s still obviously, though, kind of finding its feet. Like some of the Members, I need to be satisfied on some of the business context and the business approach that we are taking this. I should also acknowledge, too, that the Minister has invited me as well to go to Calgary to see the factory, to see the product and talk to the ATCO folks. I haven’t done that yet. I look forward to the opportunity to do that. The business approach to this is really central to having a look at the product itself.

I think, if I recollect from a little while ago, the discussion Ms. Lee was having with regard to the contributions that were lined up for this and, indeed, correspondence from the Minister, which was tabled on February 1st, would indicate that there is very close to $300 million suggested as the total financial picture that we could potentially be looking at.

I had written the Minister back in August of last year, Madam Chair, with a number of questions related to the project. One of them was in respect of the contributions that were outlined at the time. We were told that the Government of Canada was being prepared for a $90 million one-time contribution; the Government of the Northwest Territories was in it for $121 million; and, the Mackenzie gas project/ATCO was in it for a $26 million involvement. The question I had at that time was, what’s in it for ATCO? Why are they making a $26 million contribution? There was a six-point response, Madam Chair. It covered a whole bunch of areas: to reduce socio-economic cost, to seek agreement with the GNWT for all structures to remain in the North, to develop a positive position with impacted communities, to quicken the regulatory approval of the project, to secure a GNWT socio-economic agreement prior to regulatory board hearings. There was a vested interest in here by the MPG and ATCO to make a contribution to this. But in the discussion that I hear now, and this is what I wanted to confirm and I would like to double check this, ATCO is not making a contribution? They are in this for the money now. All of these quite more social and philanthropic agendas aren’t on the table anymore? Just what is the nature of the contribution that is anticipated, or had been anticipated at least last August, from ATCO, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, a lot has changed since last August. We have to admit that there has been a change from the federal government. We are looking at allocating funding at the front end, but the decision was made to fund it at the back end, which changed the amounts we were going to receive from the federal government. With regard to the negotiations or the meetings that have been held between Fred and his people and people in CMHC and ATCO, we were able to bring down the cost of a lot of these units and be able to not have to expend as much money at the back end to do the conversions. With regard to the decision of waiving the premium, which is $29 million that’s been talked about, by waiving that, once we do the purchase at the back end, those are still open for negotiations. We still have to negotiate a price over the product once the project is…(inaudible)…Because those negotiations are still going on, we aren’t going to state what the outcome price is, but we made it clear to the proponents that there is an area we are looking at. It’s in the area of a little over $100,000 per unit. That’s where we want to stay. If there is any price change, we will not be part of those negotiations.

Also, through the socio-economic arrangements, those negotiations are ongoing through the regulatory process. We are working with the parties at the table to find a way where we can have a win/win situation. In order for everyone to win on this one, we have to have a product that everybody feels comfortable with, not only at the front end but at the back end, such as residents of the communities, CHMC and ourselves. At the end of the day, it has to meet the requirements we are asking for at the front end. Again, we are still in negotiations until we nail down that actual price, and the price has to come in at a certain set amount. We have put those calls out that we will not go into this thing if it is going to cost us more than we are already investing. It’s the same with CMHC. They will not take a product that does not meet CMHC standards. So they have to meet that standard, too. There are these demands out there and we are still in negotiations.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to request that we report progress and continue tomorrow. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. I take that as a motion. The motion is in order. It’s not debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

I will now rise and report progress.