Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 115-17(5), Northwest Territories Capital Estimates 2015-2016, NWT Housing Corporation, Municipal and Community Affairs, Public Works and Services, Health and Social Services, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wish to consider Tabled Document 115-17(5), Northwest Territories Capital Estimates 2015-2016.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Okay. Committee, we’ll commence after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. We’ve agreed to continue with the NWT Housing Corporation. I will ask the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation if he has any witnesses to bring into the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do.
Thank you. Committee agreed?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort our guests into the House.
Thank you. Minister McLeod, could you please introduce your guests for us?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right I have Mr. David Stewart, president of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation; to my left I have Mr. Jeff Anderson, vice-president of finance and infrastructure of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Is it agreed that we will proceed with general comments for the NWT Housing Corporation? Agreed? First I have on my list Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two comments. There’s a huge demand in smaller communities. I represent Fort McPherson, Aklavik and Tsiigehtchic. First off I’d like to commend the department, which has done a pretty good job over the years replacing a lot of the older units. As I go through the communities I represent, there are new places, up and coming new places. In Aklavik at the moment, we have a new Joe Greenland Centre going up and plans next year for a similar type unit in Fort McPherson. The community is very excited for this.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We try to ensure that all our communities are adequately housed. I think if you look in the business plans that we’re debating today, you’ll see for 2015-16, we’ve got two replacement public housing units for Aklavik as well as we have some major M and I’s. Part of the reason for the waiting list in the community – and I’m not sure about the exact waiting list in Aklavik, I think it’s about 22 people who are on the waiting list – we recognize that the demand is out there for more multiplex units and more units for singles. That’s the direction I think we’re starting to go in. We have a lot of older detached units that are costing us a lot to maintain and they are not as in demand as they used to be. With replacement units, I think you’ll find we are replacing a lot of the older five-bedroom units that there really is no more demand for. Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, there are plans for an elders complex in Fort McPherson. I know they are planning on setting up a solar panel unit for this building. I wonder if there’s any other plan to tie in biomass as well.
We appreciate the Member’s comments before about noticing a lot of the newer units going up in the communities. We appreciate that and it’s a good idea for some of the work that we’re trying to do in addressing some of the issues with housing.
The solar panels, we’re looking forward to seeing how they work. Biomass is not one that is slated for these particular projects, but it is something that we are exploring when we are putting up our other infrastructure. We’ll be looking at that. Of course, with the declining CMHC funding, we’ll have to find ways to try and cut back on our expenses and this seems to be the way to go. We are excited about the possibility of solar panels in Aklavik and I think in Fort McPherson that’s the plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just one more question. In Tsiigehtchic we have a unit that caught on fire I believe almost a year ago now. What are the plans for the department moving forward? Are they going to retrofit it or are they going to tear it down and build a new one? What are the plans moving forward? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe that was a HELP unit. I don’t think it was a public housing unit. So we’ll have to go in there and if it’s one of our units, we’ll have to take the steps we need to retrofit the unit. I’ll follow up on that and share the information I gather with the Member.
Just to clarify, that was a housing unit, single dwelling, two single dwelling units, and a duplex. That’s good news. I’ll wait to hear for an update. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. That was more of a comment, so I’ll go to my next individual. I have Mr. Yakeleya, followed by Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, along with Mr. Blake, have a great need for units in our communities. I have had conversations earlier with the Housing Minister in the House and in meetings about the empty units in Fort Good Hope. I know Mr. McLeod talked about the liabilities and the assessments of these empty units and if they could be either turned over to the community or looked at to see if they could be released to the community because there are a lot of houses in Fort Good Hope boarded up with plywood on the windows and doors. I know the community has a great demand for these units that are needed for the people who need housing in that community.
Also, just recently an elder’s house burned just a couple of days ago, yesterday I believe, and now the community is trying to find a unit for him. This particular elder is very independent, very proud, and it would be nice to look at some of these types of units that can be made available for that elderly person in Fort Good Hope and also for that young man and his wife in Colville Lake. Now they have to go look at other places to bunk up for this fall and winter. Could they not have a place for these types of situations that are unforeseen and unexpected?
I want to ask the Minister how far he has gone in regard to looking at these empty units in Fort Good Hope. I know the land corporation is anxiously waiting to see if these units can be turned over to them so that they can do some of their own work and get some of the units open for their membership and also for that young couple in Colville Lake to be on the priority list.
At the same time, I’m looking forward to seeing the winter road so supplies can be driven into Fort Good Hope for their multiplex unit, I think it’s a seniors unit that for some reason was delayed, and hopefully this year it can be built this summer in Fort Good Hope. I do want to say that I look forward to the releasing and the discussion of the upcoming 2014 Community Survey Report and some changes that may be coming because of the report. I hope it’s good news from the 2009 Community Survey Report.
The Minister has done quite well, I’ve got to say to the staff, because of the declining of the federal funding. That means that we as government have to take on some of these additional responsibilities because of the cutbacks the federal government is giving to us.
I’m looking for some ways that we can have some of these units coming to our community. They will still be stick built. Some of the units that we’re now getting are prefab and they’re quicker units coming into our communities for housing for our people, especially in Tulita. I know in Deline they are looking forward to their units being built and retrofitted there.
I want to ask the Minister to reply on some of the points that I’ve just outlined here as to the housing situation and if there is any type of plans to look at apprenticeships within the housing association with our local staff, people in the communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Member’s comments about the Housing Corp has done quite well. We always look for some positive feedback and we appreciate that.
As far as the empty units in Fort Good Hope, we have had some preliminary discussions with the community and private individuals on those units. The one thing we want to make sure of is that we do our assessments to make sure they’re free from any hazardous type of material before we put them out, and when we do put them out, our preference would be to go to a full public process where everybody has an opportunity to access these units. So I think we’ve done our assessments, and again, once we put these units out we’ll make sure that everybody has equal access to putting a bid in on them and we’re open to selling some of these units. We want to make sure that we’re not selling units that may have potential liabilities. So, that work is just being completed and then we look to have them out soon.
The apprentices, we have 10 apprentices right now and we’re looking at options of maybe adding more in the future because we’ve been encouraged by the results of the apprentices that we have had in the communities. Again, I think it’s through the support of the committee that we report to that we’ve been able to undertake a lot of these initiatives.
I think the Member was speaking to the folks in Colville Lake. I’m not sure what their options are in Colville Lake, if it was a homeownership unit that they were staying in, then that may change the dynamics. I’m not sure if we have any units in the community that are readily available. So we have to look at, you know, it’s unfortunate that when these situations happen where someone’s private house burns down and without the proper coverage it makes it difficult on them and then Housing is asked to step in and provide accommodations. I’m sure we would consider assisting where we can. Again, we have to ensure that, you know, we have a number of people that are waiting for units, and we have to look at every situation on a case-by-case basis.
I believe I touched on most of the Member’s points, and if I didn’t, I apologize and I’m sure he’ll remind me. Thank you.
I want to ask the Minister, given the move to more ownership with the homeowners and purchasing a home, has the corporation looked at one- or two-bedroom units that are simple, that are very small? There’s an advertisement in the Edmonton Sun, a full-page ad on a development called Knotty Pine, I believe. They offer so much for a unit, there’s a couple of units. We thought that would be something that for the homeowners themselves to purchase through a housing program or pilot program.
There are a lot of individuals that are bachelors and a lot of individuals are also staying with their family members. There are also young families just wanting to get their own places. Is this something that the Housing Corp has looked at? Is it something that is feasible in the North or is it something we could look at that would build skill and provide some value to the homeowners to know what it’s like to have a house and have these units in our community, or just a pilot project? I’m looking at this concept. That’s just a discussion that we can float around to look at.
I’m a very big advocate for Housing to get more apprenticeships into the communities. The economy doesn’t really quite call for having contractors readily available, and if they are they’re quite busy. If they are there they also have other jobs, so a lot of people have to wait. Sometimes the materials and supplies are not always readily available and I know that the Housing Corporation, the housing associations, they do the best that they can to make sure that their supplies are in stock for their own public housing units, and if they have other additional surplus parts in supply, they could sell them to the homeowners for repairs. It becomes very challenging sometimes because the cost of bringing in some of these household supplies, it’s just out of this world. I say that personally because I bought something for the washrooms and paid double the price to install and had to pay a plumber to bring it in and install it for me, so it was close to $1,000. If you look at Yellowknife, it’s one-third of that cost. So those are some of the simple things that could help private homeowners. I ask the Minister if he could continue to research and see if this is something that we could see in the 17th. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars is what those packages cost, I’ve seen the ad. We’re open to just about anything as long as they meet our standards, and you know, we’ll consider just about any option that’s out there. I think, if anything, the corporation has proven in the last little while that they’re fairly flexible and everything’s not written in stone as it was in the past. So, we’re fairly flexible and we want to work with homeowners. Again, there are options for them to purchase existing homes if they’re approved for our homeownership program. So we want to work with them. We’ve had some discussions as to if someone is paying for their own home, we may give them more options that they can choose from, kind of like a catalogue of different options. If they’re paying for it, then they should have that option.
One of the challenges we face in the North, especially in a lot of the smaller communities where materials aren’t readily available, and I used to think that we were never set up to account for the sale of material to individuals in the community; however, that’s something that we can have a look at to try to make some material available. Of course, we don’t want it affecting our ability of our LHO to do their work, but if there are opportunities there to make some small stuff available, then I think we would have to have a look at that because, as you said, Mr. Yakeleya, some small communities are challenged to get in particular parts and they are very costly. So if we can assist that way, then we’ll look at maybe setting something up to do that.
I can warn everybody, let everybody know right now, there’s going to be no charge account set up. It’s got to be cash on delivery. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next I have on the list for general comments is Mr. Menicoche, followed by Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We have an ambitious plan here for delivery into our small communities, and I just wanted to commend the Minister and the staff that working with the committee and trying to find an equal balance here. The biggest thing was about addressing devolution, or decentralization, getting jobs out to the community, and I think that the plan somewhat addresses that.
I don’t have too much to say specifically on the capital, but I’m more interested, if you’ll give me the leeway there, Mr. Chair, on the release of the latest housing needs survey and when that will be done.
As well, another thing that constituents have often been asking me is about the income threshold level; I think it’s called SNIP. Now when they’re applying for the affordable housing units, some constituents find themselves in double income situations where their household income is above the threshold limit, and I’ve always felt, and I’ve raised this to the Minister before, that those are the clients that we want to be in these housing units. They’re the ones that would be able to consistently make the mortgage payments; they are the ones that won’t be in an affordability situation.
I am just wondering if the department had a chance to review the income threshold limits when we are delivering our program, because I really feel that it will help. Sometimes they are in a small community, they are in an older house, but yet they cannot get access to the housing program to get themselves into a newer house, perhaps even freeing up the older house to other people in the community that want to try living on their own and start a home situation. So, just those couple of issues there, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We plan on having a briefing with committee, I think next week, on the latest findings and Community Needs Survey. So we are looking forward to having that discussion with them that I think is taking place next week. Again, we appreciate the Member’s comments on commending the corporation on the work that they are doing.
As far as the income threshold, when they are applying for the PATH program, the pathway to homeownership, we increased the threshold because we heard the concern that there were a lot of people that were just over SNIP and not being able to qualify for any more programs. It makes sense that if you are in a smaller community and if you have a couple of empty units there, you have somebody that might be just over SNIP. The pieces should fit and, of course, they should have the ability to maintain the unit, and that is one of the big things that we look at, is their ability to maintain the unit. We have run into too many cases in the past where we have put people in units that were just below SNIP and then they find out that they couldn’t afford it. That is something that we’re changing.
On the CARE side of it, the homeownership repair, if you have high income earners that are living in their own house, and we really haven’t raised the core need income threshold for that because it is a repair program. If they are higher income earners, then they should have the ability to do some of the work. You know, if you do it in stages and that, then it doesn’t get to a point where they have to apply for housing for a $92,000 CARE package to fix up their house. We have had pretty good success with that. Our CARE numbers are actually going down. The people who are subscribing to CARE are actually going down.
But on the homeownership side, that is one that we want to concentrate on and ensure that we have folks that are just getting started and maybe making a little bit more. Those are the people that we would like to target and get them into homeownership because we feel that they will be successful clients. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to welcome the Minister of the Department here today. As I said in some of my past comments when we have been doing either operational budgets or now capital budgets, and it’s hard sometimes to get these types of comments out of the Member for Range Lake, but I do appreciate where this department has been going. There has been a progression of success. There has been a transparency of information to the committee, which on all accounts, when we ask, is delivered on time and with the proper detail. So I applaud the Minister, I applaud the Housing Corp for really moving up, I believe, true to their word in wanting to do a very collaborative and consensus style approach. First and foremost I was going to make sure I echo those words.
I am very pleased to see that the current budget for capital has a number of new units in the seniors and caretaker area. It is important to me because I have been trying to raise the awareness. We have a number of new reports out there, you know, Our Elders: Our Communities, Aging in Place, the Continuing Care. We all know that we are going to be faced, in the very near future, with areas of concern with enough facilities for our seniors and our elders.
My first general question, seeing the fact that I know Fort McPherson here seems to be a benefactor as well as Whati, and I think there is another small unit in Tuktoyaktuk, how does the department come up with their strategy and framework for dealing with literally the large investment that will probably be required to deal with our aging senior population when it comes to infrastructure of facilities? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to the first part of the Member’s comments and then I am going to turn it over to Mr. Stewart to speak about this strategy that they use to come up with the allocation.
Again, we appreciate the Member’s comment on the direction this department has been going and his applause for this department. Part of the reason that we’re able to do a lot of the initiatives that we have is because of our relationship with committee. We try to keep them up to date on a lot of the initiatives that we are bringing forward; we seek their support and their input. I think it goes a long way into a smooth transition into some of the work that we’re doing. So we appreciate the comments from the Member.
I will turn it over to Mr. Stewart to speak on the strategy we use to come up with the allocations of seniors units.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we first started planning for the new seniors complexes in the smaller communities, we really looked at a couple of different variables. Of course, we looked at the seniors population themselves by community and looked at where the growth is in that area.
We have got about 280 or so targeted public housing units for seniors now, so we looked at which communities those are in and looked for communities that may be underserved in terms of the existing independent living facilities that are targeted at seniors in those smaller communities. Through that we were able to see certain communities – Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Whati and Fort Liard – where there weren’t targeted facilities that really stood out as communities where there was that immediate kind of need.
There are other communities, and certainly in public housing generally there are about 650 of our units that are occupied by seniors, but there certainly is growing demand, as the Member is well aware, in terms of the aging population. But that is sort of the factors that we looked at in the initial round to try to find the communities where that initial need was apparent that we could put these facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the information, and of course, Members will continuously have those high level discussions with the department on that. I believe that this is a growing issue that will plague not only Members, we know that there is a decrease in CMHC funding that will also have an impact on decision-making.
Mr. Chair, if I could, I would like to just change my direction a bit about vacancy. It seems to be a bit of a hot topic where as Members we continuously hear the following units have been vacant, are always vacant and yet we are either building a new facility or we are doing a retrofit. I know this has a bit of an operational overtone, but the issue of where do we make those decisions from a capital perspective knowing full well that we are dealing with vacancy. Again, I will let the department talk about what their vacancy is currently. But I believe it is a concern and an optical concern for a lot of residents, seeing our inventory maybe not being used and yet we are seeing overcrowding in many of our units in other situations. Again, more of a broader question, Mr. Chair.
How are we dealing with vacancy and how does that vacancy reflect the decision-making on where we are doing our retrofits or where we are putting our new units? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vacancies play a large role in how we determine where we allocate our capital dollars. Obviously, you have got one community that has more vacancies and they can be vacant for a number of different reasons. I’m just trying to find the numbers here as to our vacancies across the Northwest Territories. Fifty public housing units that are vacant and available for occupancy, and again the local housing organization could be in the process of allocating them right now. We have approximately 135 units that are under repair, and once those are done they will be allocated.
The concern we get in a lot of the communities, and I have touched on it when I spoke to Mr. Yakeleya’s question before, was we have a lot of units that have outlived their usefulness. They are boarded up and we really don’t have any use for them. We try to work something out with the communities. We have a number that are slated for demolition, but then now with the HAZMAT requirements, that has added extra costs on. We had a fairly aggressive plan a few years ago, but we’re having to deal with the HAZMAT material. That has slowed us down a bit, but we still want to get that work done and have a lot of these units written off, demolished and removed, and then we can move forward from there. There are a number of different vacancies.
A few years ago we had 135 vacant HELP units, I think, across the Northwest Territories, but that was because the corporation had access to all that federal money. We were the only jurisdiction that matched it in the country and we put a number of units on the ground anticipating that we were going to get clients for them and realized, at the end of the day, that we overestimated our ability to get clients. So we converted a lot of these into public housing units; we rented some out to different professionals in the community. So we found a way to deal with all those vacancies, but there’s always going to be a vacancy rate. We have 50 units that are ready for occupancy and another 135 that are under repair.
I appreciate those vacancy statistics. It’s always good to keep current and I’m sure we’ll be asking those same questions when we do the operational budget here in the spring. The only advice I can give to the Minister and the department is to, you know, we tend to always talk about our overcrowding problems in non-market communities, but I stress that even in market communities such as Yellowknife and some of the major centres, we do have overcrowding as well, so I’m hoping we don’t lose sight of some of the needs and designs of all communities moving forward. I know you do, I just want to reiterate that.
With the time remaining, I’d like to maybe combine two types of questions I have left and the Minister can answer accordingly. I see on the project list in infrastructure a lot of portable-type solar panel systems, which I’m strongly encouraged to see that, and I know you currently started up with a utility tracking system and monitoring energy. Maybe if you can give an update how effective are we seeing some of the preliminary numbers with respect to that and how these voltaic programs are going to aid in achieving whatever goals you have.
Number two is we know that there are always a number of deferred versus carry-over projects from one year to the next, and it would be nice to see how much of the projects from last year we are still working on and how much of that was carried forward into this fiscal budget.
Deferred and carried over, it’s about $8 million, and we do have a chart with all of the projects that are on the ground right now. I think we’re at about 85 percent for this fiscal year. I saw the figure 85 percent. If it’s more, I’ll get the right number and remind the Member about it later, but I’m pretty sure we’re at about 85 percent right now.
The photovoltaic, we’re looking forward to the savings that it’s going to potentially bring the corporation. Again, we have to find innovative ways to deal with a lot of the… Ninety-six percent of our projects are out this year, so I was a little bit off by saying 85; it’s 96 percent. That was 96 percent. You know, 96 percent. We recently did a seniors home in Hay River and that was just completed, so we haven’t had any results from that.
The stats on the unit up in Inuvik, I think is what the Member was referring to. We’ll have to pull the stats out, unless Mr. Stewart knows them off hand, but we’ll have to pull the stats out and share them with committee. I know tracking it is available online, but I’ll pull the stats out and I’ll share it with the Member in committee.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, we’re doing general comments on the NWT Housing Corporation. Next I have Mr. Nadli, followed by Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of comments in terms of the Housing Corporation and affecting, of course, the whole area of housing and how it is that we meet the needs of families and individuals that aspire to either own their own homes or else rent through the Public Housing Program initiatives.
One of the things that I see that seems to be fairly common is just the trend towards the public rental system. In some respects, the reality of living in the communities where you have a 40 to 50 percent rate of unemployment, opportunities are very few and far between, at least trying to work with people so that they can own their own homes, and it’s very challenging. I think most families that are starting out want to own their own homes but the challenges that they face in terms of employment opportunities, and unless you have major industrious sort of development projects perhaps close to the community, those opportunities will not exist.
Some other comments are there has been very little new construction of new houses, especially detached family units. It’s very clear that very few new houses are being constructed. At the same time, people in the communities, when they try to qualify for a program to get a job, they have to ensure that they don’t make too much money and at the same that they don’t make too little money. Their income has to be just right for them to qualify. One example is the homeownership program. I wanted to know if the department is looking at this reality and seeing if there’s an ongoing effort to ensure that yes, indeed, the department is trying to meet the needs of young families that want to own their own homes. They’re quite capable of working and that the Housing Corporation is providing those opportunities. I wanted to know if the department is making that extra effort to ensure that we do in fact try to meet the needs of people so that they can own their own homes.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think our track record has proven that we do try to assist people in getting into their own home, and I think it’s one of the reasons that we’re in a situation now where our focus has to be on more multi-unit type configurations for a lot of younger people. A lot of the families that are able to get into homeownership, I think in the last… Since homeownership started way back in the SHAG and HAP house days, I think we’ve got about 2,700 units that we help families get into through our homeownership program. We’ve raised our income threshold. On the access to homeownership we’ve raised our income threshold to give more people an opportunity to get in.
There’s always going to be a need for social housing. Ideally, we’d like to see someone that goes through the social housing situation because they don’t have a job or they can’t get a house and then if their financial situation improves or their prospects improve, then ideally we’d like to see them graduate into our homeownership program. We’ve seen that a number of times in the past.
At the same time, I have to caution that we need to ensure that people we put into homeownership are able to maintain it. We’ve run into a number of cases where folks have gotten into homeownership, it was a little bit more than they had anticipated, and they’ve quit claimed the house and actually turned them back over to the corporation and moved back into public housing. We want to make sure that our clients are set up for success and we don’t set them up for failure. That’s one of the reasons we’re so concerned about the income threshold, because we want to make sure that they’re able to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the house. That’s why we ran the Homeownership Entry Level Program, the HELP program. That gives them a window of about two years to determine whether they think that homeownership is for them, and if it’s not, then after two years they can turn it back over to the corporation and go back into public housing. Or if they determine they want to be a homeowner, then I believe there’s a $10,000 incentive that we give them. So we’re trying to set them up to take advantage of the programs that we offer.
It’s very encouraging to see that the system does indeed respond to the need of people who want to aspire to own their own homes.
My next point is this has been an ongoing matter for some time. I am hoping there would be a resolution of some sort in terms of trying to sort out through the jurisdictional issues. I’m speaking in particular to the Hay River Reserve. They are a reserve within the Northwest Territories and there are houses on the reserve that number about five and there is a real housing need. The jurisdictional issues have to be sorted out in terms of land tenure and the maintenance of those units and whether it could be financed by individuals. Of course, the involvement of the GNWT through the Housing Corporation is a matter that needs to be resolved. It’s been ongoing and I’m hoping the Minister and the department will at least try to come to a point where the matter can be addressed and build on some of the common interests of the people. We want to ensure that people have houses and aren’t homeless. At the same time, we need a good system so that housing can be available for people on the reserve. I just wanted to check on the status. I understand there have been some discussions and wonder if that’s going to come to a resolution at some point. Mahsi.
This issue with the Hay River Reserve has been ongoing for some time. We’ve been trying to find some resolution. We’ve been working on trying to get leases to those properties so we can make them available through some of our programs. I think we worked out an arrangement with the Hay River Reserve and we’re happy with the lease. I believe they are okay with it. We’re just waiting to hear back from the AANDC Minister because, apparently, it’s they’re reserve, they had to go through the AANDC Minister, so we’re just waiting to hear back. If we don’t hear back soon, then through what channels are available to us, we may have to send the federal folks a note saying we’d like to get some resolution to this because this has been going on as long as I’ve had the Housing portfolio. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
