Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister missed a few of my questions. I asked how much of the $32 million is going towards this program and if it was affecting the other programs the Housing Corporation runs. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

We are looking at 108 units; roughly about $19.9 million.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. McLeod.

So $19.9 million. That answers one question. The second question was, is this going to affect the other programs the Housing Corporation runs because it’s another subsidy? I am all for people getting into their own homes, but if you know you can’t maintain a home, it just seems to be one program set up after another. EDAP, as far as I am concerned, is a pretty good program where people will go to the bank and get the money. If you know you can’t maintain the home, why bother going to apply? The Housing Corporation is going to recoup some of their money out of this instead of just providing another subsidy and a second layer of public housing, because if they don’t qualify for a mortgage, do they move into public housing? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this will be an application-based program where we will screen the application, identify which clients we feel meet the program. One of the things we are seeing is we are hearing a lot of complaints from people who are in social housing who are paying the high end of the rate scale. Because of that, they don’t seem to be getting any further ahead with the amount of money they are paying on rent. Because of that, we are trying to free up some social housing and get those people who are paying at the high end of the rent scale into homeownership. Yes, we have had experiences where people have gone into a housing program where they had to give the unit back to the Housing Corporation. With this program, we see that there is a mechanism for them to continue to maintain the home by continuing to pay the utility costs. Once we feel that they have the abilities to pay a mortgage, then, at that point, we allow them to get into a mortgage. It’s for people under the EDAP program we have now who are eligible to go to the bank and get a mortgage. So this will supplement that program.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. People in social housing who are paying the high end of the rent scale are people who I hear about who want to get into EDAP, but they can’t because they make too much. Now we are talking about starting a whole new subsidy program, another layer of public housing. So it doesn’t seem that that is the group this is geared for. I will ask my final question again; will this affect the other programs that the Housing Corporation offers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this program is there to try to catch those people who are in a situation where they may have arrears. They are not able to pay down those arrears in order to get into EDAP or be able to go to a bank because they have a bad credit rating. So we want to be able to work with them to be able to get them back on their feet and assist them with a payment plan and allow them to move into these units, paying the utility costs for the two-year period and then be able to get them on their feet to purchase the unit outright through EDAP, or go to the bank and get a mortgage. It’s a transitional period for housing for individuals to get into these types of programs.

Also, we will be providing counselling to these individuals with regard to the services that we do provide. We’ll also work with them to be able to secure a bank loan with the client and the banks to be able to make them access these programs. There are a lot of barriers that a lot of individuals that have had, for one reason or another, who are in social housing; but in order to break that cycle, you have to try something new. This is the idea of this new program; to try something that we feel will be able to get those people into homeownership and out of social housing.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s been a lot of good questions to the Minister here today. I think what we should be doing is grabbing hammers and building units. But anyway…

Hear! Hear!

Mr. Chairman, earlier, the Minister indicated that there are 33 units being shipped on the winter roads. Is that correct? Out of the 118.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have ordered 33 packages for housing to get to the communities over the winter road. It’s 33.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What happens to the others? Are they coming out of the 118 units we’re talking about now? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Yes, it’s 118.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you. With regard to the other units, my calculation costs are for about 85 units. Are those on order already now too for the summer shipping season to other communities if required? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we haven’t proceeded with filling out the order for those units yet because the barging season is a bit down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you. There are a lot of occasions where people are complaining that there…(inaudible)…some more here or there. It makes good sense for some of the communities that need barging, has a barging system if they’re required for any housing package, that should be ordered now. When will you decide that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As soon as you approve my budget, I’ll get the orders out right away.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn’t make a comment on that one, but I’d like to. I know the Minister talked earlier about students going to Arctic College and having to leave their community. I understand that each local housing authority has their own policies. I’ll give you an example. In Tuktoyaktuk, I know that they allow that a student can go out for a couple of years and they just save the unit for when the student comes back. Is that a policy that the local housing authority makes out? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it’s standard policy that’s universal across the Territories. The LHOs follow it. It’s a territorial policy.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just another one. Just for clarification from the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I understand we have TROs in each community and what you might call community liaison officers or personnel. I’m just wondering, can the Minister clarify for me what the difference between the two jobs are? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have people that do work through the public housing board, which is the LHO, but we also contract that out to the private sector, such as for seniors or through aboriginal organizations.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But can the Minister indicate to us, are the jobs pretty well the same between the tenant relations officers and the community liaison personnel, and how much is the contract that goes to these organizations? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

The tenant relations officer pretty well works for the LHO to deal with tenant relation issues. The people hired under the liaison officer position deal with the program side, working with the seniors, the people who are private homeowners. Basically it’s about a $20,000 contribution that’s given to the community for that position.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How much leeway does the community liaison officer have in regard to expenditure of funding for units? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. None. The decision is made at the regional office.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Pokiak. Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. I have Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just had some inquiries as well on our mortgage system that the Housing Corporation has. I know our constituents are very happy once they’re approved for a mortgage or approved for a house under any one of the programs, like EDAP or a supported lease. The excitement and anticipation of these families, they are often young families. But I find that a lot of the inquiries, a lot of the concerns that I received in my office are with respect to construction techniques and inspections. What often happens is the constituent says I haven’t seen any inspectors and that kind of stuff. But I was giving this some thought, and what happens is that the people that are being approved are the homeowners, but they’re not being involved in the process. They should be responsible for the construction of their home once they’re approved because often when the house is completed they’re responsible for the costs of the house, they’re responsible for the mortgage. Sure, there’s some subsidy there, Mr. Chairman, based on income and family size, but, overall, they’re paying for the house and yet they’re not being responsible for its construction.

I’m kind of thinking therein lies the problem. In the free world or in other places, once you’re approved for a mortgage from a bank, the money is there for you and it’s the same with our system, I imagine. Once you’re approved for a system, for a program, the Housing Corporation has the money for you and in the other world the bank has the money for you. In the free system, it is that you are responsible to general contract your own house. That means, Mr. Chairman, you have to find someone to build your house, construct it, or you can do it yourself. But then when you do that, you sign contracts and allow other people to construct the home for you under their own timeline. You’re involved, you design your own house, and you give them some kind of time frame. Usually you want to be in your house within six months.

But then in our system, even though the government’s got money for you, they keep the responsibility for building the house. That’s driving people crazy because they’re paying for it and often the Housing Corporation hands out the contracts, they’re giving it to the contractors and they don’t allow people to participate. Often they come to me and they say I don’t want that contractor building my house because look at what he did to the other 10 houses over the past 10 years. But the corporation says our system is that it’s our money and they’re the low bidder so, no matter what, they’re getting the contract. But if you had a loan from the bank, you would never get that contractor.

So the Minister is going to have to explain to me why it is that they’re building the houses for the client. If the client is expected to pay the money and repay that money through a mortgage, then they have to have a say and be part of the process. In fact, in one of my communities, Mr. Chairman, there’s a lady getting her new house constructed and it’s right next door and she keeps saying that guy is never there, or that construction technique looks shoddy, or the inspector is never showing up for the next stage of the process. Yet nowhere in the paperwork does she get to sign off on work progress, or progress reports, or anything like that.

It works really well in the free market system. You’re the homeowner. You have to sign off on the guy’s billings. You don’t have to inspect it, but you have to sign off the billing. The floor’s completed and everything’s in place and he’s ready to move on to the next step. In the other system, the homeowner actually signs off that, yes, the floor is completed and the guy wants some money and he wants some cash flow, so he signs it off that the floor is completed. But with our government system, somehow the corporation knows better than the people whose houses they’re building. But nowhere has the client given the right to the government to build that house for them. So there’s something missing there. The Minister is going to have to tell me how that happens that the homeowner transfers the right over to the Housing Corporation for them to build that house and give that contract to whoever they think is right. So I’m a little bit confused there. If it’s like a loan, then we should be behaving like it’s a loan and give the client and the constituents that responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

As well, that concept can be extended to the repair program because often the repairs that we’re doing, like in Fort Liard where we’re paying lots and lots for mouldy homes there and it’s costing lots and lots of money, too. It’s like 40 or 50,000 dollars. Often these repairs, we expect the clients to repay that as a loan, as well. But there again, they have no control over who does the repairs or who’s inspecting it, they’re not signing off on it and yet we’re coming in there as a government and saying, look, we did all this work, you better be paying or we’re kicking you out, and the guy says I’m not part of the process, I’m not even responsible for how the work got done. So there’s a disconnect there, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to know if the Housing Corporation can explain how that system works where they’re getting the loan and yet the government’s responsible for all the building costs or the building program. I can see it if there was a lack of ability to plan and get these generals out, but, at the same time, the client or customer should still assign that responsibility back to the Housing Corporation. Because often, they keep telling me that, you’re going to let that guy build it even though I approached you six months ago and I said I don’t want that corporation or that company to build that house. I can find other people to do it more efficient and quicker.

In fact, there’s lots of success stories out there. In Nahanni Butte there’s a guy who had his house built in four or five months and he’s living in there. That’s a huge success. I hear they’re trying something similar in Hay River. We’re going to have to look at those practices, and look at those successes, and see how they came about. But just in terms of responsibility there, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can detail for me, or lay it out, how it is that responsibility becomes the Housing Corporation’s even though we call them the homeowner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mahsi, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in most cases with the funding that is provided to individuals through an application for a different program, IHP or EDAP or whatnot, we do have a responsibility to ensure that the public funds that are expended are expended through a process, which is in most cases publicly tendered. Then from there, we do have ongoing inspections, like the Member mentioned. Again, it’s at different levels. We have inspections from the foundation, and then you do the framing, and then the insulation and electrical and plumbing and whatnot. But again, it’s the process we follow because it is public funds being expended on these housing units.

Again, the Member’s right; the individuals don’t have a real role to play until they finally move in. They have to sign off on the inspection sheet in order to move into the unit. So basically the involvement of the individuals is usually at the back end. I know this question did come up before in Fort Simpson, when we were in Fort Liard that for individuals that are getting this work done, I don’t see why they couldn’t be there with the inspector at these different levels, making them aware that the inspector will be there so they can accommodate the inspector to ensure that it is done in regards to the requirements that we expect from the contractor. Again, it’s just a question of communication and making sure that the proponent is there who will be the homeowner and is involved in actually seeing their home being constructed, but also being involved on the inspection side when the inspectors do their different inspections and notifying and letting them know that they are there.

That’s about as much assurance as I can give to the Member, is that we try to do what we can, but again, we’re pretty short in regards to our inspectors. We have asked for an increase in regards to our technical staff so we can have more people on the ground to do more inspections and make sure we’re able to carry them out. That’s all the commitment I can make to the Member is that’s something we should look at to ensure that the client is there during those inspections. Thank you.