Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. At this time, I will ask that if Mr. Krutko would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber, is committee agreed?

Agreed.

Thank you. Minister Krutko. I would ask then, please, that the Sergeant-at-Arms bring the witnesses into the Chamber.

Mr. Krutko, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To my left I have the president of the Housing Corporation, Mr. Fred Koe; to my right I have Mr. Jeff Anderson, chief financial officer.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. So we will then proceed to general comments for the NWT Housing Corporation. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to start with a few specific queries to the Minister’s opening statement. It starts off, Madam Chair, right in the third paragraph where the Minister told us that in the coming fiscal year, the corporation is planning a significant increase in housing delivery, some 185 units, $33 million. A number of them are replacements for public housing; the Supported Lease Program to assist people to become homeowners. These are very much at the core of why we want a successful housing agenda, but, Madam Chair, the statement then goes on to say this ambitious plan is subject to continued support from the federal government in the amount of $50 million over two years.

The report of committee, Madam Chair, specifically highlighted that we are concerned that the Housing Corporation is planning and relying too much on projected plans on the ability or the will of Ottawa to deliver on promises or expectations and that we continue to miss the boat and we continue to not meet the needs of our people because our planning is not solid enough. Madam Chair, if the Housing Corporation is becoming before us to tell us of something as critical to the NWT, something as major as a $33 million investment for 185 housing units but it’s still subject to continued support from the federal government, what do I have as a committee member to approve? It’s a hope; it’s a maybe. I want to know what is the Housing Corporation going to be capable of doing in the coming fiscal year, Madam Chair, not what it hopes to do dependent on the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we are committed to the 185 houses that we have budgeted for, but it is hinging on federal support. As we know, there was a call for election. The majority of this money that has been identified has already been approved by the federal House of Commons July 28th when they passed Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was $1.6 billion for housing in Canada, and out of that we put a proposal to my federal colleague, Mr. Fontana, of which we gave him two proposals. One was for 530 houses, $60 million over three years. The proposal went forward to CMHC and he came back in regards to stating that we were going to get $50 million over two years and the money has been identified by way of a budget item that will have to be approved through Treasury Board. So it is presently sitting before Treasury Board. Because of the federal election, the meeting did not take place and it is presently, I understand from CMHC, on top of the pile to be approved by Treasury Board. So that's where the money is at. I do have faith because of the minority government we have again, that those dollars that have been approved through the $1.6 billion, the passage of Bill C-48, those dollars have already been budgeted for through the House of Commons. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, so sort of best efforts on everybody's part, including the federal government, the previous government. We still have something in abeyance; it's not for sure. So I guess my own dilemma continues here, Madam Chair. The spending allocation by Treasury Board it's at the top of the pile. What are the chances that it's going to see approval before the end of our budget session, Madam Chair? Maybe we'll go at that. Let's take that angle. You know, if we, for instance, left the Housing Corporation's budget until the latest possible time, might we see approval of this federal government and more certainty that we can approve this?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Madam Chair, as we all know, the federal Cabinet was just pointed today, so it will take them awhile before they are able to sit down and formulate the dollars that have been approved through Treasury Board, and then it will have to flow to their Cabinet colleagues for approval. So we can't dictate to the federal government on exactly how fast this transition will take place. But it is, basically in order for this government to operate, they will have to approve expenditures. By way of that decision, by way of the Cabinet and Treasury Board, it's out of our ring to dictate when that can happen. But the process will have to flow. Now I know who the federal Minister is. I will be contacting her as soon as possible to see exactly how soon, or when this item will be dealt with. I haven't had that contact yet, so it's speculative of me to elaborate any farther than that. But I think by making that contact, with the information we've received from CMHC, it has been positive that our basic request is in the system to be approved by Treasury Board.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It still doesn't help resolve my concern that by the time we get to the point where we have to vote the Housing Corporation's expenditures here, we may not know, even if we defer the corporation's detail approval, even if we defer it to the end of the month, we may not know in time. So I'd like to know what's plan B here. If the feds don't come through in time, is the Housing Corporation still going to commit to a $33 million/185-unit housing program, or just what is the extent of what we're able to do if the feds don't come through, Madam Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as you know from the budget, we are approving the $38 million and that money will be expended on the delivery of the 185 units. Yes, there may be a delay in delivery because already the winter road access and whatnot. There will be delays. There's our mandate change that will possibly cause some delays. We have land issues we have to deal with. So there will be technical delays through the process. We are still committed to meet the goal where the motion passed in this House to deliver the housing needs to bring down our core needs by 2007. How we get there, yes, it will mean we do have to have resources. But this year we feel that we can deliver on the amount of money that is going to be approved here before the House and the other dollars we have internally.

With the question of the federal support, I feel pretty positive that it is there and that will be carried forward. The allocation we were looking at is that we were looking at over three years because the federal obligation under Bill C-48 has to be expended in two years. So we were going to look at putting our money at the back end of this delivery process in year three. So because of that, we'll just have to readjust our funding so we're funded at the front end, and use federal funding to pick it up at the back end. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Okay. So then I want to go back to the opening statement then, Madam Chair, where the Minister said this ambitious plan is subject to continued support from the federal government. Then this plan is not subject. From what I've just heard, whether or not the federal government comes through with the bucks doesn't matter. This is the target that we're going to be proceeding with and that you're asking us to vote on. It is not subject to the federal government. Is that the way we should be looking at this now, Madam Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the allocation we're looking at for the federal government is $50 million over two years. If we don't get any of those dollars from the federal government, it will have an impact on our ability to deliver the number of houses we're looking at: over 500 houses over the next three years. It will have an impact on that. The crucial thing is that we have to have that federal funding to be able to deliver the 500 houses. It's just that without that federal funding, we will not be able to deliver 500 houses over the next three years.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next for general comments I have Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Some of the questions I was going to ask were taken care of by Mr. Braden already, so I wouldn't dwell too much on those ones. The only comments I would like to hear from the Minister, Madam Chair, is in regard to his mentioning consultation with MLAs and LHOs, community and other stakeholders. What I'd like to know from the Minister is what timeline is he looking at. Is he looking at the next couple of years, or the next three/four months, or what timelines? What is the deadline prior to the consultation process? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we are hoping to have the consultation concluded in the next two to three months, so we're able to have something back for our next sitting which is in June. So we're hoping to arrive at that date with the review and have that completed and have something hopefully back to committee and back to the House for June session. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the past year-and-a-half I've been looking at the corporation trying to set out a new mandate, so it's been a long process coming now. If the Minister is very firm that within the next two to three months that the consultation will take place, I'm assuming that he's got his department right now working on a process for consultation. So is that correct? Is the Minister getting his department ready to visit the communities for consultation? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we do have people from different areas. The committee will be chaired by the assistant deputy minister of the strategic planning from the Executive. Along with him will be somebody from the directorate of budget and evaluation, which is FMBS. Along with that, we will have our chief financial officer, Mr. Jeff Anderson, as part of this committee. Now, committee will go out to meet with the stakeholders through the local housing authorities, mayors, chiefs and MLAs, and also we will be reviewing it with other journal departments. We are hoping to have the report completed, or report back, hopefully, by the end of May, or May 15th at the earliest. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to go back to sort of follow what Mr. Braden is talking about. The Minister indicated that we are looking at probably 500 houses over the next three years, pending the federal government’s funding. I am just wondering, as Mr. Braden pointed out earlier, are we going to continue to deliver these houses for the next three years, as the Minister indicated? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, at our present allocation for housing, we deliver roughly about 118 houses using our budget exclusively. The additional units use the federal funding, is key. But again, I do have faith in the federal system that we have had the legislation passed. We have had dollars identified which is $1.6 billion. Out of that, CMHC has devised a way to allocate, and through the provincial-territorial housing Ministers, I believe we have had support from our colleagues in the provincial and also federal levels. I think, because I feel comfortable that we will get some positive results, but again, if we don’t get it, we will be delivering roughly about 118 houses. The goal is for 185. That is what we are hoping to deliver this year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just one last one here. How soon will the Minister meet with the Honourable Diane Finley in regards to the funding? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As soon as possible. As soon as I can get a phone number, give her a call, congratulate her and see how soon we can meet. So ASAP.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification in regard to the 73 public housing replacement units. I have 185. I think for clarification, if you replace 73 public housing units, that is not really addressing some of the housing shortage. How can I rephrase the question? Seventy-three replacement units; will those be new units over and above the 185? I just need clarification. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as we all know, we do have an aging public housing stock. We do have to replace it. As you know, the funding that we have will be transferring to Education. There is a declining amount over the next number of years which will climb to zero. We have really lost our O and M to operate a lot of our public housing units. The only way we feel that we can be able to continue that is to build more energy-efficient and multi-unit construction and phase out units that are not as energy-efficient and very expensive to operate.

Also, there is a question about land and land availability in a lot of communities. We will have to reprofile a lot of these lands that are there to be able to use them for different types of construction. Again, we are looking at that. Again, we do have to replace a lot of our public housing units which basically have exceeded their usage. We do have to reallocate a lot of our O and M, so that is the reason that we are looking at replacement and finding more energy-efficient housing and also making them more energy-efficient by multi-constructed facilities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to the $4.889 million emergency fund repair programs, what are some of the stipulations as to these people having a requirement to access this fund? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as you know, we are revising our power by allocation. Right now, we have some 14 programs we do deliver. We are trying to consolidate them down to five areas. Because of the changing delivery of our programs, we are hoping it is more user-friendly and people would be able to have better access. In regards to the $4.888 million, it is application based and people will have to come forward, fill out the applications and have it approved based on the regional and community allocations. That is the process we presently use. Again, we are hoping with this change, it will make it more user friendly for people to access programs and make them simpler to understand and don’t have as many restrictions as we presently have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can the Minister give us an idea of what you mean by user friendly for access of funds? Is there going to be an easier access for the people? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we have heard a lot of concerns over the years from Members in this House and people in the public about how programs have basically been delivered. You heard a concern here this morning about a person getting a once-in-a-lifetime application for clients for housing and how we are able to work around this, but, presently, I mentioned, we provide something like 14 to 19 different types of programs. We are trying to basically consolidate into five general areas. I think that, by doing that, it will simplify the process for one thing, but also allow more flexibility to mix and match different programs which, right now, you have to apply on each one. Right now, we are hoping, by simplifying the program, you only have to apply in five different areas than actually having to go to every application or program that is out there. With that, we are looking forward to seeing this program being rolled out, but also seeing that we will find a system that is more user friendly to our clients. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.