Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to provide some comments, as well, to the department or to housing. It’s one of the biggest concerns to my riding. I have my riding consisting of six communities where four of them are very small communities that look to housing to help create their growth. Of the two larger centres, Fort Liard has been, I think, increasingly on top of the agenda. I think overall, before I get into specifics of some of my communities, Madam Chair and Mr. Minister, is that, overall, the communities see the Housing Corporation as taking a lead in updating the services they offer. In fact, I’ve been working with the Minister trying to get a regional workshop in the Nahendeh riding, and I thought that one of the intents was to go out and ask the people how you see the Housing Corporation working, what can it better improve. That’s kind of the thinking that people had when the Housing Corporation was talking about reviewing its mandate and delivery processes. That’s the kind of expectation that they thought they had. Just recently we find out the mandate changed and I was wondering, well, they never really went to the communities or asked anybody. So I was wondering, how did the mandate change and what was the focus of the mandate? What caused the mandate to change without asking people about it? For one of the great foundations of our government system is participatory democracy, and that’s fundamental to the people. That’s what they like. They like to participate in our decisions. Even ask them for feedback. If we’re going to do it workshop style, to involve them and get all this feedback. That’s what we thought we were going to get when the Housing Corporation was talking about its mandate changes.

Thanks to one of my colleagues, I just learned it’s a process that began early in the term, around 2004, and now we’re 2006. It’s been a couple of years and nothing significant as change in terms of reviewing that mandate. Some of the things, too, in private sector they call it a comprehensive organizational study, where they look at how the organization is set up and how it can better utilize its staff, utilize its resources, utilize its delivery programs. People were happy that they were going to have input into that, but I don’t know what changed, but I know that one of the worst things that people hate is top-down approaches. That’s what happened, I believe, in this case with the mandate. You said we were changing the mandate and this is how it’s going to be done. Then the people that I represent, my constituents, have always believed it should be from the ground up. In fact, it was one of your reports, Madam Chair, that the Minister tabled last year in the House was the actual name of the Housing Corporation report was “The Ground Up” but lately we’ve been trying to do things top down. I believe that if we do, if the Minister will go about and go to the communities and listen to the people like we did in the pre-budget consultations. People did mention the Housing Corporation, the program, the program delivery quite extensively. Our colleagues in the Social Programs heard that, included it in their report, and it’s something that we’re going to have to look at seriously.

So that’s what I kind of see with the Housing Corporation, is just a follow-up on my vision and the people’s vision and see if the Minister will concur if that’s what should be done. It has to be all-encompassing because I believe the Housing Corporation is in a state of flux. Where do we go from here now? At one time having it as a corporation did make sense because there was some flow-through funding coming from different agencies, not only us. But now the GNWT is the primary one that gives them the transfer payments to deliver housing programs. Does it have to be a corporation any more? Can we look at it just being a department? Those are the kind of discussions that need to happen and they have to happen in this coming term, Madam Chair.

Just with that, if the Minister can comment on the overall mandate review. It has to be a lot more than just a paper review, because quite often people sit down and the consultants sit down and talk with department heads and say, okay, we reviewed it. But that’s not what I’m asking the Minister today. It has to be comprehensive. I know it’s going to cost a few bucks, but it’s something so we have a good, efficiently run organization, if indeed it stays a corporation or a department, Madam Chair. But that’s something we have to look at and have a good hard look at it. How are we going to continue this function of taking care of the housing needs of our people in the smaller communities? I think that’s how we have to refocus the goal and objectives of the Housing Corporation. If I can just get the Minister to comment, Madam Chair, on how he sees, and where he sees the Housing Corporation going in the next little bit to better deliver our services. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to the mandate, this process has been ongoing since last year. It’s something that we’ve been working on. We’ve been having workshops with our local housing authorities. We’ve had workshops with all our maintenance people in the LHOs. We’ve had our regional directors involved in this process. We have done a lot of consultation already with the local housing authorities, with the maintenance staff in those organizations, and also the board of directors that was overseeing this was the regional directors. We have one in almost every region. I think it is time for this organization to change the way we do business.

As you’ve heard, we just celebrated our 30 years as a corporation in the Northwest Territories just last year. In 30 years a lot has changed in the North and I think because of the dynamics of the corporation, we also have to change with the times. I think in order for us to realize we’re not immune to the pressures on development in the North. The biggest challenge we face, like I mentioned, is the area of just trying to deliver what we have right now. I think because of the competition in the area for tradespeople and contractors and whatnot, that we’re realizing there’s a higher cost to doing business in the Northwest Territories, especially in the area of housing and construction.

But again, the mandate is going to proceed through a new process where they have a board to go out and get public input and then come back, and I will report back to the standing committee and this House. So I’d just like to remind the Member that I have travelled along with the Member. I’ve travelled to most of the communities in the Northwest Territories and I have been consistent with my message. We are changing the way we do business in the Northwest Territories. Part of that change will include the change of how we deliver programs and services and also changing of the mandate of the corporation to be able to deal with some of these issues such as land development issues and being able to have capacity so that we can be able to find the people in the right areas to assist us on delivering. We are right now, like I mentioned earlier, the number of people that we’ve had in the Housing Corporation over the last 10 years have changed to almost half the size of the staff prior to division. We were at 195 people. After division we went down to 144. With the budget cuts ever since, we’re down to 103. There has been a drastic change to the size of the Housing Corporation to deliver those programs.

We are committed to go back out, get consultation from the key stakeholders and Members of this Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. With four seconds on the clock, Mr. Menicoche.

---Laughter

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe I can use up my four seconds quite efficiently here. Just with respect to the Minister’s comments, I don’t disagree that the Minister heard us and that he is seeking a mandate change. I don’t disagree with the methodology at all and that he indeed does recognize, once again, that there has to be a change. How that change is going to be done is what I would like to impart to the Minister. There are people out there in the communities, the regions and throughout the North that want input into how we change the Housing Corporation. Indeed, they just want to be heard. I believe that that consultation has to be extensive and we have to get out there, listen and be the responsive and reflective department with respect to housing that the people want. I would just like to urge the Minister again to consider that and to comment that it will be a comprehensive and extensive consultation with respect to the mandate and review of the corporation, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. We will take that as a comment, so we don’t need to have the Minister answer any questions on that. Next on the list is Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Last year, going through the same exercise, I spoke to a number of issues and concerns. I see this year I am going to be speaking to almost the same issues and concerns. We go travelling to the communities and it never fails, even in our day-to-day work in our constituencies, I am sure there is not a day or a couple of days that goes by that we don’t have people calling with concerns with housing, not so much the Housing Corporation, and the way the programs are delivered. I commend the Housing Corporation, as I did last year, for putting a lot of these programs into place where people could try to get into their own homes, and a lot of them have. Some of them have found that they couldn’t maintain these homes, so they went back to the corporation. So I have a concern with people calling and wanting to know why couldn’t I be approved. I make enough to maintain my own home and they are giving homes to people who end up giving them back, or a single person…We can go on and on with the list of concerns we get regarding the housing programs.

In the Minister’s opening comments, he spoke to the Supported Lease Program and this ambitious plan is subject to support from the federal government. I am curious to know if the Supported Lease Program is also subject to continued support from the federal government. If we don’t get that support, what is going to happen to some of these programs? Are we still going to get 185 units? I think you have been asked this question a couple of times. I just have a real concern with the direction that the Housing Corporation has taken. I have spoken to it before and, as Mr. Menicoche pointed out, I thought this mandate was just something that was just a new initiative, but it was something that was started in 2004. I understand there was even a task team sent out and I am curious to know if all the LHOs, the district offices, were consulted on the new mandate. Did they have much input into it? The universal partnership agreements, did they have much say into whether they wanted to be part of these universal partnership agreements, or did they just have to sign because everybody else did? I don’t think a lot of them had much choice.

You mention housing and it just strikes a nerve in everyone. I understand the corporation is trying to do their best, but I think they are really straying from their original intent to provide housing to residents of the Northwest Territories. I have a concern with that. I see money being cut to the districts and the LHOs. It seems like it just keeps growing and growing in headquarters. That causes me concern. We’ve lost so much money in the Housing Corporation over the years, like I said in my Member’s statement before, we could have had a few more houses on the ground. I would like to see a bit more transparency in some of the housing programs. It’s public money and the public has the right to know where their money is going and how it’s being divided up by certain clients. I understand the Minister is going to say I can’t give you the names. Everybody has the right to know what we all make in here. So it being public money, the taxpayer has the right to know where some of their funds are going.

I will say it again, and I may be doing the same spiel next year -- I should just ask for this recording and I can play it again next year -- I really believe the Housing Corporation is straying too far away from their original mandate and I think the business decisions should be left to people who have the shops for them. Housing can provide the expertise because they should know housing. I have a problem again with headquarters continuing to grow and the people in the frontline district offices seem to be the ones taking the most hits. I believe there may have been a few questions in there. Some of the other Members spoke to some of the ones I had in my notes, so I won’t repeat it again.

Housing is a concern with residents of the Northwest Territories; it always has been, always will be. The Housing Corporation should, in my opinion, stay to their original mandate and reason they were established. I don’t like the looks of the proposed new mandate. It’s not something I would be able to support. It’s trying to become too businesslike and I don’t agree with that. I think they should be providing the houses. A lot of people have access to a lot of programs and have gotten money to be put into their own homes. You still hear a few concerns from people who have lived in public housing their whole life and they have worked hard to try to get out of public housing and get into their own homes, but all of a sudden they make too much so they are paying big rent. I thought that’s what these programs were designed for. That’s why I said there should be a little more transparency to these programs, so we could at least see where some of the money is going and make sure that one client is not getting $70,000 and another client who is not that far off in wage earnings gets $6,000. It’s got to be transparent. It has to be fair. I have suggested before that one of the changes that the Housing Corporation could make is just have a block $50,000, $25,000 or $30,000 number that if people qualify with the bank to own their own home, they should all be able to access that money, nothing higher and nothing lower, just straight across the board, like the Minimum Downpayment Assistance Program they had a few years ago. That did that. It just gave a straight number right across the board to clients who qualified through the bank. It just seems like the programs change every few years right back to SHAG and the Rural and Remote Program where some of the people just finished paying 25 years later.

So I would like to see some consistency. I would like to see the programs stay the same, at least for awhile and not be changed every few years. I think there may have been a few questions in there. The Minister may wish to comment on some of the statements that I have made. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the programs that we do have, we have devolved over a period of time. I think a lot of the programs we do deliver, we are delivering on behalf of CMHC which are federal programs. We see a lot of our program dollars from CMHC such as emergency repair funding, EDAP funding and access funding. Because we are an agency that delivers program dollars, we have to follow the national standards. Because the standards we fall under, it may not look like we are being fair, but, in most cases, the programs we do deliver are for people who are at the lower end of the wage scale and also trying to get them to become homeowners and get them out of social housing, which the focus has been on over the last number of years.

We have to realize the other emphasis was to get people to go to the banks and get a mortgage and become homeowners and we assisted with their downpayment. These programs have devolved over a period of time and, like I mentioned earlier, we are looking at trying to consolidate our homeownership programs so that we have more flexibility. We tried to get away with setting amounts where once we exceed that, we can’t help you. We have to get away from that mentality and try to find programs that are more flexible. Instead of trying to see which program you fit into, we have to find a way we can work with you and help you become homeowners. A lot of the emphasis that we have been focussing on in the past has been the area of homeownership, to get assistance through the banks for mortgages.

With regard to the Member’s comments on the Supported Lease Program, it is a program that is identified to get people out of social housing and become homeowners, for those people who have lived in those units for a number of years. We want to ensure that they have the ability to pay the operational costs and the cost to maintain a home, and that will be taken into consideration. So those individuals, over that two-year period, will be monitored to ensure they will be able to do that. We don’t want to set people up for failure, like the Member mentioned. We have a lot of people who got into the Access Program and then they were able to sustain themselves for a year, and then they had to give the units back. We want to get away from that so we don’t have those situations.

With regard to the reorganization of the corporation, because direction was given by the Legislature to get out of the area of social housing and devolve that mandate to the Department of Education, we have to realize we still have responsibility to people in public housing. We have 2,300 units. We still have contractual arrangements with CHMC where we have to continue to deliver those. It’s important that we do have annual reports that identify the different dollar amounts that are allocated and we do have audits done by the Auditor General every year which are tabled in this House. The Member has asked for information and I know there are certain confidential matters that do come by way of those applications, names and persons who may receive assistance from the government. So it’s under ATIPP and I know that he doesn’t want to hear that answer, but that’s the answer we have to give. We do have federal legislation that we have to hold confidential information under.

So those are some of the responses to the Member’s questions. I think the issues the Member is raising aren’t new to the House. I heard the same issues we are talking about today 10 years ago. It’s how we have to devolve and move with the times. Nothing changes, nothing changes. I think we do have to change the way housing is delivered in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome the Minister and it’s good to see Jeff and Fred again. It’s funny that the Minister, in his last sentence, said these are the same issues he has been hearing for 10 years. That just drives home one of the points that all Members have been raising today with the Housing Corporation. There are many issues and outstanding housing concerns that are just so long ongoing that the regional staff or the headquarters staff have pretty much earmarked these ones, flagged them and just put them in a file in a box in the closet or something and hopefully they will go away. The Minister probably knows that, too.

It’s good to see the $120 million over the next year on 185 units. My first question before I go on is if this funding arrangement is contingent on federal government supports with the new government and if it doesn’t go through with what the old government had agreed on, do we have a contingency plan? That’s my first question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we don’t get the federal funding, we will just deliver the formula we used before, which is 118 units. We have the resources to build 118 units with our own money this year. We are pretty positive we will be receiving the money from the feds; the $50 million over two years.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess just to follow up on that, what percentage of 118 units is going to be public replacement units? That’s just for clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

It roughly works out to one-third of the number of units we are looking at allocating.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I don’t want to reiterate a lot of the concerns that a lot of Members have already raised, and I am sure the Minister has heard them all before in committee, but I just want to talk about the $10 million for the upgrades and the $4.9 million for emergency, seniors and disabled housing. It’s great to see that there is a little bit of increases going into these areas and that these programs are actually in place, but I just wanted to remind the Minister again, I am sure you heard it in many instances, a lot of emergency repairs and a lot of upgrades and a lot of senior repairs are approved every year in the various regions, but when it actually comes down to doing the actual work, doing the actual repair, that’s not so quick to get approved or get done. I just got a few examples. I got a senior with the furnace that is still sitting in his porch to get installed and it’s been there for two years. So a senior with a fire damaged room in his house upstairs that has also been approved for repairs, but that’s been two years ago also. I guess that just alludes to the point I want to make. It seems a lot of the contracts that go out for these repairs and the upgrades to the various units always seem to be going to a specific contractor who has had a long-standing history working with the Housing Corporation; and all other contractors, be it proprietorships or just individual people who are willing and able to do that work, are never really considered because of liability issues, they don’t have their business licence in place and they don’t have some of the insurance that the government requires and stuff like that. But there are a few that do. Five years ago, they maybe didn’t complete a project or something like that and they seem to be blacklisted on the government’s contracting list at the regional level anyway.

I have raised the issue with the Minister before on some people that are willing and able to do all this outstanding work that's still kind of out there in the communities, and people are still wondering why we have to wait for a contractor to come out of Yellowknife, or a contractor to come out of Hay River to complete the work. Well, one of the barriers to getting these contracts in the outlying communities, in the satellite communities where they're actually required is because the government is saying the contractor has to be within cost of what a contract is going to bid on. Pretty much there's a limit to what you can bid on this project, and whether you're in Hay River or Yellowknife or in Colville Lake, this is money that the government's willing to spend and that's that. Therefore, a lot of these smaller community contractors don't bother with bidding on this work, because basically it's not going to make them any money, it's not going to be cost effective for them. The costs in these communities are a lot higher than they are in the regional centres, but it seems to be the government policy that these contracts have to be within these larger centre cost barriers or brackets.

I just want to ask the Minister, is there any inclination that the government is going to relay down the line to tell the regional centres you have to be a little bit more flexible when it comes to very remote communities. These people that are trying to do business in those communities and trying to stay in those communities, especially when a lot of housing projects are just backed up to the door as far as getting completions done. Is there any appetite for that?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we do try to work with communities and especially with our LHOs. We do find that we're trying to give more responsibility for the local housing authorities to build capacity, but also take on more housing responsibilities such as the seniors' maintenance repair program. We're asking the LHOs to do the work in house so they can hire another person on staff so that they have someone in the community that has a ticket and are able to build up their capacity in communities. But I think also the majority of our contracts that go to communities are tendered. I think because of that, sometimes you have negotiated contracts where there's only one business there that does it. We've heard over the years in my travels that there's a lot of frustration. The people that have got work done by contracts which they'll never allow them to do work on their house or whatnot again because of bad experiences people have had in regards to contracts that have been done. So again, yes, there are people that are basically not used because of not having the certification or not being registered and also registered under the BIP, and also not having tradespeople on their workforce to do a lot of this work where you have to have electricians or plumbers or whatnot. Again, we have to ensure that whoever does the work has the capacity to do it. I think that in order to allow for that capacity to go, I think we do support community initiatives through negotiated contracts, along with the local municipality or local housing authority, to take these on. But I think at the end of the day, the solution to our problems in our communities is to have people local doing this work and not have people coming in. But again, in most cases we can't find those people who have the tickets that are required to do the work. Thank you.

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.