Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We also have some of our CMHC renovations programs that are cost shared with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that provide some money toward disabled and emergency repair programs as well.
Thank you. Next on my list I have Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. McLeod and Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak to the opening remarks from the Minister Responsible for the NWT Housing Corp. I am happy to see that the department is going to be investing $35 million to construct 174 new units in communities across the NWT.
I think we need to continue to invest in the infrastructure. I think we need to continue to invest in houses. However, based on my comments in my Member’s statement a few days ago, I talked about the fact that where we’re constructing these homes doesn’t always make a ton of sense to me. For instance, there were four units in Fort Res that are sitting vacant — that have been sitting vacant for two years.
To me, if we are going to be investing in building new homes in these communities, I think it would be important to make sure we have done a really thorough analysis to ensure that there are people eligible for those houses. Now, I understand that times change and people’s situations change, so I understand maybe building some on spec. I think four is a little excessive in a little community the size of Fort Res. I think we would have been better served in Fort Res by assisting those individuals to upgrade their homes or make them more fuel efficient to help them reduce costs, as well as maybe enhance the stock for the public housing we have available. Four in Fort Res sitting vacant seems excessive.
I strongly encourage you to get out there and start putting homes in communities where they’re needed, but I encourage caution. I encourage a little bit of research and analysis into each of the communities through the LHOs, as well as the band councils, to ensure that any houses we’re building are going to be utilized. I’m a little on the cheap side, so having houses sitting there costing us money every day that people aren’t in frustrates me.
As far as Fort Res goes, I would love for you to work with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment and come up with some alternative solutions for those homes in Fort Res for the people of Fort Res. When you build new ones, be cautious where you put them. Like I said, I can understand one or two extra that you think might be able to go to somebody in the community or, as people’s situations change, having a house available for those people would be good. But building them and having them sit vacant for extended periods of time doesn’t do anybody any good.
I’m also a little concerned about the reductions to the repairs of public housing stocks as well as the home ownership repair programs. I’m sure the department is going to indicate that they’re undersubscribed and they’re underutilized and therefore we can justify reducing them. I would suggest that they may be underutilized due to the fact that the Housing Corp isn’t getting out there and advertising the programs to the degree that is necessary.
In my travels through some of the communities I saw a lot of homes. A lot of them were in really great shape, but some of them were in pretty rough shape, where some funding and assistance would go a long way. I believe most of the people who live in these houses would love to take advantage of a program that would help them upgrade their homes, fix them where necessary, as well as help them put in alternative heating sources and other cost-saving measures that would help them save money in the running and maintenance of their homes.
I was a little disappointed to see the cuts to those programs. I think they were important. I think the Housing Corp has an opportunity to get out there and promote the programs, enhance the programs and help people access them, rather than just claiming that they’re underutilized when clearly you go to the communities and you see some need for some repairs and renovations. I was disappointed there were some cuts there. So no real questions, just comments. As we move through, I will ask some specific questions, and that’s that.
Mr. Polakoff.
Thanks to the Member for the question. I’ll add one more thing to the Member’s statement, just in terms of making sure we get the best use out of units. It’s also a matching of units to the programs that are available and making sure that the programs are conducive to that. In the case of Fort Res, we had identified some potential last summer, when we were working with our colleagues at ECE, for utilizing units for teacher housing and so on.
The points he raises are well taken. We need to make sure that the units are used appropriately and make sure we use them in such a way that they fit the needs of the community as well. We would agree with the Member’s comment.
Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, regarding the housing up in Nunakput and in the Beaufort–Delta regions…. We have a lot of problems with professional housing for our staff, or teacher housing, and the nursing staff. We need to really help them: help BDEC, help the hospital in regard to housing and staffing problems in Nunakput.
The Minister and I and the president of the Housing Corporation went on a tour of Nunakput, which they seemed to really need. Teachers and nursing staff shouldn’t have to worry about the problem of housing. I think they should be able to just go in there and do their work and be able to go a place at the end of the day that they call home. I really think the Beaufort–Delta Education Council needs help in regard to finding teacher housing. Some teachers are not coming back just because of the housing issues we have in my riding.
Another issue I have is people who are hard to house, clients being evicted. They have to really rely on family once they’re evicted. I really think we should look at that at an LHO level, as well, to help them to be able to provide for themselves and give them a roof over their heads.
Another big issue goes right back to the homeless in our communities. I think they’re coming from the communities to the southern part, to Yellowknife. It’s a big problem down here, with all the homelessness issues that we could try to fix if we work together in our communities. I wish NWT Housing would look into one unit in each community as a homeless shelter and give it to the community to run.
We really need to look at our elder situation due to the high cost of fossil fuels and of home ownership for elders, even for regular elders living in the facilities. Everything’s going up in price. Old-age pension cheques are not going to go so far. Elders are facing a high cost of living. I really worry about it this coming year. Also the Housing Corp should look into more subsidy programs at ECE in regard to that as well.
In my riding there are a lot of safety issues, such as black mould. Elders can’t open doors or windows in Paulatuk in the winter with an east wind because of blowing snow coming in. We need to do more in regard to that issue of having a safe home and broader issues that we could deal with.
The biggest thing, I think, is that we all say we like working together to help our people. This is the place to do it, and I know it could be done.
Again, I’d like to thank the Minister for travelling up with me into my riding. He knows my problems, and I’m here to work with you to get these problems fixed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of housing for professionals is clearly a source of concern. As the Member indicated, we travelled around Nunakput, and it was raised in almost every community. We’ve offered up a couple of things. If there’s market housing units that are there that are available, we’re prepared to look at those. We’re also looking at the issue of loan guarantees so that we can work with hamlets or development corporations or businesses, to look at putting some houses in for professionals that are basically a business opportunity for the community. We’ve started working with Behchoko on a pilot basis. We made the offer in every community in the Member’s riding, in Tuk, Paulatuk, Sachs and Ulukhaktok. We’re committed to that process as well.
The issue of the hard-to-house is a challenge for us all. We don’t want people freezing to death in the wintertime. But the reality is, in many cases, these folks have had, in fact, more than one roof over their heads over the course of time and that their lifestyle choices often make it difficult even for their families to be able to be a support to them. So it’s a challenge to us all, which is why we had set up a homelessness fund to deal with emergency situations like that.
The high cost of fuel and more subsidies is going to be one that’s going to require some discussion. We know that the Territorial Power Support Program is going to go up probably by another $5 million here in the next number of months. The price of fuel is something we don’t control at this point.
But, clearly, the cost of living in communities is high. The price of power.... How do we deal with fuel? Can we switch to biomass? Are there other ways, as we’ve talked about, in terms of changing the capital planning process with NTPC to bring down those costs? These are all things we have to look at.
We do have on the list, clearly, the units that the Member pointed out, with the doors freezing shut and having to use to a rope and a winch to open them up. So we’re going to follow up on that as well.
Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have nothing more to add at this time. I’d just like to thank the Minister and hope we get all my list done. Thank you.
Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just going to take a few minutes here to make some general comments on the Minister’s opening remarks. The first thing I noticed in his opening comments is the word “increase.” I’ve noticed in a couple of departments now where we’re talking reductions. I look at that and think, “There must not be anything for Inuvik in here, because it’s an increase.” I’m starting to think Inuvik means “Place of Reduction” instead of “Place of Man.”
One of the things I’ve noticed is that in some communities with older units I’ve started seeing some of those come down. I think that’s appreciated. I think that’s a result of the CMHC funding and transferring of numbers. I’m not sure if that’s the case. That’s not really even a question.
Another issue I always have is with the home ownership programs. I’ve been dealing with a couple of constituents for the last couple of years that have gone through the application process. They’ve done the educational part of it, which they’re required to do as a condition of their application. I don’t agree with that. I think once they’re approved, they should do the educational part of it. These are folks that are living in public housing, and they’re both making good money. They’re able to maintain a unit if they’re given a home ownership unit. In some communities I see some empty units that you can’t find clients for. I don’t think you’d have that case in Inuvik.
One thing I’ve suggested in the past and I’ll suggest again is the difference in the amount of money that people are eligible for. I still think there should be blocks of funding, a set amount. They make applications for it. If they’re approved from the Housing Corp, they take that; they go to the bank and they get a mortgage. With the high cost of living up here it’s harder for people to try to save for a down payment on a mortgage. I think we’re able to help them that way. I think the money would go a lot further if you had $50,000 blocks that are approved. Then they can use that money, go to the bank and apply for a mortgage. If they’re turned down by the bank, then — and that’s between them and the bank — at least the Housing Corp’s done their part in trying to assist these people with getting into home ownership.
The Supported Lease Program is another one that I always have concerns with. I still think, sometimes, that it’s second-tier public housing, because I’m not sure what’s going to happen after two years. If they find they can’t maintain the unit, do they stay in there as tenants of the local housing authority? Do they vacate the unit, and we put another person in there? In the meantime, what happens to them? So there are still some questions that I have on that.
Housing does seem sometimes to try and address some of the needs that are out there. Whether they do it properly or not is subject to debate. We see the Market Housing Program, where they were trying to meet a need. That somehow didn’t work out quite the way that we wanted it to.
Another concern I have is with our contributions to the NWT Housing Corp. I’m not quite sure if our contributions go up as the CMHC funding sunsets. That would be a question that I would have.
As for seniors’ repairs, I’ve had the opportunity to deal with Housing on a few occasions to do with funding for seniors, and they’ve been quite helpful. They’ve managed to take care of a few problems. It’s still not perfect, though. We hear from seniors who are trying to access something as simple as furnace repair. I’m dealing with a senior on that right now. All in all I think Housing does try to look after housing needs. Some of the disagreements that I have and some other Members have is how they go about it. They seem to be changing their mind every couple of years. The 14 or 17 programs that they had going, they put them down into four programs, so I’m not quite sure how that’s working out.
Then again, I’ll mention my reluctance or my — I don’t know how you would say it. Does the ECE housing transfer…? I mean, we had a briefing just recently, and we were given an update, and I’m still following that quite closely because some folks still have some concerns about that. I’ve been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt for the last two years, but I still seem to be hearing from the tenants that it’s something that’s not quite working.
With that, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few general comments to the Minister’s opening remarks. Of all the issues we have across the Northwest Territories, the one that we hear about the most would probably be in the Housing department. Housing does try to supply a need, and I’ve seen some small steps forward, but I also see a step backward in a couple of other cases. I’m not quite sure what the overall solution to the problem is.
We hear about arrears all the time, and that’s another one that I’ve had some concerns with: mortgage arrears that are paid to the Housing Corporation. I think if we do the block funding, where they take the money that we approve, go to the bank, then the onus is on the tenant and the bank. The Housing Corporation would basically be out of it other than the forgivable portion of their $50,000 block that I keep suggesting. The arrears are another concern, when you have too many people not paying their mortgage. Some are faithfully paying month after month after month. They see their next door neighbours basically staying in the house for nothing with a yard full of toys they themselves really can’t afford. They’re trying to make their mortgage payments. They took the contract they signed very seriously. I think that’s an area that Housing is trying to address. I think we’re up to $6 million or $8 million now in mortgage arrears. I think that has to cause us some concern, because the longer we let this thing go, then everybody is just finally going to throw up their hands and say: “Why bother paying? Nobody else is paying, so why should I? They’re going to forgive me; they’re going to give me the house at the end of the day.” That’s an attitude we have to work on.
There are still some issues with the condition of some of the houses. I’ve heard a couple of comments about black mould, and I think Housing is trying to address that. Not to sound that I’m all on board with everything Housing’s doing — I mean, I think they’re trying to do some good stuff. I think they’re trying to find some direction. I think listening to the concerns of the Regular Members….
Interruption.
I think I’m still on here, right? I am? Okay. I think I was pretty well coming down to the end of my comments, anyway. I don’t think there were really any questions there. If I have any questions, I’ll save them for the page-by-page. So with that, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though there’s no specific question, there are a lot of good points raised. In terms of funds going to Inuvik, out of the $41 million this year for all our programs, it’s $5.1 million. There are 20 units scheduled to be built this year as well in Inuvik to help meet some of their housing needs. The issue of having to take this step program before as opposed to after you get approved is one that we agree with as well. We’re going to look at revamping that so that once you’ve been identified as a successful candidate, you can take that. We do have arrangements right now where you can get basically block-funded with a non-repayable loan up to $90,000, depending on your income and where you fit on that priority, to be able to go to a bank to help you get a full mortgage.
As for seniors’ repairs, the issue has been raised, and we’re committed to looking at how we deliver that one. One of the things that has provided us with more clarity in our purpose and more direction has been the fact that we finally just released our strategic plan that we have been working on for the last six months or so. The Auditor General pointed out the need for a plan as well — not only a plan of where you want to go but laying out how you’re going to get there and how you’re going to be measured.
As for the issue of rental assessments, we’ll continue to work on that. As we move on boards and agencies to integrate health, housing and education, I think it’s going to bring those services together in a way that will allow it to be hopefully even more effective. We are committed to dealing with the arrears. We have been talking about that. That has been very well laid out for us by the Office of the Auditor General.
Another issue that is of interest that hasn’t been touched on yet: we are going to be moving to regionally debundle contracts so that there is an opportunity in regions for local businesses to be able to bid without having to bid for the whole territory. We are very concerned about the issue of mould, and we have some workshops being held north and south here in the territory with CMHC, who are recognized as the national leaders on the technical side of dealing with that particular issue.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just general comments on the Housing Corporation from what I have dealt with over the past nine months or so since our election.
To date, about 80 per cent of all of the concerns from communities in Tu Nedhe have been on housing. The majority of those concerns have been on seniors’ housing and home ownership. I look at this as a serious problem. I see it as a problem that started with the fact that the NWT Housing Corporation changed completely. They changed their focus on housing without completing a needs survey. The needs survey is essentially a tool that allows you to develop some sort of a housing plan. The housing strategy lasts until the next needs survey and is then based on the needs survey, looking at what the needs are, the incomes in those communities and so on. Then some sort of a focused housing strategy is developed.
What happens here is that the NWT Housing Corporation, without the benefit of a needs survey, has proceeded to change programs designed and put in place for the needs survey that was looking at the needs at that point. It changed their focus by, as mentioned earlier, reducing from 14 programs to 4 programs. I don’t really understand the concept of that. To me, it eliminated the focus on communities. Not every community in the Northwest Territories has the same needs.
The way I look at the communities, there are some that have a core need lower than the national average. An example would be, although I’m not trying to take away from these communities, the city of Yellowknife or the town of Norman Wells. Both of those communities have core needs far below the national average, while we have many, many, many communities across the Territories that are three times the national average. What I expected the Housing Corporation to do was to focus on reducing core need across the territory by addressing the core need issues that were much higher than the national average.
When I talk about focus, I am talking about a focus on the communities. In reality I don’t understand how the Housing Corporation can develop a strategy when you have needs survey data that’s old. Therefore, how do they know what has happened over the last 40 years, with the strategy that was in place up until that point, to be able to rewrite the programs? How do they know which communities have the highest core need or the lowest core need, except if they look back into history and see the trend? I’m assuming that may be the only way, and you can imagine how inaccurate that could be.
In addition to that, additional focus on the needs of various core needs groups…. Back several years ago seniors had the highest core needs. Individuals over 50 years old had the highest core need across the country, followed by single people with single incomes. So there was some focus on those two groups, and then the communities with the highest core needs were also the focus of the Housing Corporation in order to address the core need issues. Like I said, it’s a matter of maybe lifting some serious core need issues.
I don’t know if this is correct, but assuming that the national average core needs issues is around 12 per cent across the country and that there are communities in the Northwest Territories that are well below that, and there are communities that are above 36 per cent — more than three times the national average…. My theory is that the Housing Corporation has to be able to concentrate its resources on the areas where there is most need. Right now it seems like the contribution from the Housing Corporation, the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan…. Although there is not enough in repairs really to do any really significant work other than maybe maintain a few people in their private homes for a few additional years, there is no real strategy to address the big issue of repair programs for senior citizens.
Like I said, the majority of the work in Tu Nedhe that has been dealing with seniors, where they have lost a program that was at one time in place — an easy program to administer by the Housing Corporation and an easy program for the seniors to understand…. That was taken out; it was replaced with a program which requires a lot more documentation than the seniors are used to dealing with. This will go on, and I’m assuming that eventually the seniors will get to a core needs point where the houses will not be repairable.
Concentrating a little bit of money on helping the seniors before their housing goes beyond economical repair would go a long way to assisting housing in general. I know that some complained about a lot of the seniors just jumping into public housing so that they don’t have to pay rent. However, that’s a program that’s done, and that’s a path. But right now we have seniors that are in their own homes that can just afford to operate their houses. They can’t really afford to do any enhancements in their units. I think that the Housing Corporation, with a little bit more expenditure, a little more focus on what they have to do in order to address these issues, could keep a lot of seniors out of core needs and eliminate additional pressures on the public housing inventory.
I think the affordable housing strategy is a good strategy, if the Housing Corporation had a good idea of the core need in each of the communities and were able to compare core needs from one community to another. Like I’ve indicated several times, my community of Fort Resolution in Tu Nedhe has empty AHI units — four or five empty units. What’s happening is that those units are based on the core need of the community, and they end up being inaccessible to the community. So what happens generally is that those houses will slowly, eventually address another housing issue that could be housing for professionals.
However, that’s not the issue that those units were attempting to address, so they do nothing towards addressing the core need issue in that community. They will address other important areas, mind you, for teachers who need housing and so on. But that money is supposed to be focused on addressing core needs issues, so it’s beyond me why the houses were built and not allocated by this time. I hear that the houses were only there for eight months, but I know they’ve been there longer. I don’t know if they weren’t finalized until eight months ago or whatever.
The other thing is that I hope the Housing Corporation would have some sort of a strategy in place that would address the whole issue of the CMHC declining fund. It seems like this is starting to hit us, and it looks like the Housing Corporation is going to be ready to react. I’m hoping that when the CMHC money starts to decline sharply a couple of years from now, the Housing Corporation has a strategy in place to address that issue and not just a reaction.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, we’re in the final year — actually, the final months — of the current needs survey that was done in 2004. Granted, it’s in its last year, and as the Member suggested, the information is somewhat dated. We are looking at moving forward in January to March of ’09 to look at redoing the needs survey, working in conjunction with the Executive as well. We’re also using, where it’s applicable, the 2006 census data, which gives us some information that’s more current.
The move and consolidation of 14 programs into four was done after a process of consultation. One of the big concerns from folks across the North was the need to simplify the access and the number of programs to make it easier to understand. That was one of the intents of consolidating from 14 to four. As I indicated in this House and I indicated to the Social Programs Committee, clearly we’re prepared to look at and revisit how those programs are structured, the number of them, and things like the seniors’ repair program possibly being moved out of there into a stand-alone program again. So we’re prepared to look at that.
We have tried to be flexible, and we recognize that there have been houses built that have been sitting empty. But as the Member for Tu Nedhe will recollect, we went to the LHO and talked about the housing delivery coming up. Initially it was geared for single people, and we were told very clearly that it in fact should be geared more to larger families. So we adjusted that. We also are going to convert one of the housing units into fundings, to put more into the repair program. So we are interested in trying to be creative, responsive and flexible.
We struggle with our public housing stock. If we can take new units that are built and make them public housing, then it usually has to be done…. If we can take one of the older, more deteriorated units off the market…. The issue of owner money is what’s critical for us with the public housing units.
We are working, both at the national table and locally, in terms of what we do with the declining CHMC funding. I’m optimistic at this point that the federal government is going to step up to the table to make some kind of arrangement with us. In the meantime we have to look at picking up the slack. It’s a very, very big-ticket item, especially when you listen to the fiscal circumstances we’re currently in.
I have one more short comment on the Housing Corporation Mains. I notice that in the Infrastructure Acquisition Plan, which is part of the O&M inside the Mains, they have a fairly good-sized budget of over $38 million for this fiscal year, and then it drops off considerably, like in half. Again, I guess it's due to the fact that there would be no AHI funding coming in.
If this is the level of money that's needed in order to keep up to the core need issues across the Territories, I'm wondering if the corporation has any plan at all to somehow replace that money, aside from the motion that was made today that hopefully, if that gets anywhere, addresses the problem. If not, and it ends up being the resources that GNWT is going to be addressing the problem with, it would be good to have the corporation be able to tell us in advance, beyond this year, how they hope to address that issue.
Mr. Chairman, we have $17 million — that's the GNWT's share — that we're hoping to be able to carry on with. Even though the AHI at this point is not scheduled or slated to be extended, we're going to continue to work with the federal government, hopefully to get them to the table. We're going to be looking at trying to reinvest, once we start collecting on arrears, into housing.
We're very interested in partnerships like we did with Bailey House, to allow us to move forward on projects as well, and we're moving seriously to look at loan guarantees, as we've indicated, trying to deal with housing for professionals in communities — with hamlets, dev corps, any other businesses that are interested in putting up housing. So there are a number of things that we have on the go. But there will be a big hole if there's no extension to the AHI program and the federal funding dries up completely.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one brief issue at this time, and it's referred to in the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure.
The Affordable Housing Initiative had a progressive goal of getting 530 units in place, and I understand there are 174 planned for this year. I am concerned about the availability of suitable land and the land tenure issue in communities. It's something that's come up a number of times with my constituency concerns and also with a number of people who have been stymied in their home-ownership plans through some of the Housing Corporation's programs. I'm interested in what's being done about that and specifically how many of the 174 proposed units for this year have land secured for them now. Comments on those questions would be appreciated.
Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you. We'll give you the information we do have. I do agree with the Member that the issue of land tenure is the significant one, to the extent that we've put some land where…. In fact, we're looking within the Tlicho, for example. They're looking at bringing in a lands person to help sort out some of the land issues. I'll get Mr. Polakoff to speak as much as he can to that type of detail.
Mr. Polakoff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to reiterate what Minister Miltenberger has indicated and what the Member has indicated, we would agree with Mr. Bromley that land is a significant issue.
We do, however, think that we've made some significant progress over the last couple of years simply because by focusing on the need for land tenure, that's required us to get into some fairly detailed discussions with communities on different options that may be available to them. When you're dealing with situations like land claims, we want to be absolutely sure that we're not interfering with land claims. At the same time, we also want to be sure that we're working with communities toward the same end, and that is getting housing on the ground.
While we have to secure our land tenure, we also understand that there are different ways of doing so through long-term leases and so on. As I say, we feel that we've made some pretty good progress. We've done so with folks in the Akaitcho and other groups. Overall, we think that the kind of progress that we're making now on land is going to serve us very well over time.
I understand that you'll get me the information on how many units we have land secured for this year out of 174. Are things looking better for next year, and do we see an end to this issue in the near future? Or is this going to be an ongoing situation?
Yes, we will get you that information. This issue has also been pointed out by the Office of the Auditor General — and, no, we don't anticipate it diminishing in importance or any more land being freed up. The process is going to continue to be, I think, quite difficult in terms of being able to put houses down on land where there's tenure. We do have units, but in some cases no land to put them on. But we will get that information for the Member.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is in regard to the whole area of home ownership programs. As we all know, the government in the past couple years has re-profiled its programs. We went from 14 programs to four general programs. It was supposed to simplify the process. It was supposed to make dollars more accessible in regard to homeowners and people who need emergency repairs but also dollars to repair their units.
The thing that frustrates me is that going through the budget process, we can see under the Main Estimates for 2007–2008 that they were looking at $2 million for this program, which was just being rolled out. It's a new initiative. A lot of money was spent on PR and advertising and promotion of this program, yet in regard to the Revised Mains, it was $3 million. So that tells me there was a major increase in people applying for this program; it went up by $1 million, yet in regard to this budget process, it's being cut to $742,000. If anything, we should be enhancing the program rather than cutting it by almost two-thirds.
For myself, it's critical. I know a few Members touched on that if you go into a community, you can see the nice modern houses. But there are a lot of homeowners who basically have units that were built some 20 or 30 years ago, in regard to Webers and access units, HAP units, whatnot. Those homeowners need to be able to access emergency repairs or repair programs. Again, going through the budget process, we've enhanced the Housing Corporation's executive profile by putting more positions there; we've established a few more senior positions in the corporation. Yet we have drastically cut on the program side. For myself, that's an area I have a real problem with.
Just on another item, Mr. Chair, in regard to the area of housing programs, emergency repairs, seniors’ repairs, we get a lot of frustrated people in our constituency who apply year after year after year for programs. On the one hand, they get accepted for…. They wait and wait and wait to get a response back from the regional office. But the whole idea of emergency repair is because it's an emergency. It needs to get quick attention, needs to be quickly responded to so that you can deal with the emergency at hand.
I think that as a corporation we have to do a better job of dealing with emergencies that come up by way of the Emergency Repair Program, especially for seniors in our communities who, in most cases, need the seniors’ assistance program. For a lot of them we want to try to keep the seniors in their own homes as long as they can but, more importantly, make it a safer environment for them to live in. Again, that program is like pulling teeth in communities just to get someone to go in, service the individual’s burners or check to make sure that things are being maintained and basically serviced on a regular basis.
Again, you know, there’s no reason that these programs couldn’t be delivered by the Local Housing Authority, a local contractor. Give him a contract to do it every year so that he goes in and does it.
For the amount of time that we deal with applications, people calling their MLAs.... I mean, I spend more time dealing with housing issues as an MLA than I probably deal with other health care issues and education issues. It’s always one of those issues that’s complicated by the process. There’s so much process, so many applications, so many review processes that we have to streamline it with the whole idea of making it more manageable. That was the idea of getting away from 14 programs to four areas. But, again, I don’t think we’re doing justice by cutting that program before it even gets off the ground.
So, Mr. Chair, I’ll leave those questions with the Minister and hope to see what his response is. I will have more to say on this.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just make a couple of comments. I’ll ask Mr. Polakoff if he could fill in with more detail.
Clearly, the issue of home repairs is an important one. But one of the struggles we have — and that’s why we have money in the budget for apprentices — is every community is struggling for an adequate number of tradesmen to actually get the work done.
We’re interested in, of course, sitting down, as I’ve indicated already. If there are ways that we can further streamline or improve the process in terms of how programs are delivered, we’re prepared to do that.
I’ll ask Mr. Polakoff to speak in more detail about the money that was moved out of this home repair program and the corporation plan of how we’re going to carry on doing business.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Polakoff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. As the Minister has indicated, maintenance is an area that we think is very important. We think it’s important now. We think it’s important into the future.
At the same time we do have some capacity issues, and we’ve got some issues that we’re dealing with from a planning perspective as we move forward. I guess we’re in the happy circumstance that we did get money from the federal government for a pretty robust capital program over the last three years. We’re in our final year of that build, with some potential for some additional building.
It becomes a matter of trying to prioritize where we’re going. We’re also hopeful that once we get through our major capital build project, we can put increased emphasis on our maintenance program.
But the Member’s correct. Maintenance is absolutely important, and it’s something that we recognize as an important issue for Housing and just about as important as getting the houses on the ground. Right now our focus has been on the capital delivery. We hope to move into a more robust maintenance program in the future.
You know, as a government and as a corporation, I think we have to develop a comprehensive report or some sort of a process in regard to looking at the holistic approach of housing. I’m not just talking housing as a stick-built unit. I’m talking about housing for all classes of people, from disabled people to seniors to families to singles to transitional housing to basically shelters. I mean, we have to look at the whole configuration of housing, right from, like I say, the time an individual is born to the time they pass away, through a seniors’ home or whatever, through that system of housing.
I think that most jurisdictions in the country have looked at that. They have a comprehensive approach to housing. They work with NGOs. They work with seniors’ societies. They work with the private sector to look at housing and exactly what our long-term needs are — not five years down the road or ten years down the road — and where we’re going to be in 20 years, where we’re going to be in 50 years, and look at it through a comprehensive approach, looking at housing.
Also in regard to urban housing, rural housing and a comprehensive idea of where we’re going as a government…. Not just have a reaction every year to the budget process but look long term at where we’re going for housing.
Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask the Minister: would he seriously consider re-profiling or putting the dollars back with regard to the contribution assistance for residential enhancement programs, in which there was $3 million and now it’s $750,000 less? Is this something that the Minister can look at, re-profiling that amount, knowing that it has a detrimental effect on the whole idea of the programs and services that we deliver, and especially in regard to home repairs and assistance for homeowners?
We were given targets, like other departments, and we had tough decisions to make. If we look at re-profiling or putting that money back, we’d be looking at trying to find where we could take it from, unless there’s new money made available. Given our financial circumstances, that’s not a very imminent reality or possibility. So if that recommendation is made, of course we will look at it to see how we can adjust or accommodate to the best of our ability.
Maybe I could suggest something to the Minister. I notice that amortization is increased by over $1 million, so maybe that’s a start.
We appreciate the suggestion from the Member, and we’ll be looking at all opportunities.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to revitalize an old friend of mine, Granny from Nahanni. She’s got one of our new modern homes that we had built for her, but we’re finding that the cost of living and the pressures are impacting her income. The cost of heating fuel has really risen astronomically, as well as the cost of power and electricity. Actually, I tell people we’re fortunate that summer has come along here, because I don’t think that people could have afforded their homes much longer. It’s very stressful on households and on everybody throughout the North.
I know that we had discussions about fourplexes, sixplexes, that type of unit, to get away from individual heating units and start moving toward more different — well, to me it’s moving towards district heating. In the units that we’re building, I believe that if we move towards duplexes or fourplexes, it would be a lot better, especially in this day and age, and more efficient. I’m quite certain of that. I’d like to know if the Housing Corporation is moving in that direction.
As well, with respect to efficiency, what types of homes are we planning? Are we going to continue to build the old homes, or are we looking at something more efficient and more useful to people in our communities? I’d like to know if the corporation is moving in the direction of looking at any strategies toward that area.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Miltenberger.
We are looking at the issue of multi-built — where you have more than one unit built together to minimize your costs, to minimize your outside walls, to reduce your energy consumption. In some cases we’re also looking at the use of pellet stoves. One of the broader things we’re looking at is new construction. We’re not just going to build houses to old standards, but look at the R value, the types of windows, the types of doors, the types of entryways, so that you minimize heat loss and all those types of things.
We want to look at the types of heating systems we’re using and, in the broader term, in the communities that are diesel communities, I think the issue of some type of district power and heating generation. They have generators now that can turn out up to ten megawatts of power, that can operate on wood pellets, which are used extensively in Europe, in places like Sweden. I think there’s a tremendous opportunity for us to investigate that type of technology for those communities that rely solely on diesel generation. It would help drop the cost, get us off diesel and uncontrollable costs. So there are a number of areas that we’re working on.
I just want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the whole area of on-the-land programs and housing available to build on the land. I think this is the second year where that program has disappeared. I don’t know. With the Elders on the Land program constituents have been asking me time and time again, “Can I get my application in for the Elders on the Land program? Mr. So-and-so got it, and he’s doing quite well.” In fact, a lot of people in my riding are looking at returning to the land, and some of them still live there. For whatever reason, they didn’t get their allocation or apply to build a home in their traditional area and actually still live out there too, Mr. Chair.
Particularly in Fort Liard they have lots of land users out there, and they ask me about it. I’d just like to know: will the department look at that program again and bring it back in another form? Because it is providing homes for families, and in this case it’s supporting their traditional lifestyle and building that home in their traditional area. I’d just like to know if the Housing Corporation will be looking at that again, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, if the client or individual is in need of a primary residence and it happens to be not in a community, we have the capacity to work with them. If it’s going to be a secondary residence for other partial use, then that program has been, as the Member indicated, discontinued. Given our circumstances, just trying to meet the needs of people for primary residences, we don’t have the capacity and aren’t contemplating bringing that forward to help people with secondary or tertiary residences.
Absolutely. I certainly agree with the Minister that building secondary homes for people is not a goal of this government or should be for anybody else. If they want to do that, they should certainly do that on their own, but primary residences are certainly something that I believe we have to continue with, and I certainly support that.
With respect to elders eligibility programming, I’m finding that some of our elders are actually being denied programming. I don’t think it’s an arrears problem at all there, Mr. Chair, but it’s an income threshold problem. They’re senior citizens, and their sole source of income, of course, is Old Age pension in many cases. Many of them don’t have the benefit of any corporate or government pension at all. The Old Age supplement is pretty much all they’re entitled to. So maybe the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but based on that type of income, are they still eligible for programming, or indeed they’re being held to the letter of the law where they’re not making enough income to make a mortgage payment, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Polakoff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Member for the question. Just from a public housing perspective, as far as seniors are concerned, there is no minimum requirement; it continues to be based on income. As far as seniors are concerned, their income is not counted once they are seniors.
Mr. Menicoche.
