Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation’s main estimates for the fiscal year 2010-2011, which requests a total GNWT contribution of $37.122 million. This is a decrease of 1.8 percent from the 2009-2010 Main Estimates.

Including revenue sources such as client rent, public housing subsidy, CMHC cost-shared funds and lease and mortgage payments from clients, the Housing Corporation will have approximately $138 million available to spend on housing in the Northwest Territories in 2010-2011.

Federal funding for housing programs in the Northwest Territories in 2010-2011 will total over $43 million. As Members are aware, 2010-2011 represents the final year of federal investments in housing in the Northwest Territories as part of its stimulus package to boost the Canadian economy. This funding accounts for $29 million of the total federal investment in housing in the NWT this year. This government has committed to match this funding through the GNWT’s contribution to the Housing Corporation. Canada has also provided a further $4 million in unilateral program funding through programs to support our non-profit and cooperative housing sector, $2 million for the modernization and improvement of public housing and a further $500,000 for renovations through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP). In addition, this funding includes approximately $9 million of debt recovery related to the repayment of cost-shared mortgage with CMHC.

Mr. Chair, this funding will be utilized in a number of areas, including program and capital delivery, public and social housing operations, debt repayment and administrative costs. The Housing Corporation will once again provide approximately $22 million in homeownership and repair assistance through its Housing Choices Homeownership Programs. Of this $22 million, $9 million will be

used to build 36 new units for delivery through the Homeownership Entry Level Program (HELP). Eight million will be invested in repairs and renovations to private homes through the Contributing Assistance for Repairs and Enhancements program (CARE), which includes a $2 million additional investment under the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative to fund repairs for lower-income households. The remaining funding of $5 million will support homeownership assistance through the Providing Assistance for Territorial Homeownership program (PATH), CMHC repair programs, third-party non-profit renovations, and preventative maintenance activities. Our Homeownership Programs are designed to ensure that the housing programs and services we provide foster client independence and respond directly to client needs in a manner consistent with our resources.

In an effort to strengthen the long-term viability of our public housing stock, the Housing Corporation will invest $13 million to construct approximately 46 replacement public housing units. We continue to promote the sale of existing public housing units as part of this replacement process. We will invest just over $18 million in the existing public housing stock, including $15 million in major modernization and improvement projects, $3 million in minor modernization and improvements, and $230,000 for mobile equipment expenditures. As part of the modernization and improvement plan, $1 million identified through the GNWT’s Energy Investment Plan will focus on energy assessments and retrofits of the public housing portfolio.

As always, the corporation’s largest expenditure is related to the delivery of the Public Housing Program in our communities. The approximate 2,400 units in our public housing inventory cost $40 million to operate each year. A large portion of this funding is provided to LHOs through the Public Housing Rental Subsidy which, as Members know, will be transferred back to the Housing Corporation during the coming fiscal year. Approximately $5 million is collected through tenant rents. Our ability to deliver the Public Housing Program depends on the rent we collect and it is important for our tenants to play their part in the program’s success by undergoing income assessments and paying the portion of rent required based on their income.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that Canada is an important funding partner required to support the efforts of this government to improve housing conditions in our Territory. As noted previously, at the end of 2010-2011, funding for new construction under the Economic Action Plan will cease, and changes will be made to federal programs such as RRAP and AHI. Earlier in this session, I outlined new housing need data showing an increase in our core housing need from 16 percent to 19 percent over the past five years in spite of significant investments by both

levels of government. If we are to continue to make progress in improving housing conditions across our Territory, it will be critical for us to put pressure on the federal government to continue to invest in northern housing while also recognizing that we can do more as a government to improve housing conditions on our own. I, along with my territorial counterparts, have called for a new approach to northern housing that would provide long-term predictable funding to the Territories, based on need rather than population, and including funds to not only build housing but to operate and maintain them as well. I see this as a critical step in making improvements to our communities and improving the lives of our residents.

In closing, it should be noted that we are pleased with the federal government’s commitment to the North through housing investments. The sustainability of our existing public housing stock, however, will be at risk if we are unable to secure a long-term funding commitment from the federal government. Once again this year, federal funding for the operation and maintenance of public housing has declined and it will continue to do so until lapsing completely in 2038. The annual impact of this decline is beginning to be felt more severely. The Housing Corporation recognizes this problem and is developing strategic approaches to deal with the decline of CMHC funding. These approaches will build on our own capacity to address these challenges as well as ongoing strategies to ensure that our public housing stock remains viable. Protection of these housing assets are critical as public housing is perhaps the single most important means we have to adequately, affordably and suitably house residents in the greatest need.

That concludes my opening remarks. At this time I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

With that, I’d like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in any witnesses.

Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.

Does committee agree?

With that, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me, to my left, Mr. Jeff Polakoff, president of the NWT Housing Corporation, and I have, to my right, Mr. Jeff Anderson, vice-president of Finance with the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Welcome, witnesses. General comments. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, under the Canada Economic Action Plan funds that have been and are being spent in the Northwest Territories and recognizing that we are losing our federal funding steadily with the levelling out at zero in 2038, are any of the Economic Action Plan dollars stimulus funds being directed to really build our capacity for building and maintaining our houses with local people and resources so that we can start to shoulder some of those things ourselves and circulate what dollars we do have in the communities instead of exporting them out of the NWT.

Mr. Lafferty, would you like to respond to the general comment?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. With a lot of the money that we’ve gotten from the Canada Economic Action Plan, a lot of it was going more towards the multi-family-type units where there would be a cost savings to maintain and operate. We’re starting to see a lot more of that within the Housing Corporation, but a good portion of the money that we did receive was to go towards doing the multi. Also, a lot of it was going towards some of the repairs needed in the community and we’ve had some communities say that they’ve never had so much work before from the Housing Corporation. A lot of that is due to the investment made by the federal government.

I realize these are general comments, so I’m trying to keep my questions general rather than as comments. I suppose my comment there would be I hope that we do maximize our opportunity for building capacity with these funds. Certainly we can’t help but generate jobs when we’re throwing $50 million out there. Some real focus on directing funds to build that capacity in meaningful ways other than just units on the ground, and I know that’s essential as well, could help.

Just my second one, really, is related. I’m happy to see we’re lobbying and I’m sure we’re being more effective in joining our voices with other northern jurisdictions on this, but certainly the federal government seems implacable at this point in time and we know they’re facing their own issues in terms of deficits and so on. I’m wondering just again what sort of contingency funding or contingency planning we’re doing to help prepare for that day. I know we’re 20-some years ahead here, so hopefully something will happen by then, but at the same time, our funds are going down year by year by year. We have gotten lucky over the last couple of years, which has really helped, but obviously our needs survey has shown that it

hasn’t been the answer completely. So we will be facing a tighter and tighter ship as we go on. I’m just wondering, does the Minister have any thoughts on what contingency planning we can be doing in the future on that. I’ll use some of my time on that.

Hopefully we’ll be around in 2038 to see it, well, not hit zero. I’m thinking, as I said before, part of our strategy is the design of our homes going to the more multi-unit-type homes. I think we may come to a point where we may have to make some hard decisions on how we provide houses. Are we a public housing provider? The homeownership, we’ll have to see that. The bottom line is we’d still like to secure funding from Canada for the operation and maintenance and we’ll continue to lobby them for that part. But I think it’s going to come to a point where maybe it’s a question of asking the Assembly for more money to replace some of the money that we’re losing to CMHC. We will have some hard decisions that we’ll have to make and we’ll have to sort out our priorities and see where we can best use what money that we have.

I understand there are some tough realities here. I think ultimately it comes down to the communities themselves. That’s the ultimate endpoint provider. I tip my hat to the City of Yellowknife for their Affordable Housing Initiative. I think it’s not a precise model for our smaller communities, but I think it’s a pretty good indication of some direction we could and should be going and focusing yet again on community capacity for dealing with some of these issues, because ultimately that’s where they end up residing. We can play a big, supportive role there, at least. That’s it. Thank you.

General comments. I’ll come out.

And next on the list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the Minister’s statement and also the housing programs, I note in this statement that he talked about promoting the sale of existing public housing units. I think that’s a great idea. I think we have something like 1,000 units that we’re trying to get rid of. I think the plan a number of years ago was 100 units a year for 10 years, take those dollars, reinvest it as one of the ways of dealing with the declining social funding from the federal government. Yet, I believe we have sold very few units. One of the major problems of that is we’ve overestimated the value of those assets and are expecting to get $80,000 or $90,000 for these units in our communities. No one will pay $80,000 or $90,000 for these old units which are over 35 and 40 years old.

I think we have to be realistic here. I think we should do whatever we can to deal hard-to-house people, people who are in the present system who do make a reasonable wage and can afford to maintain a unit, and have shown that they are able to pay their rent even through the economic rent system. That’s a frustration that we have. We have a lot of clients in public housing who can afford to maintain a home, but they get frustrated, too, because they see other people who aren’t in social housing get into public housing units that are being built. There are also units in our communities that are sitting vacant. I think the whole idea was to get people into those units, yet we have a lot of vacant units, especially the newer units that are coming on. We’re not doing anything from either end trying to get those units occupied by people who can show that they do have the capacity to maintain and operate these units.

Another issue that I didn’t really hear much of is the whole area, I know I raised it quite a few times, about people with disabilities in communities. I think that it was a pilot project tried in Yellowknife, but it has never gone to anywhere outside of Yellowknife to identify how this is especially designed for people with disabilities so that they can occupy these units, have it designed for their needs but, more importantly, have those units available, for we have high numbers of people with disabilities. I think it is crucial that we, as a government, seriously take a look at that. Again, it is something that I don’t see anywhere in the Minister’s statement.

The other area I think that we do have to realize in the areas dealing with the Department of Health and Social Services is seniors care facilities in communities regardless if it is permanent care, long-term care or basically just simply elders care facilities that make sense. As long as the numbers are there, we have the adequate number of people that we can put in these units and not build units just simply for the sake of building units. I think we have had some examples of that in other areas.

Again, I think that we do have to find a way of revamping the programs that we do have. I know that the Auditor General, a number of years ago, in the report, clearly stipulated the government has to find a system to do ongoing reviews of these housing programs and to ensure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, but more importantly, they are achieving the results we are hoping to achieve. I have raised the issue in this House in regards to how those programs and services are being delivered. I think that’s one of the biggest issues you hear from clients, especially in my riding. The income threshold that is used and in most cases they are refused because of their income. But yet, to operate and maintain a home in a community, especially in isolated communities, you have to have a decent income to operate and maintain those units. I think we have to be realistic

when we set these thresholds. Make sure that it is meeting the increases regardless if it is the price of fuel, the cost of maintaining and operating a home and have the ability to adjust those types of programs.

Every time the government needs a supp, they come forward because the price of fuel went up. They are looking at some reason that the cost to operate those units but we have to come forward. If any time the government justifies coming forward for a supp, needing more money for fuel increases, we should look at increasing the threshold for programs that the Housing Corporation delivers on the same argument. I think we have to develop programs with realistic numbers; numbers knowing that we have different costs associated with homeownership, the operational cost, the cost to maintain the homes in our smaller communities is very high and you do have to have a pretty reasonable income to maintain a home in a lot of our communities.

Again, I will leave that with the Minister. Maybe he can answer a couple of those questions, and then I have a few more after that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is right.; there was an effort to promote the sale of some of the existing public housing stock. We have managed to move a few. We have identified I think it is another 63 that could be sold. He is also correct that there was some concern with the cost of some of these units. We just have to make sure that a lot of the folks that maybe would buy these units would be able to maintain them. Some of them are older units. It is a concern there.

The vacant units is one that we hear obviously quite a bit about. In some communities we hear from folks there that have had units vacant in the community almost since the time they were built. We have taken steps to address some of that and find some solutions and to fill in these units. Our wish is to have folks that are able to qualify for the program be in the program, and that goes to another point that the Member raised on the income threshold. It is one area that when I first got the portfolio with the senior officials, I did say there was a gap of people that Members have been talking about for a long time that we need to address. Some of the smaller communities where folks are making a pretty decent wage, they are somehow over the income threshold and they fail to qualify even though we all know they’d be able to maintain their own unit.

So that is one that we are going to concentrate on for the next little bit. There is an ongoing policy review. We have one in 2010-2011 where we are

evaluating the Housing Choices programs. Obviously we would be discussing with committee and getting some feedback from them as to what they are hearing. We hear it quite a bit in the House. Also as part of this, there will be a review of the rent scale. The people with disabilities, we’ve doubled the amount of money we have available to convert houses to disabled access units. So they would be able to take us upon that money. We also have some designs and in some of the communities, the LHOs recognize that they have some disabled tenants and they take steps to try to address that.

I think I may have touched on most of the Member’s points and I will wait for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the other areas that the department should seriously consider is family size, especially when you start off as a single couple and then maybe you have a few children. What we are finding is it is leading to overcrowding A lot of people that got into Homeownership Program were basically newlyweds. In most cases, they might have had one child or something. A couple of years later, they have four children and the house is not designed for six people. Is there a possibility that the government can look at the programs wherever possible and instead of having to do a major retrofit of that unit by expanding the unit, if they could swap houses with the government... You are going to have other clients in the same predicament where they are newlywed couples. They are needing more than just a two-bedroom unit versus a house where you need a four-bedroom unit where you have a family with six people occupying that unit. I think there has to be some flexibility in our programs and services that we can in our communities, wherever possible, than having to have the people apply on a program where they’re going to have to go to the bank, get a major loan to expand their unit. It might make more sense just to swap out units between the Housing Corporation and the people, because they are our clients. They came to us for a program. They managed to get the credibility of going to the bank and sign onto the mortgage. Something this government has to look at on the progression of growth. You start off as a single couple, you have children, you have a family. As we grow, we have to look at housing with regard to a transitional period when you start off as a single person. Then you get married and you move through life. Eventually the whole cycle of housing has to be considered here.

I find it really, I wouldn’t say challenging, but for people in communities, especially families that realize their house is too small, they’ve got four kids and it was only designed for three people. We talk about the area of statistics and overcrowding, health conditions and everything else, that brings up the area of health care and not only the

affordability of housing but the adequacy of houses. I would like to ask the Minister if that’s something they could consider looking at in light of these units we have in our communities. It might make more sense to deal with somebody that already has the credibility with the banks, who has the track record of actually being on board, paying their mortgage. They’re getting ahead, but they just cannot get that assistance to expand their unit, which probably makes more sense to go to the house and say can we do a swap here. I believe we already do that in some cases, where we actually take back units and then basically offer them to other clients. I’d just like to ask the Minister if that’s something they can seriously consider. Thank you.

This was part of developing a local market where people in the communities become homeowners. So if there’s a deal that can be worked out between two homeowners, because you have people that would receive the unit when they had a fairly large family and then they’ve all moved out so there’s opportunity there. If a person owns their own home in the community and they realize that it may have gotten too small for them, if they’ve done all their forgivable part or if they’ve paid everything up, then there’s an opportunity for them if there’s a market there -- in some cases there is -- to sell their unit and maybe move into a bigger unit. But that was the whole idea of developing a local market.

I think we’ve seen cases in some of the communities where people have switched houses or someone’s had a smaller house, they’ve sold it and they’ve managed to get into a house, maybe where there was a quick claim. So there’s always opportunities like that and as long as the person is the absolute homeowner, then they have to agree to it and sometimes they’ll initiate the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to respond to some of the opening comments and the challenges of the NWT Housing Corporation. Of course, in the Ministerial statement a few days ago the Minister did mention about the stats in the Nahendeh riding that were one of the highest regions with regard to adequacy in our communities. In plain words, we’ve got lots of really old homes that require repairs. We’ve got lots of overcrowding, especially in Fort Liard. We do have lots of new homes coming up, I’ll grant that there, Mr. Chair, but the challenge is that in Fort Liard we’re not adding new homes, we’re just replacing the old ones. So we’re not really increasing the units. But at the same time, we are getting new units, which is a good thing for the community of Liard.

We still got a long way to go, particularly in Fort Liard. The need is still for an increase in public housing. I’ve got maybe half the community there that probably won’t be eligible for the HELP program of purchasing their own homes, but the need would definitely be public housing, I think. In my last discussions with the Hamlet of Fort Liard, we’re looking at at least 30 to 50 more units just to catch up to the population that’s there to replace the older homes and house the new younger generation. So I’d certainly like to work towards that.

The residents of Fort Liard continue to indicate to me about mould issues. Mould is still high there. There’s the black mould that’s really creating health problems, especially if you’ve got a household of six to 10 people, it only increases the ability of our people to get sicknesses and disease from this mould. So the mould strategy is still needed. I raised it in the House several times. I’m not too sure where we’ve been going towards that. And the houses that do have mould there, Mr. Chair, they probably need to replace the walls, replace the drywall, et cetera, doors, et cetera.

But these people, a lot of the people not only in Fort Liard but in many of the communities I represent, are in arrears. Arrears are really disputable. So people are saying, well, I’ve got a house but it wasn’t really fixed, so I stopped paying. Or else, yes, I did get a mortgage, or I got the repair program, but it wasn’t adequately fixed so I’m not paying back the loan. That kind of stuff. So, to me, actually, to the Corporation, on their books it certainly is an arrears, but for me it’s about appealing it and coming to some kind of dispute resolution where each individual client is going to take lots and lots of work, Mr. Chair. But I believe my constituents, that they have real concerns with the original construction, or original paperwork, or original additions, et cetera, and they really did have concerns. Even though I advise them that it’s probably not the best thing to stop paying, but still, they’re adamant and frustrated that no one’s come back to fix their light switch or finish painting. So they do have real concerns. At the same time, it disallows them from future programs.

The community of Wrigley, I’ve got about probably 10 or 12 homes that are not eligible for repairs and they’re badly needed repairs. The community of Wrigley had actually done a health assessment two years ago and took numerous photos of all the homes, of the dilapidated conditions. There’s even mould in Wrigley, as well. Inadequate flooring, furnaces, just a whole gamut of issues with each and every one of those houses. They do need repairs, but this whole arrears question is a barrier and the corporation does have their rules and guidelines.

So for me, I’ve always been pushing the appeals mechanism, the appeals process. Questioning the Minister in the House the other day, he did indicate that we are looking at establishing the appeals system. I’m hoping that, like last year, the commitment is the same, that we can have it up and running by April 1st . It was supposed to be

running by April 1st last year. But I believe that by

having an independent appeals system we can bring resolution to each individual, especially in the Nahendeh riding. A lot of my memos of support of constituents in each of the communities is actually an appeal to the corporation saying, look, you know, this went wrong, that’s why they’re not paying, or else they felt the paperwork wasn’t done.

So it’s going to take a lot of work, but I believe that with a strong initiative, that we can begin the process of addressing each individual’s concern and try to resolve them. At the same time, it will be a good opportunity to improve the living conditions of our constituents and our people in the regions and the communities. Also, it’s the level of arrears as well. If the arrears are nominal, $1,000 to $3,000 to $5,000, can we roll it into any new program? I know they’ve got a mortgage repayment program that’s quite successful that way. But if someone’s actually just applying for a repair program, is there room to actually add the $2,000 or $3,000 of arrears to that repair program, because it’s repayable anyways. I think that will go a long ways in having suitably repaired homes, good floors, et cetera.

That’s one of my thinking. That’s why I’m adamant. I’ve been pushing that appears process for almost six years as an MLA now, and I’d like to see us work towards that, Mr. Chair.

Just a little bit more on the arrears, Members have also spoken about arrears that are very, very old. So if the Minister is going to comment to my remarks here, if he can also address the fact of what efforts are being to change the NWT Housing Act to allow the corporation to write off some of these very, very old debts, because it’s probably good fiscal practice to do so. I don’t know any corporation that holds debt on their books forever. So there’s got to be a way to erase that. It will probably look better for accounting processes and as they deliberate their budgets. A lot of that debt, and it’s arrears to people, people might have programs 10, 15, 20 years ago. Even they don’t even remember they got arrears until they actually try to access Housing Corporation programming. There are many, many reasons to forgive debt. So all this has to be looked at. I believe that slight change in the NWT Housing Corporation Act of eliminating some of the arrears, eliminating some of the debt, that we can also move a long ways in helping our constituents and communities and regions in improving and allowing constituents to

access more NWT housing programs, which is the real reason why we’re here. I’m often criticized, as I travel through the region, that I cannot get the housing program.

We are getting new clients. They’re often working. They got income. But those that aren’t working are the ones that are really impacted. They’re the ones that have the homes that are in need of repairs. Those are the people that seem to be in overcrowded conditions. I really believe that we have to address this whole area of arrears and establish the appeal process. At the same time I think that will reduce a lot of the, I hate to say the word “negativity” towards the Housing Corporation, but I think it’s more the barrier that’s there. Front-line workers are governed by our guidelines and procedures so they do have to say no, but at the same time, we as legislators can work with government and the Minister to try to make those changes that make lives a little bit better for our people

With that, I don’t mind if I get some comments from the Minister with regard to those issues.