Debates of June 6, 2006 (day 6)

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just with this particular line item on $957,000. The government indicates it’s part of their Affordable Housing Strategy. The concern on this one is that, is it what we, will there be new money allocated towards the O and M for the next three years or does this money come from the $50 million part of the fund that’s been discussed from the federal government? Just how does that impact? I know that the $50 million from the federal government with our $50 million is a $100 million strategy. So does that necessarily mean, Madam Chair, that new money from our government, from our own sources is half of this? What are the implications here, Madam Chair, on government funds?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in our work with, or the Housing Corporation’s work I should say with the federal government on this program, it has been recognized and identified that the existing program the Housing Corporation is involved in would be our share towards that. The new money is the $50 million tied to the existing programs that the Housing Corporation is involved with. The request for this is O and M, salary and benefits, and O and M as well for the total, as I stated earlier, of $1.6 million, and this portion for this fiscal year is $957,000. It is more money that we would have to vote to help provide the successful completion of the additional housing units going up.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s still not clear to me whether…I think it’s $1.6 million annually after that. Is that all our own-source funds then, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is from our own source. That’s why we’re voting it in in this manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Anything further, Mr. Menicoche?

Yes, okay. Our government commits $50 million towards a $50 million input from the federal government and I’m not too sure how come we’re fronting the money for O and M if it’s part of the three-year strategy. How are we benefiting from the proposed cost sharing from the feds then, Madam Chair?

All right. Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the benefit is the fact that a large number of the public housing stock can be replaced through these funds. The funding that the Housing Corporation has allocated again has been a proposal that was worked out and given to CMHC or the federal government and it was recognized that the work that’s already being done, in the sense of the new units going up, would count towards our share of that. So the new units going up as a result of the Housing Corporation’s plans right now that are in place will count as ours. So the new money would go towards further public housing in the Northwest Territories, as well as some of the other programs identified in that proposal that they forwarded to the federal government. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I’ll start off by saying obviously I don’t agree with any of the new positions coming in. I don’t believe I’ve been given enough information by the Housing Corporation and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs that they’ve done a complete and thorough examination of their staffing. I don’t think they’ve covered all the bases in terms of maybe re-profiling some employees to carry out this work. I think the lands officers definitely belong with MACA. They don’t have any place, as I see it, inside the Housing Corporation. I’m happy to hear that these positions are tied to the program and, Madam Chair, the risk that we run as Regular Members is, you know, we try to turn down some of these positions and all of a sudden we’re the big bullies and we get the blame that the program’s a failure. It kind of makes you wonder, if we approve it and it’s…We just can’t seem to win. That’s what I’m trying to say, Madam Chair. It’s impossible to win at this game and it seems like the Housing Corporation, I mean, last year, for example, we had the supp and we turned down some positions that were associated with the social housing policy at ECE and that was $460,000. Within six months, ECE found the money somewhere. They went to the Housing Corporation and expropriated the $1.3 million to carry out the work. I still have not been given an explanation as to what the people who were in the Housing Corporation that were responsible for the $30 million in social housing, what they are doing today. Madam Chair, I know the Minister says that these are term positions, they’re tied, but I find that that’s very hard for me to believe that will be the case. I think once these new positions are brought on stream, they’ll be there forever and, you know, it’s a real shame that this is the way that things seem to work around here. If we do turn the money down, they’ll just find it somewhere else. I guess that’s the risk we run, but I think, the message I’m trying to send is, I believe the expertise and the human resources are out there in both MACA and the Housing Corporation to carry this work out. Maybe not so at the regional level, but definitely at headquarters. It’s there and I just don’t, I don’t agree with us rushing out to spend this type of money.

There are some things about that Affordable Housing Strategy, too, that just don’t add up for me right off the top. One of those things, and I’ll just mention it here really quick, Madam Chair, is the $100 million. We’re expected to build 530 units with that $100 million. As well, that $100 million is supposed to go to land development costs. Well, if it’s supposed to go to land development costs, I don’t know if the Minister’s developed any land lately, but you can expect to eat up 15 to 20 percent of that $100 million right off the top in land development. Absolutely. So where does that leave you? You’re not going to build 530 units. You might be able to build 430 units once you use the money to develop land. It’s not starting off, for me, in the best light, but again, I just don’t like to have the gun pointed at your head and you have to do this, otherwise the affordable housing program is not going to proceed and it’s not going to be a success. I mean, Madam Chair, I want this program to be a success. I really do. I think out of all the issues out there, housing and affordable housing is something that all Members of this House are faced with. We’re trying to put more homes on the ground, more units into our communities so that people have a place to live. I mean, that’s a fundamental thing. We just have to move forward with this. I think I’ll leave it at that, Madam Chair, but later on, after everybody has had a chance to speak, I’ve got a motion as well to look after some of this funding. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the question of the role of Municipal and Community Affairs and the Housing Corporation when it comes to lands, the Municipal and Community Affairs’ role in land development is one that is responsible for administration and control of Commissioner’s land in the Northwest Territories. It involves transferring land in fee-simple title or through lease arrangements to community governments, or to the Housing Corporation to be made available for residential use. Land development would be the area of subdivisions, whether it be residential, commercial or industrial. The area the Housing Corporation is involved with would be more to the lot development side of things. But for example, the Housing Corporation has provided the information to show that, in fact, there’s a significant backlog related to land tenure matters. In the Delta-Sahtu communities, approximately 600 lease files are to be completed as a result of the exemption of land pricing policy. Some of these policies were put in place as a result of the negotiations going on with other organizations in the territory. But there’s that need to deal with that backlog, as well as deal with the Affordable Housing Strategy.

Right now in the Housing Corporation, there are two positions within the Housing Corporation that deal with land related functions and right now the Housing Corporation is stating quite simply that they will not be able to meet the targets that are out there. The Member is quite right; the Housing Corporation has targeted over 500 units. But the fact is if the prices continue to go up for products and for labour, the Housing Corporation will indeed have to revisit their target numbers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Just so the Members are aware, Mr. Ramsay still has the floor, but I have Mr. Pokiak, Mr. Yakeleya, and Mr. Hawkins still all on this item. Mr. Ramsay.

That’s fine, Madam Chair. I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, am still not convinced that they require all those three positions, but I think most of the comments that I was going to make Mr. Ramsay pretty well took care of those and the responses from the Minister. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For this amount here, I said it before in other meetings that it’s about time that Housing and MACA gets off the ground and gets busy because you know the backlog in our region. The need for lot development, the need for, we heard it on the radio the other day on the town of Norman Wells. Of course you hear it from my communities that I represent. This is way overdue, so I think we need to have an extreme makeover at the Housing Corporation and start putting these units in our communities, preparing them for lot development. Right now when you do lot development, you bring in the gravel in the springtime; May, sorry, April, March, and then you start building houses in June. It’s ludicrous how these houses are going up in our communities. Do some proper development with the dollars, proper work with the communities, and let’s do a proper job, quality housing. So Housing’s really got to step it up and for this type of dollars, I hope it will go well in our communities. I want to say that this type of funding that goes into our regions is long overdue, so I’m going to be supporting Housing on this initiative here. It’s long overdue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I didn’t hear any questions there. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple things to say on this matter. First of all, I support this initiative that’s coming forward. When I was in Fort Good Hope last year you could see that the housing need has reached crisis state and the Housing Minister has constantly talked about the need for housing, sensible housing throughout the Northwest Territories. I’ve been to a number of smaller communities throughout my northern career of almost 30 years here and you can see that there is a troubling state. This is one positive solution to work towards helping make that problem I should say go away, which is we need lands officers to help develop and identify proper land to put proper housing on. This will add to the sensible housing unit about putting housing on the ground. Because if we don’t take smart steps like this by getting the right professionals in place to do land identification and then the transactions about putting land through the land titles process, even surveying it, I mean, it’s a long, long process. The instruments of land require a lot of expertise and unfortunately the skills just do not exist in a lot of communities and I feel that’s very unfortunate, but I see this as an opportunity to get someone out into the communities when they point out that five officers will be sort of outside of headquarters region. All that said, raw land needs to be developed in a smart and planned way and I see this as an initiative working towards that end and it will help continue the flow of putting good, solid, affordable housing in our community that will help those in need. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that $367,000 be deleted from the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, NWT Housing Corporation activity, in Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1, 2006-2007.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion is in order. We’re going to give…Has the motion been circulated? It has been circulated? Everyone has a copy of it? To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I listened closely to some of the comments from my colleagues on this issue and I think this is a fair compromise. The $367,000 that’s going to be deleted from the Housing Corporation activity is, in effect, the positions that are located in headquarters, and that’s here in Yellowknife. It doesn’t impact the work that’s needed on the ground in the regions. That’s the 10 positions, five technical officers and five lands officers, and those are in the regions. The six positions that this money, the deletion of this $367,000, calls for are the positions that are located at headquarters. So as a compromise, I hope that Members will support this motion that’s before you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, I support the motion. The information that I have is that the Housing Corporation has really not exercised any kind of degree of creativity or flexibility in this. It just wants to continue doing business the same way. Let’s just add some more PYs here, let’s just continue growing this government instead of looking at what I believe, Madam Chair, would be opportunities within headquarters. As Mr. Ramsay has indicated, the intent of this motion is to say where are existing resources, PYs, where are priorities that could be shifted and that could be applied to look after this new opportunity or this new situation. We’re not being, I think, very nimble or certainly very efficient in this venture here. So the consequence of this motion being approved, of course, is that the corporation will be then forced to go back into its own resources, into its existing shop and say, okay, what can we do better? How can we use existing resources to get a better job done? That is the point of this motion, Madam Chair, and that’s why I’m supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to support the motion because, like some of my colleagues were saying, it seems to be wanting to grow and grow and grow. I like the five technical officers in the district. If I had my way, the lands officers would not be in here at all. I would make a motion to put them as technical officers who can do some land work. The technical officers, the ones I know, can do a bit of everything. To have lands officers going into the district office, I would just as soon they be technical officers. That would give us 10 in the districts and I would be wiling to support something like that. With that, Madam Chair, I will be supporting this motion. Like a lot of my colleagues, I think there are existing resources within the Housing Corporation that could cover a lot of this work. I truly believe there are existing resources in all departments that could cover a lot of the work that we keep wanting to add new positions for. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the Housing Corporation has been having lots of problems delivering programs to the regions. I know that this is one of the ways that they want to address it. I know they have been asking for positions time and time again and there is just no support for it then. But now that the federal government is contributing some $50 million and we have a chance to get housing on the move beginning immediately, I am going to vote against this motion.

Often when I am travelling to the regions and communities and talking about their frustrations about getting their housing delivered, like Fort Liard, this is the third year that housing has not been delivered and a lot of the problems are because of a backlog and administration. This is one of the ways they are going to address it. They did hire a new president that I hope will be on the ground and getting out into the communities really quickly, and get out there with his new eyes and address all our housing strategy needs in the different regions and communities. It’s because the corporation had no eyes for a little bit that I believe nothing was happening. Just overall, Madam Chair, my gut feeling is telling me it’s not helpful to be deleting these positions, especially when it comes to housing. With that, I will be voting against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Hawkins, to the motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the matter of the motion before us now, I won’t be supporting it. I see that we often complain about not delivering housing and meeting housing needs in the communities, and this is certainly going to cut them right at the heels and the delivery of the programs. I don’t think we are doing it any favours. Either we are in the housing business or not. If we start cutting half of this and half of that, we won’t have anything left over.

As far as identifying headquarters positions versus district positions, I don’t find that very responsible. I am not comfortable with that. Headquarters is in Yellowknife. Here we are creating an opportunity here in our community and I think it’s unfair that we have targeted Yellowknife specifically, because it’s Yellowknife and I can’t stand for that. We are focussing in on jobs that just go to Yellowknife and we are should cut those, that’s ridiculous. I can’t support that.

Lastly, I want to say when we talk about just the Yellowknife positions, those who want to cut them, I see that as lack of vision. We are cutting out the leadership and the administrative process on this. In other words, it makes it very difficult for the lands officers without the administrative component. At the end of the day, I am not comfortable with that. I will be voting against the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

NWT Housing Corporation, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, $1 million, total department, $1 million.

Thank you. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate and administration, $59,000; education and culture, $6.8 million; advanced education and careers, $1.007 million; income security, $696,000; total department, $8.562 million.

Agreed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with the Rule 6(2) that we extend sitting hours to conclude the item under consideration.

Your motion is in order. It’s not debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Page 20, Transportation, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, corporate services, $536,000.

Agreed.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a couple of questions on the $222,000 for airports not previously authorized. It gets back to discussions we had with the Minister of Transportation last year, actually it was two years ago now, about the $6.2 million coming from CATSA. In my estimation, and I wanted to ask this question, whether or not the Government of the Northwest Territories knew upfront that this bomb detection equipment and the baggage screening system would require us to have an on-staff electrician and an on-staff millwright to look after this equipment on an ongoing basis. It’s $168,000 a year. If we weren’t advised by CATSA that that was the case, it seems to me that they should be paying the price for that, not the Government of the Northwest Territories. They imposed us to have this type of security measures at our airport, so why aren’t they paying? I guess that’s the question, Mr. Chairman. Why is CATSA not paying to have this work carried out? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this request has come in and it impacts on a number of things. One is the size of the footprint of the building is one of the areas that has increased the impact of O and M that is required. Yes, the department is requesting two more positions -- one electrician and one millwright -- as the Member stated.

As well, there is a change in contract for janitorial services as a result of the increased size of the facility. As well, because of the increased size of the facility, the power consumption has increased as well.

One of the issues that is outstanding and the department is continuing to try to negotiate with CATSA is around the recovery from them. At this time, we’ve only got a commitment for about $22,000. So the baggage and screening system, the total amount there is $219,000. Other commitments that are not related to that total $138,000. Those are those two positions, as well as some other minor areas and the janitorial contract, less the pre-approved amount of $210,000. The department is now requesting $222,000 to deal with the areas and overrun areas in this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.