Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to the mandate, this process has been ongoing since last year. It's something that we've been working on. We've been having workshops with our local housing authorities. We've had workshops with all our maintenance people in the LHOs. We've had our regional directors involved in this process. We have done a lot of consultation already with the local housing authorities, with the maintenance staff in those organizations, and also the board of directors that was overseeing this was the regional directors. We have one in almost every region. I think it is time for this organization to change the way we do business.

As you've heard, we just celebrated our 30 years as a corporation in the Northwest Territories just last year. In 30 years a lot has changed in the North and I think because of the dynamics of the corporation, we also have to change with the times. I think in order for us to realize we're not immune to the pressures on development in the North. The biggest challenge we face, like I mentioned, is the area of just trying to deliver what we have right now. I think because of the competition in the area for tradespeople and contractors and whatnot, that we're realizing there's a higher cost to doing business in the Northwest Territories, especially in the area of housing and construction.

But again, the mandate is going to proceed through a new process where they have a board to go out and get public input and then come back, and I will report back to the standing committee and this House. So I'd just like to remind the Member that I have travelled along with the Member. I've travelled to most of the communities in the Northwest Territories and I have been consistent with my message. We are changing the way we do business in the Northwest Territories. Part of that change will include the change of how we deliver programs and services and also changing of the mandate of the corporation to be able to deal with some of these issues such as land development issues and being able to have capacity so that we can be able to find the people in the right areas to assist us on delivering. We are right now, like I mentioned earlier, the number of people that we've had in the Housing Corporation over the last 10 years have changed to almost half the size of the staff prior to division. We were at 195 people. After division we went down to 144. With the budget cuts ever since, we're down to 103. There has been a drastic change to the size of the Housing Corporation to deliver those programs.

We are committed to go back out, get consultation from the key stakeholders and Members of this Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. With four seconds on the clock, Mr. Menicoche.

---Laughter

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe I can use up my four seconds quite efficiently here. Just with respect to the Minister's comments, I don't disagree that the Minister heard us and that he is seeking a mandate change. I don't disagree with the methodology at all and that he indeed does recognize, once again, that there has to be a change. How that change is going to be

done is what I would like to impart to the Minister. There are people out there in the communities, the regions and throughout the North that want input into how we change the Housing Corporation. Indeed, they just want to be heard. I believe that that consultation has to be extensive and we have to get out there, listen and be the responsive and reflective department with respect to housing that the people want. I would just like to urge the Minister again to consider that and to comment that it will be a comprehensive and extensive consultation with respect to the mandate and review of the corporation, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. We will take that as a comment, so we don't need to have the Minister answer any questions on that. Next on the list is Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Last year, going through the same exercise, I spoke to a number of issues and concerns. I see this year I am going to be speaking to almost the same issues and concerns. We go travelling to the communities and it never fails, even in our day-to-day work in our constituencies, I am sure there is not a day or a couple of days that goes by that we don't have people calling with concerns with housing, not so much the Housing Corporation, and the way the programs are delivered. I commend the Housing Corporation, as I did last year, for putting a lot of these programs into place where people could try to get into their own homes, and a lot of them have. Some of them have found that they couldn't maintain these homes, so they went back to the corporation. So I have a concern with people calling and wanting to know why couldn't I be approved. I make enough to maintain my own home and they are giving homes to people who end up giving them back, or a single person...We can go on and on with the list of concerns we get regarding the housing programs.

In the Minister's opening comments, he spoke to the Supported Lease Program and this ambitious plan is subject to support from the federal government. I am curious to know if the Supported Lease Program is also subject to continued support from the federal government. If we don't get that support, what is going to happen to some of these programs? Are we still going to get 185 units? I think you have been asked this question a couple of times. I just have a real concern with the direction that the Housing Corporation has taken. I have spoken to it before and, as Mr. Menicoche pointed out, I thought this mandate was just something that was just a new initiative, but it was something that was started in 2004. I understand there was even a task team sent out and I am curious to know if all the LHOs, the district offices, were consulted on the new mandate. Did they have much input into it? The universal partnership agreements, did they have much say into whether they wanted to be part of these universal partnership agreements, or did they just have to sign because everybody else did? I don't think a lot of them had much choice.

You mention housing and it just strikes a nerve in everyone. I understand the corporation is trying to do their best, but I think they are really straying from their original intent to provide housing to residents of the Northwest Territories. I have a concern with that. I see money being cut to the districts and the LHOs. It seems like it just keeps growing and growing in headquarters. That causes me concern. We've lost so much money in the Housing Corporation over the years, like I said in my Member's statement before, we could have had a few more houses on the ground. I would like to see a bit more transparency in some of the housing programs. It's public money and the public has the right to know where their money is going and how it's being divided up by certain clients. I understand the Minister is going to say I can't give you the names. Everybody has the right to know what we all make in here. So it being public money, the taxpayer has the right to know where some of their funds are going.

I will say it again, and I may be doing the same spiel next year -- I should just ask for this recording and I can play it again next year -- I really believe the Housing Corporation is straying too far away from their original mandate and I think the business decisions should be left to people who have the shops for them. Housing can provide the expertise because they should know housing. I have a problem again with headquarters continuing to grow and the people in the frontline district offices seem to be the ones taking the most hits. I believe there may have been a few questions in there. Some of the other Members spoke to some of the ones I had in my notes, so I won't repeat it again.

Housing is a concern with residents of the Northwest Territories; it always has been, always will be. The Housing Corporation should, in my opinion, stay to their original mandate and reason they were established. I don't like the looks of the proposed new mandate. It's not something I would be able to support. It's trying to become too businesslike and I don't agree with that. I think they should be providing the houses. A lot of people have access to a lot of programs and have gotten money to be put into their own homes. You still hear a few concerns from people who have lived in public housing their whole life and they have worked hard to try to get out of public housing and get into their own homes, but all of a sudden they make too much so they are paying big rent. I thought that's what these programs were designed for. That's why I said there should be a little more transparency to these programs, so we could at least see where some of the money is going and make sure that one client is not getting $70,000 and another client who is not that far off in wage earnings gets $6,000. It's got to be transparent. It has to be fair. I have suggested before that one of the changes that the Housing Corporation could make is just have a block $50,000, $25,000 or $30,000 number that if people qualify with the bank to own their own home, they should all be able to access that money, nothing higher and nothing lower, just straight across the board, like the Minimum Downpayment Assistance Program they had a few years ago. That did that. It just gave a straight number right across the board to clients who qualified through the bank. It just seems like the programs change every few years right back to SHAG and the Rural and Remote Program where some of the people just finished paying 25 years later.

So I would like to see some consistency. I would like to see the programs stay the same, at least for awhile and not be changed every few years. I think there may have been a few questions in there. The Minister may wish to comment on some of the statements that I have made. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the programs that we do have, we have

devolved over a period of time. I think a lot of the programs we do deliver, we are delivering on behalf of CMHC which are federal programs. We see a lot of our program dollars from CMHC such as emergency repair funding, EDAP funding and access funding. Because we are an agency that delivers program dollars, we have to follow the national standards. Because the standards we fall under, it may not look like we are being fair, but, in most cases, the programs we do deliver are for people who are at the lower end of the wage scale and also trying to get them to become homeowners and get them out of social housing, which the focus has been on over the last number of years.

We have to realize the other emphasis was to get people to go to the banks and get a mortgage and become homeowners and we assisted with their downpayment. These programs have devolved over a period of time and, like I mentioned earlier, we are looking at trying to consolidate our homeownership programs so that we have more flexibility. We tried to get away with setting amounts where once we exceed that, we can't help you. We have to get away from that mentality and try to find programs that are more flexible. Instead of trying to see which program you fit into, we have to find a way we can work with you and help you become homeowners. A lot of the emphasis that we have been focussing on in the past has been the area of homeownership, to get assistance through the banks for mortgages.

With regard to the Member's comments on the Supported Lease Program, it is a program that is identified to get people out of social housing and become homeowners, for those people who have lived in those units for a number of years. We want to ensure that they have the ability to pay the operational costs and the cost to maintain a home, and that will be taken into consideration. So those individuals, over that two-year period, will be monitored to ensure they will be able to do that. We don't want to set people up for failure, like the Member mentioned. We have a lot of people who got into the Access Program and then they were able to sustain themselves for a year, and then they had to give the units back. We want to get away from that so we don't have those situations.

With regard to the reorganization of the corporation, because direction was given by the Legislature to get out of the area of social housing and devolve that mandate to the Department of Education, we have to realize we still have responsibility to people in public housing. We have 2,300 units. We still have contractual arrangements with CHMC where we have to continue to deliver those. It's important that we do have annual reports that identify the different dollar amounts that are allocated and we do have audits done by the Auditor General every year which are tabled in this House. The Member has asked for information and I know there are certain confidential matters that do come by way of those applications, names and persons who may receive assistance from the government. So it's under ATIPP and I know that he doesn't want to hear that answer, but that's the answer we have to give. We do have federal legislation that we have to hold confidential information under.

So those are some of the responses to the Member's questions. I think the issues the Member is raising aren't new to the House. I heard the same issues we are talking about today 10 years ago. It's how we have to devolve and move with the times. Nothing changes, nothing changes. I think we do have to change the way housing is delivered in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome the Minister and it's good to see Jeff and Fred again. It's funny that the Minister, in his last sentence, said these are the same issues he has been hearing for 10 years. That just drives home one of the points that all Members have been raising today with the Housing Corporation. There are many issues and outstanding housing concerns that are just so long ongoing that the regional staff or the headquarters staff have pretty much earmarked these ones, flagged them and just put them in a file in a box in the closet or something and hopefully they will go away. The Minister probably knows that, too.

It's good to see the $120 million over the next year on 185 units. My first question before I go on is if this funding arrangement is contingent on federal government supports with the new government and if it doesn't go through with what the old government had agreed on, do we have a contingency plan? That's my first question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we don't get the federal funding, we will just deliver the formula we used before, which is 118 units. We have the resources to build 118 units with our own money this year. We are pretty positive we will be receiving the money from the feds; the $50 million over two years.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess just to follow up on that, what percentage of 118 units is going to be public replacement units? That's just for clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

It roughly works out to one-third of the number of units we are looking at allocating.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I don't want to reiterate a lot of the concerns that a lot of Members have already raised, and I am sure the Minister has heard them all before in committee, but I just want to talk about the $10 million for the upgrades and the $4.9 million for emergency, seniors and disabled housing. It's great to see that there is a little bit of increases going into these areas and that these programs are actually in place, but I just wanted to remind the Minister again, I am sure you heard it in many instances, a lot of emergency repairs and a lot of upgrades and a lot of senior repairs are approved every year in the various regions, but when it actually comes down to doing the actual work, doing the actual repair, that's not so quick to get approved or get done. I just got a few examples. I got a senior with the furnace that is still

sitting in his porch to get installed and it's been there for two years. So a senior with a fire damaged room in his house upstairs that has also been approved for repairs, but that's been two years ago also. I guess that just alludes to the point I want to make. It seems a lot of the contracts that go out for these repairs and the upgrades to the various units always seem to be going to a specific contractor who has had a long-standing history working with the Housing Corporation; and all other contractors, be it proprietorships or just individual people who are willing and able to do that work, are never really considered because of liability issues, they don't have their business licence in place and they don't have some of the insurance that the government requires and stuff like that. But there are a few that do. Five years ago, they maybe didn't complete a project or something like that and they seem to be blacklisted on the government's contracting list at the regional level anyway.

I have raised the issue with the Minister before on some people that are willing and able to do all this outstanding work that's still kind of out there in the communities, and people are still wondering why we have to wait for a contractor to come out of Yellowknife, or a contractor to come out of Hay River to complete the work. Well, one of the barriers to getting these contracts in the outlying communities, in the satellite communities where they're actually required is because the government is saying the contractor has to be within cost of what a contract is going to bid on. Pretty much there's a limit to what you can bid on this project, and whether you're in Hay River or Yellowknife or in Colville Lake, this is money that the government's willing to spend and that's that. Therefore, a lot of these smaller community contractors don't bother with bidding on this work, because basically it's not going to make them any money, it's not going to be cost effective for them. The costs in these communities are a lot higher than they are in the regional centres, but it seems to be the government policy that these contracts have to be within these larger centre cost barriers or brackets.

I just want to ask the Minister, is there any inclination that the government is going to relay down the line to tell the regional centres you have to be a little bit more flexible when it comes to very remote communities. These people that are trying to do business in those communities and trying to stay in those communities, especially when a lot of housing projects are just backed up to the door as far as getting completions done. Is there any appetite for that?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we do try to work with communities and especially with our LHOs. We do find that we're trying to give more responsibility for the local housing authorities to build capacity, but also take on more housing responsibilities such as the seniors' maintenance repair program. We're asking the LHOs to do the work in house so they can hire another person on staff so that they have someone in the community that has a ticket and are able to build up their capacity in communities. But I think also the majority of our contracts that go to communities are tendered. I think because of that, sometimes you have negotiated contracts where there's only one business there that does it. We've heard over the years in my travels that there's a lot of frustration. The people that have got work done by contracts which they'll never allow them to do work on their house or whatnot again because of bad experiences people have had in regards to contracts that have been done. So again, yes, there are people that are basically not used because of not having the certification or not being registered and also registered under the BIP, and also not having tradespeople on their workforce to do a lot of this work where you have to have electricians or plumbers or whatnot. Again, we have to ensure that whoever does the work has the capacity to do it. I think that in order to allow for that capacity to go, I think we do support community initiatives through negotiated contracts, along with the local municipality or local housing authority, to take these on. But I think at the end of the day, the solution to our problems in our communities is to have people local doing this work and not have people coming in. But again, in most cases we can't find those people who have the tickets that are required to do the work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you. I understand the plight of the government on that side. I think the only way to overcome that is to actually, you know, they have to have a project officer at every site either on a day-to-day basis or on a week-to-week basis to oversee all these projects. I know that even when you get a proficient contract in there, somebody in good standing with the Housing Corp to go in and do the work, but if nobody's there to look over their shoulder to make sure that the work is being done according to standards, even they will take shortcuts and cut back on the amount of materials that they're allotted to use, and start saving money on their part. That happens everywhere. The only way, like I said, that the Housing Corp is probably going to be able to alleviate that is to make sure they've got people there. I know the Housing Corp has got staff. I know they've cut back on a lot of staff positions, especially around here in the headquarters. But out in the regions, I just don't see enough of the project officers actually in the communities doing a lot of work. Even during the summer months, you know that's going to be the busiest season for housing, so why doesn't the department hire some casual project officers or something during the construction season in the small communities so that we can make sure that these projects are being done in an effective and efficient manner, using all the materials and standards that the Housing Corp upholds. You know, something just like firefighting season, you know? Construction season in the NWT is big, and it's a short season and I don't see why we couldn't accommodate casual employees in that respect. Has that ever been considered in the Housing Corp's long-term plan or seasonal plan?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, that is the goal that we do have by way of increasing the staff we do have in the corporation, especially at the regional level so they'll have more accessibility to communities. One of the things that we do do is that when we have a big project, we will identify somebody specifically for that one project. But if it's just a couple of houses here and there, I think it's uneconomical to have someone in that community just to deal with two or three houses. So that's why a lot of the project officers are based out of the regional office.

Again, we have increased that and looking at that staff complement for our mandate, and to get more people on the ground, get more people doing these inspections, and making sure that we are following the guidelines we do set so that we can have people there to actually physically be on the ground when these things are being constructed. But right now, we don't have enough resources to be in every community on every jobsite, and that's why we have to continue to involve those people.

Also with the larger projects, like I mentioned, we are open to hiring project officers for those bigger projects on site. Thank you.