EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Yes, they would be available in respect of retroactively going back and reassessing their financial situation based on the past rate versus the current, anybody having a bit more difficulty from that perspective.
Mr. Chairman, with the move under this program to reassess the mortgages under the Access program to 20% of household income from 30%, just that reduction right there, does the corporation have any ideas on how much that is going to cost them?
Mr. Chairman, we’re going to address that over the course of the next six months to a year as they put this in place.
Mr. Chairman, on top of that reduction of 10% of the income, I understand there will also be reductions from that to cover the costs of on-going operating costs and utilities, home repair, maintenance, insurance and taxes.
Does the corporation have any idea what that’s going to be costing them to implement?
I think it’s the same answer as before.
We’ll assess that over the next six months to a year.
I think what’s important now is to recognize that, if he’s referring to current Access clients, I mean there is a significant amount of arrears as a result of individuals not being able to afford the structure that was in place.
We know that this will allow individuals to catch up on their arrears and hopefully be able to afford and sustain their units and that’s the whole intent and goal of the program to try to make affordable housing available, no matter if they are currently in an Access unit or planning to be in these potential tenant-to-owner units that we are offering now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Chairman are there maximum or minimum income levels that the corporation is looking at for people to be eligible to qualify for this program.
Mr. Chairman it would depend on their individual financial circumstances, the less they make the more the Housing would be subsidising that mortgage.
The more they make the less, if any, subsidising.
I was just thinking that there has to be some kind of minimum threshold on this, otherwise someone whose 20% of their income less the shelter cost related to maintaining that unit, could potentially end up with a credit.
You know, their income level is 20% of their income and some the communities where the shelter cost are quite high.
You know we could reduce that right down to zero or they could even have a credit. That’s why I’m asking are there going to be cases where it seems like we’re paying people to own their own houses?
I guess from the practical sense of things that we would say a minimum of, we haven’t determined what that would be. Recognising that we wouldn’t think that anybody who had a low income would apply for these types of units, recognising, you know there are some costs to homeownership, we would more expect lower to medium income levels would be the ones that would be the potential clients for this program.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, does the department have any projections on the unit costs in the different communities.
Because I know that over the years the corporation knows very well what the costs are to maintain their inventory. I think it’s on average roughly 17 hundred dollars, a month, that it costs to maintain one of the public housing units in Nunavut. Again, that’s just an average, it’s up to I think it’s as high as three thousand or so more in some of the other more remote communities.
Do you have any projections I guess on what, you know we have a program in place; surely there’s been some kind of thought given to costs or savings, or implications. Even on the commitment of having to rebuild the units within three years, there must be some kind of projection that the corporation has to date on these programs.
Mr. Chairman, the member, all members know this is the first time we are selling some off some those public housing units in place.
We will be actively monitoring the outcomes as we move forward on this.
Recognising that like with any other programs, they will be slow to develop and hopefully momentum will pick up if it’s successful, doing things the way that we hope to be doing it.
So I mean from that perspective there is some initial interest right now.
There aren’t any units that have been sold off or any agreements that have been made.
We’re still in the consultation process right now with potential homeowners, along with the housing authorities and the CMHC. As I indicated earlier, we would be looking forward to reporting on the interest level progress in our March session.
Mr. Chairman, is there an age limit on say on these units that are going to be sold off? Any units that were built last year or fifty years ago that are going to be able to be sold off.
What criteria, I guess, is the Corporation using in determining what units can and will be sold and which ones will not?
The criteria that we are using right now, is first of all, none of the units can have any health or safety deficiencies. So they have to be suitable units. And secondly they have to be at least ten years or older than the current housing stocks as maintained by the local housing authority.
I am glad that we are not getting rid of the newer houses that we have built.
On this and the Minister had indicated earlier, and I know that I raised this earlier. I think it was last week or last month. He had indicated that they were going to be sold based on the market value.
What happens in the event this is what the market value is and the client says no and does not agree with that amount, based on whether there will be any deficiencies or things like that within the unit.
How will that number be reached?
Mr. Chairman, if there were a situation like that we would look at some kind of independent appraisal on a unit to try to come to terms with the potential homeowner.
I guess in determining what the market value of the price of the house is, is it just the Corporation that will be coming up with that number?
Is it the LHO that will be coming up with that number?
How will that number be determined if an independent appraisal report is not done for it?
Mr. Chairman, the intent is to do it through an appraisal of the unit prior to getting to the point of potential sale.
Again, will it be the LHOs that are doing those appraisals?
Because I know that they are required, I believe that it is annual, to do a condition ratings on the units.
Will they be able to use those in determining what the price is?
No, it will be a professional doing that appraisal that is being carried out on the units.
I would imagine that will not be cheap.
That basically we are going to get someone to go around and appraise all the public housing units that we have in Nunavut over ten years old.
Mr. Chairman, we would use an Appraiser that has already done a lot of work in Nunavut and is familiar with Nunavut.
As you know, the housing stock is pretty standard designs overall.
They don’t vary that much in the communities.
What would vary obviously is the condition of the state of the particular units.
It will be coordinated that he or she would come in and do a number of appraisals at the same time to try to make it cost effective.
Again would not, you know the LHO at the district level, or the Corporation, not be in a position to come up with, given the due condition ratings on the units, just come up with the value for any particular unit and consult with the individual wanting to buy that unit.
If they could come up with a satisfactory amount that the LHO and you know, the Housing Corporation and the clients are happy with.
And you know, is it necessary to go out and get someone to appraise all these units?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, I think initially it was to get the program off the ground that for the first number of appraisals we would want a professional to undertake that.
It would set certainly a benchmark for us that we can move up or down depending on the situation, on the condition of the houses.
As we move forward we will have more and more experience in selling off and appraising relative to houses and units.
But there’s nothing to stop individuals and the Housing Corporation of course, through the, of course with the participation of local housing authorities to develop rates that we thought were fair and everybody could agree with.
I’ll charge ahead and go back again and I’m not sure; the minister has probably looked back into the years before when we got rid of all the government staff housing.
I don’t know if you know, here, staff might be aware of how that was handled where they just, there was a price for this unit, for each one of those appraised.
I guess what I’m getting at is you know, an appraisal is something that we really need. You know, we know what, the LHO knows what it costs to build a unit; the corporation knows what it costs to build the units.
And you know, based on condition ratings and stuff like that, I’m just wondering if this is an expense we don’t really necessarily have to encounter in order to be able to come up with a comparable price that both the corporation and the clients are happy with.
And it’s just going to be an extra burden on the limited resources that we do have for housing.
You have two more questions and I will find out if there are any more members who would like to ask questions.
Mr. Chairman, I think I’ve indicated earlier certainly for the first number of the units, we want to make sure that we have some independency around assessed values so that we’re not seen as taking advantage of our clientele, we might not have the same expertise or resources available.
So that’s why it’s important that they get at least for the initial phase a fair independent assessment.
Mr. Tootoo: This’ll be, well, depending on the answer I guess, my last question. I may have one more depending on the answer and then the next bunch; I’ll have a bunch that needs to go together.
So, I’ll wait.
And under this program and under the public housing program, the elders don’t have to pay rent.
So, if the elders want to buy their house where they have to pay for it, they wouldn’t just be given to them.
Mr. Chairman, I guess you know, we’d have to consider that scenario as it came forward and I don’t think we have looked at that situation yet.
I guess I am a little surprised that it hadn’t been taken into consideration.
I know that a lot of our communities have elder housing units our elders are living in those units and you know, I’m a little surprised that hasn’t been something that has been taken into consideration.
Maybe, you know, I guess, it kind of surprises me that it wasn’t.
I’m just wondering if the minister can incorporate it and come up with, if they run into a situation then that could be done prior to this program going out.
If you could, you know, we need to know all of the answers and people would need to know those answers before going into it, I guess.
Someone may want to get into it and you know, if they wait and next year, they’re going to be considered an elder under another program and they will not have to pay rent and get a free house if they wait for a year before they apply.
So, I think there needs to be something thought up of in this area prior to the actual implementation so that they have consistency.
Will the minister be willing to commit to doing that?
That was your last question for the time being until I ask the other members if they have any further questions.
That does not stop you from asking further questions.
Mr. Chairman, I think that from my point of view if an elder wanted to purchase a unit we wouldn’t necessarily give him that unit.
They are responsible for their costs and they’re going to have to pay for it just like any other tenant.
Given that they’re in public housing, they wouldn’t have to be paying any rent so I couldn’t see the benefit of them moving into purchasing a unit.
That’s why I need to look at it.
I don’t think there is a lot of thought put into that but certainly it’s an issue we’ll address.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. At this time, I will allow Mr. Alakannuark to ask a question.
I have a question in regards to the lease to own program, when individuals purchase a unit they get assistance from the housing corporation.
Usually that happens for private homeowners, so in this case would they be receiving this type of assistance?
Yes, depending on what assistance they would require and if they’re eligible for the programs that we have.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. Alakannuark.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, with the new units when the individuals buy them because they have to pay for them over a period of 5 years, the first program
…interpreter…I’m sorry we were on the wrong channel.
My question at this time, there is a home ownership program we use and they have to live within their unit and pay for their mortgage within 5 to 10 years, how was this dealt with in the previous programs offered and the individuals who used to construct their own homes.
What’s the difference between the old program and the new program?
I just want that clarification.
The main difference Mr. Chairman, these are current units that are under the public housing program now for the existing units.
What I’m trying to ask is, I don’t know if you understood my question but I will try and make it clear this time.
With the previous program, the first time when the home ownership program was introduced with HAP, the housing they had to pay for it within 5 to 10 years.
What is the difference here with the new program that they are using now?
Do they still have to wait for 5 to 10 years in order to pay for their mortgage because they can’t own their own homes until they pay for their mortgage after the 5 to 10 year period after which it’s their own home?
Mr. Chairman, we’re using a potential amortization period of 15 years here for the public housing tenant to own program versus, I think the Member is referring to probably the HAP program back in the mid 1980’s, late 1980’s I think, where the amount of the package was written off for the homeowners under different programs and different circumstances.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Minister Ng. I don’t think I understood his question.
Why is it that we’re not using the write off program here because I think that’s how I understood his question?
Could you can clarify that.
Mr. Kelvin Ng: I didn’t get the question Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Alakannuark.
In the HAP housing program, in the past they used to construct their units and part of it was written off.
Why can’t we use that program, similar program to this one?
Because it was a different program and they are different corporations under different times.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, that’s clear now. Any further questions?
Mr. Chairman I know any time when there’s an opportunity for people to take advantage of purchasing government assets or anything like that there’s always concerns raised and I’m not saying that this is something that will happen.
I just want to have people feel comfortable that the corporation has put mechanisms in place to stop people buying units and then just turning it around and selling them to someone else on the open market just to get the money for it or to a developer or something like that.
Can the Minster go through some of the safety mechanisms that they have in place for this program to ensure that it’s not taken advantage of.
Mr. Chairman, the Housing Corporation, the main mechanism we have is that we will hold the mortgage for the first five years of the units.
So basically after five years and a day a person can turn around and sell that house for profit, is that what the Minister is indicating?
For all intents and purposes, probably yes.
We have to recognize that individuals who are going to be approved are going to be approved and recommended by the local housing authority.
We have to base our best judgement on their knowledge of the local residents and support them in those decisions.
I mean we know that every program is, for every government program we have there are loopholes.
I mean any program no matter which government it is.
And we try to minimize that if we can but for all intents and purposes, you have to treat everybody as if they are acting in good faith in trying to access the programs and the integrity of the individuals in organizations that you are working with, and that’s what we intend to do.
Mr. Chairman, under the previous DAP program with the corporation, it was X amount of dollars was forgiven to whatever the assistance was per year, whether it was the percentage or what over a 15 year cycle and that’s what the Minister indicated, they’re using a 15 year amortization.
Is there a way of implementing something like that and in these cases, if the subsidy has been provided to these homeowners, the people who took advantage of these programs, it can be paid back in an event, not just over five years but also over some of the amortization period? Over fifteen years, whether, you know a cap of a thousand or twelve hundred dollars a year something like that was forgiven. I guess depending on the level of support you had.
I don’t think there was a question that this program is going to be heavily subsidised by the corporation and people taking advantage of this are going to be obtaining a high level of subsidy from the corporation. Just so we don’t just get rid of all our assets, and give away all that subsidy without having some way, some mechanism in place to be able to get some of that back in an event that the individual sells the unit.
Because I know, as the minister indicated no one knows what could happen in the future and I’m sure that some of the people that buy these units are doing it with the intention of living there till they die I guess.
You know in an event that does get turned over, is there a way that something like that can be implemented, in order for the corporation to get back some of the subsidy that has gone into the unit.
Mr. Chairman, we encounter this issue every time we try and develop a program. The issue of how to protect the interests of the Housing Corporation, and I guess the more we look at restricted measures and protective measures, the less flexibility you give to individuals, the less opportunities they have for their own financial requests that they need and the process you have to get for financing.
You know we have been restructuring our NDAP program and we’ve encountered the same thing. If you put covenants against it then financial institutions wouldn’t look at it as equity of the client and the likelihood of them getting long term financing diminishes.
So it’s a difficult balance that we have all the time but having said that, we’ll look at any suggestions that the member, any members may have, that doesn’t restrict the clientele or hinder them in trying to pursue their interest in becoming homeowners.
Maybe I can ask the minister if they can look at trying to find some way to do that, over a longer term, just to ensure that in five years everyone isn’t getting rid of their houses and taking the money and running.
Also some these units are quite old.
How long a life do some of them have left?
Is there something that the…I would appreciate it if the minister and staff could take a look and report back to the members in March when he does the rest of the program; if he likes I can sit down with him and talk about it some more, outside of here.
Just again on a different issue now, in programs, you know given that government employees are living in public housing and now these individuals could buy their units and pay 20% of their gross income less the shelter and related costs for the unit.
Just wondering can the minister indicate that this is consistent with the way it treats the employees that are in staff housing.
It’s not consistent because this is a home ownership program.
We’re talking about two different programs.
He’s talking about what is offered or subsidized as far as staff housing versus staff that are in public housing right now and quite frankly I mean, we don’t discriminate on who an individual works for as far as our tenant and who might be eligible for the tenant to owner program in this situation.
It’s just based on your income levels and the more you make the less you get subsidized.
When you make too much you don’t get any subsidy.
You just pay the market value of the unit.
But at what levels, I guess that’s what I asked earlier.
At what levels is that determined?
Surely you have some kinds of numbers to figure out at what point someone is paying the full price or at what point someone is being subsidized, at what percentage on some kind of a scale.
Does the corporation have that available?
Mr. Chairman, anybody that’s over the CNIT and I’m sure the member knows the core needs income threshold for each community for operating a house.
Anybody over that would not be subsidized at their income levels.
They’d be paying the full market rate of that unit.
Anybody under that, depending on their income level within the Nunavut communities, that would kick in depending on what the actual income levels are.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that and I also know that the corporation has for each community the numbers for what the shelter costs for that community should be.
Is that the amount that they’re going to use to determine the reduction of their mortgage payments for those costs or is it going to be based on actual bills that are being forwarded by the tenant on a monthly basis?
It will be based according to the income threshold and the monthly costs that we have on record.
I’m pretty sure if I recall, those numbers are based on residential rates and not government rates.
Yes, the member’s correct.
Mr. Chairman, earlier one of my questions was on people that may be public housing tenants that work for the government. There are other people that live in staff housing and Mr. Chairman, we also have a large number, quite a few employees, people living in Nunavut that have invested in their own homes without any assistance through programs like this.
You know these individuals have made a commitment, investment in Nunavut and I’m just wondering if by having programs geared towards people in social housing that they are being, they feel that they’re being somewhat penalized by not having any subsidies or they have to bear the full costs. They don’t get away with the 20% costs when they go to the bank. CMHC would look at the 30% amount on their income for shelter costs so I just wonder if the corporation or the government has looked at anything to try and equalize this playing field like this so that these people that have made a commitment don’t feel treated unfairly.
Some communities it is a rather large commitment, especially here in Iqaluit, you know how the housing market is like right now.
They just seem to be left on their own and they don’t get assistance.
This will be your last question according to our time to give other Members an opportunity.
We try to provide programs to fit as many people as we can, but like many programs, you cannot catch everybody.
To be fair that is why we adjust programs, introduce programs, and sometimes quite frankly, programs that are too expensive, such as the one that I was mentioning earlier, about half of the programs that ran for a few years become unaffordable and they have to be revamped.
So all I can say is that we will continue to try to be as fair as we can and address as many needs that we can.
This is just another avenue for us.
Ms. Williams: I think that this tenant to own program, I think that a lot of people are very happy with it, because it is better to have your own house than have to rent forever.
The money that you have, you could put it to your own house.
My question to the Minister is we all are encouraging people to have their own houses and we have this program so that people could own them.
What is in place for parts, an example, furnace parts, in the communities?
How is the government expecting to have all the parts that people need in the communities?