EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Our request to the federal minister was for 500 housing units over the two-year period that this money is available, 250 units per year.
We are optimistic, but I wouldn’t take that to the bank. That is what our request was. In addition to that we have also asked for renovations to houses as well as a federal contribution towards the Materials Assistance Program that we have some money in this budget for.
Chairman: Thank you Mr. Scott.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for that answer.
I guess the nature of the business that you are in is that you have to be optimistic and see the cup as half full rather than half empty.
These are pretty daunting statistics that we are talking about every year.
Unless we address them somewhere and get those resources from somewhere they will just continue to get worse and worse. I don’t even want to think of where we will be in five years if we don’t get immediate help.
I’m hoping that your meeting with Mr. Fontana went favourably, although I’m sure he has competing demands on the $1.6 billion that you are talking about.
I wanted to ask some questions specific to page L-6.
Do you have a community by community list of the public and social housing requirements that we require in Nunavut, like what Cambridge Bay needs, what Arviat needs?
In your own information we need 3,000 new units to alleviate existing demands. So you must have the numbers by community somewhere.
Is that information available?
We don’t have that list right now but we can certainly look at putting that together sometime.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Minister Akesuk.
Can I get a commitment that you will provide that information?
I can see looking at the numbers that this 3,000 is just a ballpark number.
I’d like to know if it’s based on hard, cold data and the 273 houses that they are projecting per year, how do you arrive at figures like that? Can I get a commitment from the minister that that information will be provided to us?
As long as it’s not next week; probably in the next sitting, or even after the next sitting; it’s a lot of work to put together. We have 80 PYs that are very busy.
We want to make sure that we do what the MLAs want. We’ll do our very best to come up with the list.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this day and age of computers and databases, and so on and so forth, you just punch a key in and you have all that information.
I know you had to put that information together for your strategy, and then the authors of the outlook used it.
I was just assuming that you have it somewhere.
It is based on data that you got from the local housing organizations, and your district housing office.
I look forward to getting that.
I’m hoping that I could get that information not tomorrow, maybe not next week. I don’t want to get it at a point of time where it is of no use to me. I want to get it within the next two to three months so we could look at it and start thinking about things.
I’m sure that members of my standing committee would be interested in getting that information as well.
Another question that I have is related to the 20 houses.
Last year, you presented a methodology that was based on four formulas that you somehow collated and then you arrived at a ranking system for 23 communities, and then we approved funding for the housing last year for several communities and now you’re proposing ten this year.
Are you using the same methodology?
Are you moving the next ten communities up the list? Is that how you did it?
And then there will be six communities remaining, five or six?
I remember Cambridge Bay was the 23rd, it was right down at the bottom.
Will this be the methodology or formula that you continue to use this year and subsequent years to allocate 20 houses this year, it might only be ten houses next year, for all we know. Can I get a comment from the minister on that?
Chairman: When you are asking your questions, please go through the Chair, that way the minister will answer and the answers will be on record.
Rather than just waiting for yes and no.
That is the way we are going to do it, unless we get the 250 houses that we want to build next year from the federal government, we’ll certainly look at different ways of making sure that we get houses in every community. I think that’s what we are going to do.
We want to at least get houses in every community. It started last year, or a couple of years ago, going on this year and the next year. That is what we’ll do.
Then again, if the federal government decides to give us money to build houses for the next couple of years; that’s 500 units. We’ll look into it. We are making sure that everybody gets their fair share of houses.
Based on what we’ve seen today from the federal government I am not going to hold my breath on the 500 houses.
The fact remains that we are probably going to get short changed again.
I’d like to be an optimist and see that the cup is half full but then there is the reality.
I guess the reality leads to my next question for the minister.
If there are no federal dollars that come into Nunavut, where does the Government of Nunavut, or Nunavut Housing Corporation start cutting so that we have funds available to provide more houses in our communities in future years?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: I think we have started. The new housing policy will probably help us out to build more houses in the future.
That will benefit towards public houses and that’s what we are trying to do is trying to promote homeownership to have people build their own houses. Maybe with the savings that we gather, we probably could build more houses.
Again, $5 million is not enough and it’s coming from the government, and there’s not a penny from the federal government that we are building these 20 units.
Hopefully, we will have an idea of how we could build houses in the future from the government and we don’t want to stop until, I don’t think we will ever stop trying to build houses in Nunavut.
Again, the homeownership program will probably help us, in the long run, to have more houses and public houses built.
I thank the minister for those points.
Again, I mentioned yesterday, in my opening comments, homeownership isn’t for everybody. I appreciate that you are providing funds for new homeowners, but it’s a very expensive proposition, a lot of responsibilities, and then you have mortgage payments, interest payments, you have your fuel costs, power costs, utilities costs, insurance costs, and then your annual maintenance cost, which could be quite substantial. To be able to own a house, you have to have a job and most of the good jobs are already taken across Nunavut.
We are going to have to depend a lot on the private sectors to start developing and creating jobs. You have to get all of the departments involved to get the economy rolling so that you can put some people to work who can afford to buy or build their own homes.
What the reality is, at some point, we are probably going to be faced with having to maybe cut in various departments so as to be able to provide housing for people in Nunavut, public and social housing. We can’t have entire families, lets say three generations of a family all living in a little 900 square foot house. It’s just not acceptable.
We will be faced with those kinds of tough decisions if we can’t get any serious help from the federal government.
That was just a closing comment, Mr. Chairman, it’s not really a question.
I want to give the minister a chance to provide that detailed information to exactly which communities, I never mentioned to him, but he did say how many each, considering the community orally presented a contained number of units at all.
That is important to us before we approve the item on this page. Would the minister approve or agree if we can skip that line item and leave it to the last detail to tidy it up?
The reason for asking that question is because the number of units proposed for the amount of money allocated here, it begs the question, really.
Will these units be labour-only or will they be designed, shipped, and built by a contractor because one will obviously have an impact on what the unit cost of those buildings will be.
So, that’s my first question: will they be labour-only or a mix of the two?
I will get Mr. Scott to answer that question and I have the list here. So, I will be handing that over to him.
Mr. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plan, right now, is to use our material/supply contracts to purchase the material and ship them into the communities, and then go with a separate labour-only contract with the construction of the duplexes.
Because the projects are small; there are only two, two bedroom duplexes, we’d like to look at doing as many community based projects as we can in these 10 communities, using possibly our Local Housing Organization as a general contractor, or through a project authority agreement similar to what we did in Chesterfield Inlet, or Repulse Bay, or even the Clyde River project from last year.
Yes, that response was clear. I appreciate the President of the Housing Corporation.
My next question is also related to that.
One is that when the Housing Corporation decides that they will only mainly be labour only, obviously someone has to do the design, as well as choose supplies.
How are the supplies determined when the government chooses to go through labour only contracts, or build provisions for these units in Nunavut?
We go through a public tender process.
Mr. Curley: Yes, the public tender process, is that guided by the NNI Policy, mainly the companies that are listed in the NNI Policy of the government, qualifies to be awarded the successful bid?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Akesuk.
Yes, we follow the NNI Policy.
What I’m trying to arrive at is whether or not, when you follow the NNI, are there actually companies that actually have the capacity to supply you the value or the competitive prices that are available in the market place?
Or, do you simply try to satisfy the NNI government policy instead of getting value for their money through the... getting the best buck for the dollar? Is that the component? Or is it: just really try to satisfy the NNI Policy, whether or not the company that are not in the list, obviously normally, probably bid somehow?
So, I would like the minister to articulate a bit more rather just saying yes and no answers.
I thought yes and no answers were good.  When they ask questions yes or no, I tried my best.
I guess I’ll direct the President to answer that question.
We’ve used the public tendering process, public advertising the material tenders, and we always have.
And, particularly for the last two years, two years ago, Iglu Supplies was the successful bidder, and this past year it was Umingmak Supplies was the successful bidder.
Iglu is not a northern, not an NNI or northern supplier. Umingmak is. We’ve provided copies of our tender documents for the material supplied to some of the larger national building supply companies.
Some of them have approached us for copies of our tenders and that. None of them have ever submitted. It’s always... the last two years it’s only been Iglu and Umingmak that have submitted tender responses to our call for public tender.
Yes, I appreciate the answer.
I know that there’s one major supplier in the eastern part of Canada like Montreal, I don’t know whether they are planning to supply Baffin Island communities or not everyday.
Mr. Scott could probably explain to that. I don’t want to give the name.
What I’m trying to get at is by the way of saving costs of shipping and getting materials, and reducing costs of building, the buying component is important. Do we need to find ways to restructure the market or whatever, or is that too much of a task in asking the government because our legislature got a public expenditure that we need some information of exactly whether or not the delivery and supply; the supplier, whether or not they are an actual competitor, or is the Housing Corporation hindered by the policy or not in reducing costs?
These are the things that we want to know because, not that we are going to chase you with a knife, but eventually, somehow, those studies should really be conducted further so that there’s justification for public expenditure are really proved now as the best possible way.
So, my question is: currently, is the policy that’s crafted by the Housing Corporation is working, in your view?
If not, if there needs to be any changes with respect to contracting supplies? Will the minister indicate whether or not, to the House, that he would refer it to looking into that further to provide options for buying material from the competitive companies, whether or not they are northern-based or southern-based?
We will look into that, and I would like Mr. Scott to respond to the question.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we are looking at is changing from crating our material to containerizing.
This is as a result of one of our concerns in not being able to attract other suppliers, other than the two major suppliers that have been bidding on our supply tenders.
I think part of the reason the large national companies haven’t engaged in tendering on our material tenders is because they are not familiar with the process of transhipping and using the ports in Montreal and Hay River, in particular. If we remove that, maybe the training requirement or the requirement to package our material goods, I think we can attract more interest from the national companies.
I appreciate the frankness of the response.
The people that do have a relationship with the northern suppliers, as well as the building contractors, I think they have a pretty good understanding of the market. So, they can hire or make partnerships with the major suppliers. That’s what I’m getting at.
Not just that the big companies will take over the supplying, but our northern contractors...
Right now, the way NNI Policy invites southerners to come and joint venture with them, our investors in communities are now able to go down and we pick up some partnership deals with those companies. That’s what I’m trying to get at.
I think there could be a mix of the two to make the best value for the money for building housing units; can reduce the cost of building units in Nunavut.
My other question has to do with the Tenant to Owner Program.
I appreciate that program but I also have a similar concern like the Member for Cambridge Bay.
There is not a whole lot of understanding by potential owners what buying a house really means.
It has become, in some cases, the people are now facing obligations to enter into all these requirements. Many of the houses that they bought have to comply with the national building codes.
When we say national housing code it means that the insurance companies have to have certified housing that all their electrical, everything in the house is certified, protected and everything.
I am not personally really convinced that Tenant to Owner program has all the information that the potential buyer should have.
The reason for saying that is I’m not fully sure that they normally are aware whether the house that they are interested in buying is really has a value maybe for that individual.
It could be 30 years old, more than twenty years old.
If they have been living in it for thirteen years they really sort of have an emotional attachment to the location, and what not, regardless of what the condition of the house is.
What I am trying to get at is does the minister, or his staff have a program that would assist in actually giving the tenant a program of appraising the value before they enter into an arrangement with the Housing Corporation to take over the homeownership.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. We are currently working on a homeownership session of how we can assist those people more.
We’ll let them be able to review as to what it takes to own a home.
Those units can be appraised, or evaluated by the Nunavut Housing Corporation staff and along with the homeowner who is interested.
Those are the things that we can provide as to how those people can be assisted from our department.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. For that reason I brought this up – the Tenant to Own Program. It’s very attractive but those are very old units.
The modern ones now that I mentioned, the Rankin Inlet Home Access, maybe it’s a different program.
Those are very hard to sell; nobody wants to buy them.
If we are going to offer them that, even if they are given those units and if you explain the cost of maintaining that unit, all these things; it’ll be overwhelming for those prospective homeowners.
When you want to buy something you don’t want something that is too old.
Those are the things that you have to make available to the prospective homeowners, because those are obligations that you have to look at a certain unit for quite a number of years.
Maybe those things can be put on paper so it can be understood by the tenant.
Yes, we are willing to do that and we are willing to, for those prospective homeowners explain the pros and cons about the house that they are about to purchase.
We try and make it attractive for those tenants and we have made adjustments, especially if they are going to make units, new units.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Minister. Mr. Curley your time is up.
It’s very nice to see the Minister and his staff back here in the chambers. I know they enjoy coming here quite a bit.
I wish they could do it more often.
I know the President indicated yesterday that I had the pleasure of working for the Housing Corporation, one might say back in it’s glory days when just in the Baffin region alone the capital budget was $15 million or anywhere between $12 million and $15 million, and it’s, as I said in the past, that it’s pretty disheartening when you look at the overall budget for the territory is less than that now for capital than what it used to be for just one region.
One of the things that was done back then and Mr. Scott alluded to it earlier with these management agreements with the LHOs was to try and maximize local participation in the capital projects which is something that they are looking at and I was glad to hear that they are looking at that again.
Also one of the things that worked well back then when almost anyone could work for the Housing Corporation, they even hired me Mr. Chairman, was the fact that they had a two-year capital delivery cycle.
Is that anything that they may look at revisiting or try to look at again?
Because it allowed for more flexibility with some of the issues that we have heard raised here today, a two-year cycle would alleviate some of those problems, and I’m just wondering if that is something that they are looking at.
Chairman: Thank you Mr. Tootoo. Minister Akesuk.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): I think we’ve gone a long way and I think we are better than before in our job so, I don‘t know Hunter, we don’t have $15 million to spend in one region right now.
I think there are ways of trying to figure out what we could do better and your suggestion is another way of trying to figure out what we could improve. I think we could certainly look into that suggestion.
Again we don’t have the money that the Northwest Territories did, these days we are doing our very best to meet our housing needs and any suggestions that will help us out as a corporation are welcome again. I think we will do our very best to meet what we are trying to do for our people.
Chairman: Thank you Minister Akesuk.
I can attest that we are doing better as far as people running the show if you know Mr. Scott and some other people remember some of the other people we had to deal with at headquarters and us in Nunavut would just sit here and just shake our heads sometimes.
Sometimes some of the decisions they came up with and some of the projects they tried to do, for example, the house relocation project and some of these things, you know we are behind as far as resources go and I think some of the issues that were raised here today, Mr. Netser, you know basically, people’s stuff missed the boat. I think a lot of things are just timing related. By the time the approval goes through for the funding and that, in some places it’s too late for everything, once everything gets finalized.
I guess that’s... I’m just wondering, and I welcome and look forward to the minister updating the members of this House as to why they’re not going back to a two year capital budgeting cycle for housing.
It would be something that would be beneficial for Nunavummiut and could potentially help stretch our housing dollars a little further with more advanced planning. Will the minister give us an update once they’ve looked at that option?
Yes, we’re certainly looking to that, and we’ll certainly inform you again.
We’re doing that in the Kitikmeot, two year capital building delivery recycle. So, if we have to do that, we’ll do that in some other regions.
I don’t have names on my list.
I’d like to thank the minister, but I have another question.
When we were in the standing committee stage, there had been some studies done in regard to housing. It’s tied up with the operations and maintenance.
I just want to find out from the minister when the housing study ends... can you elaborate on the status on those studies?
I’ll get Mr. Scott to answer where we are with the studies that we’re doing in our department under Nunavut communities or needs. So, maybe Mr. Scott could answer that question.
I probably should ask for some clarity or clarification because Mr. Peterson asked earlier about doing specific community needs studies, or needs surveys to get statistics on each community.
Is that similar to what Mr. Curley is looking for, a needs study on each community?
Mr. Curley: Well Mr. Chairman that is probably related to it. I remember last fall that we referred to it during the committee. There were a number of surveys going on.
What we were promised was that these eventually would be provided to the committee or the House. I’m just trying to get an understanding of exactly which studies have been conducted now. Or have there been other ones that have been conducted?
One is the needs study, which obviously relates to a survey of each community.
I’ll decide if that was a similar response to the one the MLA received. I wasn’t paying too much attention. It was someone else asking.
Mr. Scott: A comprehensive needs survey or study, territorial-wide is not right now in our business plan for next year.
There has been some talk with CMHC in partnering with CMHC on doing a housing strategy on a few communities.
I think Minister Fontana, or his staff mentioned that when they were in Rankin Inlet.
We have been meeting with CMHC and discussing that with them, and we’ll continue to move along that line with CMHC.
My last question really has to do with the Material Assistance Program that CMHC carries out and provides to successful, eligible applicants.
In view of the fact that some communities do not have a whole lot of financing available for the construction of these eligible applicants, do you have any kind of construction financing cost program for those people?
Or is the construction costs part of that Material Assistance Program?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) We are the people that will be providing the material for those people that are provided with homeownership and we provide them with the assistance in how to go about building a new home.
We will be working with those clients to provide assistance throughout the beginning to the end of the building of their home.
I want to be clear. The Material Assistance Program is quite different from getting financing for a construction costs. It still costs an individual to put up a building, even if they are successful in getting material assistance.
I heard one story that a whole lot of new material is sitting in one successful applicant’s house, haven’t got around to constructing. The material is deteriorating. So what is the point of really giving a whole slew of material if the construction cost is not part of it?