Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee today would like to do Tabled Document 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-2012, and we would like to deal with the Housing Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee agree?

Okay, we will move to the capital, page 3-10, information item. With that, I would like to ask the Minister if he will bring in any witnesses.

Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree the Minister brings in his witnesses?

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses.

For the record, Mr. Minister, can you introduce your witnesses?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me, to my left, Mr. Jeff Polakoff, president and CEO of the NWT Housing Corporation; to my right I have Mr. Jeff Anderson, vice-president of finance with the NWT Housing Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. We are dealing with an information item with regards to page 3-10. Are there any questions? Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I’ve gone through the list of items identified within the capital estimates, they’re information items. It looks like there are one, two, three, four, five new units under the HELP program for construction in ‘11-12, and I know there’s been a lot of talk about the number of vacancies and the Minister has made some commitments in the House about getting rid of the vacancies that exist in the Northwest Territories, but over my three years in the Legislative Assembly, I have been to a number of the communities and a lot of the communities that I go to, there are vacant HELP units. What kind of analysis is done before we decide to put more HELP units in a community? On this list I see HELP units going into Aklavik, and I see HELP units going into Colville Lake, and I see HELP units going into Fort Simpson as well as Whati. So what kind of analysis is done to determine that that’s the community that needs a HELP unit? Has there been any analysis to see if there’s a demand for those HELP units? Are there people that will meet the programs as they exist to take those HELP units?

I think we need to be cautious about creating more and more units when we have some vacancies and the department’s already challenged with trying to get rid of some of the HELP units that we have. What kind of analysis goes into play, how do we decide where they go? Those types of things.

Mr. Minister.

Part of the analysis was through the Needs Survey. Part of it was some of the units that were put down, 2009, the Member’s correct; there has been a lot of HELP units on the ground. This number is actually a little lower than was originally planned for because of the number of vacant units we have on the ground. Part of the analysis was based on the Needs Survey. There’s still a need for some of the HELP units in some of the communities. That was the reason these particular communities were chosen.

I recognize compared to previous years there seem to be a lot less HELP units being built, which I think is fine given that you guys already have a number of vacancies. Once again, I recognize that you’re working hard to fill those vacancies. There are a lot of public housing replacement lines within this capital plan. Once again, I’m curious about the process. How does one determine when a public housing unit has reached the end of its lifecycle? How do we decide to dispose? Are they all destroyed? Are some simply renovated and their life is reinvigorated, if you will? Are some of them sold off to private interests? How do we determine and, I guess, further, do we maintain a particular size of housing stock? Do we plan on our housing stock for public housing to grow or do we maintain a static number over time that we’re replacing and fixing, replacing

and fixing, and disposing where appropriate? Just if you could help me understand that, that would be great.

There are condition ratings done every year on public housing units and if they reach a certain condition rating after they’ve been renovated a few times, then this one is determined that they’re taken out of stock.

The public housing replacement units that you see, as we bring in new public housing units into a community we have to remove a few of them to keep our public housing portfolio level because of declining O and M funding from CMHC. So we try to dispose of the units. I think we have 44 right now that we’re looking to dispose of.

We’ve had discussions with community groups. They’re quite interested in taking over some of these units. We’ve been able to broker a few deals with them, which worked well for the Housing Corporation. There’s an interest out there. I was at a couple of meetings recently where they expressed an interest in some of our older stock. Some we would sell off to the existing tenants, if the need arises.

Our last option would be to totally destroy the units. We’ll explore all other opportunities to put these units to use before we actually demolish them.

The next area I just have a few questions on is, I’m looking through your list and I’m seeing a lot more duplexes in here. I’ve been to a lot of communities over time and I guess I’m seeing more and more duplexes and more and more row housing type units over time. I think that’s a good direction for us to be going. I really feel that getting away from sort of single, stand-alone units over time will be better as far as maintenance costs, heating costs, if we can share some of the costs on a unit basis, construction costs, all of those types of things.

Does the Housing Corporation have a program where we’re going to be moving away from single, detached units to multi-family units? Is there any move towards apartments in some of these communities that can house a larger number of people for a far more economical cost? I mean, apartments that we can heat with a single sort of source rather than multiple sources. As far as reducing our overall costs but maximizing the number of people, have we thought about going down that direction? I see duplexes, great. Is there any thought about taking that next step to maybe more or larger multi-family dwellings?

The Member is very correct; that is the direction as a corporation that we’re trying to go. With the changing demographics across the Northwest Territories, we’re finding that we have a lot more younger people, small families, single people getting into units, and seniors. This is

one that works well with the declining funding. We need to try and be as efficient as possible.

There is a move towards more multi-family type units, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes. We have some nine-plexes in some of the communities. That is a direction that the Housing Corporation will go. It used to be that the bulk of our units were all detached units and awfully expensive to maintain and heat. If we can use a common system to heat the units, that is the direction that we are going. Especially with the changing demographics too, I think it’s the right direction to go.

I agree 100 percent. I think about our long-term costs, given that our funds are decreasing, I think it’s super important.

Which I think goes to the next thing and I know my colleague Mr. Bromley always asks these types of questions, and I know the Housing Corporation has already accepted a standard of construction that is higher than, say, the national standard. When it comes to what we’re doing, I mean, it’s a little bit more expensive to do some of these things now to increase our efficiencies, to go with pellets, to go with other things, woodstoves, all these types of things in our communities, but there is some real benefit to it. Forget the positive side of the environment and just think about the positive side of the costs. Huge opportunities here to help people reduce their costs which might address some of those things we were talking about earlier today.

I encourage you to continue to push the envelope as the Housing Corporation and move even further beyond what you’re doing as far as efficiencies in the homes, your construction techniques to help the people in those homes and ultimately you as the Housing Corporation reduce your costs, because it’s going to get harder and harder over time, especially with the decreasing funds.

I’m encouraging you to push and push and push and move further and further beyond the national standards for building to increase those efficiencies and opportunities to help us save costs. Just a comment. Doesn’t really need a response.

Just a comment. Mr. McLeod, if you want to reply, it’s up to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comment from the Member. It is something that as a corporation we’re constantly trying to keep on top of the technology and how we can improve the products we put on the ground. At the end of the day, you’re absolutely correct that there is a savings to the Housing Corporation. Obviously, it’s climate-friendly and a saving to the homeowners at the same time. It is something that we’re constantly trying to do, is improve the product we put on the ground.

Next on the list I have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for the Housing Corporation Minister. I wonder what type of cycle the construction is on. I see there’s materials, labour and land development. I’m wondering if the corporation is building on three-year cycles.

Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In some of the communities it would be a one-year cycle. In some of the smaller communities, as you can see from the list, materials are brought in one year and then labour. So it’s a two-year cycle, the short answer.

One of the needs at the community level has been a need to provide small, detached units for a certain type of homeownership clientele in the communities, and the Housing Corporation has been working on a small unit. There is a need for units that are maybe a little under 500 square feet to something that may be a little over 700 square feet. Those are fairly small units basically designed for a single person or a two-person family. I’m wondering if there’s been any progress made for that type of unit.

There has been some discussion amongst myself and the officials to put this out for an expression of interest to see what kind of feedback we get on it, what we get back for as far as pricing goes. I believe we kind of have a design in mind, one that we’re proposing to go with, and a lot of this was working with the Rural and Remote committee who felt there was a need for this particular type of unit in some of the smaller communities.

Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering if the Minister and the corporation have contemplated design-build for this type of unit.

Well, we’re looking for more innovation. I mean, if somebody wanted to put in a proposal to do a design-build, I mean, we’re always looking at ways where we can get… At the end of the day, as long as we get a quality product out there, how we come about it, I don’t think that’s set in stone. If there’s an opportunity for someone out there to do a design-build, I mean, we’d obviously welcome that too. I think that would all be part of this expression of interest that we’re proposing to put out.

Staying on the same line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering if there are construction regulations, or standards, perhaps is a better term, that is preventing this unit from being delivered at an economical rate per square foot.

It has to meet standard building construction practices. It has to meet industry standards, but it is not one that is preventing us from getting it out there. We just need

to make sure that we get a quality product. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of work being done in the public housing area in the area of replacements and retrofit and possibly, well, replacement is new public housing units. I recognize that retrofits are just maintaining the same units and retrofitting them if they’re within economical repair, and the ones that are being replaced, my assumption is that they’re beyond economical repair. Is there any possibility that those units could be put essentially on the market for individuals that perhaps could do some renovations to the unit and keep the unit or the corporation assisting maybe this type of clientele who would go for the smaller unit? Some of these units, the detached units that are being replaced may be the right size unit. I’m wondering what types of discussions has the Minister had with the corporation in that area of the disposition of the units that are being replaced.

Mr. Chair, we’re looking to dispose of some of the old units that we’ve written off, and as I mentioned to Member Abernethy, the last thing that we want to do is demolish them if there’s an opportunity for someone that might want one of these units. You know, at the end of the day, we’ve written them off because they’re beyond economical repair, so obviously it’s going to be an as-is, where-is, and Housing completely out of the picture. On the other hand, they’re going to need to be able to maintain the unit as far as looking after all the utilities and that goes.

We’re looking at different ways of how we can dispose of the units without having to demolish them, because we know in today’s environment we don’t want to be seen as going into a community and demolishing units that there’s a possibility that these units could be put to some use.

That’s one of the reasons that we had discussions with and been approached by communities that want to take on some of these old units. They understand that they’ll be getting them on an as-is, where-is basis. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, on the retrofit of public housing units, can the Minister tell me if there’s been any discussion with the corporation on the disposition of materials that are coming off the units that are being retrofitted, possibly to give the materials to individual homeowners that may otherwise not be eligible for regular repair programs? In a sense, for clarity, I’m saying that if they take replacing the siding with a better grade of siding on the retrofit of these public housing units, can that siding be given to an individual or individuals in the communities that are otherwise not eligible for any assistance through the Housing Corporation due to various reasons? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have heard of stories where a contractor would be taking a unit apart and are approached for some of the materials that are coming apart. For the most part, I mean, it’s the contractor’s responsibility to dispose of this material and if they can give it away or if somebody comes and takes it, then that would be something to do.

We could probably have the discussion of maybe making it a condition of the contracts where houses are being retrofitted that they allow people to come and take the material. I’ve heard of cases where contractors allow people to actually take the unit apart and just keep whatever they salvage out of it, which worked well for a lot of people. It is something. We hear the term, “thinking outside the box” and “doing things differently,” “being a little innovative,” and if this is one of the ways that we can assist in helping people using some of the old material, then it’s something that we would consider.

I encourage the Minister to put that provision in the contracts. I think it’s very important. There are a small percentage of people in the communities that could use those materials and assist their own housing needs even though they may not be eligible for the regular programs. Thank you.

I will take the Member’s advice and in my discussions with the officials when we’re done this process, we’ll look at making it a condition of the contract where it’s appropriate and where it would help people in the communities. Thank you.

Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just ask a few questions about the plans for Dettah and Ndilo and the situation there. I understand, from the material provided by the Minister, that there will be 13 retrofits planned and four new units for Dettah/Ndilo next year, 2011-12. Are these units on this plan completely separate from those scheduled for the 2010-12 year? Thank you.

Minister of Housing.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct; they are completely separate from the ones that are going there now. Thank you.

Thanks for that confirmation. We are seven months into the year 2011. The last I understood, the units planned for this year had not started construction. Obviously, we are into the winter season now. I am wondering, first of all, what is the status of construction for the 2010-11 year. What are the expectations for carryover into 2011-12?

Mr. Chairman, we are just in the process of trying to finalize some of the

contractual details. That is one of the challenges we face when we enter into these particular type of contracts. The Member is correct again; there will obviously have to be some carryover into the next fiscal year. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I realize there are challenges and in negotiating a construction by local businesses I hope that is a policy of the Housing Corporation throughout the Northwest Territories. I certainly appreciate any progress on that front, because I think that work is obviously quite critical to the communities.

I also understand that crucial delays can happen in Cabinet decisions during the prime construction season. I think that is something that the Minister might take up to see if progress can be made and the timing of those decisions. What are the cost implications for construction during the winter as opposed to during a more appropriate construction season? Will that affect the amount of projects that are able to be completed? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that would depend on some of the terms of the contract. There are many cases. There are some cases where there are cold weather clauses that kick in. If you are building in a particular type of year, obviously the cost is going to be higher. It is a cost that is the cost of doing business in winter when the construction season is a lot different. There will be costs. As to exactly how much, we wouldn’t be able to give that information to the Member until after these are completed or we make some progress on them, then we will have a fairly good idea of the actual cost of this. I will be willing to share that with the Member. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for those comments from the Minister. I think, Mr. Chairman, this highlights a situation that we faced in all of our infrastructure in other departments. I think the government has been quite progressive. They have had an infrastructure subcommittee. I believe the deputy ministers tuned up that process quite a bit. We also, as a House, have implemented a new process for our capital budget. That has allowed that implementation.

I am wondering, it is different for the Housing Corporation, I understand. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this now, but my understanding is that we don’t actually approve this budget until perhaps the winter session because it is somehow related to O and M.

I suppose this is a convoluted way of saying it would be great if we could begin negotiation now with the sort of okay of the House on this budget so that we don’t have these construction delays and higher costs during the 2011-12 season. Is the Minister working on this? Is there any solution to this dilemma in sight that we could actually allow negotiations to...

Again, horribly important here to get our local businesses and people employed. They sometimes take longer to negotiate. We are talking capacity building and another very important and identified role of this government. Is there potential? Is the Minister thinking about how we can tune up this approval process and budgeting process to allow that early discussion and negotiation to happen? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Member raises a very good point. It is a concern that we have heard from Mr. Chairman himself on the process. We feel that with presenting our budget now, or as an information item for next year, will give us a head start on the planning. Members will have a fairly good idea of the project that we are planning, because you used to not be able to see this until the actual budget in budget session and then you approved it then, and then the planning started. That is the reason we have had so many delays and carryovers. Now, as part of this process, we can start the planning right now, have everything in place pending approval of our budget, because ours is a contribution through Finance. We see this as an important first step.

I think we will continue to improve on that. I think we are going to see the delivery of our infrastructure probably improve dramatically by using this process, presenting it to committee as an information item, having committee’s input on it and then, once we are done this process, we start the planning instead of waiting for five months from now to start the planning.

That is one of the reasons we have run into so many delays in the past where we have had materials going into the community on the last barge when the snow is there. I think this is going to prevent us from doing a lot of that. We have started the process, Mr. Bromley. We see it as an opportunity to make a great improvement on the time and delivery of our infrastructure. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that is good news indeed. I understand it allows the planning. You have to reserve space for shipping and do the planning for ordering and so on. Does it allow negotiation of contracts for construction? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it does allow us for earlier tendering. Then if there are expressions of interest out there for negotiated contracts early enough, then we can start the process a lot earlier using this process that we are in now. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that is good news. I guess two things that I would appreciate it if the Minister could keep working on this to fully realize those opportunities, perhaps working with the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister working perhaps through local housing organizations? What is the

outreach process for early notice to local businesses or community development corporations, if that is what they are called and so on, to ensure that they are alert to this possibility of early negotiation a year ahead of time or whatever? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, through our district offices, we try to get the information out there as quickly as possible and, again, having a pretty good idea of the potential projects for the next building season will give us an opportunity to get some of the information out there quicker so we can, if there are any expressions of interest out there, we would obviously hear about those a lot sooner.

The infrastructure budget is obviously a tabled item, so the information is available and will be available, so they would be able to realize the number of projects that might be coming out in their particular region. Whereas before you almost had to wait until the budget session in February/March to see what was coming to your region during the summer construction season. This process here is going to give us a good head start on being able to accomplish things a lot quicker and get things out there, get materials or everything in place and be ready to build at the beginning of the building season instead of at the end. Thank you.

Thank you. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to review the infrastructure investment by the NWT Housing Corporation. In my riding, of course, this is one of the regions with the highest core need. So I’m interested to see how the corporation is addressing that fact in the capital plan that’s before us, Mr. Chair. If I could get the Minister to review some of the capital expenditures for the Nahendeh riding just to see how it reflects to address the core need that’s there. I’m just kind of counting quickly and by comparison to other ridings, I don’t see that much, but perhaps there’s more in the works. Perhaps the Minister can explain how they’re addressing the core needs in the Nahendeh riding with this capital infrastructure investment that’s before us.

Minister of Housing, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of the projects here that are going to the Member’s riding – I mean, he’s seen the numbers here -- there’s been a huge improvement in, actually, the repair dollars, the CARE dollars that are going into the Member’s riding. Then there’s some M and I that’s happening. So this is just some of the infrastructure that’s going on the ground. We felt that with putting more money into CARE, we’d be addressing some of the issues that were

identified through the core needs study survey. Thank you.

The Minister must be talking about some O and M dollars, because I don’t see the amount of repair dollars reflected in the pages that are before me. Maybe the Minister can just clarify that? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister, can you clarify or do you have that information available for Mr. Menicoche so he can maybe get a copy of that? Mr. Minister.

We can provide the information to the Member. We’ve got about $1.2 million in CARE. The Member is correct; it is through the program delivery. So that’s on top of the infrastructure that’s going into the Member’s riding. There’s approximately $1.2 million earmarked for CARE. Then we’ve got preventative maintenance money, but I can provide some information to the Member as to exactly what’s going into his riding. Thank you.

One of the ways, if you’re going to create a study there, Mr. Chair, I believe that you should address those needs and we’ll certainly have that discussion when we talk about the business planning for 2011-12, Mr. Chair. But in terms of this budget, it’s not really reflective of the identified core need. I was very pleased to see that study, because that study actually only confirmed what my constituents and I have been telling the Housing ministry for years and years, that these needs have to be addressed. In fact, when I go to Fort Liard, they’re saying that they actually need 30 homes to replace. What’s there doesn’t address the accommodation issue, it only replaces what’s there. There’s still overcrowding if we replace that many homes, and that’s the kind of action that I certainly would like to see and it’s just not reflective in this capital budget. So I’d like the Minister to comment on that. As well, why aren’t they using their own facts and figures to address shortages in certain ridings? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We feel like we’re starting to take into account some of the numbers from the Needs Survey. I think in the Member’s riding, a lot of his communities don’t have public housing or local housing authorities and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges we face there. I think there’s a lot of people that say there’s a high need for public housing. So we’ll obviously have more of a discussion during the budget session and to some of the money, and I think I’ll be able to provide the Member with a lot of the investment that’s going on into his riding.

But I feel we’re making an attempt to deal with the numbers from the Needs Survey and we’ll continue to do that in the future, because, as I’ve stated in the House on a number of occasions, that we’re using the Needs Survey to start allocating some of

our funds for homeownership and public housing into the places where it’s most needed. Obviously, the Member has one of the highest needs, if not the highest need, I believe, in the NWT. So we’re starting the process and I think it’s one that will be improved upon. Thank you.

I’m pleased to hear that from the Minister and I’ll continue to raise the issue and press the issue. I look forward to the discussion in the business plans early in the new year.

Just going down the list, perhaps the Minister can describe the four-unit four-plex building purchase in Fort Liard. Exactly what that is?

I’ll let Mr. Anderson respond to that.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. That kind of clarifies it to me. That four-plex building, I’m glad to see that it’s back on-line and is being utilized. It’s something that the community of Fort Liard has certainly wanted to see up and running again.

Just in terms of Wrigley, the two units, the duplex, this says replacement of the current public housing unit. Maybe the Minister can comment on that as well.

Minister of Housing.

That’s exactly what it says there, Mr. Chair. It’s the replacement of two public housing units.

Mr. Chair, just in terms of Fort Simpson, maybe the Minister can describe what the plan is for the one unit and two lot developments that are there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The one is a HELP unit. It’s a one unit detached. The second one is another HELP unit or land development. Two of them are land developments. So two are lot developments and one is a HELP unit, the one unit detached. Thank you.

What exactly does lot development mean? Is it the same lot that the unit’s going on so there’s only one other lot being developed, or what’s the process with the lot development?

No, these are lots that we’re acquiring for future development. In some of the communities that we go into, we have to identify

and try and obtain lots ahead of time so we can develop them. So when we go back in the next year and go out for tender or have units to build and we actually have lots to put them on instead of in some of the communities we’re told we should come in a year early and develop some of the lots, because the ground could be swampy and you need time to settle that. That’s exactly what this is. It’s just developing the lots for future use.

Thank you. Just for the Minister, you did offer up some information to Mr. Menicoche, so maybe it’s possible if you have it with you to share it with the Clerk so we can circulate it. It might be helpful to the other Members. The information that you said you would provide to the Member, maybe you can also provide that to committee or to the Members in the House and get that to us. Next on the list I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions with regard to the housing capital for Yellowknife. I note that there’s a multi-unit building purchase and then there’s a 12-unit retrofit. I wonder if I could know how many units, first of all, are in that replacement for the multi-unit purchase and the location of that.

Minister McLeod.

I’ll have Mr. Anderson respond to that.

Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Bisaro.

I appreciate the information. I would like to know, if I could, where in the city these two projects will be located.

Mr. McLeod.

I was just commenting to the official that we put in multi-unit purchase. We should have actually made it a little easier by just putting duplex because that’s exactly what it was. I apologize for that and we’ll make sure that doesn’t happen again.

The fact of the matter is we’re looking for a duplex to purchase. We haven’t identified one yet. This is money that’s earmarked for the possible purchase of a duplex.

And the other project, where is it located?

These have not been identified yet. These are with the public housing inventory with the Yellowknife Housing Authority and they would identify the projects. We will budget the money and they will identify the projects.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. McLeod.

Oh, okay.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. McLeod.

Oh.

Ms. Bisaro.

Just one last question, I guess. Part of my riding includes Sissons Court, which has quite a number of public housing units. I wonder if the Minister could advise the status of those units in terms of their repair or lack of repair, basically an evaluation of their need for how good are they. Do they need repairs? When are they likely to be renovated and retrofitted?

Unfortunately we don’t have that. I will follow up with the Member. Part of the 12 units, once we find out where those units actually are, some of them could be amongst the units that the Member is speaking about. I will get the proper information and I will share it with the Member.

I lied. I said I had one last question but I do have another one.

Quite often I’ve heard Members talking about the practice of putting out a tender for housing units and it’s put out as supply, ship and erect. I gather that has quite an impact on smaller communities in that businesses within the smaller community cannot do that whole contract of supply, ship and erect. So has the Housing Corporation changed their policy of tendering housing projects so that they could be split into possibly supply and ship and then a second contract for just the erection of the units?

We have heard that. We have taken the message to heart and we are planning on doing some contracts, particularly in the smaller communities, with just labour only and just putting the supply/ship, then we’ll have the labour as a separate contract.

I guess I heard the Minister say that we will do that. Is there a timeline on this? I’ve heard this for quite a while. I would have thought that if the Housing Corporation was going to do it, it would have been something they would have considered and have started already. When might

we be able to see these contracts split into two parts?

With this budget and information that we’re putting before you, a lot of these ones, when the construction comes out or the tenders come out this next building season, which is this summer, you’ll see a lot of them where it’s just labour only.

Next on the list I have Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall I like what I see for the three communities of Paulatuk, Tuktoyaktuk and Ulukhaktok. But I’d like to ask the Minister what his plans are for Sachs Harbour in regard to getting some new units put into the community.

Mr. McLeod.

I have had discussions with the officials about the possibility of allocating a unit to Sachs Harbour. We’ll continue to have those discussions. If we find that we’re able to do it, then we’ll see what we can do about getting a unit into Sachs Harbour this coming building season.

Just in regard to that, I see on the capital plan that we have for the upcoming season, that you have some communities with five duplexes being built. Sorry, six duplexes being built. With the community of Sachs Harbour, the assessment that was done to the community I think that was not accurate. We have young families growing up needing places to stay and I think this unit, if we could get a four-plex into the community sooner rather than later, what are the chances of getting a four-plex put on this year’s business plan?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We realize the demographics are changing and we’re going to have to, we say we’re going to use the Community Housing Needs Survey as a basis for allocating infrastructure and this is something we’re going to have to look at.

I did commit to the Member, I said one unit. The Member was referring to one four-plex unit and I meant one unit. Give an inch, take a mile. Obviously it’s something that we’re going to have to look at.

We have the information before you. There are reasons that other communities got the number of units they did. The one community there was serious structural problems that may have been quite dangerous to the people that are living there. It was determined that these come down and the duplexes go up in their place, because we are going to more of a multi-unit type facility.

As far as getting it onto this budget, we’ve allocated all that we have right now. If there are opportunities to make some adjustments, we’d have to have a look at that.

Myself, I looked through the proposed acquisition plan. There’s nothing there for Sachs Harbour. That’s why I’m asking if we can get something put into the acquisition plan for the community. Not only that, there’s a HELP unit retrofit being done next year. I think something has to be done this year because the unit is needed in the community.

Just going back last year on the program for the professional housing unit, say for instance the community corp and any of the communities that wanted to take on professional housing for the people coming in, nurses, teachers, for a unit like that, is that program still available to those outlying communities?

I’m sorry; if I could ask the Member to repeat his question. I think it was something to do with staff housing, housing for staff in the communities and if there’s opportunity for the local communities to take advantage of these. If he could just repeat that, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Jacobson, if we could please get you to restate your question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is in regard to professional people coming into the community, doctors, nurses, teachers, and stuff, taking units away from the community. The four-plex that I’m asking for in the community for professional housing, is that program still available for professional housing to provide for outlying people coming to the communities for work?

There’s always an opportunity for the community to approach the corporation and try to secure some kind of program to put a four-plex into the community. There are loan guarantees that the corporation has used in the past. We’ve got a $25,000-a-door incentive that we offer to communities that try to provide housing for staff. So the opportunities are there. We’re always willing to sit and listen to what the communities propose.

I’m up to two four-plexes now in the community of Sachs Harbour. It’s good.

I know. We are going to pay for one. But anyways. The one four-plex that I’m asking for in the community for the young families growing up in the community, is it possible to get that into the community this year for this summer’s construction?

No. Then he’ll say he’s got three four-plexes. No, Mr. Chairman, I said our budget’s been allocated. Our infrastructure’s been allocated. If there’s opportunity, if something changes and there’s an opportunity to possibly be

looking at working with Mr. Jacobson to get a unit into his particular community, then that is what I will commit to do.

Could I ask the Minister if it’s possible to change the HELP unit to a four-plex? Because that HELP unit is not helping.

This is not actually a HELP unit that’s being built there. It’s a retrofit to an existing HELP unit.

I look at all the business acquisitions that we have going on for some of the communities. I think again last year I had a commitment for Sachs Harbour in getting a unit in there. I think that obviously it’s not going to happen. I really want to work with the Minister to try to get two units in there, one for professional housing and one for the community, so we’re not so tied up for the young families and professionals that are trying to come into the community to provide a service for our people. I think if it’s possible with the Minister… I’m going to invite the Minister into the community to meet with the local representatives to try to get these units on the go. Try to work together to get the two units into the community if possible and we just have to take one away from somewhere. It looks like Yellowknife has lots and other communities have lots.

---Interjection

We need something in Sachs Harbour. We have been bypassed long enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would be more willing to accept the Member’s invitation to visit his community and it gives me an opportunity to listen to their concerns and see what our product is on the ground there.

Going back to the Member’s wish for a four-plex, he was talking about the community taking the initiative and that is something that I have committed to the Member, that as a corporation we are always willing to listen to the communities and some of the initiatives that they come up with and we will do what we can to work with them, realizing that some of the units that they want to put on the ground, we are there to assist whenever possible. Thank you.