Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, clearly we can see here under the line item of home ownership programs the PATH program, which is Providing Assistance for Territorial Homeownership, that there is a considerable reduction from last year to this year. I wonder if the Minister can please provide explanation to the House in regard to that reduction. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Housing Corporation has changed its strategy, and so within the market communities we still offer subsidies for market housing. Within the smaller communities where there aren’t the market housing we are now providing the public housing for those needs. Our costs have actually decreased within that strategy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments, however this is a very significant reduction. I think that there has been clearly some concerns amongst Members as it relates to this reduction. Is this the amount that the department is committing to? I wonder if we can get clarification. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Anderson will expand on my statement earlier.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Anderson.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, just to add a bit more detail to this account. What we’ve done is in our rural remote communities we’ve changed our strategy a little bit where when somebody wants to buy a house we have incentives in place for them to buy a house that they’re renting from us, for example, through our HELP program. You can also purchase a unit from us through the Public Housing program as well. When a client wants to purchase those units or those homes, they actually get a subsidy under the PATH program of up to 55 per cent in the North and 44 per cent, I believe, in the southern part of the territory. They’re going to the bank to get the remaining balance. In these cases, the corporation is getting money back, so this expense is like depreciation. It’s a non-cash expenditure. We can still meet the same demand that we have now without that… Because it’s, if I can explain it well enough, it’s essentially like depreciation where you have an expense on your books for the subsidy, but it’s a non-cash item, so we can continue to provide the same level of service under this program as we provide now. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that the department is finding ways to better improve programming, that’s important. We want to make sure that we are providing the best possible program service we can. I just wonder though, however, this is a significant reduction, can the department maybe speak a little bit more to, you know, where that actual funding has then gone? Is there some form of reinstatement? You know, I appreciate that improving the program so that we can get better uptake. I’m trying to get a little bit of a handle on where the actual reduced amount has gone to and where is it going to be. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Anderson would like to address that.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Anderson.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, what will happen in this account, if we sell several of our housing units, for example, there’ll still be an expense under this. It’ll be higher than the budget. As I indicated, it’s a non-cash expenditure. What happens is we take the proceeds that we get from the financing, wherever the client finances their share of the acquisition price of the house, and that money gets rolled back into our revenues for reinvestment in our programs. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay, I appreciate that, that’s a better understanding. That’s the questions that I have right now on this page. I’ll let others ask. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just have a question on the Beaufort Delta district, the actuals for 2014-15 were $879,300, and for 2016-17 they’re $838,100. I just want to see where the reductions are on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. What page are you referring to?
Sorry, we’re on 370, right?
We’re on page 371. Do I have further comments or questions on page 370? One moment. First, Mr. McNeely.
Page 371, I notice there CMHC repair programs in the previous other year, 2014-15, there was $492 in that budget for CMHC repairs. Can the Minister explain if we’re going to see any money or is there monies being applied for to extend CMHC repairs to this budget? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The $492,000 is actually an old CMHC funding, and so it’s discontinued, so now being covered under homeownership programs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. McNeely. There’s no further questions from Mr. McNeely. Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I’m looking at the line, minor repairs, under rental housing programs. The figures here jump around quite a bit: 2014-15 it was over $7.4 million, next year is $1.7million in 2015-16, and then in 2016-17 is $2.2 million. Why are these figures jumping all over the place? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O’Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Martin will address that answer.
Mr. Martin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the difference here from 2014-15 actuals to the current mains is primarily explained by a required accounting adjustment at the end of the year. All the same capital projects that we started out with for the year were delivered. However, at the end of the year, we go through an accounting process to ensure that we have them properly classified between major capital and minor capital. Minor capital is considered O and M, and that’s why we have a higher number in this case for 2014-15, again, just simply those are the year-end accounting adjustments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the explanation. Not that I don’t want to spend money on minor repair, but why is it the difference between last year, in 2015-16, and 2016-17? We just haven’t accrued the year end stuff through the accounting or what’s happening there? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O’Reilly. We’ll send it back to Mr. Martin.
Thank, Mr. Chairman. The difference between the 2015-16 budget is explained primarily by the new federal funding, so that’s been added in, which is essentially the minor, O and M, related items such as fuel tanks and demolition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the explanation. How much of that $2.2 million is actual federal funding? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O’Reilly. Mr. Martin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is $1.5 million of new federal funding that’s been added into the 2016 main estimates figure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I was afraid I was going to hear this, we’re all aware that the federal government’s finally getting back into affordable housing, and that’s a good thing and we want them there, but I don’t want that to be used as an excuse for us not to spend money on housing. Is this going to be a continuing trend where if we acquire more federal dollars we’re going to start spending less ourselves on housing? Is that where we’re going? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O’Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, no, we are still committed to supporting housing within the NWT. This year we have $84 million committed from the Northwest Territories Government and last year it was actually around the same. Even with the $35 million that we received from the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories has still put in the same financial figure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O’Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that commitment from the Minister, and it’s something that I’ll certainly be watching very carefully because I’m sure we all want to work towards improving our housing and getting it out of core need. As new federal dollars come in, we shouldn’t be withdrawing our funding as well or during that period as well. Thanks, Mr. Chair. It’s more of a comment.
Thank you, Mr. O’Reilly. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the Member’s comments. I think that the whole of the GNWT is committed, like I say, to housing and recognize the need, and is committed to trying to address the needs of the residents of the NWT as best as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Nothing further, Mr. O’Reilly? Mr. O’Reilly has waived me off. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a follow-up question to my PATH questioning earlier. Just quickly from the department, what will be the reporting means within this document in future Main Estimates for PATH?
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Anderson.
