Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is absolutely correct; funding has stayed at the same level for a while. We have been very fortunate to have been able to leverage some federal dollars to send the communities. We recognize there is a bit of a shortfall, and as far as the assessment, it was part of the formula funding review. Not only did we look at the O and M, we looked at the capital as well. That work has been completed. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. I will allow Ms. Bisaro another comment as she has time on the clock. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I could have held this question, but if the review has been completed, I have to then ask, when are we going to see an increase in this funding? There’s no projection that I’m aware of to increase infrastructure funding anytime soon.
To the Minister: How long are communities going to have to wait before they get some more capital dollars for their infrastructure? Thank you.
We had originally intended to start this work I think early in the life of the 18th Assembly, but we fast-tracked it and did the formula funding review work before the end of this Assembly. Once the 18th Assembly comes into being, they will have to have a look at the fiscal situation. If there are opportunities to increase the money to the communities, then the Minister of the day will have to bring that forward and try to get the funds increased. So, the work has already been completed, Mr. Chair.
To the Minister: I can appreciate that we’re in a tight fiscal situation; however, $28 million in a 1.6 or 1.7 billion dollar budget is a very small percentage. I know communities are not going to get a doubling of the infrastructure dollars that are shown in this budget, but I think our communities, if we expect them to continue and if we expect our residents to continue getting the municipal services that they need – dogs, ditches and dumps, as they say – if that’s going to continue, we’re going to have to give them bigger infrastructure dollars. So, I strongly encourage the 18th Assembly to look at the amount of money that’s going into our communities for capital and to increase it by even 10 percent would make municipalities happy, I’m sure, and that’s not a heck of a lot of money. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I didn’t quite hear a question there, but I will allow the Minister a comment. Minister R.C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We agree with the Member. I think it’s a discussion that needs to happen early in the life of the 18th so there are opportunities to secure some funding for the communities which badly need it. I think that’s a debate that has to be taken up early in the life of the 18th, because we have done all the work through the formula funding review and I believe there was a capital deficit of about $24 million. So, we’ve identified it and I think we’ve flagged it. Then again, it’s a decision that’s going to have to be made early in the life of the 18th. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Continuing with general comments on Municipal and Community Affairs, I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe the Minister answered my question. Did you know I was going to ask this question? With his last breath there, I think he mentioned that the formula review did indicate a shortfall of about $24 million. Did I hear that correctly? Yes. So we’ve been underfunding about $24 million a year. Yes, it’s a serious issue. I know the Minister recognizes it. I think the question has been answered. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’ll treat that as a general comment. No question. Next on my list for general comments I have Mr. Bouchard.
That was my same questioning along those lines is with the Association of Municipalities. We got together last night and obviously they’re concerned with some of the way this capital budget seems to be locked in forever. Obviously, they are seeing pressures. Obviously, the cost of living is going up, the cost of contracting. I would assume that that number is probably light at $24 million. I know Hay River has a lot of infrastructure pressure right now, and that’s not only what they’re using currently with our funding, but gas tax money and they’re still seeing deficits and it’s going to take them probably 10 or 15 years. They could probably just about eat up this whole budget and not touch the whole deficit that they have.
The bigger communities are seeing more and more people coming there. There are more and more regional pressures from different communities. I think we need to really strongly look at this as a funding arrangement and how we deal with the regional centres that are seeing pressures. We have a lot of people who come from outside the community. We appreciate that for the economy, but a lot of our facilities and infrastructure are used by those people. Not only our physical structures and physical buildings but our emergency services and all that type of stuff, medical services. We have a whole bunch of pressures from the surrounding area and I would assume similar to regional centres throughout the territory.
Like my colleagues, I’d like to stress that we can’t lock this in. There has to be at least a CPI index to that to get to some point where we’re seeing an increase to it, because at these levels the communities are going to keep falling farther and farther behind and it gets more and more burdensome on the taxpayers and it’s not necessarily fair because not all the usage is being done just by the taxpayers. I’m not sure if in the review they actually looked at that regional concept of regional usages. Can the Minister indicate to me whether they did that?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Part of the formula funding review was to make some adjustment, because we had found that some of the smaller communities had just about all the infrastructure they need at the moment. Some of their biggest challenges, I think, was the O and M on some of the infrastructure they have. So I think we’ve allowed them to use I think it was up to 10 percent of their CPI funding to help with the O and M.
On the larger centres, part of the formula funding review, again, was to go on a needs-based assessment. We recognize that some of the larger centres are facing more pressures than a lot of the smaller communities. So our funding, I think beginning next year, ’16-17, is going to be more on a needs based, because we found that some of the smaller communities were getting more funding than they can use and as far as their needs went. So rather than cut them back, what we’ve decided to do is just to keep them at the same level they’re at until their needs catch up to the actual funding for gas tax and the Building Canada Plan.
We recognize some of the challenges the Member is facing. I think part of our funding review was to help find ways we can help the larger communities deal with some of the pressures they’re facing.
I appreciate that. I think the Minister kind of moved into the next question that I have. This funding that we’re providing here isn’t tied to any Build Canada. Can they use this funding as their equity for Build Canada applications and projects? Can I get that clarification? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Member is absolutely correct; they can use some of the money that they get to leverage the funding from the Building Canada Plan as well.
With that Building Canada, is it application-based or is the money being divvied up amongst communities per capita case-plus? Are we doing a case-by-case application-by-application base?
Mr. Chair, we allocated X amount of dollars to every community, but they have to come up through an application process to justify the amount of money that we’re giving them. So, say if they were getting $110,000 – we’ll use that for an example – they have to have some projects, put an application in place for $110,000. If we just put it into one big pot and it was application-based then we’ve have competition from all 33 communities, so we thought doing it this way was probably one of the easiest ways to have some of the smaller communities that might be lacking some capacity to get their applications in with some assistance from our regional folks.
Like I said, using this funding they would be able to get into Build Canada. So my next question on Build Canada, would they be able to, if a community is not using it, would we be opening up that complete pool to the surplus towards the end of the year? Like, obviously communities, I would think the largest centres will have big demand. So, will they be able to apply later, once a community…or is there a cut-off where communities won’t be able to use the money, will we open that surplus let’s say?
I know in my experience at ITI, sometimes with the contribution funding it was allocated to regions, but after a certain period of time the money went into a territorial pot and everybody could use it just so that the funds were used. Is there a plan to do that or are we just going to let that money lapse or is it carrying forward to other communities?
Thank you. It’s a 10-year program, so they can use those funds anytime within that 10 years. They have to find a project that matches the criteria and Canada has to also approve the project. So, they do have some time to make use of the funding that they do have. I think they’ve got up to 10 years.
Just for that clarification, let’s say a community was getting $100,000 a year. Every tenth year they could build a project for $1 million. Is that correct in my assumption?
No, it’s one allocation over that 10 years. So if they were allocated $100,000, that’s what they would have to use. It’s not $100,000 a year for 10 years. It’s just $100,000 that is their portion of the Building Canada Plan.
So, in saying that, our communities, are we given a lump sum at the beginning of this Build Canada? I know in Transportation we’re doing it over a period of time, 10 years. Obviously, we’re not getting a lump sum that we can hand it out to all the communities at the beginning, are we? Or are we getting a percentage over 10 years and I think it’s 15 percent? Are we getting 1.5 percent every year or are we getting the lump sum 15 percent and it’s going out to communities right away?
They would have to use the money to build a project and they would invoice us. Then we would be reimbursed from Canada, I think up to 75 percent of whatever their project costs.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’ll continue with general comments with Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just speaking to the funding allocated to the communities, I am somewhat disappointed we’re going back to a needs base just because I’ve seen firsthand the process that we first started with this for the communities, which was great. I know the Minister did mention that some communities weren’t spending that money, but I’ll use a small community like Tsiigehtchic, for example. To build whether it’s a garage, with the funding that’s given, you have to save up for a number of years to actually have enough to build that piece of infrastructure. That’s what many of the communities are doing. So, it has to do with planning. I know the department did provide some assistance in the planning stages, but it is a learning curve for the communities, but I’ve seen firsthand the benefits of the process we had in place when the New Deal first came out.
Also, we’ll just use Tsiigehtchic as an example again. Under the needs base process here, how would MACA identify what the community needs? I’ll use Tsiigehtchic for the prime example. All we have right now for a facility for our youth for sports is the gymnasium. We don’t have an arena. We have a skating rink that was blown over with a big storm we had a while back, but it’s a clear indicator that that community needs an arena. So, will that be a priority under this needs base formula? You compare that to a band office that we already have that’s functional, it’s pretty clear that an arena would outweigh the band office.
Will the department identify that as something that the community needs? You know, we could have a skating rink. Children usually have to go skate on the lake. Those days are over and done with. I know the Minister probably skated on a few ponds, but in this day and age we have skating rinks and arenas that the children could now make use of. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What the community needs is not our decision to make and that was the beauty of the New Deal, is it gave the community responsibility to make the decisions based in their priorities. So if an enclosed rink was one of their priorities then they would find ways to make it work. With the money that we give them through CPI and that, they can access bank financing and we’ve had communities do that where they’ve accessed bank financing, knowing they’re getting their CPI funding every year to help pay down the loan.
Again, the beauty of the New Deal is that the decision-making is within the community. So if we were still making the decision and they wanted to do a small little rink in a small little community like Tsiigehtchic, it would get into the overall corporate picture and it may be years and years before that ever came to see the light of day. But with the program we have now…and I think we see as we travel throughout the Northwest Territories some of the projects. In one community, a youth centre might be a priority, so they use their CPI money that we give them to build a youth centre, and another one might be a small community hall.
The decision is pretty well up to the community and I don’t think doing it in a needs base survey is penalizing the community. What we found was that there were some communities that had a lot of infrastructure money banked that they weren’t using because there really wasn’t much more infrastructure or they might have been facing challenges with O and M. So we’ve tried to make it more of a needs base. It’s not needs based saying, well, we think you need this as opposed to this. It’s, again, a decision they have to make and we continue to work with them on that. Thank you.
The other thing, as I mentioned earlier, with the assistance that MACA provides to the communities. I’d like to ask the Minister, as we move forward, you know, a lot of planning needs to go in place and architects. Does the department provide that assistance or does the community have to go out and spend some of this money for architecture work and design or is it just design build? Thank you.
Thank you. We can provide technical advice, and as far as the actual project itself goes, the communities have all gone and found someone to do the design for them. They’ve actually led the contract themselves in most cases, hired their own project managers. They’ve actually been able to do it probably less expensively than we could have as a government, because every time you see the little polar bear there, prices seem to go up a little higher.
When the community goes looking for prices, it gives them a few options and I think we’ve found that they’ve been able to get some product on the ground, I wouldn’t say cheaper, but a lot less expensive than we would have. But, no, we’re willing to work with the community, provide them with some technical advice and maybe refer them to people or line them up with folks who do that. So, we provide a lot of assistance, and at the end of the day, the decision is ultimately theirs to make. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It’s more of a comment. You know, over the years I’ve seen a lot of benefits that this program provides and I hope that it does continue to go on through the years. For example, in Aklavik the drainage that the community has done has actually helped during the spring. We’ve noticed less floods because of drainage, the drainage plan that they did. We still need a little assistance with the riprap and building up the roads there, but that’s something the community is still working on.
The other thing was in Fort McPherson, the hamlet that they built and they’re also building a new garage. It’s great for the community; that’s what they need. As we move forward, we really appreciate this program continuing.
Mr. Blake, again, more of a comment, but I will allow the Minister a final word.
Thank you. We have capital planning folks and we actually have capital plans from all the communities for what they identified, some of their priorities for the future years. Our capital planning group will work with communities and help them with their capital plans, but as far as I know, I think we have a capital plan from pretty well every community for the next five years. So they’ve identified some of their priorities and we’ll work with them as to how they can see those hit the ground.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Committee, general comments. Is committee prepared to go into detail?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’re going to defer page 63 until we’ve considered all the activities. I would turn your attention to pages 65 and 66, regional operations, infrastructure investments, $28.002 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, if I could get you to return back to page 63, Municipal and Community Affairs, total infrastructure investments, $28.002 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. At this time I would like to thank Ms. Young, Mr. Williams, thank you for joining us and, of course, the Minister, R.C. McLeod. Thank you again. If I could get the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber. Thank you.
Okay, we’re going to turn our attention now to the next on the list, the NWT Housing Corporation and the Minister responsible. I’ll ask him if he has any witnesses to bring in. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would.
Thank you Mr. McLeod. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you please escort the witnesses into the House, please.
Thank you. Minister McLeod, will you be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the House, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, to my right I have Mr. Jeff Anderson, who’s the president of the NWT Housing Corporation. To my left I have Mr. Jim Martin, who is the vice-president of finance and infrastructure for the NWT Housing Corporation.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Martin, Mr. Anderson, welcome back to the House. Committee, we’re on page 67 in the capital estimates here. We’re going to start off with general comments. I’ll go to Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have two questions and comments. I’m very happy to see we have some units coming into the Mackenzie Delta, also the replacement of four units in Fort McPherson. As I’ve said many times, with waiting lists of up to three to four years, we have some young families that are expecting children, expecting newborns, ready to start a family but yet they’re on the waiting list. You know, they have been for anywhere up to a year, some for three years and there’s a real need for additions to our present stock. I can’t stress that enough. We have to start planning here for increasing what we have in stock right now, even by ten would help in each community. But, you know, even those single units that we have been building over the years for the elders, that would help a long way. That would free up other units that we have in the community. That’s something my constituents keep requesting. There’s a real need for more units here, but I’m glad to see we have some new ones on the horizon here and look forward to those opening. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. I’ll treat that as comment here. General comments, NWT Housing Corporation. We have Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just noticed some of these units in the smaller communities, just a general question about the concept of, in order to reduce costs, duplexes or four-plex type of schematic. Is there anything new in the works with regard to that in placing those in the smaller communities, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
