Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Regular MLAs have been asking for an additional $1.3 million to be added to the main estimates for the SAFE Program. The primary reason for asking for this addition is to enable renovations to happen to seniors' homes so that they are able to age in place. This subject has been canvassed many times, but just to briefly reiterate. We believe that it is the most effective use of the money and what seniors themselves want to allow them to have supports in place to age in place. So the kinds of renovations that we're looking for are ramps, easily accessible bathrooms, and those kinds of things which would help seniors to move around in their places safely and within their own resources.
So this is something that we would like to see in this budget. I realize there's no agreement in place with the government for this, but this is an area where we think this is an investment that would produce distinct returns. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. I would like some clarification for the committee. The Member mentioned SAFE, which is Securing Assistance for Emergencies Home Ownership Program, but the Member was describing the CARE Program. Is that what the Member meant? Thank you, Ms. Green.
Thank you for catching that. Yes, in fact, I am talking about the CARE Program.
Thank you, Ms. Green, and CARE is, of course, is Contributing Assistance for Repairs and Enhancements. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the Government of the Northwest Territories did actually acknowledge that seniors aging in place is a priority and so, therefore, we agreed to do the $500,000 increase to the SAFE program on page 362. So we actually have an extra $500,000 that we are putting into assist seniors to age in place, so it's not that we're not working with you. Then again, like I say, we are expecting the federal government to come with substantial -- in fact, when Prime Minister Trudeau was in Yellowknife he said that there would be billions of dollars for housing provided, so we are expecting that we will get substantial monies coming. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. Green.
Billions of dollars would be very welcome in all different dimensions of our territory, not only in homeownership. I appreciate that there is more money in SAFE in this Securing Assistance for Emergencies. The thing about CARE, though, is that we need the money now. The number of seniors is, as everybody knows, growing very rapidly, and that includes now, and so this is one of these areas where we really need the investment so that people don't advance down to the more expensive options in the continuum of care.
So I urge the Minister to consider an additional investment in the CARE Program. Those are all my comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, yes. Currently, we have budgeted in our budget $4,410,000, and it's the same as it was for the last year. At this point in time, which we're almost at the end of the fiscal year, we only have expended about half of that money. So I don't know if the issue is that we need to put more money in or the issue is that we need to focus on a communication plan, that we actually have to let people know that it's out there. So I don't think it's appropriate to put more money into a program that is being under-utilized until we see if there is an actual need for it. That is, I take responsibility; we need to get word out better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Next I have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking for a bit of clarification. I'm going to just indicate what I think PATH is going to try to do.
So when a public housing unit is determined for sale and the tenant in that public housing unit has an opportunity to buy it and the house is valued at $100,000 and the corporation makes a decision to apply PATH, and the person is making under a certain amount so that the tenants get 48 per cent of the cost of the house, so one house worth $100,000 would be $48,000. I'm wondering if that $48,000 is budgeted or if it's just a reduction on what the corporation will receive?
Mr. Chairman, what I'm getting at is if, in that instance, where the house is valued at $100,000, the NWT Housing Corporation actually gain a capital amount of $52,000?
So the Minister said earlier that she was targeting 33 units; whether they're one in each community or not, the point, I guess, 33 units. So we're talking 33 units at an average cost of $100,000 a unit, with the application of PATH then there should be a fairly substantial chunk of capital coming back to the Housing Corporation over the year. I was wondering if that's the type of formula the corporation is using when they're determining the PATH budget? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. PATH is Providing Assistance for Territorial Homeownership Program. Minister Cochrane.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The current PATH program actually does not put that money out to get mortgages that are outside, so they're actually units that are already within the capital of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. So it's not like there will be actually an increase of money coming because we already own the units. When I do the initiatives, it's more of rewarding good behaviour. So it won't be actually cash. Again, it would be looking at people's payments, have they been substantial, and there would be a host of other ways we would do it. The areas that we're looking at doing is like a rent-to-own idea so that people would still be paying but that money, that unit would actually be theirs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, so I just want to make sure I understand this clearly.
So the requirement for the individual tenant who is at a certain income level and is purchasing a public housing unit then will take over the operations of the public housing unit almost immediately at the point of sale. So $22,000 is no longer needed by the NWT Housing Corporation to put in to the LHOs because that's the operating cost of the unit, and, in addition to that, that tenant has a requirement to go to the bank and pay their portion. By "their portion" I mean the portion that's not applied as PATH, right, so again, at $100,000, $52,000 in capital.
So if that's not coming to the Housing Corporation, where is that capital? That that individual is walking down to the bank borrowing to buy that house, where's that capital going? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a bit confused. I'm going to try to answer it if possible. So again, we're open to a lot of different areas so that we can look at home ownership. If the survey comes back and says that people want us to look at cash and carry to the bank, then we'll look at that, but at this point we aren't looking at doing a new program that addresses giving out mortgages. We are more looking at using the available stock that we have and turning those over into home ownership packages for people, people who have been constantly paying their rent, have been showing that they are responsible, that they do not wreck their units, that they have the abilities to maintain their unit. We are looking at transferring over our current stock to them and then we would be looking at like a rent-to-own.
So we have people who have been paying for 20 years in units. At some point, it should become their unit, and a lot of people say that. So hopefully with this new looking at it within 20 years, I mean, people will own their own unit. So what they are paying, it will be like a rent-to-own idea, and that is only one idea. Like I say, it is one of the ideas we have thrown out, but we are open to whatever comes in to the other surveys. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just so I understand this clearly, there is no requirement for an individual buying a public housing unit to go to the bank to borrow their share, that their share can actually now be a rent-to-purchase, so the Housing Corporation will come along, say you are a good tenant; you paid rent for the last 20 years without missing rent payments. We are going to sell this house to you. First thing we are going to do is we are going to reduce the cost of the house by 48 per cent. The second thing we are going to do is we are going to take the 52 per cent and we are going to make you rent-to-own, so a portion of your rent payments will go to the purchase of that unit or, in other words, the 52 per cent. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Carpenter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we currently do in our PATH program is we do offer the contribution towards the purchase price, but we found in terms of selling public housing units we do not have a lot of uptake in that area of our business, so we have added an additional incentive in the program of an additional $25,000 off the sale price, and still the uptake is low.
In terms of the sale price, if the contribution plus the extra $25,000 still does not cover the full purchase price, then the client is obligated to get that portion through bank financing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, that does clarify this, but I am going to just repeat it again. So we have got a $100,000 house, it gets 48 per cent off, so it is down to $52,000. The $25,000 incentive is added, and the individual has to go to the bank for the other $27,000 if the 52 per cent that is remaining in the cost of the public housing unit is more than $25,000. If it is less, then it is okay; if it is more, then the option is available for the individual to pay cash, like going to the bank, paying cash because he has got the cash. Or am I still hearing that rent-to-purchase is still a possibility for that small portion that may be left? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. You are making us all think tonight. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the current program, like Mr. Carpenter explained, may require going to the bank. When we do the program renewal, we will need to look at those. So we have the idea of what we are doing. We have not defined what it will look like specifically because there may be ideas coming within that, but we need to be cognizant that we need to be fair to all residents.
So if people have gone to the bank and taken out a loan to be able to pay for housing, then it would be not fair to just let other people not do anything. So I am not saying that this program would be looking at they have to go to the bank to get a mortgage, but I am saying that we might not give the discount that we give that we are doing currently if it is a rent-to-own versus paying it out and getting it now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick comment. With the way Housing Corporation describes the sale of public housing, I think they will sell like pancakes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Do we have further comments or questions? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regards to the Nahendeh District, I see an increase of $310,000; is this because we got an LHO in Fort Liard or is this just forced growth? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I am sorry, what page were you looking on, Mr. Thompson? Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The increase to the Nahendeh District is actually $310,000. That is the modified SAFE program for seniors. We will get Aging-in-Place, we will get $82,000 of that and they amortization increase is $228,000 for additional assets coming into service. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for her answer. So where is the cost for the LHO if this is a program in district operations in this budget? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The costs for the local housing organizations is on page 354, administration and maintenance. Currently we do not have them broken down by riding, but if the MLA would like we can provide that to him tomorrow as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. So this is for the Housing Corporation office not the local housing organization? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was looking for the LHO and I apologize if it is on the wrong page. I am done questioning on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Nothing further. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only comment I want to add maybe is relevant to CARE. I mean the Minister and the department are aware that Regular Members not only want to see the amount maintained but would like to see an increase in CARE, especially as it relates to the ability to support Aging-in-Place and allowing seniors and elders to stay in their home as long as they can.
Maybe consideration even of a senior-specific-type care program, but to the program itself, I mean, if we are identifying that some of the challenges are the uptake and that we are actually not delivering the money as expected, then maybe we have to look at the program itself and the parameters of the program. Maybe after accessing CARE, what is known as CARE Major, the parameters currently, I believe, say that you cannot access it again for 10 years; but if somebody is accessing it, you can almost be assured that that client is someone who would almost have other work that would need to be kind of done. There is a bit of a matching dollar program going on there. I mean the Housing Corporation does not pay for the project in full. The owner has to pay a particular portion of it.
So they themselves might only be able to afford to do so much of a renovation or an addition, or what have you, and then maybe in two, three years, four, five years from then they might be ready to do more. Putting them on hold for 10 maybe would be part of the problem or part of the challenges as to why the pot is not getting accessed as often as it possibly could, because I find it hard to believe that there is not enough clientele out there to access this pot.
So again, having the parameters around the accessibility of this pot reviewed might increase the uptake considerably.
The other aspect was what I suggested or commented on in my opening comments with regard to housing, was that we have to kind of give consideration to what other kind of regulations might be in place or problems that might be in place that don't allow somebody to be eligible for this program, or one that makes it just clearly obvious to them that they have to turn it down. The comment I suggested earlier was, in Yellowknife, the EnerGuide 80 standard that the city has in place, and what that affects.
If I am going to come to the Housing Corporation to get a rather large sum of money to go do a major renovation on my home, either to lower my cost of living because I am going to improve insulation factors or I am expanding for an expanding family or what have you, and it is so significant that now, all of a sudden, I have to fulfill a whole bunch of additional requirements that the city is going to put on me because of EnerGuide 80 standards or whatever other standards might be affected by this, then I am throwing my hands up in the air and, next thing you know, I am not accessing your pot of money anymore.
So I think there is considerable work that has to be put into those efforts to make this pot more accessible. I am just not comfortable with saying this is something that we have to just park and say it is not getting enough uptake. Any time I hear that, that means that there is something internally going on, not necessarily directly to the Housing Corporation. There are other outside factors. In this case, I believe that there are internal and external factors that are causing this pot not to get the right amount of uptake. We have to not wait for studies and what have you; this is something we have got to be responsive to because we know we could get this money out and have direct effects and it will have a positive effect on our goals as a government and as an Assembly as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In all honesty, since the time I have been a Minister I can't speak for the time before me I have had no one come to me and complain and say that they couldn't access the CARE major or any of our programs because your EnerGuide 80 is too high for them. I have never heard that complaint.
What I have heard, complaints for the CARE programs, is the copayment, so I am not a hundred per cent sure. If people do come to me and say it is because they can't meet the energy efficiency, I would look at that, but that hasn't been my experience. It has been around the copayments, the land tenure, and the insurance, so those are the areas that we are focusing on at this point, is how do we make it easier for people so that they can access the program by lowering the copayment or eliminating it in certain cases, by perhaps rolling in the insurance and the land tenure into the money that we give them. If energy efficiency is a reason, at that point, if it does cross my desk as an issue, then I am more than willing to look at it and see how we can address that barrier as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Anything further? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I use it as an example along with land tenure, and you've referred to copayment, so the point being it is just the whole identify the reasons as to why there is not enough uptake and let's start to address those so that we can successfully deliver. I hate to claw back from this pot when I just know that it is ready to be accessed by probably a number of people throughout the territory. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister, would you like to respond?
Thank you. I will take that as a comment. We are trying to address the issues. The other thing, too, is our communication. We do acknowledge that we are not the best about communicating and so we are looking at how to work that to get the word out to more people. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Anything further? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Nadli. My apologies, not Mr. Nadli. Any further comments or questions? Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not too sure if this was addressed here last year, but I have a feeling it was. Has the Housing Corporation ever looked at designing a self-insurance program? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you Mr. McNeely. Minister.
