EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The other income and tenant rentals, we budget to receive about $13.5 million as rent assessments from tenants. The other income is insignificant. We fill enough income that comes in from various sources.
As my colleague was asking about income threshold to be an eligible homeowner, when we look at homeownership... . The official sort of led into my next question here.
When we look at homeownership and renovation programs, is that threshold the same as indicated by the minister, which is $155,500? Is that the same with homeownership and renovation programs?
The threshold that is identified for the communities is different. (interpretation ends) It varies, (interpretation) for instance, in Baker Lake or Arviat. (interpretation ends) It varies from community to community. (interpretation) The income threshold for homeowners varies.
Maybe through the Chair, we could be provided that information in a written document.
Maybe that will be my question.
Minister Kuksuk, you say it’s different for every community. Perhaps you can send it through the Chair so that all the members will see it.
Yes, we can provide the document. We have it on hand.
Any more questions, Mr. Mikkungwak?
I still have some time, so I’ll ask another question.
(interpretation ends) During the fall 2015 sitting of the Legislative Assembly, which the minister’s going to be very familiar with, $4.7 million was approved for this warehousing project which is for Baker Lake. This project was not part of the capital carryovers that were approved by the Legislative Assembly during its recent spring 2016 sitting.
How much of the $4.7 million has actually been spent to date?
I personally don’t have that information, so Mr. Moyo can respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
Baker Lake got an allocation of $4.7 million in the last capital budget.
Not a lot of it has been spent because it was inadequate. The $4.7 million was inadequate to do what we wanted to do in Baker Lake.
We have applied in this budget that we’re discussing today for an additional $4.9 million.
The total of $9.6 million would be available, not all of it for the Baker Lake warehouse. We estimate that it would cost in the region of $8 million to construct the warehouse, which includes offices, a workshop, and a proper warehouse for our stock.
We plan to spend the money in 2017 to start the construction in 2017.
I surely don’t want the capital coming to Baker Lake to fall off the tables here.
When we look at the substantiation sheet for this project, it indicates that it will “commission a detailed architectural and engineering design and a class “A” estimate is expected to be finalized in the fall of 2016-17,” which I presume is the fall sitting, “Due to financial constraints, the $7,911,000 budget has been reduced to $4,900,000.
The $4,700,000 allocated in 2016-17 will be carried forward to 2017-18, for a combined budget of $9,600,000, which will be used to construct the Baker Lake warehouse.”
Can you clarify what the total costs of the warehouse is expected to be?
I would like Mr. Moyo to respond. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
We have tendered out the structural design to get a class “A” estimate.
It’s currently ongoing. We fully expect that by calendar year-end. By December we should have received that class “A” estimate.
What we do have now and what we do know for sure is a cost estimate of $8 million based on a class “C” estimate.
By the end this calendar year we will have a class “A” estimate, which we’re hoping will be in the same amount, but we don’t know that yet.
We plan to tender construction in the winter of 2017 so that construction can begin in the summer.
Why was this project not included as part of capital carryovers that were approved by the Legislative Assembly during its recent spring 2016 sitting?
I would like Mr. Moyo to respond to that question.
Mr. Moyo: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
It is correct, it was not included as part of the capital carryovers because of the nature of NHC’s budget.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation gets allocated an appropriation and we get to keep the funds from year to year. We can accumulate with the privilege to accumulate the funds if we don’t spend them.
In this case, because the construction of the warehouse didn’t begin because funds were inadequate, we still had the $4.7 million that was voted last year and that is the same with all our capital budgets.
They are not part of the GN’s capital carryovers.
Does NHC still plan to completely replace one warehouse each year and, if not, what specific factors have caused NHC to change its plans?
Aside from inappropriate funds, as indicated by the official, are there any other factors that are taken into consideration?
Yes, this issue was previously discussed and we wish to move it forward if possible and if it will be allocated adequate funding. Every year the funding is allocated for one year for the (interpretation ends) warehouse office maintenance shop (interpretation) and that is the type of facility we would like to build.
Let me move on to something else. I would like my colleagues the workplace we mentioned and I am voicing that thought now.
Nonetheless, for another issue in Baker Lake, it is obvious in the past that the population has increased exponentially, as the minister is well aware, as he has visited Baker Lake.
Once a mine was built adjacent to Baker Lake, the population exploded.
Has the Baker Lake LHO requested more housing units and, if so, what would be the causes for the delay?
Has the LHO submitted housing requests to NHC, in particular public housing units?
With regard to the existing plans for housing and specific to Baker Lake, I think that information is next to my other seat here about the actual request or allocations.
Mr. Chairman, I just found the information pertaining to that.
Mr. Chairman, we had to work closely with the LHOs and require working with them continuously on the housing needs.
When we have to allocate housing units, what I have kept reiterating is that allocations are based on the most urgent needs where communities have a large housing deficit.
We use the (interpretation ends) allocation methodology (interpretation) to determine which community is prioritized and the (interpretation ends) percentage (interpretation) was used to determine the priority list.
If my colleague can recall, I spoke to this issue during a (interpretation ends) standing committee (interpretation) review, but I don’t recall the dates.
Nonetheless, to briefly summarize, at this time in looking at Baker Lake, there are five units identified in the 2017-18 fiscal year, so they will receive five units.
I will start with (interpretation ends) proposed new construction for the communities for 2017-18 and 2018-19. (interpretation) They will be constructing new housing units in 16 communities. (interpretation ends) The second largest community in Nunavut is not listed there.
If you don’t mind, I’ll be talking about Rankin Inlet so that my colleague will have a good understanding because it’s his constituency community.
Since March 31, 2016 there were 72 applicants who applied for housing in Rankin Inlet.
Since then (interpretation ends) Rankin Inlet had nine vacant units that were being repaired to be put back into the housing stock, this is Rankin Inlet, and known units under construction.
Therefore the waitlist number adjusted for new construction and pending units was 63.
In March of 2016 Rankin Inlet’s public housing stock totalled 337.
Therefore in March of 2016 Rankin Inlet’s needs as a percentage of stock calculation were at 18 percent. (interpretation) Using that as an example where Rankin Inlet is with their priority, it’s only at the 18 percent, but the other communities have a higher percentage.
When the minister appeared before the committee in September 2016, I’m reading a letter from that date. (interpretation ends) The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s housing allocation system for the local housing office waitlist March 31, 2016, (interpretation) so that I will have the same level of understanding with the minister.
I just want to get further clarification. I called the LHO in Rankin Inlet and I was told this, (interpretation ends) “Rankin Inlet waitlist for March 2016 were 52 one-bedroom, 35 two-bedroom, 9 three-bedroom, 4 four-bedroom.”
If my calculator is right, that’s 100 applicants.
With the minister’s housing allocation system, instead of 63, 100 people on the waitlist of 337 would make it to 33.7 percent, which would be just under Pond Inlet and ahead of Kugluktuk.
Can the minister explain if he got all the information from the local housing association and why our numbers differ?
My officials consult with each other on the differences and I don’t deal with that on a daily basis.
I’ll have my deputy minister inform you about the figure we have and the figure the member has.
I would like Mr. Audla to respond to his question.
Mr. Audla (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) To respond to the question, for this year in the spring, in February and March, we had contacted through our Arviat office with NHC all the local housing authorities to send us their numbers as to what their waitlist might be.
Each number that was given to the Arviat was checked and double-checked and we went back to the LHO to confirm whether or not that number included actual applications.
Once we received that list of numbers with attached applications, it was the number that we used.
In Rankin Inlet’s case, we had a number that did not match up with the actual number of applications, so we went back to Rankin Inlet and asked them, “Can you send, for the numbers that we have, the missing amount to confirm the number that we received from Rankin Inlet?”
We asked not one but twice and probably a third time and we did not receive actual applications for those numbers. We deducted that from the overall number.
At the end, as the minister had responded earlier, we had 72 actual on the list for that time period.
From this point forward every LHO in Nunavut is now aware that between the months of February and March we will be seeking new numbers, renewed numbers with actual applications attached to them.
Each and every LHO will know when they should expect to actually keep those numbers up to date. At the same time it won’t differ from year by year.
It is very important that every community ensures that their actual needs list is up to date with actual applications. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As the minister and his officials are well aware, when a waitlist is entered into a computer, they usually go through the applicant’s performance form.
A lot of times they misplace the application, but the waitlist doesn’t change.
I’m going to ask again: will they reconsider building new public housing in the year 2018-19 if, like my colleague said, it is so hard to get land in Iqaluit, could you transfer some of that to Rankin Inlet?
Chairman: After giving due consideration for Pond Inlet. (interpretation) Thank you.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be laughing, but it sounded like a joke.
I can say that we follow the present policies that we’re using and we will keep working with the local housing organizations.
As my deputy minister mentioned, please make sure that you submit all the applications that match the numbers so that we don’t have different sets of numbers because we don’t just estimate.
We base it on the applications that are submitted by the local housing organizations, and then we look at the percentages and place the priorities on where we’re going to be building our houses.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It seems like I’m taking that answer as a no, but I’ll keep fishing for it.
In the last two years that I have been sitting here now, there were never any allocations for the second largest community in Nunavut.
They should start thinking of that because in 2018-19 the mine in Rankin Inlet is opening up and there will be people going there and they will be looking for houses.
That’s just a comment. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will give you the discretion whether or not to respond to it.
I would first like to go back to what was discussed yesterday about homeownership programs and the monies that were set aside for those programs, which I’m very pleased about.
My question is concerning the older units that were constructed in 1968-69. That’s when we were about 18 or 19 years old and I watched them being constructed.
They were prefabricated houses and they’re still part of the housing stock.
Are these prefabricated units still going to be used or what do you plan to do with those older units?
Perhaps the minister can respond as I would like to know.
I think that all Nunavut communities have older prefabricated units still standing and being lived in.
Mr. Chairman, they can be renovated and retrofitted.
If they can be retrofitted, we can still use them.
We usually set aside some funding for modernization and improvement to be used for such purposes.
We will keep using those prefabricated units.
We have to be prudent and use our money wisely in order to keep the stock up.
According to the minister’s comments, the tenants who are renting those prefabricated units are usually moved out of the building while renovations and improvements are taking place.
These units shift because they’re not on piles.
The floors are very cold because of the shifting.
At times there is flooding in the house, which causes mould, which you don’t see because the mould is in between the walls.
My question is: what you are going to be doing with those units? If you do renovations and improvements, it is perfectly fine, but it’s the mould that’s the problem and mould remediation is not part of the improvement.
If I understood the member correctly, he’s talking about mould.
Mr. Chairman, I had brought this up earlier and I’m not sure which of my colleagues asked about the health hazard mould can create for the tenants.
There are quite a few units that have this problem.
For that reason, we have remedied some of the units.
We also use the local housing organizations in the regions to look at how they can clean up or remediate the mould in certain areas.
They’re all fully trained to do that sort of work and some of the communities did work on remediation of the mould in those units.
The local housing organizations have identified which units need remediation, whether it is to change the insulation or whatever is required, and we did provide training on mould remediation.
I have another question which is outside of what I was talking about and if I need correction, please tell me.
We know that the Nunavut Housing Corporation funds capital projects, but with regard to the five-plex and older detached houses, the multiplexes probably use less fuel.
That has probably been identified by the housing corporation.
Are these five-plexes better than older standalone units?
If I understood your question, you’re asking me about the multiplex and five-plex units and the older units that are standalone or detached homes.
I believe the question is which one is better.
As the housing corporation, we’re building mostly multiplex units because it’s cheaper than a detached three-bedroom house.
One multiplex unit is cheaper than one detached house. We’re trying to utilize our monies and make as many houses as we can with the limited resources that we have.
That’s why we’re building multiplex units instead of detached units.
I hope he understood me.
Moving to another subject regarding what I just brought up about the current housing units and with the newer models that were discussed for the past few days, they only have one door.
Are you going to keep building units with one door because of financial constraints or would you consider something else?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Qirngnuq.
Mr. Chairman, this was brought up yesterday, I believe, regarding one entrance per unit and why they only install one door.
Mr. Chairman, I believe he is asking whether we could look at other options.
We indicated that we’re building only one door per unit because it’s cheaper to construct them that way and we can use those savings for some other purpose.
I can discuss that with the department and look at whether we should keep building one door per unit or if we should look at building two doors.
I’m very open to any suggestions and I will make sure that I talk about this issue with my officials in the future.
Thank you for responding to that.
I believe I understood him to say that at some point in the future, in terms of housing units for the communities, everybody who needs housing will get housing.
That’s what I seem to have understood.
Even in the smaller communities, the population is always growing.
A 15-year-old today will be 19 years old in 2019 and probably will want to own their home or unit.
How can that person get a house at that point?
The system that we currently use as to who gets housing… .
If I didn’t understand the question correctly, then he can rephrase it.
What we’re talking about right now are people with the first priority that really need houses.
Looking at the percentage, some of them are at a higher priority than others.
The way he understood me is that at some point, we will have enough housing, but that’s not what I said.
We have explained that once we get below the 30 to 35 percent need in all communities, it will alleviate the situation.
That is what we were trying to say, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for helping me to understand that better. I’m glad.
Whenever construction is happening, they go into a tender process in any community.
In the future will you be looking more within Nunavut for people to build houses?
For the new houses that have to be built, according to our policy as a government, they are done through a free public tender like a call for proposal.
Anyone is eligible to submit bids for those contracts no matter which community they are located.
However, we have it clearly outlined in the contract documents that whoever gets the contracts is supposed to hire people from the community and train apprentices, whether it’s electrical, plumbing, or other trades.
We will make sure that they have an apprentice that is registered through Nunavut Arctic College or the Department of Education.
We add the fact that they have to hire a registered apprentice for their projects.
As to his actual question, if we have put thought to make the tendering only for construction businesses in Nunavut, no, we haven’t thought along those lines.
When we need houses built, we keep it very open.
I still have a little bit of time, so I will ask another question.
For example, if there are going to be homes built next year and companies will be bidding on that contract, how long do they leave the RFP open in any given community?
We find no problems leaving them open for two months.
We have the RFP open for about two months.
Although my colleague asked this question, I would like to get clarification.
With respect to the older units that were built in the 1960s, the minister stated that once they remediate the mould, those units can be used again because of the lack of housing.
I asked questions in the House before about those houses that were built in the 1960s. Apparently all of them were painted with paint that contained PCBs. The example I used was the old DEW line site buildings.
Inuit requested those buildings to use as houses, but they were told it was impossible in Qikiqtarjuaq because they all have PCB-based paint.
During the 1960s all paints contained PCBs.
Is that a danger or a safety issue or have those houses that were built in the 1960s been inspected to make sure they don’t have PCB paint in them?
I remember when this question was posed by my colleague here in the House.
I stated that our workers in the regions have been trained on how to do mould remediation.
To keep it short, I haven’t been notified about what he is referring to as PCBs.
I have been notified about the mould. I explained to my fellow MLAs about what kind of mould remediation work we are doing.
We were told that it was impossible to live in those houses because they have that kind of paint. The researchers from the United States went to go and look at the buildings at the DEW line sites.
They had many buildings near Qikiqtarjuaq.
When the Americans were leaving them behind, the Inuit were interested in taking those buildings over, but we were stopped as the people of Qikiqtarjuaq.
People from other communities told us that those buildings are just too dangerous because they were painted with paint that contains PCBs and they were painted in the 1960s.
We started asking, “Are these DEW line buildings the only ones that have that kind of paint?”
The response we got was that all paints in the 1960s contained PCBs.
Since we got those responses, many Inuit became concerned because they lived in houses that were built in the 1960s, probably using that kind of paint. All paints contained PCBs in the 1960s.
We became concerned that maybe Inuit had been living in these dangerous buildings all these years.
If those old buildings are going to have mould remediation, can the old paint be removed as well if they’re going to be renovated, especially the interiors?
Can that be done?
When the mould remediation occurs, can they remove the old paint as well?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also thank my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, we deal with mould in our units in the communities.
As I keep saying, our workers were properly trained in mould remediation. I want to say that if every community has buildings that have mould in them that the local housing association worked on, they have all been completed.
However, with respect to my colleague’s community of Qikiqtarjuaq and the other community that he represents, I can have that looked at to see where the remediation work is at now.
Part of the question is not based on work that is done by a local housing association and we only deal with buildings that are under a local housing association or organization.
I spoke about those DEW line buildings that don’t belong to the local housing association.
I was just using that as an example because we were told that all paints contained PCBs in the 1960s and people became very concerned about the safety factor of that.
It was said that the DEW line buildings were too dangerous for people to live in them because they have PCB-based paint.
We started asking questions like “Are the DEW line buildings the only ones that were painted with PCB-based paint?”
The answer that we received from the health department was, “All paint from the 1960s, no matter what it was for, such as exterior and interior paints, contained PCBs.”
The Inuit became really concerned about that.
We realized we have had to live in houses since the 1960s that have PCB paint in them. They were painted in the 1960s when that kind of paint was still being used.
Our community is very concerned about that because we have been living in those houses for many years.
They were painted with those kinds of paints that were used in the 1960s.
We have been made to live in those houses for many years.
This is a safety issue and I believe that the paint should be removed. If you’re going to continue using those really old houses, it’s better to remove the old paint.
The units owned by the corporation, regardless of their location, as an example, in Qikiqtarjuaq, we have been provided information that none of our units have residual paint containing PCBs.
That is what I wanted to point out.
With respect to unsafe conditions or as per my colleague’s concern, we can always revisit the older units such as those in my colleague’s community and in other communities and perhaps inspect units in communities where old DEW line sites were built near them. We can look into his concern and we will ensure that no safety concerns exist.
Chairman (interpretation): Following the list of names, Mr. Joanasie.
Mr. Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for a second round of questioning.
Good afternoon, Minister Kuksuk and your officials.