Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak to the opening remarks from the Minister Responsible for the NWT Housing Corp. I am happy to see that the department is going to be investing $35 million to construct 174 new units in communities across the NWT.
I think we need to continue to invest in the infrastructure. I think we need to continue to invest in houses. However, based on my comments in my Member’s statement a few days ago, I talked about the fact that where we’re constructing these homes doesn’t always make a ton of sense to me. For instance, there were four units in Fort Res that are
sitting vacant — that have been sitting vacant for two years.
To me, if we are going to be investing in building new homes in these communities, I think it would be important to make sure we have done a really thorough analysis to ensure that there are people eligible for those houses. Now, I understand that times change and people’s situations change, so I understand maybe building some on spec. I think four is a little excessive in a little community the size of Fort Res. I think we would have been better served in Fort Res by assisting those individuals to upgrade their homes or make them more fuel efficient to help them reduce costs, as well as maybe enhance the stock for the public housing we have available. Four in Fort Res sitting vacant seems excessive.
I strongly encourage you to get out there and start putting homes in communities where they’re needed, but I encourage caution. I encourage a little bit of research and analysis into each of the communities through the LHOs, as well as the band councils, to ensure that any houses we’re building are going to be utilized. I’m a little on the cheap side, so having houses sitting there costing us money every day that people aren’t in frustrates me.
As far as Fort Res goes, I would love for you to work with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment and come up with some alternative solutions for those homes in Fort Res for the people of Fort Res. When you build new ones, be cautious where you put them. Like I said, I can understand one or two extra that you think might be able to go to somebody in the community or, as people’s situations change, having a house available for those people would be good. But building them and having them sit vacant for extended periods of time doesn’t do anybody any good.
I’m also a little concerned about the reductions to the repairs of public housing stocks as well as the home ownership repair programs. I’m sure the department is going to indicate that they’re undersubscribed and they’re underutilized and therefore we can justify reducing them. I would suggest that they may be underutilized due to the fact that the Housing Corp isn’t getting out there and advertising the programs to the degree that is necessary.
In my travels through some of the communities I saw a lot of homes. A lot of them were in really great shape, but some of them were in pretty rough shape, where some funding and assistance would go a long way. I believe most of the people who live in these houses would love to take advantage of a program that would help them upgrade their homes, fix them where necessary, as well as help them put in alternative heating sources and other cost-saving
measures that would help them save money in the running and maintenance of their homes.
I was a little disappointed to see the cuts to those programs. I think they were important. I think the Housing Corp has an opportunity to get out there and promote the programs, enhance the programs and help people access them, rather than just claiming that they’re underutilized when clearly you go to the communities and you see some need for some repairs and renovations. I was disappointed there were some cuts there. So no real questions, just comments. As we move through, I will ask some specific questions, and that’s that.