EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We will have some made-in-Nunavut solution, hopefully in the immediate future. I don’t think I am any different from any Members around this House.
We have all been in houses where you have somebody working on their snow machines or parts inside, or somebody skinning inside or whatever that case that they are working on or cutting up their meat. They do this because of the fact that there is no access or availability in other places outside of the house.
When we get to page 12-6, I will be asking a question, so I will wait until we get to that page.
The Minister stated that they work with the District Housing Authorities.
Do you work with them regarding how to build a foundation in the communities?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the Member is referring to.
The foundations of public housing units are usually part of the Tender that the Housing Corporation puts out, and not the Housing Authority necessarily.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I am talking about piles.
That is the question that I have, whether you work with the Housing Authorities on how the piles will be sent?
Mr. Chairman, a lot would depend on the land that is available for use whether or not you go to piles or go to a gravel pad, and blocking.
It depends obviously on the situation of the land.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): The Minister stated that there is just a limited amount of money to build houses.
He must know the cost of one pile and how much it would cost to drill one pile into the ground.
Has the Housing Corporation been thinking about a cheaper way of putting piles such as drilling them? It has already got the drill in it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Minister Ng.  Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, depending on what the decision is on the foundation, if it is for piles in the Tender put out for the contract for the foundation for the house.
The results come in.
It is hard to determine a cheaper way of doing that, without undertaking it ourselves.
This is what we have not considered.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I am a homeowner; we have owned this house for over ten years.
I have piles that are drilled into the ground and I wanted to find out if there is a cheaper way instead of using piles that we can have an alternative way of doing it.
It would depend on the circumstances of the land, the terrain, the layout of the land before decisions are made on the actual foundation for a unit. Thank you.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I said that it would be my last question, but there are various kinds of buildings that are built in Pond Inlet, either using piles or other methods.
Whenever there is a shifting of a house, either different kinds of foundations for houses in Pond Inlet and I would like the Minister to consider whether he can find alternatives to using piles.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Following the question of my colleague, would the Minister’s department consider using other ways instead of using piles when they are building houses?
They will use whatever is cost effective in order to do the job to make sure there is a stable foundation for the unit.
In my two communities, they don’t seem to be looking for a cheaper alternative.
What they do is use those pilings the majority of the time; perhaps they could try to get a cheaper way instead of using piles.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Yes, we will try to find the most economical way.
We’ll go to 12-6, Nunavut Housing Corporation, total headquarters region, Baffin, 638 thousand. Mr. Havioyak.
That’s 600 thousand annually that’s put aside for fire damage replacement.
From what I can see here, you use the full amount annually, I guess I didn’t understand.
Do you have enough there? Do you use the whole amount annually?
Mr. Chairman, we generally use the amount, for this current year for example, requirements were 483 thousand 700. So there is a bit left over.
Hopefully you won’t require it, but there is space for the Housing Corporation.
There’s 600 thousand dollars.
It says fire damage replacement.
Does that mean that you don’t have insurance for fire damage?
Is that why you have money set aside for fire damage replacement?
This is for single-family dwellings; we don’t carry insurance for those because it’s too cost prohibitive.
We do insure for the multi-family dwellings.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Does that mean that the tenants or the occupants are aware that they don’t have insurance and that they should insure their personal property? If the subsidized house is not insured, if personal effects are damaged, does that mean that they get support or financial help from the government if there was such a case like that in Coral Harbour?
Mr. Chairman, we don’t cover tenants.
They’re responsible, all tenants no matter if it’s with us, public housing, with us in respect to staff housing or out in the private market; they are responsible for their own tenant insurance.
Our insurance coverage is on the building itself and that’s pretty much it.
I think with all the private homeowners we do know that when you’re going to be insuring your personal effects or personal property it’s quite expensive and you have to pay annual fees.
Whenever possible you purchase furniture and they can’t buy insurance for their personal effects.
Have you informed those tenants that if your house has fire damage and if your personal effects catch on fire you are going to lose everything because it’s not insured?
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I don’t know whether I’m getting out of line but I’m on 12-6.
I’m not quite sure whether I’ve got it but I think it’s the M&I retrofit and the GN funds.
The Inuktitut does not quite make sense but from what I could grasp, it is in regards to the maintenance and improvement of housing and retrofitting of units.
It’s in regards to building, bringing the units up to code.
Mr. Chairman, yes it is.
Is that different from what we used to call a retrofit?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Yes, that correct.
It’s maintenance and improvement is the M&I.
It is to retrofit the older units and bring them up to standard.
That’s it. Nunavut Housing Corporation, headquarters, total headquarters region, 638 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): Baffin region, and going over to the next page, 12-9 total Baffin region, 9 million 923 thousand.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): I have a question under the Qikiqtaaluk region and I don’t know whether it’s in here or not.
But I have a question, regarding the relocation of the houses from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay, in regards to the feasibility study of that project. Has the feasibility study been completed yet or would it be better if I ask this question another time?
Mr. Chairman there isn’t a final report on that feasibility study yet and we’re expecting it shortly and this isn’t the funding for Arctic Bay in respect to those units now.
Let’s stick to the subject.
We’re talking about capital projects but I don’t know maybe you could help me. When these units are moved to Arctic Bay they will need piling done.
Is it accounted for here?
Mr. Chairman I want to make it clear right now, there is no recommendation on moving those units yet; the feasibility studies will undertake to make recommendations on whether or not it is cost effective to relocate the housing from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay.
Once that decision is made, if there are requirements to bring them up to standards for the actual move itself or other renovations, that may take place, provided it is cost effective then that pool comes forward in another request at a later time.
The current budget is for existing housing in Arctic Bay.
Under Qikiqtaaluk region, 1 million, 260 thousand for home ownership.
Under Baffin various, home ownership programs, is that going to be made available to all Qikiqtaaluk?
That particular one is just for the Qikiqtaaluk district office.
There is also the same allocation in amounts in the other district offices.
I know it’s just for the Baffin area, but my question is would any Baffin community be able to access and use these homeowner programs?
Why mobile equipment? Is that a truck, 175 thousand dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this is the yearly contribution that goes to the local Housing Authorities to replace their inventories that they use for their maintenance based on the eight year replacement cycle.
Mr. Arvaluk: Why are they not pre-assigned to the communities that have gone up to eight years?
Is that hard to determine?
Mr. Chairman, if you look in the details of the Capital, they actually are.
It says mobile equipment under each community in the proportional amounts for that community.
On page 12-8, and any other pages, Mr. Chairman, that the Maintenance and Improvements you have Government of Nunavut funds.
And you also have units from the Housing Corporation.
What is the difference in that?
You give the Housing Corporation 2 million, 285 thousand from the Government of Nunavut funds.
Why do you identify this differently, the Government of Nunavut funds and the Housing Corporation?
I am sorry that they had not switched over when you started your questioning, so I did not catch the first part. So I am not sure what the question is.
Maybe if the member would not mind repeating it.
Let us look at 12-8, the Qikiqtaaluk region on the bottom, Clyde River.
That is a bad example.
Let us look at Cape Dorset.
You have public housing, two units for 506 thousand.
You also have right above that Maintenance and Improvements/Retrofit-Government of Nunavut funds.
Do they not come from the same budget process that you dealt with in the FMB?
Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, the public housing, the new public housing units M and I Retrofits/Government of Nunavut funds are a portion.
There is cost sharing with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for another portion which is almost equal.
It is almost a 50/50 cost sharing.
Mr. Arvaluk: Where does Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation appear? For example for Cape Dorset the M and I Retrofits/Government of Nunavut funds $214 thousand.
What you are saying is that actually retrofits cost us $428 thousand.
Is that what you are saying here?
Yes, the Member is right.
The reason why the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation portion is not in there is because Finance took it out.
But the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going to give their contribution to the Government of Nunavut for that and how are you going to record it?
I will speak to the Finance Minister on that issue.
Just to let Members know.
Mr. Chairman, it is because of the fact that money is not actually voted through the Assembly, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation contribution and because the Housing Corporation is not actually a Government Department as well as the contribution comes directly to us.
That is why it is not represented in the Government of Nunavut portion of the estimate.
So, the public housing, two units, Cape Dorset, $506 thousand dollars is 100% GN funds, whereas the retrofit one is 50/50 with CMHC and the GN. Is that correct?
The member’s correct, yes.
The GN funds for the public housing is 100% for Cape Dorset, actually the amount of CMHC money is 175 thousand dollars.
For Cape Dorset it is 175 thousand dollars and the GN portion is 214 thousand dollars.
Is this right to all the M&I expenditures throughout this budget?
No, it varies depending on the needs of the retrofit program.
Like for example, in Arctic Bay, the one before Cape Dorset, the CMHC portion is $371 thousand dollars which is quite a bit more than our contribution so it’s based on what they’ll pay for in the scope of the work.
If we cannot see the CMHC portion because it varies, you cannot really calculate it if you are a regular member.
Can we a least know the total contribution of the CMHC to the Housing Corporation?
Of our total of 4.64 million dollars the CMHC portion is 4.31 million dollars. But certainly we’d be willing to provide a schedule on the CMHC portion broken out for members on this particular item if that is what the member wants.
Page 12-6. 8 million, $9 million total.
Qikiqtaaluk.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12.9 that you have there, the home ownership programs is $1.26 million dollars, it’s up $250 thousand dollars from last year, I’d just like to ask the minister what homeownership programs are being offered through the corporation with the funding?
For homeownership there is the Nunavut down payment assistance program.
There are also various home repair programs.
I’m not sure if you’re interested in those.
On the NDAP, was all the funding that was allocated towards it last year all used?
Were there amounts that were not used or were there more applications than there was funding?
Mr. Chairman, it was all used and there were more applications than there was funding.
Mr. Chairman, under that NDAP program, I understand that either $15 thousand or $25 thousand dollars an individual may qualify for depending on whether they are buying an existing home or a newly constructed home.
Is that open to everybody or are there limits to who can apply for that program?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Well its open to everybody but there are criteria to make individuals eligible and some of those criteria I guess you probably asked about this is that an individual has to be at least 19 years of age or older.
They can’t have rental arrears with the local housing authority.
They must have approved financing through conventional markets or financial institutes.
Closing date of sale must be 30 days, within 60 days of the mortgage approval and also the married and common law applicants are deemed to be joined applicants.
Any income levels here cannot exceed $125,000.
Both of sum of the, I’m sorry, another one, they have to have lived in Nunavut for 2 years and they cannot own a home within the last five years.
So those are probably some further eligibility requirements for this program.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the minister had indicated that there is an income limit of $125 thousand. I just want to clarify if that is an individual applicant’s income or is that total household income that they look at there?
That would be the income of the applicant, whoever’s applying, plus the spouse.
Thank you, Chairman.
But it wouldn’t necessarily include income from other household dependants just primarily the two that would be signing off on the mortgage.
I’m just wondering why it wouldn’t consider all of the household income for the unit because I know that I talked to people that have been frustrated, and are maybe just a little bit over, what is it, you know, if you’re over the $125 thousand, that’s it?
But maybe if the minister could clarify why it would just look at the applicant? If there’s other household income besides what the applicant and the spouse or whatever might be making why that isn’t taken into consideration in looking at the household income?
It’s because by convention financiers for mortgages look at the income of the primary income earners, that’s the spouse of that household, in determining mortgage accessibility or approval.
Mr. Chairman, when you think that if there was other income in that household other than what the applicants were claiming as employment income, then wouldn’t the minister consider that person in household income?
If it’s all going to the house you know, it doesn’t matter where it’s coming from.
So the household income, and I assume that that’s how rent is assessed on social housing you know, right now too, it’s the total household income.
It doesn’t matter who it’s coming from it’s whoever’s in there that the income is counted for, as part of the total household income.
So, I’m just wondering, it seems to be a discrepancy there.
I’d like to ask the minister to clarify that.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bit appropriate for some programs for different criteria and I would say that we are reviewing all the criteria for all the programs and I think that’s no secret.
I mean we’ve said that right from the start that what we’re trying to do is to apply to them all.
I mean if the member wants to include other suggestions that would include income of all individuals residing in the household we could look at that.
But it would certainly, certainly it would eliminate more than open up more potential applicants because your income levels would be rising in the household and you have a maximum of eligibility so there’s less individuals or families that would be eligible for the program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that if you looked at that, I would think that by including all the income towards the house, maybe with their other income that’s in that household they don’t require the assistance offered by the corporation. That’s what I’m getting at; you know you indicated earlier that there were applicants that were turned down because of insufficient funding or maybe not everyone.
If you didn’t look at the total household income, there may have been applicants there that didn’t necessarily need assistance. Their total household income would be over, and therefore they wouldn’t qualify for the program and that would mean to me, if your income household goes over, you don’t need that help from the corporation.
You know you can go out and do that on your own and it could be made available to people who do need it. I guess if that’s a loop hole in the program right now, maybe that’s one that you could look at closing and make sure that we are maximizing the use of the dollars that we have that are getting to the people that really need it.
I know there are a lot of people out there that would love to get it, but for some reason there’s not enough money, they can’t.
So is that something the minister can commit to looking at and also if they can review any incidents where that may have happened, just to give us an idea of what the cost could have been or how many more people we could have helped as a result.
Mr. Chairman we’ve been looking at all sorts of things, the policies I guess, and I think it’s important to remember that for the down payment assistance program you get it once in your lifetime supposedly.
At least from the Nunavut Housing Corporation; but again we’re certainly willing to look at that and see if there are any loopholes.
In every program there are loopholes, nothing designed is perfect and that’s why we revise policies.
Yes we would be willing to look at that if that’s a concern the member raises.
As far as going back and reviewing them, it’s difficult now given you know we base that criteria based on mortgage approval from financial institutions and I indicated earlier they do all the reference checks and assessment verifications, we base our decision based on their work, confirming those type of factors.
I think I’m glad to hear the minister would look at that and I think that is something that should be looked at to again maximize their money where it’s really needed and not necessarily where it’s not needed.
The minister also mentioned that they go through based on what the client comes forward with; I guess with a pre-approval from financial institutions. Is there any cross reference there to ensure that the income that the applicant has put forward on their application saying, not necessarily the income but information that they put down on the application, is the same information as the bank or the financial institution uses in approving mortgages?
Yes, the corporation staff does carry out the due diligence in trying to confirm the status of the applicants and also in respect to their income for verifications on their income level.
Mr. Chairman, I forgot to make one other comment earlier and that is, as good as the corporation is, everyone’s human and there are loop holes out there, as good as the program may be. Only by going through it and finding them and experiencing them is where you find them. Then they close them and change the program.
So it’s good to hear the minister indicate that they’re willing to do that.
But on his last comment, do they look at whether the total income that the bank or financial institution is basing their approval on is the same as total income that the applicants puts on their applications?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, and also to add in the actual applications for the down payment assistance program there is a declaration that the applicant makes that if anything is found to be untrue there is an allowance for us to go back to recover any assistance that may have been provided to the applicant.
Chairperson (interpretation): Is that it? Mr. Arvaluk.
It’s all open now; I’m interested in Mr. Tootoo’s question. Okay if you have only the applicant’s spouse but not spice, so is that, my English is not all that good you know, mouse and mice.
Those two are applicants.
The other income earners in the household are excluded because they would not become owners of that house.
Is that the reason why?
Yes, that’s the primary reason because nobody would know if one of those other individuals that aren’t the owners, I mean their circumstances change. They could be there today and then move out tomorrow or they could be going to school and they moved.
There are different factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Going back to the income limit on NDAP; is the corporation looking at taking into account family size? I know that is something that was raised during the task force meetings; $125 thousand for a couple with no children is different from $125 thousand dollars for a couple with three children. I know that there are rumours, incidents where you pretty much need to have both parents or both partners working.
They need that dual income to survive and in a lot of cases you know it’s not a lot; it doesn’t take as much to go over that income threshold but I guess two questions.
One is, does the corporation look at adapting that amount to have some kind of a sliding scale to look at family size? So that people who do have children, even though they make over $125 thousand dollars theoretically you know they should be able to afford a mortgage but they can’t because of the high costs of living up here that I know you yourself had indicated was tremendously high in your fiscal updates.
Is that something that the Corporation would look at doing?
The second part of that, I guess, the $125 thousand dollars here in Iqaluit is different from $125 thousand dollars in other communities.
I am just wondering if that is taken into account.
Is that index kind of like a Northern Allowance or a little bit more or less in different communities?
Yes is the answer to both those questions.
Mr. Tootoo: When, Mr. Chairman, can we expect to see these changes?
The Members may recall in a letter I offered to brief the Members in January of the proposed changes that are coming forward.
Chairperson (interpretation): Anything else, Mr. Tootoo?
I am sorry that I thought that briefing was more on the rent scale and not on the homeownership program.
So that is not that same thing that is applied there, I think that that would be great.
I know of an instance, I don’t know all the details of it here, where a family moved into a house under the impression that they are going to be receiving the NDAP, I don’t know that in an event where someone was declined and met this new criteria, would they be automatically looked at again?
Or would they have to re-apply for that program again?
Or will the Corporation go back to these people that applied and they would now be eligible?
Would they let them know that they are or that they have to re-apply?
They would have to re-apply given that their financial situation may have changed.
The ceiling of $125 thousand, I would like to ask more questions on that.
If I was making $124 thousand, would I be eligible?
Yes, you are not eligible if you make more than that.
It is where the threshold is right now.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Is that for all of Nunavut’s communities?
Is it for all of the Nunavut communities, that 125 thousand dollar ceiling?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: For that end of the program, yes it is, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I tried to apply just to find out whether I was eligible.
They told me that I have to make less than $125 thousand.
The Minister can probably inform me why I was not eligible.
I think that a lot of people are thinking about various programs or different programs.